Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:45:56.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metathesis in Yuman Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Margaret Langdon
Margaret Langdon*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yuman languages allow an unusually large number of instances of non-systematic metathesis affecting a wide variety of consonant types. When we seek an explanation for such apparently random facts, various structural features of Yuman languages (both phonological and morpho-syntactic) are found to produce surface variations which look like metathesis in paradigmatically related forms. This situation, it is claimed, is the catalyst which allows other types of metathesis to establish themselves. The classes of segments involved in the process, as well as the direction in which it proceeds, are matched against some proposed universals; some of these gain additional support from the Yuman data, while others do not fare as well.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 866 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bailey, Charles-James N. 1970. Toward specifying constraints on phonological metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 347–9.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Crawford, James M. 1966. The Cocopa language. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Crawford, Judith. 1973. A note on Mohave sound symbolism, MS.Google Scholar
Foley, James. 1972. Rule precursors and phonological change by meta-rule. Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 96–100. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Lg. 47. 27–52.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1963. Shasta and Proto-Hokan. Lg. 39. 40–59.Google Scholar
Halpern, A. M. 1946–47. Yuma. IJAL 12. 25–33, 147–51, 204–12; 13. 18–30, 92–107, 147–66.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne. 1975. Havasupai songs: a linguistic perspective. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Joel, Judith. 1966. Paipai phonology and morphology. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence, and Shaterian, A. V. 1974. English-Paipai vocabulary, MS.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, Edwin. 1972. Havasupai simple sentences. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1943. Classification of the Yuman languages. UCPL 1. 21–40.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1975. A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1970. A grammar of Diegueño: the Mesa Grande dialect. (UCPL 66.) Berkeley & Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1971. Sound symbolism in Yuman languages. UCPL 65. 149–73.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1975a. Boundaries and lenition in Yuman languages. IJAL 41.218-.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1975b. Kamia and Kumeyaay: a linguistic perspective. Journal of California Anthropology 2. 64–70.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. MS. The Proto-Yuman vowel system. To appear in Hokan studies, ed. by M. Langdon & S. Silver. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langdon, Margaret., and Hinton, Leanne. MS. Object-subject pronominal prefixes in La Huerta Diegueño. To appear in Hokan studies, ed. by M. Langdon & S. Silver. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1975. The role of derivational morphology in generative grammar. Lg. 51. 617–38.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. 1971. Systematic metathesis in Mandaic. Lg. 47. 394–415.Google Scholar
Mixco, Mauricio. 1970. Consonantal symbolism in Kiliwa. Paper read at the American Anthropological Association meeting, San Diego.Google Scholar
Mixco, Mauricio. 1971. Kiliwa grammar. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1972. The Proto-Yuman p–v–w question: the problem re-examined with evidence from Mojave. MS.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1974. Topics in Mojave syntax. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Redden, James E. 1966. Walapai. IJAL 32. 1–16, 141–63.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1973. Generative phonology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Semiloff-Zelasko, Holly. 1973. Glide metathesis. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University, 14. 66–76.Google Scholar
Shaterian, Alan. 1971. Yavapai phonology, MS.Google Scholar
Silva, Clare M. 1973. Metathesis of obstruent clusters. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University, 14. 77–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C, and Thompson, M. Terry. 1969. Metathesis as a grammatical device. IJAL 35. 213–19.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1971. A typological view of metathesis. Working Papers in Language Universals, Stanford University, 7. 1–44.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1972. Metathesis vs. gemination in Greenlandic. Papers in Linguistics 4. 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wares, A. C. 1968. A comparative study of Yuman consonantism. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111659077CrossRefGoogle Scholar