Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:53:22.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amerind personal pronouns: A reply to Campbell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Johanna Nichols  and
David A. Peterson
Johanna Nichols*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
David A. Peterson*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
Nichols, Dept. of Slavic Languages, # 2979 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 [johanna@uclink.berkeley.edu]
Peterson, Dept. of Linguistics, # 2650 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 [daveap@socrates.berkeley.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 605 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Callaghan, Catherine. 1980. An ‘Indo-European’ type paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok. American Indian and Indoeuropean studies: Papers in honor of Madison S. Beeler ed. by Klar, Kathryn, Langdon, Margaret, and Silver, Shirley, 31–41. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Callaghan, Catherine. 1997. Evidence for Yok-Utian. International Journal of American Linguistics 63: 1. 18–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1994. Putting pronouns in proper perspective in proposals of remote relationships among native American languages. Proceedings of the meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, July 2-4, 1993, and the Hokan-Penutian workshop, July 3, 1993, ed. by Langdon, Margaret and Hinton, Leanne. (Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, report 8.) Berkeley: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997a. Amerind personal pronouns: A second opinion. Language 73. 339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997b. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott, and Golla, Victor. 1997. The Penutian hypothesis: Retrospect and prospect. International Journal of American Linguistics 63:1.171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. A research program for reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First groupings. Papers from the Hokan-Penutian language workshop, 1988, ed. by DeLancey, Scott, 50–168. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret, and Jacobsen, William H. Jr . 1996. Report on the special Hokan session in Albuquerque, July 1995. Proceedings of the Hokan-Penutian Workshop, July 8-9, 1994 and July 5-6, 1995, ed. by Golia, Victor, 129–30. (Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, report 9.) Berkeley: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1997. Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 26. 359–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Peterson, David A.. 1996. The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72. 336–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarpent, Marie-Lucie. 1997. Tsimshianic and Penutian: Problems, methods, results and implications. International Journal of American Linguistics 63:1.65–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar