Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:00:46.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amerind Personal Pronouns: A Second Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Lyle Campbell
Lyle Campbell*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury New Zealand
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand [l.campbell@ling.canterbury.ac.nz]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is now, surprisingly, a sizeable literature on pronouns in Native American languages and what their historical significance may be (references cited in N&P 1996 and Campbell 1994). Nichols & Peterson 1996 (henceforth Nichols and Peterson) is significant both for what it reveals about these pronouns and for the questions it raises about how they might be explained. Nichols and Peterson investigate the distribution of the pronoun pattern with n ‘first person’ and m ‘second person’ and assert that it is limited essentially to certain western American Indian languages and to Austronesian languages of northern New Guinea, based on ‘a moderately large sample of the world's languages’ (337), largely copied from Nichols 1992. They argue that this distribution is no accident, but rather is ‘a single historical development … though we cannot determine the exact nature of the shared history (common descent? areal affinity? etc.), it can be given a chronology and a geography and tied in to a bigger picture of circumpacific migration’ (337). The interpretation of this single historical development, however, is obscured in the discussion. My purpose here is to offer a different interpretation of their findings and thus hopefully to contribute to greater understanding of the role of pronouns in comparative linguistics in general. N&P contributes a number of significant insights concerning criteria for genetic relatedness. The reinterpretation offered here does not concern these, but rather only their more specific claims about the geographical distribution of pronoun patterns and how they are to be understood.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , June 1997, pp. 339 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Baugh, Albert C. 1957. A history of the English language. (Second edition.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Callaghan, Catherine A. 1980. An ‘Indo-European’ type paradigm in Proto Eastern Miwok. American Indian and Indo-European studies: Papers in honor of Madison S. Beeler, ed. by Klar, Kathryn, Langdon, Margaret, and Silver, Shirley, 331–8. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1994. Problems with the pronouns 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 and the Hokan-Penutian workshop, ed. by Langdon, Margaret, 1–20. (Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, report 8.) Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence; and Smith-Stark, Thomas. 1986. Mesoamerica as a linguistic area. Language 62. 530–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1990. Algonquian linguistic change and reconstruction. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, ed. by Baldi, Philip, 99–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Ives, and Campbell, Lyle. 1994. The history and classification of American Indian languages: What are the implications for the peopling of the Americas? Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas, ed. by Bonnichsen, Robson and Steele, D. Gentry, 189–207. Corvallis: Center for the Study of the First American, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H, and Ruhlen, Merritt. 1992. Linguistic origins of Native Americans. Scientific American 267.5:94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1976. The Northern California linguistic area. Hokan studies, ed. by Langdon, Margaret and Silver, Shirley, 347–59. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. jr., 1980. Inclusive/exclusive: A diffused pronominal category in native Western North America. Chicago Linguistic Society 16(2). 204–27.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Language history in South America: What we know and how to know more. Amazonian linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American languages, ed. by Payne, Doris L., 13–67. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1978. Alsea pronouns. Paper presented at the 1978 annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Klar, Kathryn. 1977. Topics in historical Chumash grammar. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1990. On megalo-comparison: A discussion note. Language 66. 106–20.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. (Société Linguistique de Paris, Collection Linguistique, 8.) Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1977. The Salish independent pronoun system. International Journal of American Linguistics 43. 302–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1979a. A history of the Salish possessive and subject forms. International Journal of American Linguistics 45. 207–23.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1979b. The Salish object forms. International Journal of American Linguistics 45. 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1980. Functional changes in the Salish pronominal system. International Journal of American Linguistics 46. 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1997. The origin and prehistory of linguistic diversity: Implications for the first settlement of the New World. Language and prehistory in the Americas, ed. by Taylor, Allan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Peterson, David A. 1996. The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72. 336–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ousley, Stephen D. 1995. Relationships between Eskimos, Amerindians, and Aleuts: Old data, new perspectives. Human Biology 67. 427–58.Google ScholarPubMed
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994a. On the origin of languages: Studies in linguistic taxonomy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994b. Linguistic evidence for the peopling of the Americas. Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas, ed. by Bonnichsen, Robson and Steele, D. Gentry, 177–88. Corvallis: Oregon State University, Center for the Study of the First Americans.Google Scholar
Shevoroshkin, Vitaly. 1989. A symposium on the deep reconstruction of languages and cultures. Reconstructing languages and cultures: Materials from the first international interdisciplinary symposium on language and prehistory, ed. by Shevoroshkin, Vitaly, 6–8. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G., and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar