Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"

Chapter XV: Part 15

Text size

Of ways of classifying the races of mankind and their subdivisions the number is great, but that which measures them by their speech is both ancient and convenient. The multiplicity of languages among the American Indians was one of the first things that struck the earliest investigators of a scientific turn of mind, no less than the missionaries who preceded them. The Abbé Hervas, the first serious student of the primitive tongues of the New World, from the classificatory point of view, noted this multiplicity of languages in his _Catalogo delle lingue conosciute e notizia della loro affinità e diversità_ (Cesena, 1784); and after him Balbi, Adelung and others. About the same time in America Thomas Jefferson, who besides being a statesman was also a considerable naturalist (see _Amer. Anthrop._ ix. n.s., 1907, 499-509), was impressed by the same fact, and in his _Notes on the State of Virginia_ observed that for one "radical language" in Asia there would be found probably twenty in America. Jefferson himself collected and arranged (the MSS. were afterwards lost) the vocabularies of about fifty Indian languages and dialects, and so deserves rank among the forerunners of the modern American school of comparative philologists. After Jefferson came Albert Gallatin, who had been his secretary of the treasury, as a student of American Indian languages in the larger sense. He had also himself collected a number of Indian vocabularies. Gallatin's work is embodied in the well-known "Synopsis of the Indian Tribes within the United States East of the Rocky Mountains, and in the British and Russian Possessions in North America," published in the _Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society_ (ii. 1-422) for 1836. In this, really the first attempt in America to classify on a linguistic basis the chief Indian tribes of the better-known regions of North America, Gallatin enumerated the following twenty-nine separate divisions: Adaize, Algonkin-Lenape, Athapascas, Atnas, Attacapas, Blackfeet, Caddoes, Catawbas, Chahtas, Cherokees, Chetimachas, Chinooks, Eskimaux, Fall Indians, Iroquois, Kinai, Koulischen, Muskhogee, Natches, Pawnees, Queen Charlotte's Island, Salish, Salmon River (Friendly Village), Shoshonees, Sioux, Straits of Fuca, Utchees, Wakash, Woccons. These do not all represent distinct linguistic stocks, as may be seen by comparison with the list given below; such peoples as the Caddo and Pawnee are now known to belong together, the Blackfeet are Algonkian, the Catawba Siouan, the Adaize Caddoan, the Natchez Muskogian, &c. But the monograph is a very good first attempt at classifying North American Indian languages.

Gallatin's coloured map of the distribution of the Indian tribes in question is also a pioneer piece of work. In 1840 George Bancroft, in the third volume of his _History of the Colonization of the United States_, discussed the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi, listing the following eight families: Algonquin, Catawba, Cherokee, Huron-Iroquois, Mobilian (Choctaw and Muskhogee), Natchez, Sioux or Dahcota, Uchee. He gives also a linguistic map, modified somewhat from that of Gallatin. The next work of great importance in American comparative philology is Horatio Hale's monograph forming the sixth volume (Phila., 1846), _Ethnography and Philology_, of the publications of the "United States Exploring Expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1842, under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S. Navy," which added much to our knowledge of the languages of the Indians of the Pacific coast regions. Two years later Gallatin published in the second volume of the _Transactions of the American Ethnological Society_ (New York) a monograph entitled "Hale's Indians of North-west America, and Vocabularies of North America," in which he recognized the following additional groups: Arrapahoes, Jakon, Kalapuya, Kitunaha, Lutuami, Palainih, Sahaptin, Saste, Waiilatpu. In 1853 he contributed a brief paper to the third volume of Schoolcraft's _Information Respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States_, adding to the "families" already recognized by him the following: Cumanches, Gros Ventres, Kaskaias, Kiaways, Natchitoches, Towiacks, Ugaljachmutzi. Some modifications in the original list were also made. During the period 1853-1877 many contributions to the classification of the Indian languages of North America, those of the west and the north-west in particular, were made by Gibbs, Latham, Turner, Buschmann, Hayden, Dall, Powers, Powell and Gatschet. The next important step, and the most scientific, was taken by Major J. W. Powell, who contributed to the _Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1885-1886_ (Washington, 1891) his classic monograph (pp. 1-142) on "Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico." In 1891 also appeared Dr D. G. Brinton's _The American Race: A Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America_ (New York, p. 392). With these two works the adoption of language as the means of distinction and classification of the American aborigines north of Mexico for scientific purposes became fixed. Powell, using the vocabulary as the test of relationship or difference, enumerated, in the area considered, 58 separate linguistic stocks, or families of speech, each "as distinct from one another in their vocabularies and apparently in their origin as from the Aryan or the Scythian families" (p. 26).

The 58 distinct linguistic stocks of American Indians north of Mexico, recognized by Powell, were as follows: (1) Adaizan; (2) Algonquian; (3) Athapascan; (4) Attacapan; (5) Beothukan; (6) Caddoan; (7) Chimakuan; (8) Chimarikan; (9) Chimmesyan; (10) Chinookan; (11) Chitimachan; (12) Chumashan; (13) Coahuiltecan; (14) Copehan; (15) Costanoan; (16) Eskimauan; (17) Esselenian; (18) Iroquoian; (19) Kalapooian; (20) Karankawan; (21) Keresan; (22) Kiowan; (23) Kitunahan; (24) Koluschan; (25) Kulanapan; (26) Kusan; (27) Lutuamian; (28) Mariposan; (29) Moquelumnan; (30) Muskhogean; (31) Natchesan; (32) Palaihnihan; (33) Piman; (34) Pujunan; (35) Quoratean; (36) Salinan; (37) Salishan; (38) Sastean; (39) Shahaptian; (40) Shoshonean; (41) Siouan; (42) Skittagetan; (43) Takilman; (44) Tañoan; (45) Timuquanan; (46) Tonikan; (47) Tonkawan; (48) Uchean; (49) Waiilatpuan; (50) Wakashan; (51) Washoan; (52) Weitspekan; (53) Wishoskan; (54) Yakonan; (55) Yanan; (56) Yukian; (57) Yuman; (58) Zuñian.

This has been the working-list of students of American Indian languages, but since its appearance the scientific investigations of Boas, Gatschet, Dorsey, Fletcher, Mooney, Hewitt, Hale, Morice, Henshaw, Hodge, Matthews, Kroeber, Dixon, Goddard, Swanton and others have added much to our knowledge, and not a few serious modifications of Powell's classification have resulted. With Powell's monograph was published a coloured map showing the distribution of all the linguistic stocks of Indians north of Mexico. Of this a revised edition accompanies the _Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico_, published by the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1907-1910, now the standard book of reference on the subject. The chief modifications made in Powell's list are as follows: The temporary presence in a portion of south-west Florida of a new stock, the Arawakan, is now proved. The Adaizan language has been shown to belong to the Caddoan family; the Natchez to the Muskogian; the Palaihnian to the Shastan; the Piman to the Shoshonian. The nomenclature of Powell's classification has never been completely satisfactory to American philologists, and a movement is now well under way (see _Amer. Anthrop._ vii. n.s., 1905, 579-593) to improve it. In the present article the writer has adopted some of the suggestions made by a committee of the American Anthropological Society in 1907, covering several of the points in question.

In the light of the most recent and authoritative researches and
investigations the linguistic stocks of American aborigines north of
Mexico, past and present, the areas occupied, earliest homes (or
original habitats), number of tribes, subdivisions, &c., and
population, may be given as follows:--

Of these 55 different linguistic stocks 5 (Arawakan, Beothukan, Esselenian, Karankawan and Timuquan) are completely extinct, the Arawakan, of course, in North America only; 13 (Atakapan, Chimarikan, Chitimachan, Chumashan, Costanoan, Kusan, Pakawan, Salinan, Takelman, Tonikan, Tonkawan, Wishoskan, Yakonan) practically extinct; while the speakers of a few other languages or the survivors of the people once speaking them (e.g. Chemakuan, Chinookan, Copehan, Kalapuyan, Mariposan, Washoan, Yukian), number about 200 or 300, in some cases fewer. Of the Wailatpuans, although some individuals belonging to the stock are still living, the language itself is practically extinct. The distribution of the various stocks reveals some interesting facts. Among these are the stretch of the Eskimoan along the whole Arctic coast and its extension into Asia; the immense areas occupied by the Athabaskan and the Algonkian, and (less notably) the Shoshonian and the Siouan; the existence of few stocks on the Atlantic slope (from Labrador to Florida, east of the Mississippi, only 8 are represented); the great multiplicity of stocks in the Pacific coast region, particularly in Oregon and California; the extension of the Shoshonian, Yuman and Athabaskan southward into Mexico, the Shoshonian in ancient, the Athabaskan in modern times; the existence of an Arawakan colony in south-western Florida, a 16th-century representative in North America of a South American linguistic stock. Some stocks, e.g. Atakapan, Beothukan, Chemakuan, Chimarikan, Chitimachan, Kiowan, Kitunahan, Lutuamian, Takelman, Tonkawan, Wailatpuan, Yanan, Yuchian, Zuñi, &c., were not split up into innumerable dialects, possessing at most but two, three or four, usually fewer. Of the larger stocks, the Athabaskan, Algonkian, Shoshonian, Siouan, Iroquoian, Salishan, &c., possess many dialects often mutually unintelligible. In marked contrast with this is the case of the Eskimoan stock, where, in spite of the great distance over which it has extended, dialect variations are at a minimum, and the people "have retained their language in all its minor features for centuries" (Boas). As to the reason for the abundance of linguistic stocks in the region of the Pacific (from Alaska to Lower California, west of long. 115°, there are 37: Eskimoan, Koluschan, Athabaskan, Haidan, Tsimshian, Wakashan, Salishan, Kitunahan, Chimakuan, Chinookan, Sahaptian, Wailatpuan, Shoshonian, Kalapuyan, Yakonan, Kusan, Takelman, Lutuamian, Quoratean, Weitspekan, Wishoskan, Shastan, Yanan, Chimarikan, Yukian, Copehan, Pujunan, Washoan, Kulanapan, Moquelumnan, Mariposan, Costanoan, Esselenian, Salinan, Chumashan, Yuman) there has been much discussion. Of these no fewer than 18 are confined practically to the limits of the present state of California. Dialects of Athabaskan, Shoshonian and Yuman also occur within the Californian areas, thus making, in all, representatives of 21 linguistic stocks in a portion of the continent measuring less than 156,000 sq. m. In explanation of this great diversity of speech several theories have been put forward. One is to the effect that here, as in the region of the Caucasus in the Old World, the multiplicity of languages is due to the fact that tribe after tribe has been driven into the mountain valleys, &c., by the pressure of stronger and more aggressive peoples, who were setting forth on careers of migration and conquest. Another view, advocated by Horatio Hale in 1886 (_Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci._; also _Proc. Canad. Inst._, Toronto, 1888), is that this great diversity of human speech is due to the language-making instinct of children, being the result of "its exercise by young children accidentally isolated from the teachings and influence of grown companions." A pair of young human beings, separating thus from the parent tribe and starting social life in a new environment by themselves, would, according to Mr Hale, soon produce a new dialect or a new language. This theory was looked upon with favour by Romanes, Brinton, and other psychologists and ethnologists. Dr R. B. Dixon (_Congr. intern. des. Amér._, Quebec, 1906, pp. 255-263), discussing some aspects of this question, concludes "that the great linguistic and considerable cultural complexity of this whole California-Oregon region is due to progressive differentiation rather than to the crowding into this restricted area of remnants of originally discrete stocks." How far two dialects of one stock can go in the way of such differentiation without becoming absolutely distinct is illustrated by the Achomawi branches of the Shastan family of speech, which Dr Dixon has very carefully investigated.

The test of vocabulary is not the only means by which the languages of
the North American aborigines might be classified. There are
peculiarities of phonetics, morphology, grammar, sentence-structure,
&c., which suggest groupings of the linguistic stocks independent of
their lexical content. Some languages are harsh and consonantal (e.g.
the Kootenay and others of the North Pacific region), some melodious
and vocalic, as are certain of the tongues of California and the
south-eastern United States. Some employ reduplication with great
frequency, like certain Shoshonian dialects; others, like Kootenay,
but rarely. A few, like the Chinook, are exceedingly onomatopoeic.
Some, like the northern languages of California, have no proper plural
forms. Of the Californian languages the Pomo alone distinguishes
gender in the pronoun, a feature common to other languages no farther
off than Oregon. The high development and syntactical use of
demonstratives which characterize the Kwakiutl are not found among the
Californian tongues. A few languages, like the Chinook and the Tonika,
possess real grammatical gender. Some languages are essentially
prefix, others essentially suffix tongues; while yet others possess
both prefixes and suffixes, or even infixes as well. In some languages
vocalic changes, in others consonantal, have grammatical or semantic
meaning. In certain languages tense, mood and voice are rather weakly
developed. In some languages syntactical cases occur (e.g. in certain
Californian tongues), while in many others they are quite unknown.
Altogether the most recent investigations have revealed a much greater
variety in morphological and in grammatical processes than was
commonly believed to exist, so that the general statement that the
American Indian tongues are all clearly and distinctly of the
"incorporating" and "polysynthetic" types needs considerable
modification. Using criteria of phonetics, morphology, grammar, &c.,
some of the best authorities have been able to suggest certain groups
of North American Indian languages exhibiting peculiarities justifying
the assumption of relationship together. Thus Dr Franz Boas (_Mem.
Intern. Congr. Anthrop._, 1893, pp. 339-346, and _Ann. Archaeol. Rep.
Ontario_, 1905, pp. 88-106) has grouped the linguistic stocks of the
North Pacific coast region as follows: (1) Tlingit (Koluschan) and
Haida; (2) Tsimshian; (3) Wakashan (Kwakiutl-Nootka), Salish,
Chemakum; (4) Chinook. In the same region the present writer has
suggested a possible relationship of the Kootenay with Shoshonian. In
the Californian area Dr R. B. Dixon and Dr A. L. Kroeber have made out
these probable groups among the numerous language stocks of that part
of the United States: (1) Chumashan and Salinan; (2) Yurok
(Weitspekan), Wishoskan, Athabaskan, Karok (Quoratean), Chimarikan;
(3) Maidu (Pujunan), Lutuamian, Wintun (Copehan), Yukian, Pomo
(Kulanapan), Costanoan, Esselenian, Yokuts (Mariposan), Shoshonian,
Shastan, Moquelumnan and possibly Washoan; (4) Yanan; (5) Yuman.
Suggestions of even larger groups than any of these have also been
made. It may be that, judged by certain criteria, the Kootenay,
Shoshonian, Iroquoian and Siouan may belong together, but this is
merely tentative. It is also possible, from the consideration of
morphological peculiarities, that some if not all of the languages of
the so-called "Palaeo-Asiatic" peoples of Siberia, as Boas has
suggested (_Science_, vol. xxiii., n.s., 1906, p. 644), may be
included within the American group of linguistic stocks. Indeed
Sternberg (_Intern. Amer.-Kongr._ xiv., Stuttgart, 1904, pp. 137-140)
has undertaken to show the relationship morphologically of one of
these languages, the Giliak (of the island of Saghalin and the region
about the mouth of the Amur), to the American tongues, and its
divergence from the "Ural-Altaic" family of speech. Here, however,
more detailed investigations are needed to settle the question.

General character of Indian languages.

At one time the opinion was widely prevalent that primitive languages changed very rapidly, sometimes even within a generation, and the American Indian tongues were rather freely used as typical examples of such extreme variation. The error of this view is now admitted everywhere, and for the speech of the New World aborigines Dr Franz Boas states (_Hndb. Amer. Ind._ pt. i., 1907, p. 759): "There is, however, no historical proof of the change of any Indian language since the time of the discovery comparable with that of the language of England between the 10th and 13th centuries." Another statement that has obtained currency, appearing even in otherwise reputable quarters sometimes, is to the effect that some of the vocabularies of American Indian languages consist of but a few hundred words, one being indeed so scanty that its speakers could not converse by night, since darkness prevented resort to the use of gesture. This is absolutely contrary to fact, for the vocabularies of the languages of the American Indians are rich, and, according to the best authority on the subject, "it is certain that in every one there are a couple of thousand of stem words and many thousand words, as that term is defined in English dictionaries" (Boas). The number of words in the vocabulary of the individual Indian is also much greater than is generally thought to be the case. It was long customary, even in "scientific" circles, to deny to American Indian tongues the possession of abstract terms, but here again the authority of the best recent investigators is conclusive, for "the power to form abstract ideas is, nevertheless, not lacking, and the development of abstract thought would find in every one of the languages a ready means of expression" (Boas). In this connexion, however, it should be remembered that, in general, the languages of the American aborigines "are not so well adapted to generalized statements as to lively descriptions." The holophrastic terms characteristic of so many American Indian languages "are not due to a lack of power to classify, but are rather expressions of form of culture, single terms being intended for those ideas of prime importance to the people" (Boas). This consideration of American primitive tongues in their relation to culture-types opens up a comparatively new field of research, and one of much evolutional significance.

As a result of the most recent and authoritative philological
investigations, the following may be cited as some of the chief
characteristics of many, and in some cases, of most of the languages
of the aborigines north of Mexico.

1. Tendency to express ideas with great graphic detail as to place,
form, &c.

2. "Polysynthesis," a device making possible, by the use of
modifications of stems and radicals and the employment of prefixes,
suffixes, and sometimes infixes, &c., the expression of a large number
of special ideas. By such methods of composition (to cite two examples
from Boas) the Eskimo can say at one breath, so to speak, "He only
orders him to go and see," and the Tsimshian, "He went with him upward
in the dark and came against an obstacle." The Eskimo
_Takusariartorumagaluarnerpâ?_ ("Do you think he really intends to go
to look after it?") is made up from the following elements:
_Takusar_(_pâ_), "he looks after it"; _iartor_ (_poq_), "he goes to";
_uma_ (_voq_), "he intends to"; (_g_) _aluar_ (_poq_), "he does so,
but"; _nerpoq_, "do you think he." The Cree "word"
"_kekawewechetushekamikowanowow_" ("may it," i.e. the grace of Jesus
Christ, "remain with you") is resolvable into: _Kelawow_ (here split
into _ke_ at the beginning and _-owow_ as terminal), "you" (pl.); _ka_
= sign of futurity (first and second persons); _we_ = an optative
particle; _weche_ = "with"; _tusheka_ = verbal radical, "remain";
_mik_ = pronominal particle showing that the subject of the verb is in
the third person and the object in the second, "it-you"; _owan_ =
verbal possessive particle, indicating that the subject of the verb is
something inanimate belonging to the animate third person, "his-it."
The Carrier (Athabaskan) _lekoenahweshoendoethoenoezkrok_, "I usually
recommence to walk to and fro on all fours while singing," which
Morice calls "a simple word," is built up from the following elements:
_le_ = "prefix expressing reciprocity, which, when in connexion with a
verb of locomotion, indicates that the movement is executed between
two certain points without giving prominence to either"; _koe_ =
particle denoting direction toward these points; _na_ = "iterative
particle, suggesting that the action is repeated"; _hwe_ = particle
referring to the action as being in its incipient stage; _shoen_ =
"song" (when incorporated in a verb it "indicates that singing
accompanies the action expressed by the verbal root"); _doe_ = "a
particle called for by _shoen_, said particle always entering into the
composition of verbs denoting reference to vocal sounds"; _thoe_ = the
secondary radical of the uncomposite verb _thîzkret_ inflected from
_thi_ for the sake of euphony with _noez_; _noez_ = "the pronominal
element of the whole compound" (the _n_ is demanded by the previous
_hwe_, _oe_ marks the present tense, and _z_ marks the first person
singular of the third conjugation); _krok_ = "the main radical,
altered here by the usitative from the normal form _kret_, and is
expressive of locomotion habitually executed on four feet or on all
fours."

Previous Next

Comments

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Independence, Declaration of" to "Indo-European Languages"Chapter XV: Part 15

0%34 min left in chapter