Chimariko in Areal Perspective

1. Chimariko in Areal Perspective SSILA, Chicago 2008 Carmen Jany Cal State, San Bernardino

2. Introduction • What makes languages the same or different? • Need for human communication • Physiological properties of humans (can produce many different sounds) • Genetic affiliation (language families) • Internally-motivated language change • Language contact

3. Introduction • This Work • Examine how Chimariko is similar to and different from other indigenous languages in Northern California • 10 languages are compared (Table 1) • 4 languages compared more closely • Examine Haas’s (1976:353) statement: • ‘Most languages bear more resemblance to to their adjacent unrelated neighbors than they do to their congeners’

4. Chimariko Small villages along the Trinity River and New River in Northern California Source: Shirley, Silver, ‘Shastan Peoples’ Handbook of North American Indians

5. Chimariko • Small tribe (250 people in 1850s) • Gold mining in the area • Last spoken in the 1930s • Data collected from last speakers • Genetic affiliation • Language isolate (no closely related languages) • Distant genetic relationship: Hokan • Problems with Hokan hypotheses

6. Chimariko: Possible Genetic Affiliation • What is Hokan? • Linguistic stock first proposed in 1913 (5 languages); later expanded • Northern Hokan: (a) Karok, Chimariko, Shasta, (b) Yana, (c) Pomoan • But: Shasta is also an immediate neighbor of Chimariko

7. Chimariko: Possible Genetic Affiliation • Why is Hokan problematic? • Intense language contact for centuries • Scarce documentation & poorly recorded materials • Unsystematic similarities in small number of words

8. Chimario: Areal Affiliation • Northern California Linguistic Area • Extremely diverse speech area(map) • Many languages spoken by small communities • Extensive language contact • Multilingualism, trade, and intermarriage • Chimariko’s neighbors: Wintu, Hupa, and Shasta

9. Chimario: Areal Affiliation Source: ceres.ca.gov/nahc/images/languages.gif

10. Chimario: Areal Affiliation • Chimariko’s close neighbors: • Wintu: Penutian • Hupa: Athabaskan • Shasta: Hokan (?) • Areal traits in Northern California • Phonological features, numeral systems, consonant symbolism (Haas 1976) • Alienable/inalienable possession, directional/instrumental affixes (Sherzer 1976)

11. Comparison • Comparison of • Phonology • Syllable structure • Stress systems • Noun morphology • Verb morphology • Negation • Questions

12. Comparison: Phonology • Phoneme inventories (Table 2) • Largest in and around Chimariko • Back velar q in and around Chimariko • Shasta behaves more like distant neighbors of Chimariko • Generally close neighbors share more traits than distant ones

13. Comparison: Syllable Structure • Syllable structure (Table 3) • Similarities • Open syllables • CV smallest word • Generally no onsetless syllables • Differences: complex onsets/codas

14. Comparison: Stress Systems • Stress systems • Phonologically predictable stress based on syllable weight in Hupa, Shasta, Wintu • CVV heaviest syllable in all three languages • Penultimate stress • If no long vowels, stress on penultimate syllable in Wintu and Shasta • Chimariko: Penultimate root stress • Root stress in Hupa and Chimariko • Pitch as phonetic correlate in Hupa, Shasta, Chimariko

15. Comparison: Morphology • Nouns(Chimariko, Wintu, Shasta, Hupa) • Case system: only in Wintu • Possession: Distinction between alienable and inalienable possession in all but Shasta (Table 4) • In general: Suffixing is far more frequent than prefixing

16. Comparison: Morphology • Verbs(Chimariko, Wintu, Shasta, Hupa) • Reduplication frequent (Table 5) • Pronominal reference: hierarchies and agent-patient distinctions common (Table 6) • Tense/Aspect/Mood affixing pattern (Table 7) • Directional and instrumental affixes (Table 8)

17. Comparison: Negation and Questions • Negation • Position of negative morpheme with regard to negated constituent (Table 9) • Questions • Differences in • Type of interrogative marker (prefix, suffix, or particle) • Presence/absence of interrogative marker in question-word questions

18. Results • General • Many similarities emerge • Feature often shared among unrelated neighboring languages • Phonological convergence if direct neighbors compared • Chimariko and its neighbors • Of its close neighbors, Hupa shares the fewest features with Chimariko (Table 11)

19. Results • Why fewer shared traits with Hupa? • Hupa is structurally most different • Hupa is highly polysynthetic and predominantly prefixing • Chimariko, Wintu, and Shasta • Chimariko shares more features with unrelated Wintu than with Shasta • Chimariko distantly related to Shasta and Karuk (Hokan)

20. Results • Chimariko and Hokan • Many similarities between Chimariko and Shasta, less between Chimariko and Karuk • Chimariko and distant neighbors • More traits are shared with close neighbors than with distant ones

21. Conclusions • Haas’ statement confirmed • Unrelated neighbors often share many traits • Traits concentrated in geographically contiguous areas • Languages compared belong to four major families/stocks: Penutian, Athabaskan, Algic, and Hokan

22. Conclusions • Language contact • No restrictions as to what can be borrowed apparent • However: great structural divergence may slow down the process of structural borrowing (Hupa/Chimariko)

23. Thank you! Carmen Jany cjany@csusb.edu