Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:48:32.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some problems in the regrouping of Powell Units

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

William W. Elmendorf
William W. Elmendorf*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This brief survey directs attention to certain problems involved in assigning together linguistic units (grouping) and in showing by such assignment degrees of genetic relationship (subgrouping). It deals with these topics only with regard to relatively large-scale classificatory units in North American Indian languages. It notes research and cites literature, largely from the past decade, in which reference to and citation of earlier work may be found. And it has omitted mention or discussion of certain recent classificatory proposals for which evidence is not adduced or for which existence of a reproducible method is not clear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 10 , Issue 2-3 , Spring 1965 , pp. 93 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1965

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.)

References

Aoki, Haruo 1963. On Sahaptin-Klamath Linguistic Affiliations. IJAL 29:107–12.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Sylvia M., and Callaghan, Catherine A. 1960. Comparative Miwok: A Preliminary Survey. IJAL 26:301–16.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore 1962. The Lexicostatistically Determined Relationship of a Language Group. IJAL 28:153–61.Google Scholar
Elmendorf, William W. 1963. Yukian-Siouan Lexical Similarities. IJAL 29:300–09.Google Scholar
Elmendorf, William W. 1964. Item and Set Comparison in Yuchi, Siouan, and Yukian. IJAL 30:328–40.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H.and Morris Swadesh 1953. Jicaque as a Hokan Language. IJAL 19:216–22.Google Scholar
Gursky, Karl-Heinz 1963. Algonkian and the Languages of Southern Texas. Anthropological Linguistics 5(9): 17–21.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1951. The Proto-Gulf Word for “Water” (with Notes on Siouan-Yuchi). IJAL 17:71–79.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1952. The Proto-Gulf Word for “Land” (with a Note on Proto-Siouan). IJAL 18:238–40.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1956. Natchez and the Muskogean Languages. Language 32:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1958. A New Linguistic Relationship in North America: Algonkian and the Gulf Languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14:231–64.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1959. Tonkawa and Algonkian. Anthropological Linguistics 1(2):1–5.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1963. Shasta and Proto-Hokan. Language 39:40–59.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry 1941. Methods in the Classification of American Indian Languages. In Spier, Leslie et al. (eds.), Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry 1962. Linguistic Sub-Groupings by Glottochronology and by the Comparative Method: The Athapaskan Languages. Lingua 11:192–98.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry 1963. The Athapaskan Languages. In Hoijer, Harry et al., Studies in the Athapaskan Languages. University of California Publications in Linguistics 29:1–29.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1956. Na-Dene and Positional Analysis of Categories. Amer. Anthrop. 58:624–38.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1957. Some Penutian Elements and the Penutian Hypothesis. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13:69–87.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael E. 1964. Proto-Athapaskan-Eyak and the Problem of Na-Dene: The Phonology. IJAL 30:118–31.Google Scholar
Loriot, James 1964. A Selected Bibliography of Comparative American Indian Linguistics. IJAL 30:62–80.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley 1964. Comparison of Zuni and California Penutian. IJAL 30:1–13.Google Scholar
Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen 1964. On the Historical Position of Tlingit. IJAL 30:155–64.Google Scholar
Powell, John W. 1891. Indian Linguistic Families North of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 7:7–139.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1913–15. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, A Study in Uto-Aztekan (Parts I and II). Journal, Société des Americanistes de Paris, n.s., 10:379–425; 11:443–88; Amer. Anthrop. 17:98–120, 306–28.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1917. The Position of Yana in the Hokan Stock. Univ. of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13:1–34.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1920. The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages. IJAL 1:280–90.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1925. The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 27:402–35.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1929. Central and North American Languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th edition, 5:138–41. Reprinted in Mandelbaum, David G. (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality, pp. 169–78 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949).Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward and Swadesh, Morris 1953. Coos-Takelma-Penutian Comparisons. IJAL 19:132–37.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1952. Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan. IJAL 18:12–19.Google Scholar
Shafer, R. 1957. Note on Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan. IJAL 23:116–17.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1950. Salish Internal Relationships. IJAL 16:157–67.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1952. Review of Shafer (1952). IJAL 18:178–81.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1953. Mosan I: A Problem of Remote Common Origin. Mosan II: Comparative Vocabulary. IJAL 19:26–44, 223–36.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1956. Problems of Long-Range Comparison in Penutian. Language 32:17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1962. Linguistic Relations Across Bering Strait. American Anthropologist 64:1262–91.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1964. Linguistic Overview. In Jennings, Jesse D. and Norbeck, Edward (eds.), Prehistoric Man in the New World, 527–56. Chicago.Google Scholar
Teeter, Karl V. 1963. Lexicostatistics and Genetic Relationship. Language 39:638–48.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L. and Trager, E. L. 1959. Kiowa and Tanoan. American Anthropologist 61:1078–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C. F. 1941. North American Indian Languages Still Spoken and Their Genetic Relationships. In Spier, Leslie et al. (eds.), Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, 15–40.Google Scholar
Voegelin, C. F., Voegelin, F. M., and Hale, K. L. 1962. Typological and Comparative Grammar of Uto-Aztecan; I (Phonology). Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics 17.Google Scholar