| Dene–Yeniseian | |
|---|---|
| (plausible) | |
| Geographic distribution | NorthwestNorth America and centralSiberia |
| Linguistic classification | Proposedlanguage family |
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | None |
 Distribution of Dene-Yeniseian languages in North Asia and North AmericaStriped areas indicate the area of the former extent of the languages. | |
Dene–Yeniseian is a proposedlanguage family consisting of theYeniseian languages of centralSiberia and theNa–Dene languages of northwestern North America.
Reception among experts has been somewhat favorable; thus, Dene–Yeniseian has been called "the first demonstration of agenealogical link between Old World and New World language families that meets the standards of traditionalcomparative-historical linguistics".[1] The main cause of skepticism among other linguists, geneticists, and researchers from related fields can be attributed to the significance of such a link being conclusively proven as there have been numerous attempts of establishing definite linguistic relationships between languages natively spoken throughoutEurasia to those of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and most have been widely rejected due to their being mostly based on superficial if not erroneousphonological,lexicological andmorphological similarities.[2] Consequently, Dene–Yeniseian is deemed only as "plausible" by linguistic scholars at large.[3]
Researchers inhistorical linguistics have long sought to link the various knownlanguage families around the world intomacrofamilies. The putative relationship between Na–Dene and Yeniseian families was first proposed byAlfredo Trombetti in 1923.[4] Much of the early evidence adduced has beentypological; in particular, both families have a complexagglutinative prefixing verb structure, which differs from most of the other languages in Asia and—to a lesser extent—North America.
The first peer-reviewed publication to propose the existence of a distinct Dene–Yeniseian family was written by the macrofamily supporterMerritt Ruhlen (1998) inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, United States.[5] However,Vajda (2010a:34) states, without specifying which ones, that 26 of the 34 sets of words offered by Ruhlen are coincidental look-alikes, whereas 8 of Ruhlen's word sets follow Vajda's rules of sound correspondences.
Michael Fortescue independently suggested the possible existence of a Dene–Yeniseian family in his 1998 bookLanguage Relations Across Bering Strait.[6] He writes, "I have attempted throughout to find a middle way between the cavalier optimism of 'lumpers' and the pessimism of orthodox 'splitters' on the matters of deepgenetic relationship between the continents".[7]
As alluded to by Fortescue's comment, scientific investigations of long-range language family relationships have been complicated by an ideological dispute between the so–called"lumpers" and "splitters", with "lumpers" caricatured as bumbling amateurs willing to group together disparate, unrelated families based on chance resemblances[8] and the "splitters" caricatured as rigid enforcers of orthodoxy willing to "shout down" researchers who disagree with their belief that long-range connections are impossible to establish.[9]
At a symposium in Alaska in 2008,Edward Vajda ofWestern Washington University summarized ten years of research, based on verbalmorphology and reconstructions of theproto–languages, indicating that the Yeniseian and Na–Dene families might be related. The summation of Vajda's research was published in June 2010 inThe Dene–Yeniseian Connection in theAnthropological Papers of the University of Alaska.
This 369-page volume, edited byJames Kari and Ben Potter, contains papers from the February 26–29, 2008, symposium plus several contributed papers. Accompanying Vajda's lead paper are primary data on Na–Dene historical phonology byJeff Leer, along with critiques by several linguistic specialists and articles on a range of topics (archaeology,prehistory,ethnogeography,genetics,kinship, andfolklore) by experts in these fields.
The evidence offered by Vajda includes over 110 proposed cognate morphemes and about ten homologous prefix and suffix positions of the verbs. Vajda compared the existing reconstructions of Proto–Yeniseian and Proto–Na–Dene, augmented the reconstructions based on the apparent relationship between the two, and suggestedsound changes linking the two into a putative Proto–Dene–Yeniseian language. He suggested that Yeniseian tone differencesoriginated in the presence or absence ofglottalized consonants in thesyllable coda, as still present in the Na–Dene languages.
Vajda and others also note that no compelling evidence has been found linkingHaida with either Na–Dene or Yeniseian.[10][11] As for the widerDene–Caucasian hypothesis (see below), while Vajda did not find the kinds of morphological correspondences with these other families that he did with Yeniseian and Na–Dene, he did not rule out the possibility that such evidence exists, and urges that more work be done.[12]
In 2011 Vajda published a short annotated bibliography on Dene–Yeniseian languages.[citation needed] On March 24, 2012, the Alaska Native Language Center hosted the Dene–Yeniseian Workshop at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There were nine papers, the first new papers on Dene–Yeniseian since the 2010 volume was published. As of July 2012, there are no plans to publish the papers, but video from the workshop is available.
Vajda's presentations at the 2012 workshop[13] augmented his proposal with additional linguistic and non-linguistic evidence. He discussed a study he did withJohanna Nichols investigating the history of complex prefixing verb structures in various families possessing morphology of this sort. His conclusion was that, contrary to prevailing belief, such structures are often preserved intact with little change over several thousands of years, and as a result may actually be stronger evidence of a genetic connection than the lexical relationships that are traditionally sought.
As a result, he agreed with the consensus belief that lexical evidence of a genetic relationship becomes virtually undetectable after about 8,000 to 10,000 years of linguistic separation, but suggested that certain sorts of complex morphology may remain stable beyond this time period. Further evidence for Dene–Yeniseian is inVajda (2013a).
Vajda presents comparanda for an ancient Dene–Yeniseian possessive connector prefix (possibly *ŋ) that appears in idiosyncratic ways in Dene (or Athabaskan), Eyak, Tlingit, and Yeniseian nouns, postpositions, directionals, and demonstratives. Vajda also suggests one new lexical cognate: PA directional *ñəs-d "ahead", "out on open water" and Yeniseian root *es "open space". In terms of the sections within Vajda's 2010 paper, this 2013 article can be read as an addition to his §2 (which ends on p. 63). In a subsequent article,Vajda (2013b), Vajda discusses features in Ket that arose due to prolonged areal contact with suffixal agglutinating languages.
In his 2012 presentation, Vajda also addressed non-linguistic evidence, including analyses ofY-chromosome andmitochondrial DNAhaplogroups, which are passed unchanged down the male and female lines, respectively, except for mutations. His most compelling DNA evidence is theQ1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup subclade, which he notes arose c. 15,000 years ago and is found in nearly allNative Americans and nearly all of the YeniseianKet people (90%), but almost nowhere else in Eurasia except for theSelkup people (65%), who have intermarried with the Ket people for centuries.
Using this and other evidence, he proposes a Proto–Dene–Yeniseianhomeland located in eastern Siberia around theAmur andAldan Rivers. These people would have beenhunter-gatherers, as are the modern Yeniseians, but unlike nearly all other Siberian groups (except for somePaleosiberian peoples located around thePacific Rim of far eastern Siberia, who appear genetically unrelated to the Yeniseians). Eventually all descendants in Eurasia were eliminated by the spread ofreindeer-breedingpastoralist peoples (e.g. the speakers of the so–calledAltaic languages) except for the modern Yeniseians, who were able to survive in swampy refuges far to the west along theYenisei River because it is too mosquito–infested for reindeer to survive easily. Contrarily, thecaribou (the North American reindeer population) were never domesticated, and thus the modern Na–Dene people were not similarly threatened.[13] In fact,reindeer herding spread throughout Siberia rather recently and there were many other hunter-gatherer peoples in Siberia in modern times.
In his 2012 reply toGeorge Starostin, Vajda clarifies that Dene–Yeniseian "as it currently stands is a hypothesis of language relatedness but not yet a proper hypothesis of language taxonomy". He leaves "open the possibility that either Yeniseian orND (or both) might have a closer relative elsewhere in Eurasia".[14]
At the time of publication, Vajda's proposals had been favorably reviewed by several specialists of Na–Dene and Yeniseian languages—although at times with caution—includingMichael Krauss,Jeff Leer,James Kari, andHeinrich Werner, as well as a number of other respected linguists, such asBernard Comrie,Johanna Nichols,Victor Golla,Michael Fortescue,Eric Hamp, andBill Poser.[15][16]
One significant exception is the critical review of the volume of collected papers byLyle Campbell[17] and a response by Vajda[18] published in late 2011 that imply that the proposal is not settled at the present time. Other reviews and notices of the volume appeared in 2011 and 2012 byKeren Rice,Jared Diamond, and Michael Dunn. Sicoli and Holton 2014, applying Bayesian analysis to typological data from Dene and Yeniseian languages, constructed phylogenies that suggest that the Dene–Yeniseian connection "more likely represents a radiation out ofBeringia with a back migration intoCentral Asia than a migration fromCentral Asia orWestern Asia toNorth America".[19][20]
In 2012,George Starostin questioned the validity of the macrofamily, citing the fact that "Vajda’s 'regular correspondences' are not... properly 'regular' in the classic comparative-historical sense of the word". He also notes that Vajda's "treatment of the verbal morphology" involves "a tiny handful of intriguing isomorphisms... surrounded by an impenetrable sea of assumptions and highly controversial internal reconstructions that create an illusion of systemic reconstruction where there really is none". Nonetheless, Starostin concedes that Vajda's work "is, by all means, a step forward", and that it "may eventually point the way towards research on grammaticalization paths in Yeniseian and Na–Dene".[21]
Instead of forming a separate family, Starostin believes that both Yeniseian and Na–Dene are part of a much larger grouping calledDene–Caucasian. Starostin states that the two families are related in a large sense, but there is no special relationship between them that would suffice to create a separate family between these two language families.
In 2015,Paul Kiparsky endorsed Dene–Yeniseian, saying that "the morphological parallelism and phonological similarities among corresponding affixes is most suggestive, but most compelling evidence for actual relationship comes from those sound correspondences which can be accounted for by independently motivated regular sound changes".[22]
Campbell (2024) doubts the validity of Dene–Yeniseian, saying that "neither the lexical evidence with putative sound correspondences nor the morphological evidence adduced has proven sufficient to support a genealogical relationship between Na–Dene and Yeniseian".[23]
TheKet people themselves have received the Dene–Yeniseian hypothesis well, being aware of similar features they observe on documentaries on television.[24] The corresponding peoples in North America also appear to have favorably accepted the hypothesis.[25]
Dene–Yeniseian is generally classified as follows:
| Dene–Yeniseian | |
Usingcomputational phylogenetic methods, Sicoli & Holton (2014) proposed that Dene–Yeniseian did not split into the two primary branches Na–Dene and Yeniseian, but rather into four primary branches. Yeniseian is upheld as a single branch, whereas Na–Dene is assumed to be paraphyletic, being divided into several primary branches instead. Based on their classification, they suggest that Yeniseian represents a back-migration fromBeringia back to Asia.[26]
However, this phylogenetic study was criticized as methodologically flawed by Yanovich (2020), since it did not employ sufficient input data to generate a robust tree that does not depend on the initial choice of the "tree prior", i.e. the model for the tree generation.[27] In addition, Wilson (2023) has argued that a cluster of related technology words in proto–Athabaskan and Yeniseian languages suggests a linguistic continuum between the two continents that extended well into theCommon Era, clouding any conclusive evidence for the back-migration model.[28]
Edward Vajda's Dene–Yeniseian proposal outlined inA Siberian link with Na-Dene languages included a footnote where he dismissed hypothetical language families such asAltaic,Amerind,Khoisan,Nilo–Saharan, andHaida withNa–Dene (Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit) as "urban legends". However, he suggested that the possibility of a relationship betweenSino–Tibetan and Na–Dene orYeniseian might warrant serious investigation.[29]
As noted by Tailleur[30] and Werner,[31] some of the earliest proposals of genetic relations of Yeniseian, byM.A. Castrén (1856), James Byrne (1892), and G.J. Ramstedt (1907), suggested that Yeniseian was a northern relative of the Sino–Tibetan languages. These ideas were followed much later by Kai Donner[32] and Karl Bouda.[33] A 2008 study found further evidence for a possible relation between Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, citing several possiblecognates.[34] Gao Jingyi (2014) identified twelve Sinitic and Yeniseian shared etymologies that belonged to the basic vocabulary, and argued that these Sino–Yeniseian etymologies could not be loans from either language into the other.[35]
The "Sino–Caucasian" hypothesis ofSergei Starostin posits that the Yeniseian languages form aclade with Sino–Tibetan, which he calledSino–Yeniseian. The Sino–Caucasian hypothesis has been expanded by others to "Dene–Caucasian" to include theNa–Dene languages of North America,Burushaski,Basque and, occasionally,Etruscan. A narrower binary Dene–Yeniseian family has recently been well received. The validity of the rest of the family, however, is viewed as doubtful or rejected by nearly allhistorical linguists.[36][37][38] An updated tree byGeorgiy Starostin now groups Na–Dene with Sino–Tibetan and Yeniseian withBurushaski (Karasuk hypothesis).[39]
George van Driem does not believe that Sino–Tibetan (which he calls "Trans–Himalayan") and Yeniseian are related language families. However, he argues that Yeniseian speakers once populated theNorth China Plain and that Proto-Sinitic speakers assimilated them when they migrated to the region. As a result, Sinitic acquired creoloid characteristics when it came to be used as a lingua franca among ethnolinguistically diverse populations.[40]
A link between the Na–Dene languages and Sino–Tibetan languages, known asSino–Dene was first proposed byEdward Sapir. Around 1920, Sapir became convinced that Na–Dene was more closely related to Sino–Tibetan than to other American families.[41] He wrote a series of letters toAlfred Kroeber where he enthusiastically spoke of a connection between Na–Dene and "Indo–Chinese". In 1925, a supporting article summarizing his thoughts, albeit not written by him, entitled "The Similarities of Chinese and Indian Languages", was published in Science Supplements. The Sino–Dene hypothesis never gained foothold in theUnited States outside of Sapir’s circle, though it was later revitalized by Robert Shafer (1952, 1957, 1969) andMorris Swadesh (1952, 1965).[42]Alfredo Trombetti, who was the first to propose a relationship between the Yeniseian and Na–Dene language families (1923),[43] had also independently discovered the idea of Sino–Dene (1923, 1925).[44]
Vajda's Dene–Yeniseian proposal renewed interest among linguists such asGeoffrey Caveney (2014) to look into support for the Sino–Dene hypothesis. Caveney considered a link between Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian to be plausible but did not support the hypothesis that Sino–Tibetan and Na–Dene were related to the Caucasian languages (Sino–Caucasian and Dene–Caucasian).[45]
Csaba Barnabás Horváth proposed that the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian languages constitute a single macro-family, which he calledSino–Dene–Yeniseian. Drawing on genetic data supporting the farming–language dispersal model, he hypothesized that this macro-family likely began its expansion inGreater Khorasan orTransoxiana. He suggested their eastward spread was driven by the advantages of goat and sheep husbandry that they had adopted in theMiddle East over neighboring hunter-gatherer societies. The Proto–Sino–Dene–Yeniseian population occupied regions including theTarim Basin,Dzungaria,Mongolia, andQinghai, before splitting into three branches: one crossedBeringia, transmitting the Na–Dene languages and haplogroupsQ-M120 andQ-M242 toNorth America; another formed the Yeniseian family on theMongolian Plateau, dominating the region until theTurkic expansion in the 3rd century BCE; and the third gave rise to the Sino–Tibetan family in northern China by merging withHmong–Mien populations characterized by haplogroupO-M122.[46]
Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow stated that he would have liked to see Na–Dene combined with Yeniseian and Sino–Tibetan, as he did not find hypotheses linking Na–Dene to other language families to be promising.Jan Henrik Holst agreed with Pinnow's assessment and referred to this proposed Sino–Dene–Yeniseian language family as "Lakitic," noting that Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian all include languages with a word similar to "lak," meaning "hand." However, the high diversity of the Sino–Tibetan language family makes the reconstruction of theProto–Sino–Tibetan language challenging.[47]
A 2023 analysis byDavid Bradley using the standard techniques of comparative linguistics supports a distant genetic link between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families. Bradley argues that any similarities Sino–Tibetan shares with other language families of the East Asia area such asHmong–Mien,Altaic (which is widely believed by mainstream linguists to be asprachbund),Austroasiatic,Kra–Dai, andAustronesian came through contact; but as there has been no recent contact between the Sino–Tibetan, Na–Dene, and Yeniseian language families then any similarities these groups share must be residual.[48]
| # | Gloss | Ket (IPA) | Navajo |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | rock | təˀs | tsé |
| 2 | leg | kiˀs | (a)keeʼ |
| 3 | old | sīn | sání |
| 4 | snake | tìɣ | tłʼiish |
| 5 | man (adult male) | hig | hastiin |
| 6 | men (people) | deng | dine'é |
| 7 | fire | bo'k | kǫʼ |
| 8 | good | aqta | yáʼátʼééh |
| 9 | two | yn | naaki |
It remains incumbent upon the proponents of the DY hypothesis to provide solutions to at least some of the unresolved problems identified in Campbell's review or in DYC itself. My opinion is that every one of them requires a convincing solution before the relationship between Yeniseian and Na-Dene can be considered settled.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
