1

The areal typology of western Middle and South America: towards a comprehensive view

***pre-publication version, do not cite without permission***

Matthias Urban DFG Center for Advanced Studies “Words, Bones, Genes, Tools,” University of Tübingen Rümelinstr. 19-23 72070 Tübingen, Germany Email: matthias.urban@uni-tuebingen.de Hugo Reyes-Centeno DFG Center for Advanced Studies “Words, Bones, Genes, Tools,” University of Tübingen Rümelinstr. 19-23 72070 Tübingen, Germany Email: hugo.reyes-centeno@uni-tuebingen.de Kate Bellamy Leiden University Centre for Linguistics Leiden University Postbus 9515 2300RA Leiden, The Netherlands Email: k.r.bellamy@hum.leidenuniv.nl Matthias Pache Department of Anthropology of the Americas, University of Bonn Oxfordstr. 15 53111 Bonn, Germany Email: mpache@uni-bonn.de

Against a multidisciplinary background this contribution explores the areal typology of western

Middle and South America. Based on a new language sample and a typological questionnaire that is

specifically designed to bring some of the poorly documented and extinct languages into the debate,

we explore the areal distribution of 77 linguistic traits in 44 languages. While one of the goals of the

present article is to provide a general up-to-date view of areal patterning of these traits on a large

scale, we also explore a number of specific questions in more detail. In particular, we address the

relationship between known language areas like Mesoamerica and the Central Andes with their

respective peripheries, the possibility of detecting an areal-typological signal that predates the rise of

these linguistic areas, and, finally, the question of linguistic convergence along the Pacific coast. We

find that, while the languages of the Mesoamerican periphery are rather diffuse typologically, the

structural profiles of the Central Andean languages are embedded organically into a more general

cluster of Andean typological affinity that alters continuously as one moves through geographical

space. In different ways, the typological properties of the peripheral languages may reflect a

situation that goes back to time depths which are greater than that of the emergence of the

Mesoamerican and Central Andean linguistic areas. Finally, while we can confirm typological affinities

with Mesoamerica for some languages of coastal South America, we do not find support for large-

scale linguistic convergence on the Pacific coast.

Keywords: typology, areal linguistics, language contact, Mesoamerican languages, Andean languages

2

1 Introduction1 Linguistic structures in the Americas have been explored from an areal point of view with renewed

interest in recent years (e.g. Adelaar 2012; Campbell 2012; Epps forthcoming; Michael et al. 2014;

contributions to O’Connor and Muysken 2014; Urban forthcoming a; Valenzuela 2015). In light of the

awesome genealogical and structural diversity of language in the Americas, this is a rich and

challenging field of research in its own right. However, areality in linguistic structures does not arise

without a corresponding sociolinguistic background, which is in turn part of a more general

sociocultural setting. Depending on the relative ease with which particular linguistic properties can

be transferred from one language to another in different situations of language contact (itself a

subject of considerable theoretical interest, cf. e.g. Nichols 2003), areal-typological similarities can

usually be assumed to reflect periods of interaction between speakers of the languages involved at

some point of time depth. Areal typology is therefore one of the possible points of access to the

linguistic prehistory of the Americas. Indeed, a number of the areal-typological studies mentioned

above have explicitly sought to bring the linguistic evidence to bear on questions of prehistoric

developments in (parts of) the Americas. Our study is not different in this regard.

We focus on the exploration of a large subregion of the Americas, namely the western parts of

Middle America (which we define as that part of the main American landmass from Mexico in the

north to Panama in the south) and South America, with a particular focus on the Pacific coastal

regions.2 The choice of this area of investigation is indeed motivated by evidence from outside

linguistics, which we discuss in 2.1. At the same time, different parts of this region have already been

explored from the point of view of areal linguistics and are known to host a number of convergence

areas. We discuss extant work from linguistics that is relevant to our study in Section 2.2, where we

seek to provide an updated comprehensive broad-scale view of the areal distribution of linguistic

structures in this part of the Americas. This is the overarching goal of the present paper. In light of

the massive loss of linguistic diversity that set in with European contact, attaining this goal requires

us to also pay attention to the extinct and poorly documented languages that were once spoken in

this region, even though the available material is not optimal and significant gaps in documentation

remain. We discuss past and present linguistic diversity in our study region in more detail in Section

3.1. This goal of including a maximum of linguistic diversity determines to a significant extent also the

design of the study, in particular the questionnaire. We explain the design of our study further in

Section 3.2.

The subtitle, which alludes to a “comprehensive view,” is thus to be read in two ways: first, it refers

to the broad-scale scope of this study, the geographic scope of which is larger than that of most

recent contributions. Second, we also aim at comprehensiveness in another sense, namely that we

aim to be more comprehensive than previous studies in bringing extinct and poorly documented

languages into the debate under a unified and general framework of analysis.

1 Work on this article was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n° 295918, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project Nos. UR 310/1-1 and FOR 2237. We thank Willem F.H. Adelaar, former members of the MesAndLin(g)k project in Leiden, and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of this article. 2 In contrast to these geographically defined terms, we use the term Mesoamerica to refer to a certain culture area and the associated linguistic area within Middle America.

3

In addition, we seek to explore more specific questions that appear to require further consideration

in line with our literature review in Section 2.2. These include the relationship between the

languages of two known linguistic areas within our geographical scope, Mesoamerica and the Central

Andes, to those on the respective peripheries. Regarding the Central Andes, we focus in particular on

the northern and southern periphery. A loosely related question pertains to the possibility of areal-

typological affinities in the respective areas that could be older than the rise of these language areas.

Our inclusive study design is well-suited to explore this question. Finally, a third question we aim to

explore in more detail concerns the possibilities of linguistic contacts among Pacific peoples from

Mesoamerica to the Central Andes. Here, we do so with a focus on the possibility of the diffusion of

phonological and grammatical traits rather than lexical similarities which are evaluated in Urban

(forthcoming c; see also Bellamy 2018). We explain these questions in Section 2.3.

2 Contextualization

2.1 Interdisciplinary Background This section provides a brief sketch of aspects of the pre-Colombian Americas that appear particularly

relevant as background to the areal-typological study of this paper. Topics treated in this section are

accordingly highly selective. In addition, while some points of contact with the (historical) linguistics

of the Americas are already interwoven here, a detailed review of linguistic areality in Middle

America and western (Pacific and Andean) South America itself is provided separately in Section 2.2.

The human presence in the Americas dates back at least 15,000 years before present, when groups

of people entered the continents from eastern Asia via the Beringian landbridge (Goebel et al. 2008;

Braje et al. 2017). Taking into account the existence of very early archaeological sites in the

southernmost parts of the double continent, such as Monte Verde (southern Chile), it appears that

these groups dispersed rapidly across the then still unpeopled continents. The route or routes taken

by these first colonizers is still not clear. There is, however, evidence from mitochondrial DNA that

supports early migrations by a coastal route that are possibly related to a first entry by a Pacific route

(Perego et al. 2009; Bodner et al. 2012; Llamas et al. 2016). People may have used watercraft and

relied on the rich maritime resources of the Pacific for subsistence (Erlandson et al. 2007). At any

rate, a maritime Pacific orientation is something deeply entrenched in the Americas, as can be

inferred from early coastal sites such as the mentioned Monte Verde site or the Quebrada Jaguay

site on Peru’s South Coast.

Linguistic data is evaluated by different methodologies as far as very early population movements

into the Americas are concerned. Greenberg’s (1987) attempt to reduce American linguistic diversity

to just three language families, corresponding to three waves of migration of which the largest

“Amerind” family would correspond to the first entry, is generally rejected because of

methodological deficiencies. Accordingly, the state of the art still counts around 150 linguistic

families in the Americas (Campbell 1997); progress at reducing this number is still being made, but

slowly. The picture of extreme linguistic diversity coupled with the assumed short human presence is

often taken as evidence for social conditions in the first phase after settlement that would promote

linguistic diversification (e.g. Muysken et al. 2014: 303, though see Nettle 1999) or for the

assumption that human presence in the Americas must be much older than commonly accepted

(Nichols 1990). Based on structural-typological properties rather than sound correspondences in

lexical material, Nichols (2003: 306–307, inter alia) distinguishes two major linguistic populations in

4

the Americas. One, the so-called Pacific Rim population, is younger and, as its name implies, has ties

to the Pacific languages of Eurasia, Southeast Asia, and Melanesia. It is characterized by so-called

n/m pronouns (see also Nichols and Peterson 1996), “true case inflection, identical singular and

plural stems in pronouns, verb-initial (or more generally VS) word order, numeral classifiers, tones,

and other features” (Nichols 2003: 306–307). In the Americas, Pacific Rim features are most strongly

represented in languages of Western North America (which we do not investigate here), but are said

to extend southwards to South America (Nichols 2002: 283) in a rather frayed manner with less

consistent geographical clustering. The Pacific Rim linguistic population, which again suggests a signal

for the Pacific coast as an important point of reference for prehistoric Americans, is distinguished

from an older, Pan-American layer, characterized by an inclusive/exclusive opposition and radical

head-marking (Nichols 2003: 306–307).

Yet, while some linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence signal the existence of a coastal

distribution, in other respects and in other parts of the Americas the relationship between genetic

and linguistic evidence is peculiar. Unlike some other areas of the world, neither in Mesoamerica nor

in South America as a whole does genetics correlate well with linguistic affiliation (Quinto-Cortés et

al. 2010; Roewer 2013). In other words, it is difficult to distinguish people speaking linguistically

unrelated languages (and, one might add, traditionally following vastly different modes of

subsistence) genetically. This may have something to do with the relatively low genetic diversity of

native Americans that results from the small founding population, such that the diversity in

languages occurred at a comparably faster rate. It may also be an indication of later post-settlement

processes that reduced genetic distinguishability.

More than 10,000 years after the first colonization, in Mesoamerica and the Central Andes

trajectories towards higher degrees of political and economical organization commenced

independently. They are often evidenced by monumental architecture and imported luxury goods

associated with social elites. The Mesoamerican Formative period (ca. 1800 BCE - 300 CE) is linked

closely with the Olmec culture; Campbell and Kaufman (1976) have associated it with Mixe-Zoquean

languages because of early lexical borrowings from Mixe-Zoque into other languages of

Mesoamerica. In the Central Andes, the earliest evidence for cultural complexity at the present state

of research comes from coastal sites of central Peru, notably the Norte Chico region and in particular

the site of Caral (e.g. Shady Solis 2008). What language was present on the central coast at that time

is unknown (the idea that it was “pre-proto-Quechua”, as claimed by Gálvez Astorayme 2003 [1999],

is unfounded). Many cultural traditions that persisted through much of later development in the

respective areas commenced with the Olmec and Norte Chico cultures, respectively.

Almost simultaneously with the development of societal complexity, Spondylus shells begin

forthcoming in the archaeological record in Peru, first in modest quantities at Caral (Shady Solis

2008), later during the flourishing of Sicán and Chimor cultures on the North Coast in massive

amounts (cf. Paulsen 1974 and Carter 2011 for review). Together with Strombus shells, Spondylus

forms an iconographic dyad of the early Andean Chavín culture (Paulsen 1974: 604). Its center,

Chavín de Huantar, was located on the eastern side of the Cordillera Blanca, the highest Andean

mountain range. The presence of marine shells indicates early trade connections across the Andes.

Since Peruvian waters are too cold for Spondylus shells to survive on a sustained basis, the

archaeological presence of the shells in Peru themselves in fact are indicators of long-distance

exchange with more northerly regions, such as coastal Ecuador. Ecuador and the Northern Andes

5

generally have followed a different cultural trajectory, though there always have been links between

the two regions across a permeable and shifting borderzone (Hocquenghem 1998).

In turn, there are several cultural traits that have been used to argue for possibly seaborne pre-

Colombian contacts between coastal Ecuador and Western Mexico (outside of the Mesoamerican

culture area proper), bringing our discussion back to Middle America. These include similarities in

weaving technology and clothing styles (Anawalt 1992), dog breeds (Cordy-Collins 1994), shaft tombs

(Smith 1977/1978), and the technology of metallurgy (Hosler 1994, Hosler 2009). A critical review of

the evidence is in Pollard (1997); generally, archaeology has largely moved away from long-distance

comparison of cultural traits and for good reasons views diffusionist models with skepticism.

Nevertheless, given the connections of coastal Ecuador with Peru on the one hand and the

suggestion of links of roughly the same region with Western Mexico, some scholars have indeed

claimed that the entire Pacific coast was linked into a single trade network at the point of European

contact (Marcos 1977/1978; Blench 2012). Ethnohistoric descriptions of advanced indigenous

watercraft operating in Ecuadorian waters theoretically support the possibility of seaborne long-

distance exchange and contact (cf. also Edwards 1965); the archaeological evidence for such

watercraft, however, is hitherto lacking.

In sum, at different levels of time depth, the Pacific regions of the Americas may have been the site

of (pre)historic population expansions and cultural contacts. Particularly in South America, early

cultural complexity is associated with coastal sites, and indeed exploitation of maritime resources,

according to one theory (Moseley 1975), played a crucial role in the onset of the Peruvian cultural

trajectory.

2.2 The Areal Linguistics of Meso- and South America: Previous Findings in

a Nutshell Both Mesoamerica and the Central Andes host generally accepted linguistic areas (e.g. Campbell et

al. 1986; Torero 2002; Adelaar 2012). In both cases, their emergence is linked to the cultural

developments in the corresponding regions, although exactly how this is the case is, especially for

the Andes, still a matter of debate (cf. contributions to Kaulicke et al. 2010 and Heggarty and

Beresford-Jones 2012).

Mesoamerica as a linguistic area is explored in the most detail in Campbell et al. (1986). Their

evaluation of possible areal features results in four area-defining grammatical traits: non-verb-final

word order, head-marking in possessive phrases, relational nouns, and a vigesimal numeral system.

In addition, there are semantic calques which are widespread throughout the area (see also Smith-

Stark 1994). According to Chamoreau (forthcoming), language families which are “generally

accepted” as partaking in the Mesoamerican language area are Oto-Manguean except the

Chichimec-Pamean subbranch, Mixe-Zoquean, Totonacan, Mayan, as well as the significantly smaller

Huavean and Tequistlatecan families (which Chamoreau considers isolates). Finally, Nahua varieties,

belonging to the Uto-Aztecan family, play an important role in the Mesoamerican language area.

Campbell (1979: 968) states that “[b]oth the MA [Mesoamerican, MU, HRC, KB & MP] culture area

(co-tradition) and MA linguistic area were shaped by the same forces, by extensive Olmec influence

and by extensive trading from Olmec formative times onward.” Brown (2011), in contrast, attributes

the diffusion of many linguistic features in Mesoamerica, in particular the calques, to a later role of

Nahuatl as a lingua franca. However this may be, on more local levels, contact scenarios existed that

involved different settings and different languages. For instance, in Oaxaca the Oto-Manguean

6

Chatino language has left its mark on Uto-Aztecan Pochutec (Bartholomew 1980). As far as the

boundaries of Mesoamerica as a linguistic area are concerned, Campbell et al. (1986) mention the

bundling of area-defining isoglosses at the traditional boundaries of Mesoamerica as a culture area

(Kirchhoff 1960 [1943]). Also Constenla Umaña (1991) mentions rather strong linguistic boundaries

between Mesoamerica and his Central American-Colombian area which begins in Eastern El Salvador

and Honduras.3 Chamoreau (forthcoming), in contrast, mentions “a multitude of languages whose

status with respect to the core area still remains poorly understood, as they do not possess all

the traits proposed for the area on the periphery of the territory covered by the above-

mentioned languages”.4 She mentions, alongside Purepecha, the Corachol languages (another

Uto-Aztecan sub-branch), the aforementioned Chichimec-Pamean branch of Oto-Manguean in

the north, and the small Lencan, Xincan, and Jicaquean language families, as well as languages

belonging to the Arawakan, Chibchan, and Misumalpan families in the south. One could add

Cuitlatec, an isolate of the Mexican state of Guerrero, to the list of geographically peripheral

languages.

In the Central Andes, the Quechuan and Aymaran families are often either implicitly or explicitly

taken as constituting the nucleus of a language area (cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999). Current

thinking suggests, however, that contact and convergence between these two families goes back to

the proto-language level (cf. e.g. Adelaar 2010; Emlen 2017); some of the shared features can thus be

attributed to a bilateral contact situation rather than convergence within a linguistic area (which

according to many definitions, e.g. Thomason [2001], requires the involvement of more than two

languages). In addition, the Andean area may itself be not homogeneous internally and really have

featured two distinguishable yet intertwined zones of convergence (Urban forthcoming a).

Furthermore, the limits of the Central Andes as a linguistic convergence zone are hard to establish as

certain languages of Chile and Argentina, such as Mapudungun, Kunza, and others show signs of

affinity with the Central Andes, too (Torero 2002). Certain phonological features such as

glottalization are contiguous also with the neighboring Chaco (Michael et al. 2014). Adelaar (2012:

607) mentions that “[o]ne of the few language groups in South America that resemble Quechuan and

Aymaran in its morphosyntactic structure is the Jivaroan language family in Ecuador and northern

Peru”, suggesting typological affinities also with the Northern Andes. Furthermore, he mentions

Purepecha and Cuitlatec in Western Mexico as possible typological relatives. Pache (2018) observes

peculiarities of lowland counting systems attested in some numeral series from the southern Central

Andes. Campbell (2012: 301) suggests that absence of sharp boundaries is a characteristic of

linguistic areas in South America generally. In line with this, the typological divide between Andes

and Amazonia is not sharp and clear-cut. Krasnoukhova (2012: 261–266; see also Birchall 2014)

suggests that a division into western and eastern South America, with parts of western Amazonia

patterning with the Andes, may be a more realistic picture.

3 The linguistic and cultural (pre)history in Costa Rica’s Nicoya peninsula and its surroundings in particular, however, is generally complicated. It witnessed the immigration of Mesoamerican peoples rather late in antiquity. These include the speakers of Mangue (Oto-Manguean), Subtiaba (closely related to Mesoamerican Malinaltepec Me'phaa a.k.a Tlapanec, also Oto-Manguean), and Nicarao, a Nahuan variety. These languages maintained their Mesoamerican characteristics (Constenla Umaña 1992/1993) while coexisting with an older stratum of languages that differs typologically. 4 Evidence from lexical borrowing does suggest interactions with “core” Mesoamerican languages rather clearly and provides important insights into the prehistoric contact dynamics (Kaufman 1973; Campbell 1976b). At stake in this paper, however, is grammatical structure rather than lexicon.

7

Furthermore, according to Constenla Umaña (1991), there is a much broader area of linguistic

affinities in the Andes, of which the Central Andes in fact constitutes just a subregion. This broader

Andean area can be defined by shared traits between the Central Andes and the Andean highlands of

Ecuador and Colombia. These latter, and partially also the adjacent lands to the east, form another

subarea, called Ecuadorian-Colombian by Constenla Umaña (1991), of the broader Andean region on

a par with the Central Andes. Still further to the north, between the Andes and Mesoamerica, he

recognizes an independent Colombian-Central American linguistic area.

Even though there is room for refinement, in particular as far as the Northern Andes and the

Colombian-Central American area are concerned, areal studies on the languages of the Americas

present strong evidence for pervasive linguistic convergence in different subregions. That said, areal

boundaries of the Central Andes and also Mesoamerica (according to Chamoreau) remain poorly

defined.

What also remains unclear is whether linguistic convergence took place on the Pacific coast, cross-

cutting the aforementioned geographic and linguistic regions. Constenla Umaña (1991: 125) suggests

that this was probably so, mentioning VO order as a possible trait and Atacame (Esmeraldeño),

Mochica, and Mapudungun as possible members of a coastal linguistic area. Particularly noteworthy

in this connection are the Atacame and Mochica languages of coastal Ecuador and northern Peru

respectively. Both are in the right places geographically to suspect that, if linear trade (networks)

existed on the Pacific coast as suggested by extralinguistic evidence, their typological profile could

bear a concomitant signal. Indeed, Constenla Umaña (1991) has pointed out some word order

regularities in Atacame that make it align with Mesoamerican languages rather than its more

immediate neighbors. Adelaar (2012: 614) suggests typological similarities between Mochica, one of

the languages once spoken on Peru’s North Coast, and the Mayan languages regarding the presence

and widespread use of a morphological passive. There are in fact also lexical similarities based on

which Stark (1968) has suggested common descent. This proposal has not been widely adopted,

however. Furthermore, Urban (forthcoming b) draws attention to the distribution of the labiodental

fricative in South America, which is strongly skewed towards the Pacific coast. Aikhenvald (2007), in

contrast, responds in the negative as far as coastal linguistic areality in South America is concerned.

The question thus remains open. One issue is whether it is amenable to empirical resolution in the

first place considering the massive language extinction that struck the coastal regions in the wake of

the European invasion (see further Section 3.1). Another question is whether the assumed contacts

between coastal Ecuador and Western Mexico in particular were of a nature that they could have

resulted in linguistic convergence in the first place. Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli (2001: 728), in

the context of linguistic contact effects around the Baltic sea, point out that maritime contacts

typically involve fewer people than land-based ones, and that, there is therefore “a smaller chance

that the newcomers will ‘sweep’ through the area in the way characteristic of spread zones”. Indeed,

in both Ecuador and Mesoamerica, groups of professional traders, known respectively as Mindalá

and Pochteca, were active (Salomon 1977/78), suggesting the involvement of particular specialized

groups in the putative interactions rather than broad parts of the general population.5

5 In the Purepecha-speaking region, they were also known as huacaleros in the early 20th century (Lumholtz 1902).

8

2.3 The Present Study Against the multidisciplinary background of the (linguistic) prehistory of western Middle and South

America, the present study blends in with the current state of research on the linguistic connections

of the region and pushes it further in three distinguishable but interrelated manners.

In the first place, one task for the present study that emerges from the literature review in Section

2.2 is to help clarify the relationship of languages adjacent but peripheral to the Mesoamerican and

Central Andean culture areas. For the Andes, this is particularly necessary in terms of the longitudinal

north-south axis (the relation of the languages of the Central Andean highlands to the eastern slopes

has already been the topic of recent investigations, Van Gijn 2014; Valenzuela 2015). Thus, the study

will enable an assessment of Adelaar’s (2012) suggestion of typological affinities of the Quechuan

and Aymaran languages in the north outside the Central Andes.

A second focus of attention is to identify, at least in a tentative manner, possible old signals of areal-

typological affinity and continuity that predate the rise of the Mesoamerican and Central Andean

linguistic convergence areas. These, as reviewed in Section 2, are associated with the rise of complex

societies in different manners. Any glance at a deeper horizon of (linguistic) prehistory will have to

pay particular attention precisely to those areal-typological patterns that cannot plausibly relate to

these late (relatively speaking) developments.

Conversely, special attention is also paid to connections between Mesoamerica and/or Western

Mexico and South America that could be precisely related to cultural contacts such as those sketched

in 2.1. Against the background of the review of proposed connections in Section 2, attention needs to

be paid to the Pacific Coast as a potential corridor of both early population expansions and later

contacts. In this regard the present study is meant to complement that of Urban (forthcoming c),

which explores possible shared vocabulary items among the languages of the Pacific coast (see also

Bellamy 2018). A prerequisite for this endeavor is the systematic inclusion of poorly documented

languages of the Pacific coast such as Atacame (Esmeraldeño) as part of a unified framework of

study. This is also a contribution of the present study to the areal typology of South America in itself.

3 Data and Method

3.1 Past and Present Linguistic Diversity in Western Meso- and South

America and the Present Language Sample The indigenous peoples of the Americas suffered tremendous population losses in the wake of the

European conquest (e.g. O’Fallon and Fehren-Schmitz 2011 for genetic evidence). Concomitantly, the

events of the early 16th century set in motion a dramatic loss of linguistic diversity that is still

ongoing. While this effect can be felt all over the continents, the Pacific Coast was struck particularly

badly by both demographic and linguistic collapse (cf. e.g. Cook 1981 for Peru).

In what is Mexico today, the languages of Baja California have been lost almost entirely; some

aspects of Waikuri, one of these languages, can be inferred from translations of Christian texts (cf.

Laylander 1997; Zamponi 2004). Guasave and Naarinuquia or Themurete are the names of

nonagriculturalist groups of coastal Sinaloa and Nayarit respectively; on their languages no further

information is available (Miller 1983: 333; he ponders a relation to Seri). Miller (1983) interprets the

coastal habitats of these people as enclaves that outlast the Uto-Aztecan expansion. Generally, it

9

appears that speakers of the large Uto-Aztecan language family were adapted to life in the interior

(Miller 1983), whereas peoples subsisting on coastal resources often had linguistic affiliations

different from the major interior-based families such as Uto-Aztecan. This pattern is visible still in

what survives of the original linguistic diversity in Mexico. For instance, on the coast of Guerrero, the

isolate Cuitlatec survived long enough for some linguistic documentation to be carried out (e.g.

Escalante 1962). In addition, Tolimeca, Chumbia, and Panteca are mentioned as the names of

peoples and possibly languages of the same area of which no trace survives (Brand 1943: 52). Also

lost for systematic exploration of its areal typology is Tapachultec, the Mixean language of coastal

Chiapas. However, there may also have been coastal Uto-Aztecan languages such as Tekoxkin,

possibly belonging to the Corachol branch Cora (Miller 1983; Kaufman 2007). Further south,

Cacaopera is a language once spoken near the coast that is clearly Misumalpan as per known

vocabulary items, but which cannot be studied systematically for the lack of sufficient and reliable

grammatical, in particular morphosyntactic, information. Cueva was another important pre-

Colombian language of what is today Panama, associated with important chiefdoms. It is known

through scattered words (Romoli 1987); the language may have belonged to the Chocoan family

(Loewen 1954: 4–5).

Incomplete conservation of pre-Colombian linguistic diversity continues when moving to South

America. Coastal languages which cannot be studied because of extinction and a virtually complete

lack of documentation are Idabaez in Colombia (Rowe 1950), Huancavilca, Manteño and the other

undocumented languages of the Ecuadorian coast (cf. Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 392–393; Gómez

Rendón 2011), and the language of the Chango in coastal Chile (Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 176).6

Other languages are known exclusively through lexical material of varying provenience and quality

which, in some cases, also includes a few phrases. This is true of Yurumangui on the Pacific side of

the Andes in Colombia (Elías Ortiz 1946), Sechura, Tallán, and Quingnam on the North Coast of Peru

(Urban forthcoming b), and the Diaguita (or Kakán) and Chono languages of the Chilean coast (Nardi

1979; Viegas Barros 2005).

All these languages may have harbored crucial evidence for areal-typological studies, and the

perspectives that are accessible today may result in a view that is not representative of the full

linguistic diversity at the point of European contact, in particular on the coast. This must be borne in

mind when evaluating the results presented in Section 4. Given the (ethno-)historical and

archaeological evidence that suggests intense commercial activities based in coastal Ecuador, it is the

loss of the languages of this part of the South American coast that is particularly unfortunate for our

purposes. An (unfortunately only partially legible) early 17th century description of Puerto Viejo in

coastal Ecuador (Anonymous 1868 [~1605]: 286) describes the linguistic situation still as follows:

Los indios desta tierra, no convenian en una lengua general y común á todos: cada pueblo hablaba la

suya diferente, lo cual era causa de discordia y guerras entre ellos: los indios marítimos se entienden

todos entre sí, aunque la lengua que usan no es…

6 The “lengua de los llanos” mentioned in a crucial 1593 document has long been misinterpreted as a possible language of the Ecuadorian lowlands, whereas in reality in all likelihood the Mochica language is meant. Neither is there conclusive evidence for a presence of the northern Peruvian Tallán languages in Ecuador. Urban (to appear b) offers a reconstruction of the history of interpretations.

10

[The Indians of this land did not agree on a general language common to all: every village spoke its

own different one, which was the reason for strife and war among them: the maritime Indians all

understand themselves among each other, although the language they use is not…]

Here, thus, we have the slightest hint at a contact language that could neatly be interpreted as the

linguistic correlate of Ecuador-based exchange activities, a possibility which is highly relevant for

potential contact-induced linguistic convergence in the coastal areas of South America.

But linguistic extinction also affects inland regions. In Northwest Mexico, extinct languages may have

pertained to the Uto-Aztecan family (see again Miller 1983). In interior Colombia, the Cauca and

Magdalena river valleys were hotspots of linguistic diversity; some of the now extinct languages

spoken there were Cariban, others likely Chibchan or Chocoan (cf. Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 47,

map 1; 49–50. They say: “[s]ince most of the indigenous languages were lost without possibility of

recovery, the extent of linguistic variety in the Northern Andes may never be fully appreciated”). In

Andean South America, also affected were the highlands of Ecuador, where a multitude of languages

of small geographical extension, many of which presumably of the Barbacoan family, coexisted in

what is today a Quechua or Spanish-speaking region (cf. Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 166, map 3). In

Peru, the north harbored linguistic diversity of which we know only through short wordlists and/or

placenames (Urban forthcoming b). The areality of the Central Andes may have looked quite

different from what the present-day dominance of Quechuan and Aymaran would suggest. But also

in Southern Peru, Quechuan and Aymaran coexist(ed) with the genealogically unaffiliated Puquina

and Uru-Chipayan languages.

The massive losses in linguistic diversity make it even more crucial to study as much as possible of

what remains, hence the approach of the present study to also include data from incompletely

documented languages, where possible. Accordingly, we have sought to include a maximum of

genealogical diversity in particular in these areas, even though available documentation is sometimes

limited. Our final sample features data from 44 languages all in all, which belong to 28 distinct

language families (bearing in mind that language families can also consist of a single language, so-

called ‘isolates’). The approximate locations of sampled languages (taken from Hammarström et al.

2016) are shown in Figure 1.

11

Figure 1: Approximate location of sampled languages from Middle America to southern Chile

Table 1 presents pertinent information on all the sampled languages. Moving from north to south,

this includes a (conventional) name (as per Hammarström et al. 2016), the associated ISO 693-3

code, the present-day country in which the languages are or were spoken, the genealogical

classification (also following Hammarström et al. 2016), and the consulted sources from which

phonological, grammatical and lexical information for the present study was extracted.

Table 1: Languages sampled for the present study and associated metadata

No.

Language ISO 639-3

Modern country

Classification (Glottolog) Sources

1 Kiliwa klb Mexico Cochimi-Yuman, Yuman Mixco (1971), Mixco (1985), Mixco (2000)

2 Yaqui yaq Mexico Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto- Dedrick and Casad (1999)

12

Aztecan, Cahita

3 Seri sei Mexico Seri Marlett (1981); Moser and Marlett (1994), Moser and Marlett (1995), Moser and Marlett (2004)

4 Lowland Tarahumara

tac Mexico Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan, Tarahumaran, Tarahumara

Burgess (1984)

5 Waikuri NA Mexico Waikuri Zamponi (2004)

6 Purepecha tsz Mexico Tarascan LeCron Foster (1969) ; Campbell et al. (1986); Chamoreau (2000)

7 Tetelcingo Nahuatl nhg Mexico Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan, Corachol-Aztecan, Aztec, Western Nahuatl, Central Nahuatl

Tuggy (1979)

8 Michoacán Nahuatl ncl Mexico Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan, Corachol-Aztecan, Aztec, Western Nahuatl, Western Periphery-North Guerrero Nahuatl, Western Periphery Nahuatl

Sischo (1979)

9 Cuitlatec NA Mexico Cuitlatec Hendrichs (1939); McQuown

(1941); Escalante (1962);

Valiñas Coalla et al. (1984);

Colville (1986)

10 Malinaltepec Me'phaa

tcf Mexico Otomanguean, Western Otomanguean, Tlapanec-Manguean, Subtiaba-Tlapanec, Mephaa, Malinaltepec Me'phaa

Suárez (1983); Wichmann (2007), Wichmann (2009)

11 Itzá itz Guatemala Mayan, Core Mayan, Yucatecan, Mopan-Itzá

Hofling with Tesucún (1997, 2000)

12 Chimalapa Zoque zoh Mexico Mixe-Zoque, Zoque Johnson (2000)

13 Isthmus Zapotec zai Mexico Otomanguean, Eastern Otomanguean, Popoloca-Zapotecan, Zapotecan, Zapotec, Core Zapotec, Central Core Zapotec

Pickett (2007); Pickett et al. (1998); Pickett et al. (2010)

14 Pinotepa Nacional Mixtec

mio Mexico Otomanguean, Eastern Otomanguean, Amuzgo-Mixtecan, Mixtecan, Mixtec, Coast Mixtec

Bradley (1970)

15 San Francisco del Mar Huave

hue Mexico Huavean, San Francisco-Santa María Huave

Kim (2008)

16 Western Highland Chatino

ctp Mexico Otomanguean, Eastern Otomanguean, Popoloca-Zapotecan, Zapotecan, Chatino, Core Chatino, Coastal Chatino, Eastern Chatino

Rasch (2002)

17 Highland Oaxaca Chontal

chd Mexico Tequistlatecan Turner (1966)

13

18 Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec

zps/zpx

Mexico Otomanguean, Eastern Otomanguean, Popoloca-Zapotecan, Zapotecan, Zapotec, Coatec, Coatlan-Loxicha Zapotec

Beam de Azcona (2004)

19 Lowland Oaxaca Chontal

clo Mexico Tequistlatecan Waterhouse (1962), Waterhoue (1985); O’Connor (2007); O’Connor and Kroefges (2008); Maddieson et al. (2009)

20 Pochutec xpo Mexico Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan, Corachol-Aztecan, Aztec, Western Nahuatl, Western Periphery-North Guerrero Nahuatl

Boas (1917); Bartholomew (1980)

21 Mam mam Guatemala Mayan, Core Mayan, Quichean-Mamean, Greater Mamean, Mamean

England (1983); Pérez Alonso et al. (n.d.)

22 Tol jic Honduras Jicaquean Dennis and Royce de Dennis (1983); Holt (1999)

23 K’iche‘ quc Guatemala Mayan, Core Mayan, Quichean-Mamean, Greater Quichean, Core Quichean, Quiche-Achi

Colville (1986); Larsen (1988); Ixchajchal Bath et al. (1996)

24 Xinca (18th century)a

xin Guatemala Xincan Sachse (2010)

25 Pipil ppl El Salvador Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan, Corachol-Aztecan, Aztec, Eastern Nahuatl

Campbell (1985); Colville (1986)

26 Lenca-Salvador len El Salvador Lencan Lehmann (1920); Campbell (1976a); Constenla Umaña (1991); Del Río Urrutia (1999)

27 Mangue mom Nicaragua Otomanguean, Western Otomanguean, Tlapanec-Manguean, Manguean

Lehmann (1920); Quirós Rodríguez (1985)

28 Ulwa ulw Nicaragua Misumalpan, Sumalpan, Sumuic Green (1999)

29 Ngäbere gym Panama Chibchan, Core Chibchan, Isthmic, Eastern Isthmic, Guaymiic

Alphonse (1956); Quesada Pacheco (2008)

30 Chibcha chb Colombia Chibchan, Core Chibchan, Magdalenic, Southern Magdalenic, Chibcha-Duit

Lugo (1978 [1619]); Constenla Umaña (1981); Anonymous (1987); Ostler (1993), Ostler (1994); Adelaar (1995); Adelaar with Muysken (2004)

31 Woun Meu noa Colombia Chocoan Loewen (1954); Holmer (1963); Mejía Fonnegra (2000); Aguirre Licht (2009)

32 Emberá-Chamí cmi Colombia Chocoan, Embera, San Juan, Upper San Juan

Aguirre Licht (1999)

33 Páez pbb Colombia Páez Castillo i Orosco and Uricoechea (1968 [1877]); Slocum and Gerdel (1983); Jung (2008)

34 Awa-Cuaiquer kwi Colombia Barbacoan, Unclassified Barbacoan

Curnow (1997); Calvache

Dueñas (2000)

14

35 Atacame NA Ecuador Atacame Seler (1902); Constenla Umaña (1991); Adelaar with Muysken (2004); Adelaar (2005)

36 Chachi cbi Ecuador Barbacoan, Cayapa-Colorado Abrahamson (1962); Lindskoog and Brend (1962); Lindskoog and Lindskoog (1964); Vittadello (1988); Wiebe and Wiebe (2007)

37 Aguaruna agr Peru Jivaroan Wipio Deicat (1996); Overall (2007)

38 Mochica omc Peru Mochica Cerrón-Palomino (1995); Salas García (2002); Adelaar with Muysken (2004); Hovdhaugen (2004)

39 Huamalíes-Dos de Mayo Huánuco Quechua

qvh Peru Quechuan, Quechua I, Central Quechua I, Huaylay, Huamalíes-Dos de Mayo Huánuco Quechua

Weber (1989); Weber et al. (1998)

40 Cholón cht Peru Hibito-Cholon Alexander-Bakkerus (2005)

41 Jaqaru jqr Peru Aymara, Jaqaru Hardman (2000)

42 Kunza kuz Chile Kunza Sáez Godoy et al. (1974); Adelaar with Muysken (2004); Peyró Garcia (2005)

43 Mapudungun arn Chile Araucanian, Mapudungun Augusta (1996 [1916]); Smeets (2008); Sadowsky et al. (2013)

44 Qawasqar alc Chile Kawesqar, North Central Alacalufan

Clairis (1985); Aguilera (2001)

a coordinates of Xinca-Chiquimilla (14.08, -90.38) were used for practical purposes.

As can be seen in the genealogical information provided in Table 1, some languages belong to the

same families. The motivation for sampling more than one language for the larger and deeper

families such as Uto-Aztecan and Oto-Manguean rests both in the expected higher intra-family

typological diversity that should ideally be reflected in the sample, but also in the larger geographical

spread that leads to a situation that only a subset of members belongs to a linguistic area such as

that of Mesoamerica. As in the study of Campbell et al. (1986), those languages outside the area

provide important controls and contrasts. Also, some of the smaller language families are

represented by more than one language. In these cases, interest arises in the family especially

because individual members cover different altitudinal zones and which are therefore of particular

relevance for the exploration of possible areality along the Pacific coast. A self-explanatory example

is the inclusion of both Lowland and Highland Oaxaca Chontal, but the same rationale underlies also

inclusion of two Barbacoan and Chocoan languages. In sum, the sample covers the entire set of

coastal languages with sufficient information for coding a large enough subset of features in the

questionnaire described in Section 3.2. This is also true for South America, where sampling may

appear less dense when inspecting the map in Figure 1. Since the assessment of possible areality in

the Pacific region is only one of the goals of the present study, however, the sample also covers a

representative selection of interior languages. For the well-established Mesoamerican area, sampling

is somewhat less dense, reflecting the fact that our goal is not to provide a high-resolution analysis of

convergence on local levels which highly dense sampling would allow for. Also for the Central Andean

15

highlands, dominated by the shallow Quechuan and Aymaran languages with a relatively high degree

of structural similarity between individual languages, density of sampling is more frugal than for the

coast, which is at the focus of our attention. Jointly, nevertheless, the data allow us to evaluate

typological diversity in the western part of Meso- and South America in a comprehensive manner.

Given the goals of this article, we do aim to demonstrate that areal features of (parts of) the

Americas are rare generally in the world’s languages, as some accounts of areality would require

methodologically (cf. van der Auwera 2011: 298). However, inclusion of highland or at least non-

coastal languages may serve as a control for the question of linguistic areality on the Pacific coast.

3.2 The Questionnaire Muysken et al. (2015) distinguish two manners of carrying out areal-typological studies. One way to

proceed is to determine in advance what features are relevant for areal patterning based on

informally accumulated experience with languages of the area; their example for such a “bottom-up”

approach is the study by Crevels and van der Voort (2008). Another approach that has been pursued

more frequently especially in recent times is labelled “top-down” by Muysken et al. (2015). In such a

study, one would work with a predetermined list of typological variables that are not preselected for

relevance to the area one is investigating. In this approach, one does not know in advance therefore

what the relevance of the features is for the areal typology of the investigated region, if there is any

at all.

Here, we adopt a kind of hybrid approach. We do pay attention to previously identified relevant

variables, but do not focus our attention exclusively on these. In this way, we acknowledge and draw

upon the important work carried out to date for Mesoamerica, the Andes, and the so-called Isthmo-

Colombian area in between the two in that we investigate parameters identified as relevant for these

areas. However, by applying the same questionnaire to languages of Middle, Central, and South

America, we are able to provide unified treatment with a view to the broader American context. In

addition, to avoid being repetitive, we include a set of novel features in our investigation which as in

other studies, are formulated as yes/no questions. Not all features are expected to be relevant as

indicators of areality everywhere; this pertains particularly to the hitherto un(der)explored features

of the lexicon which we discuss below.

Readily available structural-typological data such as those in the World Atlas of Language Structures

(WALS; Dryer and Haspelmath 2013) are insufficient for the explicit goal of this paper to include the

maximum of linguistic diversity for the regions we wish to study. This is so because density of

coverage in databases like WALS is simply too low. In addition, most features included in WALS and

other typological databases treat specialized grammatical topics which cannot be retrieved from the

sources available for the poorly documented languages that we wished to include in the study. Even

Constenla Umaña (1991), the most extensive and detailed study for the area we are interested in,

was unable to accommodate languages like Atacame systematically into the investigation.

Accordingly, the need for a separate, new, questionnaire for the present study arises that allows

coding of a sufficient subset of features even for those languages that have hithertofore not played a

role in systematic investigations.

In designing a questionnaire that meets these requirements, we have aimed to include “basic”

features, that is, those that characterize the overall morphological and syntactic typology of the

language rather than properties that pertain to a very specific subarea of morphosyntax or

phonology. This is out of consideration for codability in the case of suboptimal documentation on the

16

one hand, but also because we would like to obtain a general typological “fingerprint” of the

individual languages. For instance, as far as phonology is concerned (features 1–14), our questions

have been chosen in such a way as to jointly give an overall impression of the phonemic systems. At

the same time, other features are included specifically (sometimes in modified form) because

previous studies have suggested that these features have the potential to discriminate between

areas on some level of resolution (Campbell et al. 1986; Constenla Umaña 1991; Adelaar 2012;

Campbell 2012). An additional source of inspiration for our questionnaire are the grammatical

features of the database on the “Languages of hunter-gatherers and their neighbors”, which is

relevant to the present study because it captures grammatical properties of the languages of the

South American lowlands (Epps 2016). Alongside features with earlier demonstrated relevance for

the areal typology of parts of our study area, we include well-known staples of typological

comparison in morphosyntax, such as head vs. dependent marking (Nichols 1986) and word order

typology. In spite of the unsuitability of WALS data as a source for the present study, we have sought

to make our features compatible with WALS where possible for ease of potential broader

comparisons in the future. That is, where overlap exists and nothing else stands in the way, we have

used the same coding scheme as the respective WALS author and annotated this by a cross-reference

to the respective WALS chapter in our questionnaire. All in all, our questionnaire includes 14 features

pertaining to phonology (with subareas consonants, vowels, suprasegmentalia, syllable structure), 22

that deal with topics of morphology (with subcategories of transcategorical operations, parts of

speech, nominal morphology, verbal morphology, and three questions pertaining to overall

morphological typology), and 28 with syntax (possession, alignment, word order, and complex

constructions). Together, these give a balanced and (to the extent possible) nuanced picture of the

typological properties of the languages in our study region. Beyond phonology and morphosyntax,

however, our concern with the overall typological impressions of the languages also pertain to the

lexicon, an area not frequently considered in areal typology. Inclusion of lexical properties, finally,

allows us to include possible diachronically highly stable properties of great typological interest that

have nevertheless been somewhat neglected in areal-typological studies. This prominently includes

the syllable canon as a typological variable (cf. Nichols 2003). Another lexical trait we consider is the

organization of the numeral system, which indeed has been argued to be areal in different

subregions of the one studied here (Campbell et al. 1986 on Mesoamerica, Dixon and Aikhenvald

1999 and subsequent literature on the (Central) Andes, though see Urban forthcoming a). Finally, we

investigate a potentially relevant typological distinction first explored by Johanna Nichols (cf. Nichols

and Nichols 2007; Nichols 2010; also Urban 2012), that between noun-based and verb-based

languages. To the degree that a language is noun-based, morphologically basic lexical roots will tend

to be belong to that part of speech category, to the degree that it is verb-based, they will tend to be

verbs (not all languages can be classified easily along this parameter, as roots can also be unspecified

at the lexical level for part of speech, as they are sometimes e.g. in Quechuan; in addition, of course,

variation is a matter of degree and not of absolute types). Since the distinction between noun-based

and verb-based languages is presently still in the process of exploration as a typological trait, here,

we focus on two semantic domains only, that of aerosols (‘smoke’, ‘steam’, ‘fog’ etc.) and that of

color terms. Furthermore, since previous experience shows that within these domains, languages

tend to be rather consistently noun-based or verb-based, we only look at the roots for ‘(to) smoke’

and ‘(be) black’ respectively as representatives of aerosols and color terms respectively for ease of

coding.

17

The full template of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. Alongside the features and the

area of linguistic description to which they pertain, there is also a field for cross-references to WALS

features and/or further coding instructions where these were deemed necessary to answer the

question correctly and consistently. A general policy was that where conflicting analyses have come

to our attention regarding a particular feature, as non-experts on most of the languages in the study

we generally avoided making a coding decision, unless one of the alternatives seemed clearly

preferable for reasons such as recency of documentation and explicitness of the argumentation. The

full data underlying this study can be found in Appendix 2.

Languages are complex systems with interrelated components. Accordingly, individual phonological

and morphosyntactic properties of languages are not always interdependent of one another, and

indeed one of the primary goals of linguistic typology is to understand which aspects of language

depend on one another and in what ways. Some of the features included in this study are in fact

known to correlate with one another cross-linguistically. For instance, there is an interdependency

between tone and syllable structure (see e.g. Urban 2012), word order in the clause is correlated

with some preferences in NP structure (Dryer 2007) more generally, and OV order, as is well known,

is associated with a preference for suffixing (see e.g. Roberts 2017). While it would be in principle

desirable for all typological datapoints to be independent from one another for maximal

informativeness, in practice we have found it impossible to design a questionnaire which maximizes

independence of features, but is also inclusive enough to yield a sufficient number of codable

features also for the poorly documented languages which we incude. Therefore, we have also

included features that are known to be correlated with one another cross-linguistically. In doing so

we follow predecessor studies on linguistic areality in parts of the Americas which either implicitly

(Constenla Umaña 1991) or explicitly (Bickel and Nichols 2006) proceeded in the same manner.

For the time being we do not employ multistate coding but binary coding only, even though this

entails that answers to certain questions necessarily must trigger certain other answers for reasons

of logical consistency. For instance, if a language is polypersonal and crossreferences properties of

both agent-like and patient-like arguments on the verb, feature 32 (“Is there verbal person marking

for both A and P arguments?”) will be answered in the positive, while features 29-31 (“Is there verbal

person marking only for the A argument?”, “Is there verbal person marking only for the P

argument?”, and “Is there verbal person marking for the A or the P argument, but not both?”) must

be in the negative. This introduces yet another type of interdependence between features. For

instance, a language with a basic SV order in intransitive clauses will not only receive a positive

answer to feature 53, i.e. “Is the dominant constituent order in intransitive clauses SV?”, but by

logical necessity also a negative answer to the immediately preceding feature 52, “Is the dominant

constituent order in intransitive clauses VS?” Note, however, that in our coding (contrary to what

O’Connor 2014: 87 observes for certain WALS features), such pairs of features are not completely

redundant, as the language may have no dominant order, in which case answers to both questions

would be in the negative. In addition, typological dependencies can, in conjunction with

questionnaire design, introduce dependencies in coding. For instance, if human nouns can be

pluralized (feature 27), this is typically also the case for inanimates (feature 26; cf. Haspelmath 2013).

Accordingly, if the answer for feature 27 is positive, that for 26 will be positive, too.

To quantify correlations between features in our dataset and infer whether they arise from

typological factors or logical dependencies in coding, we conducted pairwise tetrachoric correlations

(Kirk 1973) using the “tetrachoric” function of the psych R package (Revelle 2017). Designed for

18

dichotomous data, tetrachoric correlations infer a Pearson correlation based on the frequency of

absence or presence of a feature, under the assumption of bivariate normality. In cases where all

languages behaved in the same way with regard to a feature (i.e. the features were present or absent

across all languges) or where there were large amounts of missing data, correlation values could not

be calculated and were thus removed. This was the case for features 32, 45, and 46. Returning to the

examples already used above, in our dataset we observe a negative correlation (-0.587) between

tonality (feature 11 in our questionnaire) and whether or not codas are present (feature 13). The

negative correlation implies that when constrative tones are present, codas are more likely to be

absent and vice versa. We also observe a moderate correlation between word order in intransitive

clauses (features 52 and 53) and the preference for suffixing in nominal morphology (feature 16) at -

0.569 and 0.523, as is expected on typological grounds. The logical, coding-related dependencies can

be tracked in this way, too. For instance, features 52 and 53 are strongly and negatively correlated at

-0.815. The fact that the correlation is not perfect (i.e., smaller than 1) is either due to the possibility

that languages may not have a dominant order or to missing data and thus incomplete comparisons.

Strong dependencies (defined, following Hinkle et al. 2003, as correlations greater than 0.7 in

absolute numbers) such as those between word order in intransitive clauses were found in our

dataset only for eight feature pairs. These are mostly of the logical type and cluster in the word-order

related features. Strongly correlated features include the order of demonstrative and noun (features

61 and 62, negatively correlated at -0.995), the order of possessor and possessed (features 57 and

58, negatively correlated at -0.953), the order of numeral and noun (features 63 and 64, negatively

correlated at -0.865), the order of adjective and noun (features 59 and 60, negatively correlated at -

0.847), and the aforementioned case of constituent order in intransitively clauses. An interesting

observation is that the two features on the basic orientation of the lexicon, features 76 and 77, are

strongly positively correlated at 0.733, a finding that suggests that indeed languages have a rather

homogeneous fingerprint regarding this typological parameter. We also observe a strong correlation

(0.701) between tonality (feature 11) and VS order in transitive clauses (feature 54). The influence of

Oto-Manguean languages, which are typically tonal and have non-final word order, may be

responsible for this observation. Finally, VS order in intransitive clauses (feature 52) was found to

correlate negatively (at -0.701) with possessor-possessed order (feature 57). A visual impression on

feature dependencies can also be obtained in the exploration of structures in the data that follows.

4 Results

19

Figure 2: An annotated multidimensional scaling plot visualizing the typological distance between the languages of western Meso- and South America

20

An annotated multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot based on Euclidean distances of the original data

collected for this study (see appendix 2) is shown in Figure 2.7 The MDS plot is a projection of the

Euclidean distances into two-dimensional space, allowing for a visualization of the affinities between

languages based on the original data. It was created using the “dist” and “cmdscale” functions of the

statistical environment R (R Core Team 2016), excluding missing data in the calculations. Fig. 2 has

been slightly reworked from the original output of the cmdscale function; in cases where labels

overlapped, they were moved manually as little as possible to render all of them readable. Also,

circles around groups of languages, arrows, and indications of geographic areas in small caps and

language families in italics were added manually to the plot.

In order to relate the distribution of languages on the MDS projection in Fig. 2 to the individual

typological language features sampled, we conducted linear regressions of each feature onto the

coordinates of the MDS plot and generated a biplot (Greenacre 2010), shown in Fig. 3. The numbers

in the biplot correspond to individual features (as enumerated in appendix 1); arrow size and

directionality correspond to the feature’s relative effect on the positionining of languages in the MDS

plot. Specifically, the arrow length corresponds to the variance explained by each feature (r-squared

values of the regressions) to the effect that a longer arrow represents a typological feature that is

more associated to the language distribution of the MDS plot than a shorter arrow. For ease of

visualization, the arrows in Figure 3 have been rescaled. While we caution that the MDS biplot

procedure is constrained by inherent limitations of projecting multivariate data in two dimensions, it

is nevertheless useful for visualizing patterns in language affinities with respect to the original

typological features.

A particularly noteworthy component of this visual representation of the data is that the relative

length and directionality of the arrows indicate which features are likely to be correlated. Specifically,

(i) any two or more arrows with a similar length and directionality will represent a set of features that

are positively correlated and (ii) any two or more arrows with a similar length and opposite

directionality will represent a set of features that are negatively correlated. As such, the biplot

complements information on feature correlations in a useful way.

7 Euclidean distances are computed as the square root of the sum of the squared differences between two values, which in this case are binary. We note that several distance methods are optimized for binary data and have been applied for generating both lexical and syntactic linguistic distances (e.g. Longobardi and Guardiano 2009). However, other methods consider the proportion of presence and absence of sampled features rather than simply the sum of differences. As such, datasets with large amounts of missing data could be more biased when employing such methods and we do not employ them here.

21

Figure 3: Biplot showing each feature’s relative effect on the positionining of languages in the MDS

plot in Figure 2. Features in larger, bold type reflect regression r-squared values higher than 0.5.

The MDS plot in Figure 2 reveals several distinct signals in the data. On the one hand, there is a

genealogical signal. This is most clearly visible in the relative positioning of the sampled Oto-

Manguean languages, which all appear in the lower left quadrant of the plot. This result is not

surprising, since indeed Oto-Manguean languages stand out typologically in the Americas to such an

extent that they proved difficult to integrate for macro-comparativists who aimed at reducing

genealogical diversity in the Americas to just a few stocks. Greenberg (1960: 791) in particular, in an

early statement of his “Amerind” proposal, hesitated to include Oto-Manguean. Campbell (1979:

914) mentions tone, phonemic nasal vowels, and open syllables with limited permissible onset

clusters as Oto-Manguean characteristics that contribute to their “peculiar character”. The biplot

reveals that tone (feature 11) indeed is relevant for their remarkable position in the MDS vis-à-vis

other languages, while at the same time showing strong genealogical clustering. Also relevant is an

apparent preference for demonstratives to follow rather precede their head noun (feature 62). It is

reassuring that the poorly documented and extinct Mangue language clusters together with other

Oto-Manguean languages, as it should given that it maintained its typological character in spite of

the exodus of its speakers to Nicaragua in prehistory (Quirós Rodríguez 1985). Thus, the genealogical

signal linking Mangue with the rest of Oto-Manguean is detected despite the relative poverty of

available datapoints. On the other hand, Oto-Manguean influence on Pochutec (Bartholomew 1980)

is not visible in our data.

Genealogical signals also manifest themselves beyond the Oto-Manguean family, in that the sampled

Mayan languages (Mam, Itzá, K’iche’, cf. dashed circle) are adjacent to one another, as are the two

sampled Tequistlatecan and Chocoan languages. The somewhat larger distances possibly reflect the

greater time-depth of Mayan vis-à-vis Tequistlatecan and Chocoan languages. The Barbacoan

languages are also plotted close to each another. Typological diversity within Uto-Aztecan and

Chibchan is somewhat greater according to the plot. This, however, does not necessarily always

reflect greater time depths that have passed since the breakup of the proto-languages (Pache 2015).

The result that Oto-Manguean languages alone have a strongly detectable typological profile is

nevertheless noteworthy. In fact, the greater geographical spread of Uto-Aztecan and Chibchan

languages vis-à-vis the geographically more closely clustered Oto-Manguean members may be part

of the explanation for the above observation.

22

On the other hand, there are interesting signals that predominantly reflect geography rather than

genealogical descent (cf. Donohue et al. 2011). Broadly, the MDS plot tends toward separating the

South American Andean languages, on one side along the horizontal axis (right of plot), from the

Mesoamerican languages, on the other side (left of plot). Along the vertical axis of the MDS plot,

more regional patterns can be observed, including the aforementioned Oto-Manguean cluster on the

bottom left, the Mayan and other core Meso-American languages on the top left, Southern and

Central Andean languages on the top right, and Northern Andean languages on the bottom right. The

most influential features in bringing about this outcome are those where the strongest contrasts

exist between occupants of the quadrants of the plot (Mesoamerica vs. northern Andes on the one

hand and Oto-Mangeuan vs. southern Andes on the other).

Mesoamerican languages other than Oto-Manguean occupy the upper central part of the plot. In this

area one finds the Mayan languages, Chimalapa Zoque, as well as the sampled Nahuatl varieties and

Pipil, which are somewhat more peripheral. Also, the Tequistlatecan varieties and San Francisco del

Mar Huave are integrated into this cluster. Together with Oto-Manguean, these languages indeed all

belong to the Mesoamerican language area as traditionally understood. Indeed, a third feature

pointing particularly to Oto-Manguean, dominance of VS order in transitive clauses (feature 54)

actually is a special case of a pan-Mesoamerican feature noted in Campbell et al.’s (1986) classic

study of Mesoamerica as a linguistic area, i.e., non-verb-final word order. Indeed, also core

Mesoamerica as a whole (including Oto-Manguean) is singled out by relevant features of our study,

namely the dominance of VS order also in intransitive clauses (feature 52), and, to a lesser degree

and not so much characterizing Oto-Manguean and more the remaining core Mesoamerican

languages, dominant VO order in transitive clauses (feature 55). Also, vigesimal numeral systems (75)

is a strong factor for languages to be plotted among the core Mesoamerican languages, and is also

recognized by Campbell et al. (1986) as area-defining. An unexpected positive identifier of

Mesoamerican languages is that clause-level negators precede the verb (feature 65). Of lesser

significance in our study is another Mesoamerican feature recognized by Campbell et al. (1986),

namely head marking in possessive phrases. Also relevant to a lesser degree is that numerals precede

their head nouns (63) and polypersonality (feature 34), both of which are properties also of other

languages in the sample, e.g. those of the Central Andes.

Xinca, just to the “south” of the sampled Nahuatl varieties, could be thought of as an areal-

typological link to the languages on the periphery of the Mesoamerican language area. These,

however, do not form a tight-knit cluster. While all occupy the lower central part of the network,

there are comparably larger distances between a group comprising Cuitlatec, Purepecha, and

Lowland Tarahumara, on the western and northwestern periphery on the one hand and another

group consisting of Salvadoran Lenca, Tol, Seri, Kiliwa, Ngäbere, and arguably Ulwa, which provides a

sort of typological link to Colombia, on the other. The latter group includes the languages on the

southern periphery of Mesoamerica geographically, but also Kiliwa and Seri which, on the basis of

their geographical location might have been expected to cluster with Lowland Tarahumara and

perhaps to a lesser degree also Cuitlatec and Purepecha. Within the group of languages on the

Mesoamerican periphery, there thus is no strong internal geographical patterning. Kaufman (1973:

474) notes differences in phonological complexity on the southern boundary of Mesoamerica in that

Mayan, Xincan, Lencan, but also Jicaquean are relatively complex while Paya, Sumu, and Matagalpa

have simple segmental phonologies. That these languages nevertheless are plotted in the same

general region and that Lencan and Jicaquean, in spite of the phonological similarities, do not cluster

23

with the Mesoamerican core suggests relatively strong areal effects in morphosyntactic rather than

phonological structure in this area.

Its position in the plot suggests that poorly documented Waikuri of Baja California could belong to

the loose group of languages of the Mesoamerican periphery, too, although apparently with more

affinities to the Oto-Manguean speaking mainland rather than to its immediate Yuman neighbors of

Baja Califorina (represented here by Kiliwa).

The loose typological affinities on the Mesoamerican periphery suggest a possible older geographical

signal when compared to the more tightly knit Mesoamerican language area, with larger time for

typological diversity to develop and fewer extralinguistic factors capable of triggering convergence. A

phylogenetic reconstruction of the typological relationships would be in order, though, to confirm

the visual impression from the multidimensional scaling plot.

What is somewhat unexpected is that some languages of the Mesoamerican periphery, namely

Lowland Tarahumara, Yaqui, and Salvadoran Lenca, show some affinities with a cluster of South

American languages on the right-hand side of the plot.

Otherwise, the clustering of South American languages on the right-hand side is one of the most

striking aspects of the plot. In summary, the South American part of the plot reflects geography as

well as broad (and hence, necessarily coarse) cultural divisions almost perfectly. It is worth discussing

this in some greater detail. In the upper part on the right-hand side, we observe a cluster of

languages that reflects the Central Andean linguistic area in Andean Peru and northwestern Bolivia,

in turn reflecting the Central Andean culture area: Jaqaru (Aymaran) and Huánuco Quechua are in

close association with Cholón. This does not mean that on a more detailed level of analysis significant

typological distance, in particular between Quechuan and Aymaran on the one hand and Cholón on

the other, is absent (Urban forthcoming a, cf. also the lowland affinities of Cholón detected by Van

Gijn 2014); however, it lends support to typological affinities in the Central Andes that go beyond

Quechuan and Aymaran. Further removed, above and to the left of the Central Andean group, one

finds the extinct Kunza (or Atacameño) language of the Atacama region in Chile and Mapudungun, a

language of wide geographical extension in Chile. Both Kunza and Mapudungun are known to have

some typological and lexical affinities with the Andes (e.g. Torero 2002; Adelaar 2003; Pache 2014),

though these are of a less obvious and looser nature than the degree of convergence within the

Central Andes more narrowly defined. Kunza and Mapudungun may accordingly be considered as

constituting the southern periphery of the Central Andes linguistically. Moving below the core of the

Central Andes as a linguistic area in the multidimensional scaling plot, one actually moves northward

in geographical space, across a long-standing cultural boundary, into the Northern Andes: closest

typologically to the Central Andes is the Barbacoan Chachi language of lowland Ecuador, then follows

its Barbacoan sister, Awa-Cuaiquer, spoken in the highland border region of Ecuador and Colombia.

Further below these in the plot is a cluster of Colombian languages, consisting of Páez and Chibcha

(also known as Muisca) in the highlands and Emberá (Chamí variety) and Waunana, Chocoan

languages of the Colombian Pacific lowlands (the latter two have connections with Pumé, a language

of the Orinoco basin, Pache 2016). Again, Ulwa, the Misumalpan language of Honduras, links the

Isthmo-Colombian area in the plot with the broad and areal-typologically weakly defined

Mesoamerican periphery.

24

Given the close geographical match between typology and geography that can be observed for

Andean South America, relevant features responsible for the plotting can be thought of as fanning

out from top to bottom in the plot (corresponding roughly to from south to north in the real

geography of South America). As one moves through geographical space, the relative weight and

importance of features gradually changes.

For the more southerly parts of the Andes, most significant features are the presence of valency-

changing suffixes (feature 39), placement of demonstratives before their head nouns (feature 61;

note that this is diametrically opposed to the Oto-Manguan preference for the reverse), and the

presence of codas (feature 13; again, the diametrically opposed Oto-Manguean languages show the

opposite preference). As one moves further north to Peru and Ecuador, features 67 (switch-

reference systems) and 30 (peripheral cases) gain in importance. The presence of the former has

been commented upon by Adelaar (2012: 610) as a feature of many languages of the area, and

peripheral cases are a staple of languages of the Central Andes (Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999; Urban

forthcoming a). Still moving further to the northern Andes of Colombia, again different features gain

relevancy. This is possessor-possessed (a. k. a. genitive-noun) order in possessive phrases (feature

57), a preference for suffixing in nominal morphology (feature 16), and SV order in intransitive

clauses (feature 53). Indeed, these are relevant features of Andean languages broadly. As Adelaar

(2012: 612) puts it, in the languages of the Andes “the rule that a modifier must precede its head in

noun phrases is generally adhered to.” This covers possessor-possessed order as well as

demonstrative-noun order (feature 61), identified as a relevant feature with particular reference to

the Southern Andes above). SV order in intransitive clauses is not only diametrically opposed to the

Mesoamerican preference for non-verb-final order, but is also in congruence with what has been said

on word order in languages of the Central Andes themselves (Constenla Umaña 1991: 106; also in

transitive clauses verb-final order is preferred, Adelaar 2012: 612).

Accordingly, the typological distance between languages in South America in particular appears to

correlate with geographical distance. But also aspects of the areas of the plot in which the more

northern languages of Mesoamerica surface can be thought of in similar terms, such as the relative

typological proximity between Kiliwa and Seri or between Tequistlatecan and Huavean. However, the

very clear geographical clustering in western South America, particularly on the north-south axis as

one moves from the Southern to the Northern Andes, is not reflected to the same extent in still more

northerly parts of the study area. Thus, the question arises as to whether geographical distance can

be said to reflect linguistic typological distance in the studied area as a whole.8 To answer this

question, we have first removed possible genealogical signals in our sample by retaining only one

randomly chosen language per language family, for a subset totalling 28 languages. In addition to the

families that are represented by only one family in the sample in the first place, for Uto-Aztecan, this

is Lowland Tarahumara; for Oto-Manguean, Western Highland Chatino; for Mayan, Mam; for

Tequistlatecan, Lowland Oaxaca Chontal; for Chibchan, Chibcha; for Chocoan, Woun Meu, and for

Barbacoan, Awa-Cuaiquer. We have then retrieved latitude and longitude for the sampled languages

8 Significant correlations between geographical and linguistic distances have been reported at global and regional levels in previous studies of lexical and phonemic variation (e.g. Belle and Barbujani 2007; Creanza et al. 2015; Reyes-Centeno et al. 2016).

25

from Hammarström et al. (2016) and computed a matrix of geographical distances in three steps.9

First, we computed Euclidean distances from the latitude and longitude data in order to make a

direct comparison with the Euclidean typological distances. Then, we computed geographical

distances using the Haverseine method for spherical shapes using the distHaversine function of the

geosphere R package (Hijmans et al. 2015). This approach provides a more realistic representation of

geographical space, considering a model of a spherical Earth. Thirdly, we computed a third matrix

under the Haversine method that considered only terrestrial distances between language points.

Under this model, the geographical distances between languages were forced along minimum

terrestrial distances, using Panama as a waypoint between Mesoamerica and South America, and

excluding distances across the oceans. Such an approach results in a longer geographical distance

between Mesoamerican and Andean languages and implies terrestrial rather than maritime paths for

language dispersion or language contact. We have then computed the correlation between this

matrix and the matrix of typological distance between the languages that was also used to create the

multidimensional scaling plot in Figure 1. The result is plotted in Figure 4.

Figure 4: correlation between linguistic and geographic distance of the investigated subset of the

sampled languages (r ≈ 0.22).

We observe a positive correlation between linguistic and geographic distance in all cases, irrespective

of the geographical model employed. Figure 3 shows the regression of the Euclidean linguistic and

geographic distances. In order to test the statistical significance between linguistic and geographical

distances, we applied Mantel tests as implemented in the mantel function of the vegan R package

(Oksansen et al. 2016).10 Because the geographical distance matrix values were not normally

distributed (Shapiro Wilk test W ≈ 0.94, p < 0.01), the non-parametric Spearman correlation

coefficient was chosen for the Mantel tests. Correlation results of linguistic distance and the different

9 Coordinates for Pochutec, Tol, and Waikuri, however, could not be retrieved from Hammarström et al. (2016) and were approximated after consultation of specialized literature (Bartholomew 1980; Holt 1999; Zamponi 2004). 10 Note that the appropriateness of the Mantel Test in the analysis of spatial relationships is, in spite of its popularity in this area of application, a matter of recent debate (e.g. Legendre and Fortin 2010; Guillot and Rousset 2013; Diniz-Filho et al. 2013; Legendre et al. 2015).

26

geographical distance measures were similar (r ≈ 0.22). On the basis of 10,000 permutations of the

matrix values, the relationship between linguistic and geographic distance was unlikely due to chance

(p ≈ 0.0054). Thus, we conclude that the typological profile of the sampled languages reflects the

(approximated) distance in geographical space between their speakers. While the correlation

between linguistic distance and geographical distance was slightly higher for a model considering

only terrestrial distances (r ≈ 0.222, p ≈ 0.003) than one considering marine distances (r ≈ 0.215, p ≈

0.007), the difference is not statistically significant (Dow-Cheverud test p1Z ≈ 0.12, p ≈ 0.12).

One crucial observation, however, still remains to be made. Actually running counter to this trend of

geography and linguistics being interrelated is the typological positioning of the Atacame and

Mochica languages of coastal Ecuador and Peru respectively. Rather than patterning with their

respective Andean subareas, both appear, typologically speaking, to pertain peripherally to

Mesoamerica. This confirms earlier statements to the same effect in the literature (Constenla Umaña

1991; Adelaar 2012). They are accordingly labeled as “coastal Andean outliers” in the plot. On the

other hand, there does not seem to be support from our typological data for another proposed

linguistic connection between Middle America and the Andes that involves Purepecha and Quechua

and/or Aymara (Swadesh 1956, 1967; Liedtke 1996).

Otherwise, a visual inspection of the multidimensional scaling plot does not reveal any obvious

signals that would imply the languages of the Pacific regions specifically in the overall typological

profile. Thus, for instance, the Waunana language of coastal Colombia patterns with its Colombian

neighbors according to geography as described above rather than with coastal languages to the

north or the south. The lack of a Pacific connection is also evident in the aforementioned Mantel test

results, where a model that included geographical distances along ocean paths was not significantly

more correlated to linguistic distances in comparison to a model that included only terrestrial paths.

This does not rule out the possibility that individual features would pattern in a manner that supports

the idea of a Pacific coast linguistic area (cf. Urban forthcoming c for the distribution of /f/). Neither

does it rule out the possibility of typological influence on a more restricted scale that affects

individual languages only, as the cases of Mochica and Atacame show. However, the evidence

suggests that whatever contact existed in prehispanic times along the Pacific coast was not strong

enough and/or not of the right kind to trigger large-scale linguistic convergence (cf. also Bellamy

2018).

It is difficult to test the accuracy of this informal evaluation in a more systematic and conclusive

manner. Sheer geographic distance to the coast is a very crude proxy in judging whether a language

should be considered “coastal” as it is a gradual rather than absolute measure. In Peru, for one, the

coastal deserts form a very narrow strip of low-altitude land following the coastline, and the Andes

may tower very highly already in a short distance of only 50 kilometres or so from the Pacific shores,

with radically different affordances. In addition, more significant than geographical distance is to

what degree speakers of these languages are connected to the coast in their subsistence base and

other (e.g., commercial or redistributive) activities. Relevant for the Central Andes in this context are

particularly the traditional patterns of economic organization in which kin-groups sought access to

resources specific to the different ecological zones of the Andes by establishing satellite settlements

at different altitudinal tiers (Murra 2002 [1972]). In addition, speakers of languages spoken (today)

somewhat in the interior may have maintained strong connections of various kinds to the coast at an

earlier point of time. One simple, though also far from ideal, way to proceed is to use the

approximate altitude at which languages are spoken as a slightly more natural measure of

27

“coastality” than absolute distance. We consider altitude to be a measure related to some extent to

the question of the Pacific coastal areas as a venue of language contact. We emphasize that this is

only a very rough assessment that is not without pitfalls, in particular because the sampled languages

such as Ulwa are not spoken at a very high altitude, but are on the Atlantic rather than Pacific side of

interior highlands. Nevertheless, we have retrieved the altitude for the approximate locations of our

sampled languages that we used earlier for exploring the relationship between geographic and

linguistic distance from https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm to assess, in a parallel

fashion, the relationship between altitude and linguistic distance.11 The data are plotted in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Correlation between altitude and linguistic distance of the sampled languages

To the extent that this evaluation is meaningful, then, it does confirm the visual impression from the

multidimensional scaling plot. The correlation between altitude and linguistic distance is even

negative (Spearman’s r ≈ -0.03) and clearly insignificant (p ≈ 0.64 by a Mantel test with 10,000

permutations). Linguistic contact along the Pacific coast as reflected in areal-typological features is

accordingly not supported on a larger scale (bearing in mind the deficiencies of the method we

presently employ). However, this does not exclude the possibility that individual languages, such as

Atacame and Mochica, reflect such contact events in their typological profile. Rather, there is a more

general geographical signal in the linguistic data across large distances as revealed by the correlation

of linguistic and geographical distance that, however, does not seem sensitive to possible maritime

routes in particular.

5 Evaluation and Conclusion This article set out to contribute to the growing number of areal-typological studies of indigenous

American languages. Based on new data that also include extinct and poorly documented languages

occupying key regions of the Americas such as coastal Ecuador, we sought to clarify three questions

in particular.

11 We have corrected the output of the website for Woun Meu, which gave an altitude of 21.7 metres below sea level, to zero.

28

The first question we sought to address is the relationship between the languages of the

Mesoamerican and Central Andean culture and language areas to those on the periphery of these

regions. Results differed for both regions: while some amount of geographical clustering could be

detected for the languages of the northwestern and southern Mesoamerican periphery, this

clustering was not tight-knit and did not always follow geographical parameters, with languages of

the (north-)western periphery patterning loosely with those of the southern one and vice versa. This

shows that there is a considerable degree of typological diversity in Middle and Central America

outside the Mesoamerican linguistic area proper. This still needs further study; in particular, we have

suggested a phylogenetic reconstruction by techniques such as Bayesian inference to explore the

Mesoamerican periphery in more detail in its own right in order to render our impressions more

solid. In contrast to this situation, the typology of the western South American languages both to the

north and to the south of the Central Andes showed strong geographical patterning, with typological

distance gradually increasing as one moves longitudinally across geographical space. This does not

mean that the Central Andes must be considered as a sort of typological pivot for the Andes as a

whole; one could make the same observations equally taking, say, the Northern Andes as a starting

point.

The second question we sought to explore is the possibility of old signals in the typological data that

might predate the rise of larger linguistic convergence zones in either Mesoamerica or the Central

Andes which set in at the earliest point, with the rise of complex societies in both regions. We have

already suggested that the typological diversity on the Mesoamerican periphery could be interpreted

as reflecting an older situation of structural heterogeneity from which Mesoamerica as a linguistic

area shot off. There are both aspects of typological continuity with Mesoamerica as a linguistic area

as well as ruptures, where the latter could be the result of the cultural developments and

interrelations that only developed within Mesoamerica. However, an uncritical projection of the

present-day areal-typological variation in Middle America into the past must be avoided for

methodological reasons. This again emphasizes the need for further study of the Mesoamerican

periphery in its own right, following the pioneering work of Constenla Umaña (1991). It is particularly

the continuities which are worth exploring further. For the Andes, we observe more gradual and less

abrupt changes. Likewise, the typological continuities with the Chaco, in particular as far as

phonology is concerned (Michael et al. 2014), can be seen as an instance of more general South

American affinities from which the Andean linguistic area, strongly influenced by the Quechuan-

Aymaran convergence, developed. It seems unlikely that any archaeologically known agent hailing

from the Andes such as the Wari, Tiahuanaco or Inca polities could have exerted sufficient influence

on the Chaco to trigger large-scale phonological continuities such as those that can be observed

(Urban forthcoming a). The same is true mutatis mutandis for the continuities that emerge between

Central and Northern Andes. The most parsimonious interpretation of these findings, then, appears

to be that they reflect a layer of affinities that predates the emergence of the Andean states of the

Middle and Late Horizon (ca. 600–1000 and 1470–1532 CE respectively), and possibly the emergence

of the Central Andean culture area as a whole.

However, we must caution that our study is focused strongly on the coastal and highland regions of

western South America, while we treat the relations across the Andes-Amazonian divide in a much

more cursory manner. Taking into account these relations in their full complexity would add

considerable intricacies to the picture. Krasnoukhova (2012), Birchall (2014) and Muysken et al.

(2014) demonstrate a possible continental South American east/west-divide, with western Amazonia

29

patterning with the Andes. It is likely that such effects, if genuine, are still older than the affinities

that are within our scope here; any such assessments, however, require careful consideration that

we cannot offer here. Also, as Urban (forthcoming a) argues, the Central Andes as a linguistic area

was likely not homogeneous, and there may have been a cluster of languages in the north-Central

Andes, both coast and highlands, that had features that allow to distinguish them from the

Quechuan and Aymaran-dominated southern part. Mochica, often called a typological outlier for the

Andes (and also called a “coastal Andean outlier” here by us), would have belonged to this subarea

and then accordingly have been less outlying than it appears to be now, with almost all relevant

northern languages extinct and insufficiently documented. Since Mochica is a crucial language in this

regard, these complexities are relevant also for the third question we sought to explore, namely the

possibility of areality in the Pacific lowland regions of Middle and South America, and possibly also

across these. We have not been able to detect such a signal in our data, even though earlier

suggestions regarding a partially “Mesoamerican” typological profile of Atacame in coastal Ecuador

and also Mochica could be confirmed. As we noted in Section 2, the regions where these languages

were spoken have exactly the right cultural background in prehistory that would make contacts with

Mesoamerica a possibility, making the linguistic findings even more conspicious in that evidence

from different disciplines appear to converge, hinting at connections between the implied areas in

material culture and language. At the same time, we caution to view these languages as

“Mesoamerican outliers” in South America simplicistically, as in particular for Mochica there is

evidence that suggests its integration into the Andes to a degree that needs consideration, too

(Urban forthcoming a, Urban forthcoming b; see also Jolkesky 2016).

References Abrahamson, Arne. 1962. Cayapa: Grammatical notes and texts. In Benjamin Elson (ed.), Studies in

Ecuadorian Indian languages, vol. 1 (Linguistic Series 6), 217–247. Norman: Summer Institute

of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Adelaar, Willem. 1995. Les catégories verbales ‘conjugaison’ et ‘genre’ dans les grammaires de la

langue chibcha. Amerindia 19/20. 173–182.

Adelaar, Willem F. H. 2003. Clasificación genética y tipológica del Atacameño. Paper presented at the

51st International Congress of Americanists, Santiago de Chile, 14th –18th July 2003.

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 2005. El esmeraldeño – un idioma de la costa del Ecuador. In Sabine

Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz (ed.), Contribuciones a las lenguas y culturas de los Andes.

Homenaje a Alfredo Torero (Bonner Amerikanistische Studien 42), 233–246. Aachen: Shaker.

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 2010. Trayectoria histórica de la familia lingüística quechua y sus relaciones con

la familia lingüística aimara. In Peter Kaulicke, Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Paul Heggarty &

David Beresford-Jones (eds.), Lenguas y sociedades en el antiguo Perú: Hacia un enfoque

interdisciplinario. [Special Issue]. Boletín de Arqueología 14. 239–254.

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 2012. Languages of the Middle Andes in areal-typological perspective: Emphasis

on Quechuan and Aymaran. In Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The indigenous

languages of South America: A comprehensive guide (The World of Linguistics 2), 575–624.

Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Adelaar, Willem F.H., with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30

Aguilera F., Oscar E. 2001. Gramática de la lengua kawésqar. Temuco: Corporación Nacional de

Desarollo Indígena.

Aguirre Licht, Daniel. 1999. Embera (Languages of the World/Materials 208). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Aguirre Licht, Daniel. 2009. Choco languages. In Keith Brown & Sarah Ogilvie (eds.), Concise

encyclopedia of languages of the world, 224–238. Oxford: Elsevier.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Languages of the Pacific Coast of South America. In Osahito Miyaoka,

Osamu Sakiyama & Michael E. Krauss (eds.), The vanishing languages of the Pacific Rim, 183–

205. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid. 2005. Eighteenth-century Cholón (LOT Dissertation Series 120). Utrecht:

LOT.

Alphonse, Ephraim S. 1956. Guaymí grammar and dictionary with some ethnological notes.

Washington: United States Government Printing Office.

Anawalt, Patricia Rieff. 1992. Ancient cultural contacts between Ecuador, West Mexico, and the

American Southwest: Clothing similarities. Latin American Antiquity 3(2). 114–129.

Anonymous. 1868 [~1605]. 2.a parte de la descripción de Guayaquil, en que se trata de la ciudad de

Puerto Viejo y su distrito. In D. Luis Torres de Mendoza (ed.), Colleción de documentos

inéditos, relativos al descubrimiento, conquista, y organización de las antiguas posesiones

españolas de América y Oceanía, sacados de los archivos del reino, y muy especialmente del

de Indias, vol. ix, 276–309. Madrid: Frias y Compañía.

Anonymous. 1987. ‘Diccionario y gramática chibcha’. Manuscrito anónimo de la Biblioteca Nacional

de Colombia. [Ed. by María Stella González de Pérez]. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Augusta, Felix José de. 1996 [1916]. Diccionario araucano–español y español–araucano, vol. 1:

Araucano–español. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Cerro Manquehue.

Auwera, Johan van der. 2011. Standard Average European. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der

Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide (The World of

Linguistics 1), 291–306. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Bartholomew, Doris. 1980. Otomanguean influence on Pochutla Aztec. International Journal of

American Linguistics 46(2). 106–116.

Beam de Azcona, Rosemary Grace. 2004. A Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec grammar (Mexico). Berkeley:

University of California, Berkeley dissertation.

Bellamy, Kate. 2018. Investigating interaction between South America and West Mexico through the

lexicon of metallurgy. In Rune Iversen & Guus Kroonen (eds.), Digging for words.

Archaeolinguistic case studies from the XV Nordic Tag Conference held at the University of

Copenhagen, 16–18 April 2015 (BAR International Series 2888), 1–19. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols 2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of Linguistic areas.

Berkeley Linguistics Society 32(2). 3–15.

Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Verbal argument marking patterns in South American languages. In Loretta

O’Connor & Pieter Muysken (eds.), The native languages of South America. Origins,

development, typology, 223–249. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blench, Roger. 2012. Two vanished African maritime traditions and a parallel from South America.

African Archaeological Review 29. 273–292.

Boas, Franz. 1917. El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca. International Journal of American

Linguistics 1(1). 9–44.

Bodner, Martin, Ugo A. Perego, Gabriela Huber, Liane Fendt, Alexander W. Röck, Bettina

Zimmermann, Anna Olivieri, Alberto Gómez-Carballa, Hovirag Lancioni, Norman Angerhofer,

Maria Cecilia Bobillo, Daniel Corach, Scott R. Woodward, Antonio Salas, Alessandro Achilli,

31

Antonio Torroni, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt & Walther Parson. 2012. Rapid coastal spread of First

Americans: Novel insights from South America’s Southern Cone mitochondrial genomes.

Genome Research 22(5). 811–820.

Bradley, C. Henry. 1970. A linguistic sketch of Jicaltepec Mixtec. Norman: Summer Institute of

Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Braje, Todd J., Tom D. Dillehay, Jon M. Erlandson, Richard G. Klein & Torben C. Rick. Finding the first

Americans. Science 358. 592–594.

Brand, Donald D. 1943. An historical sketch of geography and anthropology in the Tarascan region:

Part I. New Mexico Anthropologist 6/7(2). 37–108.

Brown, Cecil H. 2011. The role of Nahuatl in the formation of Mesoamerica as a linguistic area.

Language Dynamics and Change 1. 171–204.

Burgess, Don. 1984. Western Tarahumara. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan

grammar, vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, 2–149. Dallas: Summer

Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.

Calvache Dueñas, Rocío. 2000. Fonología y aproximación a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. In María

Stella González de Pérez & María Luisa Rodríguez de Montes (eds.), Lenguas Indígenas de

Colombia. Una visión descriptiva, 97–116. Santafé de Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Campbell, Lyle. 1972. Mayan loan words in Xinca. International Journal of American Linguistics 38(3).

187–190.

Campbell, Lyle Richard. 1976a. The last Lenca. International Journal of American Linguistics 42(1).

73–78.

Campbell, Lyle. 1976b. The linguistic prehistory of the Southern Mesoamerican periphery. In Las

fronteras de Mesoamérica. XIV Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, vol

1, 157–183. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Campbell, Lyle. 1979. Middle American languages. In Lyle Campbell & Marianne Mithun (eds.), The

languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment, 902–1000. Austin &

London: University of Texas Press.

Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador (Mouton Grammar Library 1). Berlin & New

York: Mouton.

Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages. The historical linguistics of Native America (Oxford

Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). New York: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, Lyle. 2012. Typological characteristics of South American indigenous languages. In Lyle

Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America: A

comprehensive guide (The World of Linguistics 2), 259–330. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Campbell, Lyle & Terrence Kaufman. 1976. A linguistic look at the Olmecs. American Antiquity 41(1).

80–89.

Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Mesoamerica as a linguistic area.

Language 62(3). 530–570.

Carter, Benjamin P. 2011. Spondylus in South American prehistory. In: Fotis Ifantidis and Marianna

Nikolaidou (eds.), Spondylus in prehistory. New data and approaches. Contributions to the

archaeology of shell technologies (BAR International Series 2216), 63–89. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

Castillo i Orosco, Eujenio del & Ezequiel Uricoechea. 1968 [1877]. Vocabulario páez–castellano,

catecismo, nociones gramaticales i dos pláticas, conforme a lo que escribió el señor Eujenio

32

del Castillo i Orosco, Cura de Tálaga, con adiciones, correcciones i un vocabulario castellano–

páez por Ezequiel Uricoechea. Nendeln & Liechtenstein: Klaus reprint.

Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1995. La lengua de Naimlap (reconstrucción y obsolescencia del mochica).

Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Chamoreau, Claudine. 2000. Grammaire du Purépecha, parlé sur les îles de Patzcuaro (Lincom Studies

in Native American Linguistics 34). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Chamoreau, Claudine. Forthcoming. Purepecha: An isolate non-Mesoamerican language in

Mesoamerica. In: Søren Wichmann (ed.), The languages and linguistics of Middle and Central

America: A comprehensive guide (The World of Linguistics 12). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Clairis, Christos. 1985. El Qawasqar. Lingüística fueguina, teoría y descripción. Valdivia: Universidad

Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades,

Colville, Jeffrey Keith. 1986. The structure of Mesoamerican numeral systems with a comparison to

non-mesoamerican systems. New Orleans: Tulane University dissertation.

Comrie, Bernard. 2013a. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew S. Dryer &

Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/98 (last accessed 29 March

2018).

Comrie, Bernard. 2013b. Numeral bases. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World

Atlas of Language Structures. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

http://wals.info/chapter/131 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Constenla, Adolfo. 1981. Comparative Chibchan Phonology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

dissertation.

Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1991. Las lenguas del area intermedia: Introducción a su estudio areal. San

José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.

Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1992/1993. Las lenguas de la Gran Nicoya. Vinculos 18/19. 191–208.

Cook, Noble David. 1981. Demographic collapse. Indian Peru, 1520–1620 (Cambridge Latin American

Studies 41). Cambridge & London: Cambridge University Press.

Cordy-Collins, Alana. 1994. An unshaggy dog story: A bizarre canine is living evidence of prehistoric

contact between Mexico and Peru. Natural History 103(2). 34–41.

Creanza Nicole, Merritt Ruhlen, Trevor J. Pemberton, Noah A. Rosenberg, Marcus W. Feldman &

Sohini Ramachandran. 2015. A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in

human populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5). 1265–1272.

Crevels, Mily & Hein van der Voort. 2008. The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area. In Pieter

Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics (Studies in Language Companion

series 90), 151–179. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of south-

western Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.

Cysouw, Michael. 2013. Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent pronouns. In Matthew S. Dryer

& Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max

Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/39 (last accessed 29

March 2018).

Dedrick, John M. & Eugene H. Casad. 1999. Sonora Yaqui language structures. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press.

Del Río Urrutia, Ximena. 1999. El Lenca de Chilanga. Filología y Lingüística 25(1). 193–209.

33

Dennis, Ronald K. & Margaret Royce de Dennis. 1983. Diccionario tol (jícaque)–español y español–tol

(Jícaque). Tegucigalpa: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano & Instituto Hondureño de

Antropología e Historia.

Diniz-Filho, José Alexandre F., Thannya N. Soares, Jacqueline S. Lima, Ricardo Dobrovolski, Victor

Lemes Landeiro, Mariana Pires de Campos Telles, Thiago F. Rangel & Luis Mauricio Bini. 2013.

Mantel test in population genetics. Genetics and Molecular Biology 36(4). 475–485.

Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 1999. Introduction. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y.

Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 1–21.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donohue, Mark, Simon Musgrave, Bronwen Whiting & Søren Wichmann. 2011. Typological feature

analysis models linguistic geography. Language 87(2). 369–383.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic

description, 2nd edn., vol. 1: Clause structure, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013a. Negative morphemes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.),

The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/112 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013b. Order of adjective and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath

(eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/87 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013c. Order of demonstrative and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/88 (last accessed 29 March

2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013d. Order of genitive and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath

(eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/86 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013e. Order of numeral and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath

(eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/89 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013f. Order of subject and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath

(eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/82 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013g. Order of subject, object and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/81 (last accessed 29 March

2018).

Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.

Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/ (last accessed

29 March 2018).

Edwards, Clinton R. 1965. Aboriginal watercraft of the Pacific coast of South America. (Ibero-

Americana 47). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Elías Ortiz, Sergio. 1946. Los Indios Yurumanguies. Acta Americana 4. 10–25.

Emlen, Nicholas Q. 2017. Perspectives on the Quechua-Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon

and phonology of pre-proto-Aymara. International Journal of American Linguistics 83(2).

307–340.

34

England, Nora C. 1983. A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language (Texas Linguistics Series). Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Epps, Patience. 2016. South American languages. In Claire Bowern, Patience Epps, Jane Hill & Patrick

McConvell (eds.), Languages of hunter-gatherers and their neighbors: Database.

https://huntergatherer.la.utexas.edu (last accessed 20 May 2018).

Epps, Patience. forthcoming. Amazonian linguistic diversity and its sociocultural correlates. In Mily

Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Language dispersal, diversification, and contact: A global

perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes & Robert S.

Steneck. 2007. The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine ecology, the coastal migration theory,

and the peopling of the Americas. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2(2). 161–174.

Escalante Hernández, Roberto. 1962. El Cuitlateco (Publicaciones, Departamento de Investigaciones

Antropológicas 9). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Gálvez Astorayme, Isabel. 2003 [1999]. Evidencias quechuas en el léxico de ‘cultivo’ de Caral-Supe. In

Ruth Shady & Carlos Leyva (eds.), La ciudad sagrada de Caral-Supe: Los orígines de la

civilización andina y la formación del estado prístino en el antiguo Perú, 313–314. Lima:

Instituto Nacional de Cultura.

Gijn, Rik van. 2014. The Andean foothills and adjacent Amazonian fringe. In Loretta O’Connor &

Pieter Muysken (eds.), The native languages of South America. Origins, development,

typology, 102–125. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gil, David. 2013. Numeral classifiers. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World

Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/55 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Goebel, Ted, Michael R. Waters & Dennis H. O’Rourke. 2008. The late Pleistocene dispersal of

modern humans in the Americas. Science 319. 1497–1502.

Gómez Rendón, Jorge. 2011. Deslindes lingüísticos en las tierras bajas del pacífico ecuatoriano.

Primera parte. Antropología. Cuadernos de Investigación 10. 1–31.

Green, Thomas Michael. 1999. A lexicographic study of Ulwa. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology dissertation.

Greenacre, Michael. 2010. Biplots in practice. Bilbao & Madrid: Fundación BBVA.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. The general classification of Central and South American languages. In

Anthony F.C. Wallace (ed.), Men and cultures: Selected papers of the 5th International

Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 791–794. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Guillot, Gilles & François Rousset. 2013. Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods in Ecology and

Evolution 4(4). 336–344.

Hajek, John. 2013. Vowel nasalization. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World

Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/10 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2016. Glottolog 2.7.

Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://glottolog.org (last

accessed 29 March 2018).

Hardman, M.J. 2000. Jaqaru (Languages of the World/Materials 183). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Occurrence of nominal plurality. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin

35

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/34 (last accessed 29 March 2018).

Heggarty, Paul & David Beresford-Jones (eds.). 2012. Archaeology and language in the Andes. A

cross-disciplinary exploration of prehistory (Proceedings of the British Academy 173). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hendrichs, P. R. 1939. Un estudio preliminar sobre la lengua cuitlateca de San Miguel Totolapan, Gro.

El México Antiguo 4. 329–362.

Hijmans Robert J., Ed Williams, & Chris Vennes 2015. Geosphere: Spherical trigonometry. R Package,

version 1.5-1.

Hinkle Dennis E., William Wiersma & Stephen G. Jurs. 2003. Applied statistics for the behavioral

sciences, 5 edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hocquenghem, Anne-Marie. 1998. Para vencer la muerte. Piura y Tumbes. Raíces en el bosque seco y

en la selva alta – Horizontes en el Pacífico y en la Amazonia (Travaux de l’Insitut Français

d’Études Andines 109). Lima: Centro Nacional de la Investigación Científica, Instituto Francés

de Estudios Andinos & Instituto de la Naturaleza y el Conocimiento Ambiental Humano.

Hofling, Charles Andrew, with Félix Fernando Tesucún. 1997. Itzaj Maya–Spanish–English dictionary =

Diccionario maya itzaj–espanol–ingles. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Hofling, Charles Andrew, with Félix Fernando Tesucún. 2000. Itzaj Maya grammar. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press.

Holmer, Nils M. 1963. Gramatica comparada de un dialecto del Choco (con textos, índice y

vocabulario. Etnologiska Studier 26. 79–248.

Holt, Dennis. 1999. Tol (Jicaque) (Languages of the World/Materials 170). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Hosler, Dorothy. 1994. The sounds and colors of power: The sacred metallurgical technology of

ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

Hosler, Dorothy. 2009. West Mexican metallurgy: Revisited and revised. Journal of World Prehistory

22. 185–212.

Hovdhaugen, Even. 2004. Mochica (Languages of the World/Materials 433). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ixchajchal Batz, Estanislao Augusto, Luis Mateo Cumez & Candelaria Dominga López Ixcoy. 1996.

Gramática del idioma k’iche’. La Antigua Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco

Marroquín.

Johnson, Heidi Anna. 2000. A grammar of San Miguel Chimalapa Zoque. Austin: University of Texas at

Austin dissertation.

Jolkesky, Marcelo Pinho de Valhery. 2016. Estudo arqueo-ecolinguístico das terras tropicais sul-

americanas [Archaeo-ecolinguistic study of the tropical lands of South America]. Brasília:

Universidade de Brasília dissertation.

Jung, Ingrid. 2008. Gramática del páez o nasa yuwe. Descripción de una lengua indígena de Colombia

(Languages of the World/Materials 469). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1973. Areal linguistics and Middle America. In Thomas A. Sebeok, Henry M.

Hoenigswald & Robert E. Longacre, with the assistance of Alexandra Ramsay di Luglio & Lucia Hadd

Zoercher (eds.), Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (Current Trends in Linguistics

11), 459-483. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.

Kaufman, Terrence. 2007. Meso-America. In R. E. Asher & Christopher Moseley (eds.), Atlas of the

world’s languages, 2nd edn., 47–57. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

Kaulicke, Peter, Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Paul Heggarty & David Beresford-Jones (eds.). 2010.

Lenguas y sociedades en el antiguo Perú: Hacia un enfoque interdisciplinario. [Special Issue].

Boletín de Arqueología 14.

36

Kim, Yuni. 2008. Topics in the phonology and morphology of San Francisco del Mar Huave. Berkeley:

University of California, Berkeley dissertation.

Kirchhoff, Paul. 1960 [1943]. Mesoamérica: sus límites geográficos, composición étnica y caracteres

Culturales (Tlatoani Supplemento 3). México: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Kirk, David B. 1973. On the numerical approximation of the bivariate normal (tetrachoric) correlation

coefficient. Psychometrika 38. 259–268.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages. An areal

typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic

languages. Typology and contact, vol. 2: Grammar and typology (Studies in Language

Companion Series 55), 615–750. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America (LOT Dissertation

Series 301). Utrecht: LOT.

Larsen, Thomas Walter. 1988. Manifestations of ergativity in Quiché grammar. Berkeley: University

of California, Berkeley dissertation.

Laylander, Don. 1997. The linguistic prehistory of Baja California. In Gary S. Breschini & Trudy

Haversat (eds.), Contributions to the linguistic prehistory of Central and Baja California

(Archives of California Prehistory 44), 1–94. Salinas: Coyote Press.

LeCron Foster, Mary. 1969. The Tarascan Language. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California

Press.

Legendre, Pierre & Marie-Josée Fortin. 2010. Comparison of the Mantel test and alternative

approaches for detecting complex multivariate relationships in the spatial analysis of genetic

data. Molecular Ecology Resources 10(5). 831–844.

Legendre, Pierre, Marie-Josée Fortin & Daniel Borcard. 2015. Should the Mantel test be used in

spatial analysis? Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6(11). 1239–1247.

Lehmann, Walter. 1920. Zentral-Amerika. Teil 1: Die Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas in ihren Beziehungen

zueinander sowie zu Süd-Amerika und Mexiko. Berlin: Verlag Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen).

Liedtke, Stefan. 1996. The languages of the ‘first nations’. Comparison of Native American languages

from an ethnolinguistic perspective (Lincom Handbooks in Linguistics 1). Munich &

Newcastle: Lincom Europa.

Lindskoog, John N. & Ruth M. Brend. 1962. Cayapa phonemics. In Benjamin Elson (ed.), Studies in

Ecuadorian Indian languages, vol. 1 (Linguistic Series 6), 31–44. Norman: Summer Institute of

Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.

Lindskoog, John N. & Carrie A. Lindskoog. 1964. Vocabulario cayapa (Vocabularios Indígenas 9).

Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano en cooperación con el Ministerio de Educación Publica.

Llamas, Bastien, Lars Fehren-Schmitz, Guido Valverde, Julien Soubrier, Swapan Mallick, Nadin

Rohland, Susanne Nordenfelt, Cristina Valdiosera, Stephen M. Richards, Adam Rohrlach,

Maria Inés Barreto Romero, Isabel Flores Espinoza, Elsa Tomasto Cagigao, Lucía Watson

Jiménez, Krzysztof Makowski, Ilán Santiago Leboreiro Reyna, Josefina Mansilla Lory, Julio

Alejandro Ballivián Torrez, Mario A. Rivera, Richard L. Burger, Maria Constanza Ceruti, Johan

Reinhard, R. Spencer Wells, Gustavo Politis, Calogero M. Santoro, Vivien G. Standen, Colin

Smith, David Reich, Simon Y. W. Ho, Alan Cooper & Wolfgang Haak. 2016. Ancient

mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas.

Science Advances 2(4). e1501385. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501385

(last accessed 20 May 2018).

Loewen, Jacob Abram. 1954. Waunana grammar: A descriptive analysis. Seattle: University of

Washington MA Thesis.

37

Longobardi, Giuseppe & Cristina Guardiano. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical

relatedness. Lingua 119(11). 1679–1706.

Lugo, Bernardo de. 1978 [1619]. Gramática de la lengua general del Nuevo Reyno, llamada mosca.

Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación.

Lumholtz, Carl. 1902. Unknown Mexico: A record of five years’ exploration among the tribes of the

western Sierra Madre; in the tierra caliente of Tepic and Jalisco; and among the Tarascos of

Michoacán, vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Maddieson, Ian. 2013a. Glottalized consonants. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The

World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/7 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Maddieson, Ian. 2013b. Uvular consonants. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The

World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/6 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Maddieson, Ian, Heriberto Avelino & Loretta O'Connor. 2009. The phonetic structures of Oaxaca

Chontal. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(1). 69–101.

Marcos, Jorge G. 1977/1978. Cruising to Acapulco and back with the thorny oyster set: A model for a

lineal exchange system. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 9(1/2). 99–132.

Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. San Diego: University of California, San Diego

dissertation.

McQuown, Norman A. 1941. La fonémica del cuitlateco. El México Antiguo 5. 239–254.

Mejía Fonnegra, Gustavo. 2000. Presentación y descripción fonológica y morfosintáctica del

waunana. In María Stella González de Pérez & María Luisa Rodríguez de Montes (eds.),

Lenguas Indígenas de Colombia. Una visión descriptiva, 85–96. Santafé de Bogotá: Instituto

Caro y Cuervo.

Michael, Lev, Will Chang & Tammy Stark. 2014. Exploring phonological areality in the circum-Andean

region using a naive Bayes classifier. Language Dynamics and Change 4(1). 27–86.

Miller, Wick R. 1983. A note on extinct languages of Northwest Mexico of supposed Uto-Aztecan

affiliation. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(3). 328–334.

Mixco, Mauricio Jesús. 1971. Kiliwa grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley

dissertation.

Mixco, Mauricio J. 1985. Kiliwa dictionary (Anthropological Papers 109). Salt Lake City: University of

Utah.

Mixco, Mauricio J. 2000. Kiliwa (Languages of the World/Materials 193). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Moseley, Michael E. 1975. The maritime foundations of Andean civilization. Menlo Park: Cummings.

Moser, Mary & Esteban Marlett. 1994. El desarrollo de clases nominales en seri. In Gerardo López

Cruz & José Luis Moctezuma Zamarrón (eds.), Estudios de lingüística y sociolingüística, 97–

105. Hermosillo: Departamento de Letras y Lingüística, División de Humanidades y Bellas

Artes, Universidad de Sonora, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Moser, Mary Beck, with the collaboration of Stephen Marlett. 1995. Seri de Sonora (Archivo de

Lenguas Indígenas de México 19). Mexico, D. F.: El Colegio de México.

Moser, Mary Beck & Stephen A. Marlett. 2004. Comcáac quih yaza quih hant ihíip hac. Cmiique

Iitom–Cocsar Iitom–Maricáana Iitom. Diccionario seri–español–inglés. Con índices español–

seri, inglés–seri, y con gramática. Hermosillo & México, D.F.: Universidad de Sonora,

Maestría en Lingüística, Centro de las Artes, Rosales y Luis Donaldo Colosio & Plaza y Valdés

Editores.

Murra, John V. 2002 [1972]. El control vertical de un máximo de pisos ecológicos en la economía de

38

las sociedades andinas. In El mundo andino: Población, medio ambiente y economía (Historia

Andina 24), 85–125. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Fondo Editorial de la Pontifícia

Universidad Católica del Perú.

Muysken, Pieter, Harald Hammarström, Joshua Birchall, Swintha Danielsen, Love Eriksen, Ana Vilacy

Galucio, Rik van Gijn, Simon van de Kerke, Vishnupraya Kolipakam, Olga Krasnoukhova, Neele

Müller & Loretta O’Connor. 2014. The languages of South America: Deep families, areal

relationships, and language contact. In Loretta O’Connor & Pieter Muysken (eds.), The native

languages of South America.Origins, development, typology, 299–322. Cambridge & New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Muysken, Pieter, Harald Hammarström, Joshua Birchall, Rik van Gijn, Olga Krasnoukhova & Neele

Müller. 2015. Linguistic areas, bottom-up or top-down? The case of the Guaporé-Mamoré. In

Bernard Comrie & Lucía Golluscio (eds.), Language contact and documentation/Contacto

lingüístico y documentación, 205–237. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Nardi, Ricardo L. J. 1979. El kakán, lengua de los Diaguitas. Sapiens 3. 1–33.

Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119.

Nichols, Johanna. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language

66(3). 475–521.

Nichols, Johanna. 2002. The first American languages. In Nina G. Jablonski (ed.), The first Americans:

The Pleistocene colonization of the New World (Wattis Symposium Series in Anthropology,

Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 27), 273–293. San Francisco: California

Academy of Sciences.

Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In: Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda

(eds.): The handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

Nichols, Johanna. 2010. Indeterminate motion verbs are denominal. In: Victoria Hasko & Renee

Perelmutter (eds.), New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion (Studies in Language

Companion Series 115), 47–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Nichols, Johanna & David A. Peterson. 1996. The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72(2). 336–

371.

Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2013a. Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases. In Matthew

S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig:

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/24 (last

accessed 3 April 2018).

Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2013b. Possessive classes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/24 (last accessed 3 April

2018).

Nichols, Lynn & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Lexical derivational properties resist diffusion. Paper

presented at the Workshop on Language Contact and Morphosyntactic Variation and

Change, Seventh Biennial Conference of the Association of Linguistic Typology 2007, Paris.

O’Connor, Loretta. 2007. Motion, transfer and transformation. The grammar of change in Lowland

Chontal (Studies in Language Companion Series 95). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

O’Connor, Loretta. 2014. Structural features and language contact in the Isthmo-Colombian area. In Loretta O’Connor & Pieter Muysken (eds.), The native languages of South America. Origins, development, typology, 73–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39

O’Connor, Loretta & Peter C. Kroefges. 2008. The land remembers: landscape terms and placenames in Lowland Chontal of Oaxaca, Mexico. Language Sciences 30(2/3). 291–315.

O’Fallon, Brendan D. & Lars Fehren-Schmitz. 2011. Native Americans experienced a strong population bottleneck coincident with European contact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(51). 20444–20448.

Oksanen, Jari, F. Guillaume Blanchet, Roeland Kindt, Pierre Legendre, Peter R. Minchin, R. B. O’Hara,

Gavin L. Simpson, Peter Solymos, M. Henry H. Stevens & Helene Wagner. 2016. The vegan

community ecology package. R Package, version 1.5-1.

Ostler, Nicholas. 1993. Cases, directionals and conjunctions in Chibcha. Estudios de Lingüística

Chibcha 12. 7–33.

Ostler, Nicholas. 1994. Syntactic typology of Muisca – a sketch. In Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon &

Mario Daniel Martín (eds.), Language in the Andes (Occasional Monographs in Latin

American Studies 4), 205–30. Newark, Delaware: Latin American Studies Program, University

of Delaware.

Overall, Simon E. 2007. A grammar of Aguaruna. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation.Pache,

Matthias. 2014. Lexical evidence for pre-Inca language contact of Mapudungun (Mapuche)

with Quechuan and Aymaran. Journal of Language Contact 7(2). 345–379.

Pache, Matthias. 2015. Morphosyntactic properties of Chibchan verbal person marking. Linguistic

Discovery 13(2). 80–95.

Pache, Matthias. 2016. Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan. Evidence for a new genealogical link in northern

South America. Language Dynamics and Change 6(1). 99–155.

Pache, Matthias. 2018. Lengua X: An Andean puzzle. International Journal of American Linguistics

84(2). 265–285.

Paulsen, Allison C. 1974. The thorny oyster and the voice of god: Spondylus and strombus in Andean

prehistory. American Antiquity 39(4). 597–607.

Perego, Ugo A., Alessandro Achilli, Norman Angerhofer, Matteo Accetturo, Maria Pala, Anna Olivieri,

Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Kathleen H. Ritchie, Rosaria Scozzari, Qing-Peng Kong, Natalie M.

Myres, Antonio Salas, Ornella Semino, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Scott R. Woodward & Antonio

Torroni. 2009. Distinctive Paleo-Indian migration routes from Beringia marked by two rare

mtDNA Haplogroups. Current Biology 19(1). 1–8.

Pérez Alonso, Juventino de Jesús et al. N.d. Pujb'il Yol Mam. Diccionario bilingüe mam–español. [N.

p.]: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.

Peyró García, Miguel. 2005. Estructuras gramaticales en el glosario de la lengua atacameña (1896).

Liames 5. 25–42.

Pickett, Velma. 2007. Vocabulario zapoteco del Istmo. Español–zapoteco y zapoteco–español, 5th

edn. Tlalpan, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Pickett, Velma B., Cheryl Black & Vicente Marcial Cerqueda. 1998. Gramatica popular del zapoteco

del Istmo. Juchitán & Tucson: Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Binnizá & Instituto

Lingüístico de Verano.

Pickett, Velma B., María Villalobos Villalobos & Stephen A. Marlett. 2010. Isthmus (Juchitán) Zapotec.

Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40(3). 365–372.

Pollard, Helen Perlstein. 1997. Recent research in West Mexican archaeology. Journal of

Archaeological Research 5(4). 345–384.

Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Ángel. 2008. Gramática de la lengua guaymí (ngäbe) (Languages of the

World/Materials 474). Munich: Lincom Europa.

Quinto-Cortés, Consuelo D., Luis A. Arriola, Gianella García-Hughes, Rodrigo García-López, Diana P.

40

Molina, Margarita Flores, Rafael Palacios & Daniel Piñero. 2010. Genetic characterization of

indigenous peoples from Oaxaca, Mexico, and its relation to linguistic and geographic

isolation. Human Biology 82(4). 409–432.

Quirós Rodríguez, Juan Santiago. 1985. Observaciones sobre la tipología de la lengua chorotega o

mangue. Filología y Lingüística 11(2). 93–97.

R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation

for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (last accessed 20 May 2018).

Rasch, Jeffrey Walter. 2002. The basic morpho-syntax of Yaitepec Chatino. Houston: Rice University

dissertation.

Revelle William R. 2017. Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. R Package,

version 1.5-8.

Reyes-Centeno, Hugo, Katerina Harvati & Gerhard Jäger. 2016. Tracking modern human population

history from linguistic and cranial phenotype. Scientific Reports 6. 36645.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36645 (last accessed 20 May 2018).

Roberts, Ian. 2017. Harmony, symmetry, and dominance in word order universals. In Michelle

Sheehan, Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts & Anders Holmberg (eds.), The Final-over-Final condition: A

syntactic universal (Linguistic Inquiry monographs, 76), 27–42. Cambridge, MA & London:

MIT Press.

Roewer, Lutz, Michael Nothnagel, Leonor Gusmão, Veronica Gomes, Miguel González, Daniel Corach,

Andrea Sala, Evguenia Alechine, Teresinha Palha, Ney Santos, Andrea Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Maria

Geppert, Sascha Willuweit, Marion Nagy, Sarah Zweynert, Miriam Baeta, Carolina Núñez,

Begoña Martínez-Jarreta, Fabricio González-Andrade, Elizeu Fagundes de Carvalho, Dayse

Aparecida da Silva, Juan José Builes, Daniel Turbón, Ana Maria Lopez Parra, Eduardo Arroyo-

Pardo, Ulises Toscanini, Lisbeth Borjas, Claudia Barletta, Elizabeth Ewart, Sidney Santos &

Michael Krawczak. 2013. Continent-wide decoupling of Y-Chromosomal genetic variation

from language and geography in Native South Americans. PLoS Genetics 9(4). e1003460.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003460 (last

accessed 20 May 2018).

Romoli, Kathleen. 1987. Los de la lengua de Cueva. Los grupos indígenas del istmo oriental en la

época de la conquista española. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología & Instituto

Colombiano de Cultura.

Rowe, John Howland. 1950. The Idabaez: unknown Indians of the Chocó coast. Kroeber

Anthropological Society Papers 1. 34–44

Rubino, Carl. 2013. Reduplication. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas

of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

http://wals.info/chapter/27 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Sachse, Frauke. 2010. Reconstructive description of eighteenth-century Xinka grammar (LOT

Dissertation Series 254). Utrecht: LOT.

Sadowsky, Scott, Héctor Painequeo, Gastón Salamanca & Heriberto Avelino. 2013. Illustrations of the

IPA: Mapudungun. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(1). 87–96.

Sáez Godoy, Leopoldo, et al. 1974. Diccionario español–kunsa, kunsa–español. Valparaíso:

Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.

Salas García, José Antonio. 2002. Diccionario mochica–castellano. Lima: Universidad de San Martín

de Porres, Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hotelería.

Salomon, Frank. 1977/1978. Pochteca and Mindalá: A comparison of long-distance traders in Ecuador

and Mesoamerica. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 9(1/2). 231–247.

41

Seler, Eduard. 1902. Die Sprache der Indianer von Esmeraldas. In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur

Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, vol. 1: Sprachliches.Bilderschriften. Kalender

und Hieroglyphenentzifferung, 49–64. Berlin: A. Asher & Co.

Shady Solis, Ruth. 2008. America’s first city? The case of late Archaic Caral. [Trans. by Catherine M.

Bencic]. In William H. Isbell & Helaine Silverman (eds.), Andean Archaeology III: North and

south, 28–66. New York: Springer.

Siewierska, Anna. 2013a. Alignment of verbal person marking. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin

Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/100 (last accessed 3 April

2018).

Siewierska, Anna. 2013b. Passive constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The

World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/107 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Siewierska, Anna. 2013c. Verbal person marking. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.),

The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/102 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Sischo, William R. 1979. Michoacán Nahuatl. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan

grammar, vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, 307–380. Dallas: Summer

Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.

Slocum, Marianna C. & Florence L. Gerdel. 1983. Diccionario páez–español, español–páez. Lomalinda

& Meta: Editorial Townsend.

Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche (Mouton Grammar Library 41). Berlin & New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Smith, Michael E. 1977/1978. A model for the diffusion of the shaft tomb complex from South

America to West Mexico. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 9(1/2). 179–204.

Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1994. Mesoamerican calques. In Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez

(eds.), Investigaciones lingüisticas en Mesoamérica (Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas 1),

15–50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Stark, Louisa Rowell. 1968. Mayan affinities with Yunga of Peru. New York: New York University

dissertation.

Stassen, Leon. 2013. Predicative Possession. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The

World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/117 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Suárez, Jorge A. 1983. La lengua Tlapaneca de Malinaltepec. México: Universidad Nacional

Autónoma de México.

Swadesh, Morris. 1956. Problems of long-range comparison in Penutian. Language 32(1). 17–41.

Swadesh, Morris. 1967. Lexicostatistic classification. In Robert Wauchope & Norman A. McQuown

(eds.), The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5: Linguistics, 79–115. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edindburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes. Lingüística e historia (Travaux de l’Insitut Français

d’Études Andines 162). Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos & Editorial Horizonte.

Tuggy, David H. 1979. Tetelcingo Nahuatl. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan

grammar, vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, 1–140. Dallas: Summer

Institute of Linguistics & The University of Texas at Arlington.

42

Turner, Paul Raymond. 1966. Highland Chontal grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.

Urban, Matthias. 2012. Analyzability and semantic associations in referring expressions.A study in

comparative lexicology. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.

Urban, Matthias. Forthcoming a. Is there a Central Andean linguistic area? A view from the “minor”

languages. Journal of Language Contact.

Urban, Matthias. Forthcoming b. Lost languages of the Peruvian North Coast. Berlin: Ibero-

Amerikanisches Institut.

Urban, Matthias. Forthcoming c. Maritime loanwords in languages of Pacific Meso- and

Southamerica? An explorative study. In Katerina Harvati, Gerhard Jäger & Hugo Reyes-

Centeno (eds.), New perspectives on the peopling of the Americas. Tübingen: Kerns.

Valiñas Coalla, Leopoldo, Mario Cortina Borja, and Miguel Mireles Padilla. 1984. Notas sobre el

cuitlateco. Anales de Antropología 21(1). 171–197.

Valenzuela, Pilar M. 2015. ¿Qué tan “amazónicas” son las lenguas kawapana? Contacto con las

lenguas centro-andinas y elementos para un área lingüística intermedia. Lexis 39(1). 5–56.

Viegas, Pedro Barros. 2005. Voces en el viento. Raíces lingüísticas de la Patagonia. Buenos Aires:

Mondragon.

Vittadello, P. Alberto. 1988. Cha'palaachi. El idioma cayapa. Guayaquil: Pontificia Universidad

Católica del Ecuador & Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador.

Waterhouse, Viola Grace. 1962. The grammatical structure of Oaxaca Chontal. Bloomington: Indiana

University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.

Waterhouse, Viola. 1985. Counting in Oaxaca Chontal. International Journal of American Linguistics

51(2). 237–240.

Weber, David John. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua (University of California

Publications in Linguistics 112). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Weber, David John, Félix Cayco Zambrano, Teodoro Cayco Villar & Marlene Ballena Dávila. 1998.

Rimaycuna. Quechua de Huánuco. Diccionario del quechua del Huallaga con índices

castellano e inglés (Serie Lingüística Peruana 48). Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Wichmann, Søren. 2007. The reference-tracking system of Tlapanec: Between obviation and switch-

reference. Studies in Language 31(4). 801–827.

Wichmann, Søren. 2009. Case relations in Tlapanec, a head-marking language. In Andrej Malchukov

& Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics),

797–807. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wiebe, Neil & Ruth Wiebe. 2015. Cayapa dictionary. In Mary Ritchie Key & Bernard Comrie (eds.),

The intercontinental dictionary series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology. http://ids.clld.org/contributions/245 (last accessed 3 April 2018).

Wipio Deicat, Gerardo. 1996. Diccionario aguaruna–castellano, castellano–aguaruna (Serie

Lingüística Peruana 39). Revised by Alejandro Paati Antunce Segundo & Martha Jakway.

Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

Zamponi, Raoul. 2004. Fragments of Waikuri (Baja California). Anthropological Linguistics 46(2). 156–

193.

43

Appendix 1: the full template of the questionnaire

No. Area Subarea Description Comments/cross-references

1 Phonology Consonants Is there a voicing contrast in stops?

2 Phonology Consonants Are there phonemic glottalized/ejective consonants?

cf. Maddieson (2013a)

3 Phonology Consonants Are there phonemic aspirated consonants?

4 Phonology Consonants Are there phonemic uvulars? cf. Maddieson (2013b) 5 Phonology Consonants Is there a labiodental fricative? 6 Phonology Vowels Is there a phonemic high

central vowel?

7 Phonology Vowels Is there phonemic vowel length?

8 Phonology Vowels Is there phonemic vowel nasalization?

cf. Hajek (2013)

9 Phonology Vowels Are there more than two phonemically relevant degrees of aperture?

i.e. are there phonemic mid vowels (/e/, /o/)

10 Phonology Vowels Are there more than three phonemically relevant degrees of aperture?

i.e. is there any near-high or close-mid vowel phonemes (/ɪ/, /ɛ/, /ʊ/, /ʌ/, /ɔ/)

11 Phonology Suprasegmental Are there contrastive tones? 12 Phonology Suprasegmental Is there contrastive stress? 13 Phonology Syllable Structure Are there codas? “no” also if highly constrained 14 Phonology Syllable Structure Are there complex onsets? “no” also if highly constrained 15 Morphology General Is there a preference for

prefixes in nominal inflectional morphology?

A language is said to have a preference for prefixing if (1) there is at most one inflectional category in nouns realized as a suffix and (2) there are at least two realized as prefixes. Categories need not be obligatory. Clitics do not count.

16 Morphology General Is there a preference for suffixes in nominal inflectional morphology?

A language is said to have a preference for suffixing if (1) there is at most one inflectional category in nouns realized as a prefix and (2) there are at least two realized as suffixes. Categories need not be obligatory.

44

17 Morphology General Is there a preference for prefixes in verbal inflectional morphology?

A language is said to have a preference for prefixing if (1) there is at most one inflectional category in verbs realized as a suffix and (2) there are at least two realized as prefixes. Categories need not be obligatory. Clitics do not count.

18 Morphology General Is there a preference for suffixes in verbal inflectional morphology?

A language is said to have a preference for suffixing if (1) there is at most one inflectional category in verbs realized as a prefix and (2) there are at least two realized as suffixes. Categories need not be obligatory.

19 Morphology General Is there productive reduplication?

cf. Rubino (2013)

20 Morphology Transcategorical operations

Is there productive nominalizing morphology?

21 Morphology Transcategorical operations

Is there productive verbalizing morphology?

22 Morphology Parts of speech Is there a morphosyntactically definable class of adjectives?

“no” also if adjectives are described as a subclass of either nouns or verbs

23 Morphology Nominal morphology

Are there possessive classes? defined as in Nichols and Bickel (2013b)

24 Morphology Nominal morphology

Are there numeral classifiers? cf. Gil (2013)

25 Morphology Nominal morphology

Are there noun classes/genders?

trigger agreement

26 Morphology Nominal morphology

Are there noun classifiers? do not normally trigger agreement

27 Morphology Nominal morphology

Is there an inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent prounouns?

cf. Cysouw (2013)

28 Morphology Nominal morphology

Can inanimates be marked for plurality?

cf. Haspelmath (2013)

29 Morphology Nominal morphology

Can human nouns be marked for plurality?

cf. Haspelmath (2013)

30 Morphology Nominal morphology

Are there cases for other than core relations?

adpositions are considered here only if they cliticize and NPs can be hosts.

31 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is there verbal person marking only for the A argument?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013c)

45

32 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is there verbal person marking only for the P argument?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013c)

33 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is there verbal person marking for the A or the P argument, but not both?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013c)

34 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is there verbal person marking for both A and P arguments?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013c)

35 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is tense a verbal category? as expressed by affixes (not necessarily obligatory) in the verb complex to the exclusion of adverbs etc.

36 Morphology Verbal morphology

Is aspect a verbal category? as expressed by affixes (not necessarily obligatory) in the verb complex to the exclusion of adverbs etc.

37 Morphology Verbal morphology

Are there directional affixes on verbs?

38 Morphology Verbal morphology

Are there valency-changing prefixes?

including but not limited to causative morphology; Uto-Aztecan “unspecified object prefixes” trigger answer “yes”.

39 Morphology Verbal morphology

Are there valency-changing suffixes?

including but not limited to causative morphology

40 Syntax Possession Are possessive phrases dependent-marked?

cf. Nichols and Bickel (2013a); here, we target constructions where both possessor and possessed are lexical NPs

41 Syntax Possession Are possessive phrases head-marked?

cf. Nichols and Bickel (2013a); here, we target constructions where both possessor and possessed are lexical NPs

42 Syntax Possession Is there a verb 'to have' in predicative possession?

cf. Stassen (2013)

43 Syntax Alignment Does case marking in full NPs operate on a nominative-accusative-basis?

cf. Comrie (2013a). In the absence of core case marking “no”; adpositions are considered here only if they cliticize and NPs can be hosts.

44 Syntax Alignment Does case marking in full NPs operate on an ergative-absolutive basis?

cf. Comrie (2013a). In the absence of core case marking “no”; adpositions are considered here only if they cliticize and NPs can be hosts.

45 Syntax Alignment Does case marking in full NPs operate on an tripartite basis?

cf. Comrie (2013a). In the absence of core case marking “no”; adpositions are considered here only if they cliticize and NPs can be hosts.

46 Syntax Alignment Does case marking in full NPs operate on an active-inactive

cf. Comrie (2013a). In the absence of core case marking “no”; adpositions are considered here only if they cliticize and NPs can be hosts.

46

basis? 47 Syntax Alignment Does verbal person marking

operate on a nominative-accusative-basis?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013a); pronominal clitics in the absence of full NPs are also taken into account.

48 Syntax Alignment Does verbal person marking operate on an ergative-absolutive-basis?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013a); pronominal clitics in the absence of full NPs are also taken into account.

49 Syntax Alignment Does verbal person marking operate on an active-stative-basis?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013a); pronominal clitics in the absence of full NPs are also taken into account.

50 Syntax Alignment Does verbal person marking operate on a hierarchical basis?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013a); pronominal clitics in the absence of full NPs are also taken into account.

51 Syntax Alignment Does verbal person marking operate on more than one of the above systems?

Coding follows Siewierska (2013a); pronominal clitics in the absence of full NPs are also taken into account.

52 Syntax Word order Is the dominant constituent order in intransitive clauses VS?

cf. Dryer (2013f)

53 Syntax Word order Is the dominant constituent order in intransitive clauses SV?

cf. Dryer (2013f)

54 Syntax Word order Is the dominant constituent order in transitive clauses VS?

cf. Dryer (2013g)

55 Syntax Word order Is the dominant constituent order in transitive clauses VO?

cf. Dryer (2013g)

56 Syntax Word order Is the dominant constituent order in transitive clauses OS?

cf. Dryer (2013g)

57 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in possessive phrases possessor-possessed?

cf. Dryer (2013d)

58 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in possessive phrases possessed-possessor?

cf. Dryer (2013d)

47

59 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs adjective-noun?

cf. Dryer (2013b)

60 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs noun-adjective?

cf. Dryer (2013b)

61 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs demonstrative-noun?

cf. Dryer (2013c)

62 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs noun-demonstrative?

cf. Dryer (2013c)

63 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs numeral-noun?

cf. Dryer (2013e)

64 Syntax Word order Is the dominant order in NPs noun-numeral?

cf. Dryer (2013e)

65 Syntax Word order Is the element indicating clausal negation preceding the verb (root)?

Assessed in declarative sentences and regardless of morphosyntactic boundness, cf. Dryer (2013a)

66 Syntax Complex constructions

Are there structural similarities between nominalization and relativization?

e.g. relative clauses involving a nominalized verb or homophony between relativizer and nominalizer?

67 Syntax Complex constructions

Is there a system of switch-reference?

68 Syntax Complex constructions

Is there a morphological passive?

cf. Siewierska (2013b)

69 Lexicon Morpheme Canon Are nominal roots predominantly monosyllabic?

Sometimes reference grammars provide information on root structure, in which case what the authors say is be taken over. If no information can be found in grammars, syllables of equivalents to items 16-23 and 35-52 for nouns and 54-71 for verbs on the Swadesh-100 list are counted as a small sample. Roots must be reasonably well identifiable and any inflectional and derivational morphology stripped off. Also excluded are complex forms (e.g. 'eye' = 'see-instrument’) and redundantly complex forms (e.g. 'eye' = 'eye-round.object'); in the latter case only the actual lexical root is counted. If the consulted source has more than one equivalent for a meaning, both are evaluated. Technically, "predominantly monosyllabic" and "predominantly disyllabic" is diagnosed if >75% of the items have the respective structure.

48

70 Lexicon Morpheme Canon Are nominal roots predominantly disyllabic?

see above

71 Lexicon Morpheme Canon Are verbal roots predominantly monosyllabic?

see above

72 Lexicon Morpheme Canon Are verbal roots predominantly disyllabic?

see above

73 Lexicon Numerals Is some part of the numeral system organized on a quinary basis?

cf. Comrie (2013b)

74 Lexicon Numerals Is some part of the numeral system organized on a decimal basis?

cf. Comrie (2013b)

75 Lexicon Numerals Is some part of the numeral system organized on a vigesimal basis?

cf. Comrie (2013b)

76 Lexicon Basic orientation Is the underived word for 'smoke' a verb?

77 Lexicon Basic orientation Is the underived color word for 'black' a verb?

Appendix 2: the full data underlying this study. Each row represents the typological profile of one language. Languages can be identified by the numbers in the

first column, which are identical to those in Table 1. Each column represents a typological feature. Features can be identified by cross-checking the feature

numbers with the full template of the questionnaire in Appendix 1.

No. 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? 1 1 1 ? ? 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 ? ? 1 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 ? ? 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

49

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ? 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? ? ? ? 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ? ? 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 ? ?

3 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 ? 1 ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 ? 0

5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? 1 1 ? 0 0 0 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? ? ? 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 ? 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 ? ?

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 0 1 ? ?

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ?

9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 ? 1 ? ? 1 ? 0 ? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ? ? ? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ?

10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 ? ? 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

11 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 ? 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 ? 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 ? 0

13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ? 1 ? 1 1 ? 1 0 1 1 1 ? 1 0 0 0 1 1 ? 1 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ? ?

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 1 1 0 ? ? 1 ? 1 ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 ? 1 ? 1 ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 ? ? ? 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 ? ?

15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ? ? 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ?

16 ? 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 1 ? 0 1 0 0 ? ? 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ?

17 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? 1 0 0 ? 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1 ? 1 ? 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 0 1 ? ? ? 1 0 1 0 ? 1 1 ? ?

19 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ? 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 ? ?

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? 0 1 1 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? 0 0 0 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ?

21 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 ? 1 0 1 ? 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

22 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 ? 0 ? 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

23 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 ? 1 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 ? ? 1 0 1 0 ? ? 1 0 ? 1 ? ? 1 0 0 1 1 ? ?

24 0 1 0 0 0 1 ? 0 1 0 0 ? 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ? ? 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? 1 1 ? 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? 0 1 0 ? ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? 0 0 ? 0 1 1 ? 0 0 0 1 ? ? 1 ? ? 0 ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 ? 0 ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 ? ? ? 0 1 0 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ?

28 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 ? 0 1 1 ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ? 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 ? 0 0

29 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ? ? 0 1 0 1 ? ? 1 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? ?

30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? ? ? 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

31 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ? 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ? 0 1 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ? ?

32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 ? ? 1 0 0 0 0 ? ?

33 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

50

34 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 0 ? 1 ? ? ? 0 0 1 0 ? ? 1 ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

36 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? 1 1 ? ? ? 0 1 1 ? 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ? 1 ? 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

37 ? 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 ? 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ? 0

38 ? 0 0 0 1 0 ? 0 1 0 ? ? 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ? ? ? ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

39 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? ? 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? 0

41 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ? 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ? 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? ? 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? 0

42 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 1 0 1 ? ? ? 1 1 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? 0 1 1 1 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ? ? ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 ? ?

43 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

44 0 1 ? 1 1 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ? ? 0 1 1 ? 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? 0 1 0 0 ? 1 0 0 1 ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? ?