[Paper presented at the Language and Genes: an interdisciplinary

conference, University of California, Santa Barbara, Sept 8-10, 2006]

Languages and Genes in Collaboration: some Practical Matters

Lyle Campbell
University of Utah
(lyle.campbell@linguistics.utah.edu)
1. Introduction. This paper examines aspects of how linguistics and human genetics
can collaborate in investigating human prehistory, addressing questions put to conference
participants. In addressing these questions, I emphasize linguist matters that need more
careful attention for linguistic-genetic correlations to have value. Significant contributions
from linguistic-genetic collaboration are possible, and I consider ways to make human
genetic-linguistic collaborations more productive. At the same time, it is important to
caution against several misconceptions frequently encountered in work which correlates
languages and genes.1
2. Does a common linguistic ancestry mean a common biological ancestry? The
frequent assumption of a direct association between language and genes (assumption of
parallel descent, following, for example, Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988) weakens much work in
this area (see Comrie 2006:4), though recent works also show attention to this problem (cf.
A. McMahon 2004, R. McMahon 2004; see below). The frequent expectation is that if two
(or more) languages are phylogenetically related, then genes of the populations speaking
these languages will likely be similar, and that such human genetic-linguistic links will
contribute to understanding the prehistory of these populations. Work on phylogenetic
linguistic-human genetic comparisons, however, needs to take seriously into account (1) that
while a person has only one set of genes (for life), a person can be multilingual, representing
multiple languages; (2) that individuals (and communities) can abandon one language and
adopt another, but people do not abandon their genes nor adopt new ones language shift
(language replacement) is a common fact of linguistic life; there is no deterministic
connection between languages and gene pools. Languages become extinct in populations
which survive genetically (language replacement and extinction are frequent). (See R.
McMahon 2004 for discussion of various ways in which a mismatch between the linguistic
and human genetic history can come about.) We cannot assume, a priori, that linguistic
history and human biological history will correlate (Blount 1990:15; Boas 1911:6-10, Moore
1994, Spuhler 1979).
What about known language families where speakers of different languages exhibit
relatively little human genetic homogeneity? In Uralic, for example, one of the best studied
language families, there is considerable human genetic difference across populations
speaking different languages of the family (Nettle and Harriss 2003:335-7). For example,
the Finnish gene pool is composed of c.75% Western elements and c.25% Eastern, the
opposite of their eastern Uralic linguistic relatives (including both mtDNA and Ychromosome evidence) (Nevanlinna 1984, Savontaus and Lahermo 1999; see Zerjal et al.
2001; cf. Bandelt et al. 2002:100-01). Many similar human genetic-linguistic mismatches
can be cited (Babalini et al. 2005, Garca-Ortiz et al. 2006, Malhi et al. 2002, 2003,
Merriweather et al. 2000, Moore 1994, Nettle and Harriss 2003, Nasidze et al. 2003,
1

Pakendorf et al. 2003, Rosser et al. 2000, Sims-Williams 1998, Smith et al. 2000, Szathmary
1994, etc.)2, and the methodological problems that characterize studies correlating language
and genes need to become better understood (see Bateman et al. 1990a, 1990b, 1990c,
Bandelt et al. 2002, Hurles 2002, R. McMahon 2004, Moore 1994). As these citations also
show, the assumption of congruence between languages and genes is not universal and there
is a growing recognition that the assumptions should not be made, though many still make it.
All of the following situations are attested (no here means little or no):
(1) no linguistic admixture no genetic admixture
(2) no linguistic admixture genetic admixture
(3) linguistic admixture no genetic admixture
(4) linguistic admixture genetic admixture
Where much work in language-gene correlation has tended to privilege (1) (though see, for
example, Chikhi 2002, aimed at dealing with genetic admixture), linguists expect (1) least,
with (4) perhaps the most common. Clearly this is an empirical matter in need of
investigation, but it will not do to expect a priori, as is often the case, parallelism between
human genetic and linguistic phylogenetic classifications. Recognizing that language shifts
happen and that genes flow into populations speaking different languages, we must ask,
where does that leave those with interests in correlation of human genetics and linguistics?
Russell Gray (personal communication) asks whether linguists can tell how common
language shift is and under what conditions it occurs, and where we should expect
congruence or incongruence between genes and language. The answer is that language shift
is very common (Thomason and Kaufman 1988), witness the hundreds of extinct languages
known to human history. Language replacement happens in situations of language contact
for a variety of social, political, and economic reasons (Campbell 2003b, Moore 1994);
extremely few languages involve no influence from other languages, usually accompanied by
gene flow across language boundaries. Instances such as Trejaut et als (2005) where the
linguistic and human genetic history (in this case, for the Formosan origin of Austronesian)
appear to match are very rare.
However, lack of significant correlation does not defeat the enterprise. We should not
dismiss cases of mismatches in the linguistic and human genetic history (done often enough),
for these may be the most interesting for helping us to gain a fuller picture of the past and to
comprehend the full dynamics of processes affecting human populations. Here is where
collaboration from both linguists and human genetics can pay off, since both have
sophisticated methods for dealing with both vertical relationships (inheritance) and
horizontal ones (borrowing, gene flow). From the linguistic side, our many sources of
information provide valuable historical information regardless of whether there is
congruence with the human genetic cladistic picture. Knowing that speakers of Proto-IndoEuropean had horses, cows, wagons, tribal kings, and so on (from the vocabulary
reconstructed by the comparative method) is invaluable historical information regardless of
whether we know their precise genetic history or who their present-day lineal descendants
are. It would be foolish to ignore such information when trying to come to grips with a fuller
picture of prehistory. The point of research in prehistory is to take as much evidence from as
many lines as possible to try to understand the past. More important than expecting
congruences is to collaborate to understand the processes what bring about the more common
mismatches.
2

How successful can we be when we look at the cultures, languages, and human
populations that we know about today and attempt to project back in time to the human
groups that each line of evidence (language, genes, material culture) may have been
associated with in the past? We cannot always know, and for that reason, it is important that
the lines of evidence be investigated independently and then collaborations be undertaken to
understand how the mismatches came about. Instances of congruence are rare (Moore 1994).
2.1. What of linguistic areas, language contact, and language shift? These
commonplace linguistic phenomena involve situations where a direct correlation between
linguistic and human genetic history is not to be expected where there are horizontal
(diffusion, borrowing) rather than vertical (phylogenetic) relationships among languages,
i.e. cases of language relationships spread over different human populations. Linguistic
areas, where structural traits of language diffuse across language boundaries, are not unusual;
better known ones include: Amazonia, Balkans, Baltic, Ethiopian highlands, Mesoamerica,
the Northwest Coast (of North America), and South Asia (Indian subcontinent) exhibiting
horizontal rather than vertical developments in languages, presumably accompanied also by
horizontal gene flow. To mention just one example, the Northwest Coast linguistic area
(Campbell 1997:332-4), also a culture area, is notorious for intermarriage, slaving, linguistic
and cultural diffusion, and multilingualism. Figures from 1845 show slaves to have been 6%
of the population of the Northwest Coast region, 10% of the lower Fraser region (Amoss
1993:10-11). With numerous refugees from other villages and frequent intermarriage
(polygyny was common), there was significant gene flow across linguistic boundaries in
such situations, one should not expect developments in human genetics and languages to
correlate directly.
These situations drive home the point that parallelism between linguistic and human
genetic transmission should not be expected a priori. They also brings up a frequent
problem: misunderstanding of the nature of language change and the role of
inheritance vs. borrowing. Essentially all linguists accept that languages can be classified
phylogenetically, represented cladistically in genealogical trees. Unfortunately, some have
misunderstood this to mean that historical linguists see this (homology) as the only possible
historical relationship among languages. However, not all historical associations among
languages are due to inheritance from a common ancestor, i.e. phylogenetic relationship is
not the only thing linguists look for in order to understand the prehistory of languages. They
also investigate diffusion across languages boundaries. The investigation of both inheritance
and diffusion play large roles in the treatment of linguistic prehistory, and historical
linguistics has well-known methods for addressing both. Correlations of language and genes
should not lose sight of this.
2.2. What of multilingual societies practicing linguistic exogamy, as in parts of
Amazonia? The linguistic exogamy of the Vaups linguistic area (Colombia-Brazil) is wellknown (Aikhenvald 2002, Chernela 2004, Gomez-Imbert 1996, Jackson 1974, 1983,
Sorensen 1967), involving some twenty languages, where most people are at least trilingual
and some understand up to ten languages. Here clearly the human genetic history of
individuals and communities does not match closely their linguistic phylogenetic history; this
is not an isolated situation. The Chorote, Chulup, and to a certain extent the Wich in the
Misin La Paz region (Argentina) also practice linguistic exogamy.3 Spouses each speak
his/her own language and are addressed in and understand the other spouses language in
3

return a spouse does not accommodate by speaking the other spouses language. Speakers
and hearers in conversations typically are not speaking the same language. People
communicate regularly with speakers of different languages, but rarely in the same language,
unlike in the Vaups case. A child identifies with one of the languages of the parents and
speaks it exclusively to everyone, both parents, siblings, and other community members,
regardless of the language they speak. Not all children in a family identify with the same
language, and criteria for choice have nothing to do with gender, prestige, and the like, only
with professions of personal taste. (See Grondona and Campbell 2006.) In such situations
there is no direct correlation between human genetics and language.
The existence of situations of linguistic exogamy drives home the need not to assume
parallel transmission of language and genes. Both population genetics and linguistics have
sophisticated methods for dealing with horizontal relationships (diffusion/admixture/gene
flow). The two fields may be able to collaborate both in improved methodology and models,
as well as in the interpretation of the circumstances in given areas.
3. Are there particular social conditions that constrain language change and
evolution? It is frequently speculated that there is a causal connection between type of
society and core aspects of linguistic structure. An often repeated opinion is that language
becomes more complex in isolated communities or in small-scale societies where most
interaction is face to face (Andersen 1988, Hymes 1974, Jakobson 1929[1962]:82, Nettle
1999a, Nettle and Romaine 2000, Ross 1996, 1997, Trudgill 1989, 2002). Hymes (1974:50)
says, the surface structures of languages spoken in small, cheek-by-jowl communities so
often are markedly complex, and the surface structures of languages spoken over wide
ranges less so. This view has no merit. Assumed correlations between society type and
language structure have mostly proven misleading.
The basic idea is that in such communities, isolated or characterized by face-to-face
communication where most speakers know each other, people tolerate eccentricities, and so
complexity can grow and unusual linguistic traits can become part of the structure of the
language. There are many counterexamples on both sides of the equation: many simple but
relatively isolated small languages. and many large and non-isolated but complex languages.
For example, looking at phonological complexity (cf. Trudgill 2002, 2004a, 2004b), we see
counterexamples in numerous relatively small and isolated languages such as Rotokas,
Pirah, Hawaiian, South Island Maori, etc. which have extremely limited phoneme
inventories. There are numerous large non-isolated languages which are complex or exhibit
unusual traits, some demonstrably having become even more complex over time. For
example, Quechua, spoken by several million speakers, is phonologically very complex
(with plain, glottalized, and aspirated stops and affricates at five points of articulation). Zulu,
not small (over 6,000,000 speakers) or isolated, with 35 consonants, acquired an elaborate
system of clicks from contact with Khoisan. (For discussion of other cases, see Campbell
and Poser in press.)4
In short, there is no reliable correlations between community size or isolation and
linguistic complexity (or eccentricity). To date, no convincing cases have been presented to
demonstrate any causal relationship between language structure and type of society or kind
of culture. For attempts to correlate human genetics and linguistics, any presumed social
conditions constraining language change and evolution can safely be abandoned.
4

4. What of the initial peopling of the Americas? The classification of American

Indian languages has played a misleading role in human genetic research on this topic. As
Campbell (1997:90-106) showed, the linguistic picture is compatible with a wide range of
possible scenarios for the earliest peopling of the Americas, and the linguistic facts do not
restrict these possibilities significantly. Caution is to be urged against accepting too readily
any claim about early population or migrations based on the classification of American
Indian languages. There is great linguistic diversity in the Americas. Most scholars of
American Indian languages believe that there are about 180 different phylogenetic units
(language families and isolates) in the Americas which cannot at present be shown to be
related to each other. Many are sympathetic to the possibility that several, perhaps even all,
of these may ultimately be phylogenetically related, but believe that if any of these ever were
related to one another, so much linguistic change has taken place since they diversified that
not enough evidence is left to demonstrate such connections. This linguistic diversity (with
possible connections that cannot now be demonstrated) means that we are unable on the
basis of linguistic evidence to eliminate any of the various proposals concerning the origin of
humans in the New World or accounts for the arrival of the first Americans. The linguistic
picture can be made consistent with a number of scenarios for the earliest humans in the
Americas.
The question of the initial peopling of the Americas is often associated with
Greenbergs (1987) Amerind hypothesis. Claims of non-linguistic evidence for Greenbergs
classification of the Americas (Greenberg 1987, Greenberg et al. 1986) proved to have no
foundation (Bolnick et al. 2004, Campbell 1997:100-04, Hunley and Long 2005, Salzano et
al. 2005).5 This brings up another problem: the predilection for problematic linguistic
phylogenetic classifications. Often papers involving human genetics and language
classifications rely on controversial or erroneous linguistic phylogenetic classifications, e.g.
Nostratic, Altaic, and Amerind. As Bolnick et al. (2004) show in a survey of 100
papers in genetics in recent years, attempts to test possible correlations between linguistic
phylogenetic classifications and human genetics in the Americas have nearly all taken
Greenbergs (1987) discredited classification of American Indian languages as their point of
departure, a serious mistake which undermines the entire enterprise. Fortunately, some have
started to break this trend, still dealing with Greenbergs 1987 classification, but finding it
does not match the human genetic picture in their studies (Bolnick et al. 2004, Hunley and
Long 2005, Salzano et al. 2005).
Greenberg (1987) proposed that all Native American languages, except the NaDene and Eskimo-Aleut language groupings, belong to single macro-family, Amerind.
Amerind is rejected by virtually all specialists in Native American languages and historical
linguistics. They maintain, as mentioned, that valid methods do not permit reduction of
Native American languages to fewer than about 180 independent genetic units (language
families and isolates). Amerind has been criticized on various grounds. There are
exceedingly many errors in Greenbergs data: the number of erroneous forms probably
exceeds that of the correct forms (Adelaar 1989: 253). Where Greenberg stops after
assembling superficial similarities and declaring them due to common ancestry is where
other linguists begin. Since similarities can be due to chance, borrowing, onomatopoeia,
sound symbolism, nursery words [the mama, papa, nana, dada, caca sort], misanalysis, and
other things, for a plausible proposal of remote linguistic relationship, one must attempt to
5

eliminate all other possible explanations, leaving a shared common ancestry as the most
likely. Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate these other explanations, and the similarities
he amassed appear to be due mostly to accident and a combination of these other factors
(Ringe 1996:152). In various instances, Greenberg compared arbitrary segments of words,
equated words with very different meanings (e.g. excrement/night/grass), misidentified
many languages, failed to analyze the morphology of some words and falsely analyzed that
of others, neglected regular sound correspondences, failed to eliminate loanwords, and
misinterpreted well-established findings. The Amerind etymologies proposed are often
limited to a few languages of the many involved in his comparisons. (See Adelaar 1989;
Berman 1992; Campbell 1988, 1997; Kimball 1993; McMahon and McMahon 1995; Poser
1992; Rankin 1992; Ringe 1992, 1996, etc.). Finnish, Japanese, and other randomly chosen
languages fit Greenbergs Amerind data as well as or better than any of the American Indian
languages do; Greenbergs method has proven incapable of distinguishing implausible
relationships from Amerind generally (Campbell 1988, Campbell 1997).
In short, it is with good reason Amerind has been rejected. Attempts to test for a
human genetic fit with this rejected classification are just wasted effort, and can provide no
worthwhile results. Human geneticists need to understand this and take it on board.
Amerind is not the only disputed linguistic phylogenetic claim that needlessly
occupies journal space; Altaic, Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, and others are often
assumed in human genetic-linguistic correlations (cf. Eshleman et al. 2004, etc.), though this
should not be the case. Of course not all genetic-linguistic correlations are guilty of relying
on linguistic classifications that are not well founded.
A related problem is: the predilection to rely on non-mainstream scholars
claims. For example, Ruhlens (1987, 1994a, 1994b) classification of the worlds languages
and his claims about language relationships are relied on in numerous publications involving
attempts at correlating linguistic matters with other sources of information on prehistory (e.g.
Poloni et al. 1997; Rubicz et al. 2002, see Manning 2006 for a recent example).6 However,
Ruhlens classification is exceedingly out of line with standard views and is without solid
empirical support, linguistically or genetically (R. McMahon 2004). Thus, where Ruhlen
(1987) had only 35 genetic units (17 phyla and 18 language isolates)7, most historical
linguists recognize 250 to 300 independent language lineages (genetic units, i.e., language
families and isolates). The very large groupings listed by Ruhlen are rejected by most
linguists for sound methodological reasons (see Campbell and Poser in press). Human
geneticists should be very cautious in citing proposed but rejected remote linguistic
affiliations, such as those in Greenberg (1971, 1987, 2000) and Ruhlen (1987, 1994a,
1994b).
Curiously, some papers come up with the right answer that there is no meaningful
linguistic-human genetic correlations for some of these proposed but disputed linguistic
macro-families but for the wrong reasons (for example Hunley and Long 2005, Rubicz et
al. 2002). That is, they assume hypotheses of remote linguistic affiliation proposed by
Greenberg, Ruhlen, and a few others (Amerind, Dene-Caucasian, Eurasiatic, Indo-Pacific,
Nostratic, etc.), rejected by most historical linguists, and their results show that these
classifications fail to match the human genetic picture. For linguists it is no surprise that the
correlation of something linguistic that does not exist with genetic material should produce
no meaningful correlations. This, drives home the point that there has been too strong a
6

tendency to rely on unsubstantiated claims of linguistic kinship in work on human geneticlinguistic correlations.
How might the unsuspecting geneticist proceed? By collaborating with
knowledgeable linguists, or by testing all the better known linguistic classifications, not just
a disputed linguistic classification that might appeal for whatever non-linguistic reason.
5. How can research in this area be carried forward by the application of new
methods or by the combination of methods from different disciplines? More to the point,
are new methods possible? Yes, but are the new linguistic approaches that have been
proposed worthwhile? The methods for establishing relationships among languages are well
known and effective; nonetheless, some linguists, dissatisfied with what they perceive to be
limitations of traditional methods, have proposed new approaches; none of these has
achieved success (for details see Campbell 2003a, 2003b, Campbell and Poser in press). I
mention some problems with the more influential of these.
5.1. Nichols approach. Johanna Nichols (1992, 1997a, 1997b, ) aims at developing
techniques for reaching beyond the comparative method, which she assumes becomes
ineffective after 8,000 years (Nichols 1997a:363). She uses non-genetic structural
comparison to show that structural affinities between large language areas can be mapped ...
to give us an unimpeded, if rather spare and abstract, view of language origins and ancient
linguistic prehistory (Nichols 1996:267). She tries to find ties among language populations
and to gauge the relative age of linguistic traits in large-scale geographical areas; she tries to
infer the source and direction of spread of these structural features, and to infer how
languages came to have their geographical distributions.
For Nichols, the geographical spread of features involves accretion zones and spread
zones (cf. Nichols 1992:231, 1997a:369-70). An accretion zone (residual zone) is an area
where genetic and structural diversity of languages are high and increase over time through
immigration, e.g. Caucasus, the Himalayas, the Ethiopian highlands, California, the Pacific
Northwest, Amazonia, northern Australia, New Guinea. (Nichols 1997a:369.) A spread zone
is an area of low density where a single language or family occupies a large range, where
diversity does not to build up with immigration but is reduced by language shift and
language spreading, e.g. the grasslands of central Eurasia, central and southern Australia,
northern Africa, the Great Basin (Nichols 1997a:369).
This distinction between spread zones and accretion zones is misapplied in some
of her cases, damaging her overall conclusions. Nichols treats Mesoamerica as a spread
zone, but by her own criteria (Nichols 1992:16-7) it is an accretion (residual) zone, with (1)
Lots of linguistic diversity, not the low genetic diversity characteristic of her spread zones.
(2) Lots of structural diversity, as opposed to low structural diversity for spread zones. (3)
The language families are not shallow in time depth. (4) In opposition to the criterion of
rapid spread wiping out existing families, Mesoamerican families rarely wiped out or took
over anybody elses territory or language. (5) There was no clear lingua franca. (For details
of other mis-analyzed zones in Nichols work, see Campbell and Poser in press.) Since
Nichols (1992) deals with only five spread zones (and five residual zones); with even one of
five mis-assigned (20%), all the counts involving these zones are seriously skewed.
Other problems include the languages which define her zones. For example, in
Nichols Mesoamerica, of ten languages included (Nichols 1992, nine in Nichols 1995:342),
two (Chichimec, Miskito) are outside Mesoamerica both geographically and linguistically.
7

Given this combination of non-Mesoamerican languages (20%) with true Mesoamerican

languages, all of Nichols calculations (of spread, stability, the character and distribution of
linguistic traits) are skewed and called into question.
Nichols (1992:291) has only four spread zones: Ancient Near East, Europe, Central
Australia, and Interior North America (Mesoamerica, a mis-assigned accretion zone, is
eliminated). These zones are so different from one another that they do not permit
generalization; some do not fit Nichols criteria well. There are so few spread zones, and
those identified as such have such disparate characters, there appears to be no sound basis for
generalizing (see Campbell and Poser in press).
Another key element in Nichols approach is typological traits said to be relatively
stable both genetically and areally. She deals with about a dozen assumed stable features,
e.g. head/dependent marking, typological alignment (nominative-accusative, ergative,
active), morphological complexity, verb position in clauses, inclusive/exclusive,
alienable/inalienable, noun classes, numeral classifiers, number neutralization, non-finite
verbs, and voice. However, there is nothing particularly stable about some of these (see
Campbell and Poser in press for details). For example, Nichols (2003:304) finds the inclusive
vs. exclusive first person pronoun opposition to be genetically the most stable of all the
features tested. In fact, it is not very stable at all, nor is there any particular reason why it
should be. There are a number of cases where dialects of the same language differ in that
some have the contrast and others lack it, where the change is attested as recent. The
inclusive/exclusive contrast is typically rather superficial and not deeply integrated in the
fabric of the grammar, meaning there is nothing inherent in it which leads to nor would result
in long-term stability. As Jacobsen (1980:204) points out:
This category [first person inclusive/exclusive pronominal contrasts] is probably one
that diffuses fairly readily, as it is purely semantic and not bound to the syntactic
structure of a language .... It is sometimes found to be typical of a whole language
family, but may also turn up in isolated members of a family, as, for example, in
Choctaw alone in the Muskogean family ... in Yuki alone in the Yukian family ... in
Shuswap alone in the Salish family ... or in Kwakiutl but not Nootka in the Wakashan
family.
If the general issue of stability is called into question, then Nichols conclusions
based on spread and clustering of these traits and the inferences she attempts to draw for
really remote prehistory are brought into question as well.
In particular, the notions of spread zones and accretion/residual zones are not well
founded.
5.2. Punctuated Equilibrium. Dixon (1997:2) also asks about language
developments beyond the reach of the comparative method. Dixon favors the view that
extensive diffusion and language contact can make phylogenetic classification difficult
(Dixon 2002). However, his correlation of states of equilibrium with extensive contactinduced diffusion and punctuation events with diversification into language families is
linguistically unrealistic. he characterizes his approach as follows:
The hypothesis put forward here to describe and explain the development of language
8

during the 100,000 or more years since its first emergence is that there have been
long periods of equilibrium during which a number of languages have coexisted in
a more or less harmonious way within a given region without any major changes
taking place. From time to time the state of equilibrium is punctuated by some
cataclysmic event; this will engender sweeping changes in the linguistic situation and
may trigger a multiple split and expansion (which would be appropriately modelled
by a family tree diagram). The punctuation may be due to some natural event
(floods, drought, volcanic eruption), or to the emergence of an aggressive political or
religious group, or to some striking technical innovation, or simply to entry into new
and pristine territory. After the events which caused the punctuation have run their
course, a new state of equilibrium will come into being. (Dixon 1997:67; see also
Dixon 2002:32-5.)
The notion of punctuated equilibrium is challenged in biology. There is nothing
special about punctuated equilibrium; evolution continues even without punctuated events
disrupting equilibrium (Dennett 1995). Language change and differentiation into language
families also continue in periods of equilibrium (in the absence of disruptive events) (Dixon
1997:69-70). The problems with the concept in biology also hold for languages changes of
both sorts, divergence and borrowing, take place both in equilibrium and in punctuation.
Problems for Dixons model include instances of equilibrium with diversification,
equilibrium without diffusion, diffusion in punctuation, and the difficulty of distinguishing
equilibrium from punctuation (see Campbell and Poser in press). The correlation envisaged,
which equates equilibrium with convergence, and punctuation with divergence, is not
supported both kinds of change take place in both kinds of situations. (See Campbell
2003b, Crowley 1999, Watkins 2001.)
5.3. Ecological risk. Nettle adopts the ecological risk hypothesis, an economic
theory concerned with the formation and maintenance of social networks to provide
household social insurance against normal risks of agriculture (Nettle 1996:413). The
greater the provisioning problem, the wider the social network necessary (Nettle 1996:414).
Nettle adds a linguistic component: it is the larger networks of generalized exchange which
ultimately give rise to different ethnolinguistic groups (1996:413); ethnolinguistic groups
are thus best characterized as informal networks of intensive generalized exchange, which
function through reciprocity and reciprocal roles (Nettle 1996:412); the ecological risk
hypothesis thus predicts that the size of ethnolinguistic groups should increase in proportion
to the amount of ecological risk that they face (Nettle 1996:414). Nettle attempted to test
this notion based on data from West Africa.
The economic determinism which correlates size of language with extent of
economic risk is too single-minded. Social linkages often follow linguistic lines, but not
always; people organize themselves in ethnic, economic, and other alliances. Alliances may
aid against economic risk, but alliances lying within single languages are not the only
relevant ones. Alliances often are forged also across language boundaries. Linguistic
homogeneity is not necessary for economic cohesion and exchange. These economic ends
can be served through multilingualism, lingua francas, trading pidgin], etc. Indeed, West
African society is characterized by a high degree of multilingualism (Nettle 1996:408).
Cross-linguistic alliances of various sorts can serve economic risk reduction.
9

Problems for this approach include the following. The presence of large and small languages
in the same area: in circumstances of economic risk, small languages should not survive; all
the languages of a region should be roughly equally large to address the risk. Difficulties
from non-ecological influences on language distribution: the approach fails to take into
account the impact of important political units. There are numerous other counterexamples:
the spread of Nahuatl with the Aztec empire, Quechua with the Inca empire, Latin by
Romans, and the spread of Arabic, Chinese, Turkish, and so many others. Clearly, factors
other than ecology can figure in the spread and distribution of languages. Nettles approach
lacks diachronic perspective (McConvell 2001). His view relies on a simple correlation
between the distributions of languages as they are today and ecological factors of their
regions. It needs to take temporal considerations into account. For example, the emphasis
on horizontal exchange between households to explain the spread of languages such as
Hausa (Nettle 1999:74-6) neglects the influence in the past of Hausa emirates, taxation and
tribute, and associated power and prestige as factors in the spread of Hausa. A fuller
diachronic perspective is needed. There is much more to ecological risk-reduction than mere
linguistic cohesion, and much more to language distribution and spread than ecology. (See
Campbell and Poser in press.)
5.4. The farming/language dispersal model. A major alleged motive for various
proposed linguistic expansions is agriculture (Renfrew 1987, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2002) and
Bellwood (1991, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002) farming dispersals, generally through the
expansion of populations of farmers by a process of colonization or demic diffusion, are
responsible for the distribution and areal extent of many of the worlds language families
(Renfrew 1996:70).
There are various difficulties with this approach. Agriculture does not always
motivate language expansions, as predicted by the model. Rather, agriculture can provide a
folk with the stability just to stay put, in relative self-sufficiency, so that they do not need to
expand. There are numerous cases of agricultural language families that have not spread
significantly (e.g. Papuan language families, Mixe-Zoquean) and of non-agricultural ones
which have spread (e.g. Pama-Nyungan and Athabaskan). The model has difficulty
explaining the co-existence of small languages and big languages in the same territory. (The
model predicts that small languages should be swallowed up and eliminated by the
expanding larger agricultural languages.) There are problems of interpretation. For example,
the Indo-Europeanization of Europe and northern India took several millennia, with various
movements and expansions; Indo-Europeanists insist on a number of independent
movements over scores of centuries to account for the distribution of Indo-European
languages. This telescoping of events into a single spread with a single cause seems
unrealistic. Agriculture is but one factor which can contribute to language spread and
diversification. (See Campbell 2003b.)
5.5. Misunderstanding existing methods. The call for new methods or models (cf.
for example, Chappell 2001:354, Dixon 1997:28, 2002:31, etc.) is associated with a
misunderstanding on the part of some scholars of the existing methods. Some scholars of late
have taken a skeptical view of the validity of family tree diagrams (and the comparative
method) (Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001:6, Dahl 2001:1456-7, Dixon 2002:22, 31). It is
important to clarify this.
Mainstream historical linguists realize that it is not possible adequately to understand
diffusion fully without knowing the genetic affiliation of the languages involved and vice
10

10

versa, not possible to account fully for what is inherited without proper attention to what is
diffused: both the comparative method and areal linguistics are historical disciplines twin
faces of diachronic linguistics (Hamp 1977:27).
The goal of the historical linguist is to answer the question, what happened?, whether
it be due to inheritance, diffusion, or a combination of both. Indeed, in attempting to answer
this question, both the inherited and the diffused are necessary at the same time. Matters of
burden of proof requires this. To test any hypothesis of genetic inheritance, it is necessary to
demonstrate that it fits the facts better than alternative possible explanations, borrowing
being principal among possible alternatives (though accident, universals, and others must
also be considered). Similarly, for any hypothesis of borrowing, it is necessary to
demonstrate that other possible explanations do not provide a better answer, and the
possibility of inheritance from a common ancestor is crucial among those that must be
eliminated for the hypothesis of diffusion to stand. Many of the errors and excesses seen
today in both proposals of distant genetic relationships and in proposals that champion
diffusion stem from not considering other possible explanations sufficiently before reaching
conclusions in particular cases.
Inheritance and diffusion have always been of crucial importance and historical
linguistics has appropriate methods to address them. Moreover, the comparative method is
not at odds with borrowing (though it treats only inheritance, genealogical relationships
directly); it is a major tool in detecting borrowing and thus of understanding what is inherited
and what is diffused. Hbschmann (1875) demonstrated this when he proved that Armenian
was a separate branch of Indo-European, and not a dialect of Iranian as previously thought
(Watkins 2001:59). Armenian exhibits extensive influence from Iranian, but the comparative
method revealed this as diffusion and not inheritance. That inheritance and diffusion can be
tackled with the comparative method has been shown time and again (Bowern and Koch
2004:1-2, Watkins 2001, Ross 1988, 1998, etc.).
A misunderstanding is the belief that historical linguists held the family tree diagram
to be the whole story (cf. Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001:6-7). This is wrong; historical
linguists have always also taken borrowing and diffusion into account, and have methods for
dealing with them. As Sebeok (1950:101) made clear, if some scholars limit their vision to
only that which is inherited, too bad for them, but this is not an accurate characterization of
what historical linguists do generally nor of the history of the field, as the Armenian case and
other examples show.
So what about cases where it is difficult or even impossible to determine whether
shared traits are due to inheritance, diffusion, independent parallel development, or accident?
This difficulty is often mentioned by those who wish to place the comparative method in bad
light (cf. Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001:1, Aikhenvald 2001:190-1, LaPolla 2001, Chappell
2001:335, 353-4, Dahl 2001:1456). All retrospective sciences must face the same problem:
we do our best with the evidence available; sometimes it does not allow definitive answers.
However, in linguistics fortunately our methods have proven successful so often of
distinguishing inheritance from borrowing, we do not abandon them just because in some
specific instance the evidence is insufficient, just as we do not conclude that an automobile
can never take us anywhere just because the gasoline ran out once.
In short, linguists have a battery of techniques in addition to the comparative method
(see Campbell 2004:62-84, 211-24, 330-43).
11

11

This discussion clarifies Comries (2006:5) statement: although the family tree
model forms the basis for much of comparative-historical linguistics, it necessarily involves
a simplification of the actual historical facts. Historical linguists would say it is not a
simplification; rather, the comparative method addresses directly only inherited material,
while other methods and techniques (for borrowing, wave theory, language contact, areal
linguistics) help to complete the picture the comparative method alone was never thought
to be provide the whole picture. It barely needs to be pointed out that both population
genetics, as well as linguistics, has solid methods of dealing with non-cladistic stuff.
Contributions from linguistic and human genetic collaboration can well be expected in these
areas not handled with phylogenetic tree models.
Another problem with respect to methods is the frequent uncritical acceptance of
unreliable new linguistic approaches. Many non-linguists have been misled by the work
of Dixon, Nichols, and others, but as the discussion above shows, caution is needed here.
Another problem is the fondness for glottochronology, a not-so-new method generally
discredited in linguistics. The critiques of glottochronology (lexicostatistics) are compelling
(see Campbell 2004:200-10) and need not be rehearsed here; instead, let me mention the
more practical reasons for why we are unable to see into the distant past based on such
treatments of lexical evidence.
By glottochronology, after about 14,000 years, nearly all of a languages basic
vocabulary will be replaced, so in related languages which split up before 15,000 years ago,
we will not find recognizable cognates.8 Though glottochronology is rejected, this reflects
the reality that over time vocabulary is replaced, and we cannot expect cognate vocabulary to
survive in modern languages for tens of thousands of years, retained in recognizable form,
given the amount of normal lexical replacement and phonological change that take place in
far shorter lengths of time (Hock 1993:218, Trask 1996:392).
The ancestor of English and Hindi did not begin to diversify into separate languages
until some 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, but they share only some five clear cognates on the
Swadesh 100-word list (Campbell and Poser in press). If the impact on the vocabulary of
clearly related languages is so great after only a few millennia, surely there is no hope for
comparisons at very remote time levels. In short, too much loss and garbling has taken place
from very remote times (say beyond 15,000 years) for anything to survive or be recognizable
today in related languages that diversified so long ago.
There are recent quantification-oriented approaches which are more sophisticated
than glottochronology, some of which attempt to capitalize on methodological insights from
genetics (Gray and Atkinson 2003, Atkinson et al. 2005), and it will pay to explore them
further, though linguists in general doubt the ability to date based on lexical evidence alone
the replacement of the lexicon, however, is not necessarily cladistic, since a language
community can borrow words from nearly anywhere, in any order, in addition to generating
lexical replacement by internal means (Moore 1994:928) To the extent that other
approaches rely on structural traits without formal expression (phonological substance, as
Dunn et al. 2005 do), they are subject to the problems of other approaches that violate the
requirement of sound-meaning isomorphism, that meaningful comparisons must involve both
sound and meaning together (Greenberg 1957, 1963, 1987) because structural parallels
without formal expression (sound) can arise in many ways in addition to just inheritance
from a common ancestor (Campbell and Poser in press).
12

12

6. Conclusions and directions for the future. While significant contributions from
linguistic-genetic collaboration are possible, it is important to call for caution concerning
several misconceptions frequently encountered in correlations of languages and genes. Some
of these problems pointed out in this paper are:
(1) Predilection for problematic linguistic phylogenetic classifications, unfounded proposals
of remote linguistic kinship, and for non-mainstream scholars claims about language
classifications.
(2) Fondness for glottochronology, generally discredited in linguistics.
(3a) Reliance on misleading models of linguistic diversification and spread.
(3b) Misunderstanding of the nature in linguistics of inheritance (genetic) and borrowing
(language contact) and how they interact.
(4) Uncritical acceptance of unreliable new linguistic approaches.
(5) Assumption of indefensible claims about kinds of societies influencing language change.
What is the way forward, then?
On the one hand, it lies in avoiding these problems. We should not expect human
genetic-linguistic parallelism, but rather emphasize realistic approaches that deal seriously
with horizontal relationships (diffusion/admixture/gene flow) in addition to cladistic ones.
We should void the proposed linguistic phylogenetic hypotheses that are mostly rejected. It
is a waste of time to attempt to find human genetic correlations with linguistic entities that
are probably not real; it is also unproductive to attempt to challenge linguistic classifications
based on human genetic evidence. If the genes do not match in these cases, it is probably
because the linguistic classifications are not real entities, but even when valid linguistic
phylogenetic groupings do not match the human genetic picture, the reason may be that the
languages and the genes did not have parallel (vertical) histories, but involve horizontal
(diffusion/gene flow) differences. A finding of a human genetic non-congruence with
language is irrelevant for language classification. One of the soundest principles of language
classification is that only linguistic evidence counts (Greenberg 1957, 1963), since as Boas
demonstrated in the beginning of American anthropology, shared cultural traits, mythology,
folklore, technologies, and human biological traits can be and often are independent of one
another or are diffused and must be eliminated from arguments for linguistic kinship
(Campbell and Poser in press).
Correlations between linguistics and human genetics typically assume an identifiable
correlation between language and genes through time. But, to what extent do groups with
shared genes and a common language tend to coincide? To what extent do the correlations,
when the exist, tend to last? A group can shift (replace) its language more rapidly than it can
change its genes. This means that a lack of correlation between language and human
genetics should not be surprising perhaps significant correlations, particularly between
language and genes are more surprising.
So, on the other hand, the way forward involves accepting that lack of significant
correlation is not so much a problem, but an opportunity for geneticists and linguists to
collaborate both in benefiting from each others methods and in coming to a fuller
understanding of the dynamics of human populations and the transmission of language. In
particular, jointly addressing non-cladistic processes (diffusion, admixture, gene flow), we
stand to make progress in grasping the prehistory of various human groups more fully.
References
13

13

Adelaar, Willem F.H. 1989. Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg.
Lingua 78:249-55.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001. Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of
subgrouping: a North Arawak case study. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance,
ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 167-94. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
_____. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R.M.W. Dixon. 2001. Introduction. Areal diffusion and
genetic inheritance, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 1-26.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amoss, Pamela T. 1993. Hair of the dog: unraveling pre-contact Coast Salish social
stratification. American Indian linguistics and ethnography in honor of Laurence C.
Thompson, ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 3-35. (University of
Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 10.) Missoula, MT: University of
Montana.
Andersen, Henning, 1988. Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion and spread. Historical
dialectology, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 39-83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Atkinson, Quentin, Geoff Nicholls, David Welch, and Russell Gray. 2005. From words to
dates: water into wine, mathemagic or phylogenetic inference? Transactions of the
Philological Society 10.193-219.
Babalini, C., Tl Tarsi, C. Martinez-Labarga, G. Scano, G. Pepe, G.F. De Stefano, and O.
Rickards. 2005. Col1A2 (type I collagen) polymorphisms in the Colorado Indians of
Ecuador. Annals of Human Biology 32.666-78.
Bakker, Peter. 2000. 2004. Phoneme inventories, language contact, and grammatical
complexity: a critique fo Trudgill. Linguistic Typology 8.368-75.
Bandelt, Hans-Jrgen, Vincent Macaulay, and Martin Richards. 2002. What molecules cant
tell us about the spread of languages and the Neolithic. Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, ed. by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew,
99-107. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bateman, Richard M., Ives Goddard, Richard O'Grady, V. A. Fund, Rich Mooi, W. John
Kress, and Peter Cannell. 1990a. The feasibility of reconciling human phylogeny and
the history of language. Current Anthropology 31.1-24.

14

14

_____. 1990b. On Human Phylogeny and Linguistic History: Reply to Comments. Current
Anthropology 31.177-82.
_____. 1990c. Reply to comments. Current Anthropology 31.315-16.
Bellwood, Peter. 1991. The Austronesian dispersal and the origin of languages. Scientific
American 265, 1:88-93.
_____. 1994. An archaeologists view of language macrofamily relationships. Oceanic
Linguistics 33.391-406.
_____. 2000. The time depth of major language families: an archaeologists perspective.
Time depth in historical linguistics, ed. by Colin Renfrew, April McMahon, and
Larry Trask, 109-40. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
_____. 2001. Early agriculturalist population diasporas? farming, languages and genes.
Annual Review of Anthropology 30.181-207.
_____. 2002. Farmers, foragers, languages, genes: the genesis of agricultural societies.
Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, ed. by Peter Bellwood and
Colin Renfrew, 17-28. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
Berman, Howard. 1992. A comment on the Yurok and Kalapuya Data in Greenbergs
Language in the Americas. International Journal of American Linguistics 58: 320-48.
Blount, Ben G. 1990. Comments on Speaking of forked tongues: the feasibility of
reconciling human phylogeny and the history of language. Current Anthropology
31.15.
Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian languages. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 40, part 1.5-83. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
Bolnick, Deborah A. (Weiss), Beth A. (Schultz) Shook, L. Campbell L, and Ives Goddard.
2004. Problematic use of Greenberg's linguistic classification of the Americas in studies
of Native American genetic variation. American Journal of Human Genetics 75.519523. (Also at:
www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n3/41367/41367.web.pdf.)
Bowern, Claire and Harold Koch 2004. Introduction: subgrouping methodology in historical
linguistics. Australian languages: classification and the comparative method, ed. by
Claire Bowern,and Harold Koch, 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Campbell, Lyle. 1988. Review article on Language in the Americas. Language 64:591-615.
15

15

_____. 1997. American Indian languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

_____. 2003a. Beyond the Comparative Method? Historical linguistics 2003, ed. by Barry
Blake and Kate Burridge, 33-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____. 2003b. What drives linguistic diversity and language spread? Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, ed. by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew,
49-63. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
_____. 2004 Historical Linguistics: an Introduction . (2nd edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
_____. In press. What can we learn about the earliest human language by comparing
languages known today? Origins and Evolution of Language, ed. by Bernard Laks,
Serge Cleuziou, Jean-Paul Demoule, and Pierre Encrev. London: Equinox.
Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser. In press. Language Classification: History and
Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Alberto Piazza, Paolo Menozzi, and Joanna Mountain. 1988.
Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological and
linguistics data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sicences USA 85.6002-6.
Chappell, Hilary. 2001. language contact and areal diffusion in Sinitic languages. Areal
diffusion and genetic inheritance, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W.
Dixon, 328-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chernela, Janet. 2004. Marriage, Language, and History Among Eastern Speaking Peoples of
the Northwest Amazon. Latin American Anthropology Review1.36-41.
Chikhi, Louns. 2002. Admixture and the demic diffusion model in Europe. Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, ed. by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew,
435-47. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Comrie, Bernard. 2006. Language and genes. www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/projects/Languagesand-Genes/position.html.
Crowley, Terry. 1999. Review of Rise and fall of languages, by R.M.W. Dixon. Australian
Journal of Linguistics 19.109-15.
Dahl sten. 2001. Principles of areal typology. Language universals and language typology:
an international handbook, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, E. Knig, W. Oesterreicher,
and W. Raible, 1456-470. BErlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16

16

Dennnett, Daniel C. 1995. Darwins dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life.
London: Penguin Books.
Dixon, R. M.W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
_____. 2002. Australian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley, and Stephen C. Levinson.
2005. Science 309.2072-5.
Eshleman, Jason A., Ripan S. Malhi, John R. Johnson, Frederika A. Kaestle, Joseph Lorenz,
and David Glen Smith. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA and Prehistoric Settlements:
Native Migrations on the Western Edge of North America. Human Biology 76.55-75.
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa. 1996. When animals become rounded and feminine: conceptual
categories and linguistic classification in a multilingual setting. Rethinking linguistic
relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 438-69. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gray, Russell D. and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support
the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426.435-9.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Genetic relationship among languages. Essays in linguistics,
chapter 3, 35-45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_____. 1963. The languages of Africa. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology,
Folklore, and Linguistics, Pub. 25, International Journal of American Linguistics
29.1.II. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
_____. 1971. The Indo-Pacific hypothesis. Current trends in linguistics, 8: Linguistics in
Oceania, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 807-71. The Hague: Mouton.
_____. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
_____. 2000. Indo-European and its closest relatives: the Eurasiatic language family.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner II, and Stephen L. Zegura. 1986. The settlement of
the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current
Anthropology 27.477-97.
Grondona, Vernica and Lyle Campbell. 2006 [in preparation]. Language choice among
three languages and linguistic exogamy in Misin La Paz (Salta, Argentina).
17

17

Hajek, John. 2004. Consonant inventories as an areal feature of the New Guinea-Pacific
region: testing Trudgills hypothesis. Linguistic Typology 8.384-8.
Hamp, Eric P. 1977. On some questions of areal linguistics. Berkeley Linguistics

Society 3.279-82.
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1993. SWALLOTALES: Chance and the "world etymology"
MALIQA swallow, throat. Chicago Linguistic Society 29.215-38.
Hunley, Keith, and Jeffrey C. Long. 2005. Gene flow across linguistic boundaries in Native
North American populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
102.1312-17.
Hurles, Matthew. 2002. Can the hypothesis of language/agriculture co-dispersal be tested
with archeogenetics? Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis, ed. by
Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew, 299-309. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Hymes, Dell H. 1974. Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality
among speakers. Language as a human problem, ed. by Morton Bloomfield and
Einar Haugen, 45-71. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Jackson, Jean. 1974. Language identity of the Colombian Vaups Indians. Explorations in
the ethnography of speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 50-64.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 1983. The fish people: linguistic exogamy and Tukanoan identity in Northwest
Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1980. Inclusive/exclusive: a diffused pronominal category in
native Western North America. Papers from the parasession on pronouns and
anaphora, ed. by Jody Kreiman and Almerindo E. Ojeda, 204-27. Chicago: Chicago
Linguisic Society.
Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Remarques sur lvolution phonologique du russe compare celle
des autres langues slaves. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 2.) [Reprinted
1962, in Selected writings of Roman Jakobson, I: Phonological studies. The Hague:
Mouton.]
_____. 1938. Sur la thorie des affinities phonologiques entre les langues. Actes du
quatrieme congres international de linguists (tenu a Copenhague du 27 aot 1er
septembre, 1936), 48-58. (Reprinted, 1949, as an appendix to: Principes de
phonologie, by N. S. Troubetzkoy, 351-65. Paris: Klincksieck.)
Kabak, Baris. 2004. Acquiring phonology is not acquiring inventories but contrasts: the loss
18

18

of Turkic and Korean primary long vowels. Linguistic Typology 8.351-68.

Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Language History in South America: What we know and how to
know more. In David L. Payne, ed. Amazonian Linguistics, pp.13-74. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Kimball, Geoffrey. 1992. A critique of Muskogean, Gulf, and Yukian materials in
Language in the Americas. International Journal of American Linguistics 58: 447501.
LaPolla, Randy. 2001.The role of migration and language contact in the development of the
Sino-Tibetan language family. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in
comparative linguistics, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 225-4.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malhi, Ripan S., Jason A. Eshleman, Jonathan A. Greenberg, Deborah A. Weiss, Beth A.
Schultz Shook, Frederika A. Kaestle, Joseph G. Lorenz, Brian M. Kemp, John R.
Johnson, and David Glenn Smith. 2002. The structure of diversity within New World
mitochondrial DNA haplogroups: implications for the prehistory of North American
Journal of Human Genetics 70.90519.
Malhi, Ripan S., Holly M. Mortensen, Jason A. Eshleman, Brian M. Kemp, Joseph G.
Lorenz, Frederika A. Kaestle, John R. Johnson, Clara Gorodezky, and David Glenn
Smith.. 2003. Native American mtDNA prehistory in the American Southwest.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 120.10824.
Manning, Paatrick. 2006. Homo sapiens populates the earth: a provisional synthesis,
privileging linguistic evidence. Journal of World History 17.115-96.
Matisoff, James A. 1990. Review article On Megalocomparison. Language 66(1):106-120.
McConvell, Patrick. 2001. Review of Linguistic Diversity, by Danial Nettle. Language in
Society 30, 97-100.
McMahon, April. 2004. Language, time and human histories. Language and
revolution/Language and time, ed. by Frank Brisard, Sigurd dHondt, and Tanja
Mortelmans, 155-70. (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 106). Antwerp: Univesity of
Antwerp.
McMahon, April and Robert McMahon. 1995. Linguistics, genetics and archaeology:
internal and external evidence in the Amerind controversy. Transactions of the
Philological Society 93.125-225.
McMahon, Robert. 2004. Genes and Languages. Community Genetics 7.2-13.
19

19

Merriweather, D.A., B.M. Kemp, D.E. Crews, and J.V. Neel. 2000. Gene flow and genetic
variation in the Yanomama as revealed by mitochondrial DNA. America Past,
America Present: Genes and Languages in the Americas and Beyond, ed. by Colin
Renfrew, 89-124. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Moore, John H. 1994. Putting anthropology back together again: the ethnogenetic critique of
cladistic theory. American Anthropologist 96. 925-48.
Nasidze, Ivan, Dominique Quinque, Isabelle Dupanloup, Sergey Rychkov, Oksana
Naumova, Olga Zhukova, and Mark Stoneking. 2004. Genetic Evidence Concerning
the Origins of South and North Ossetians. Annals of Human Genetics 68.588-99.
Nasidze, Ivan, Tamara Sarkisian, Azer Kerimov, and Mark Stoneking. 2003. Testing
hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Ychromosome. Human Genetics 112.255-61.
Nasidze, Ivan and mark Stoneking. 2006. Mother tongue: concom[m]inant replacement of
language and mtdna in south Caspian populations.
www.tech.plym.ac.uk/socce/evolang6/nasidze_stoneking.doc.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nettle, Daniel and Louise Harriss. 2003. Genetic and Linguistic Affinities between Human
Populations in Eurasia and West Africa. Human Biology 75.331-44.
Nettle, Daniel and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: the extinction of the worlds
languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nevanlinna, H.R. 1984. Suomalaisten juuret geneettisen merkkiominaisuustutkimuksen
valossa. [The roots of the Finns in the light of genetic research into distinguishing
genetic characteristics], in: Suomen vestn esihistorialliset juuret (= Bidrag till
knnedom av Finlands natur och folk, Utgivna av Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten,
131), ed. by Jarl Galln (Helsinki), 157-74.
Nichols, Johanna. 1990. 1992. Linguistic diversity in time and space. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
_____. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. Historical linguistics 1993: selected
papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, ed. by
Henning Andersen, 337-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____. 1996. The geography of language origins. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22, 267-78.
_____. 1997a. Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics. Annual
Review of Anthropology 26.359-84.
20

20

_____. 1997b. The epicenter of the Indo-European linguistic spread. Archaeology and
language, 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, ed. by R. M. Blench and
Matthew Spriggs, 122-48. London: Routledge.
_____. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed.
by Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, 283-310. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pakendorf, Brigitte, Victor Wiebe, Larissa A. Tarskaia, Victor A. Spitsyn, Himla Soodyall,
Alexander Rodewald, and Mark Stoneking. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA evidence for
admixed origins of central Siberian populations. American Journal of Physical
Anthropolology 120.211-24.
Pericliev, Vladimir. 2004. There is no correlation between the size of a community speaking
a language and the size of the phonological inventory of that language. Linguistic
Typology 8.376-83.
Poloni E.S., O. Semino, G. Passarino G, A.S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, L. Dupanloup, A.
Langaney, and L. Excoffier. 1997. Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome
P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. American
Journal of Human Genetics 61.1015-35.
Poser, William J. 1992. The Salinan and Yurumangui data in Language in the Americas.
International Journal of American Linguistics 58:202-9.
Rankin, Robert L. 1992. Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H.Greenberg,
International Journal of American Linguistics 58:324-51.
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins.
London: Jonathan Cape.
_____. 1994. World linguistic diversity. Scientific American 270.116-23.
_____. 1997. World linguistic diversity and farming dispersals. Archaeology and language I:
theoretical and methodological orientations, ed. by Roger Blench and Matthew
Spriggs, 82-90. London: Routledge.
_____. 2000. At the edge of knowability: towards a prehistory of languages. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 10.7-34.
_____. 2002. The emerging synthesis: the archaeogenetics of farming/language dispersals
and other spread zones. Examining the farming/laaguage dispersal hypothesis, ed. by
Colin Renfrew and Peter Bellwood, 3-16. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
21

21

Rice, Keren. 2004. Language contact, phonemic inventories, and the Athapaskan language
family. Linguistic Typology 8.321-43.
Ringe, Donald A., Jr. 1992. On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82.1:1-110.
_____. 1996. The mathematics of Amerind. Diachronica 13.135-54.
Ross, Malcolm D. 1987. A contact-induced morphosyntactic change in the Bel languages of
Papua New Guinea. A world of language: papers presented to Professor S.A. Wurm
on his 65th birthday, ed. by Donald C. Laycock and Werner Winter, 583-601.
(Pacific Linguistics C-100.) Canberra: Australian National University.
_____. 1995a. Some current issues in Austronesian linguistics. Comparative Austronesian
dictionary: an introduction to Austronesian studies, Part 1: fascicle 1, ed. by Darrell
T. Tryon, 45-120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
_____. 1995b. The great Papuan pronoun hunt: recalibrating our sights. Tales from a
concave world: Liber Amoricum Bert Voorhoeve. ed. by Connie Baak, Mary Bakker
and Dick van der Meij, 139-68. Leiden: Leiden University, Projects Division,
Department of Languages and Cultures of South-East Asia and Oceania.
_____. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: cases from Papua New
Guinea. The Comparative Method Reviewed: regularity and irregularity in language
change, ed. by Mark Durie and Malcolm Ross, 180-217. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
_____. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech community events. Archaeology and
language, 1: Theoretical and methodological orientations, ed. by R. M. Blench and
Matthew Spriggs, 209-61. London: Routledge.
_____. 1998. Sequencing and dating linguistic events in Oceania: the linguistics/archaeology
interface. Archaeology and language II: correlating archaeological and linguistic
hypotheses, ed. by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, 141-73. London: Routledge.
Rosser, Z.H., T. Zerjal, M. Hurles, M. Adojaan, D. Alavantic, A. Amorim, W. Amos, M.
Armenteros, E. Arroyo, G. Barbujani, G. Beckman, L. Beckman, J. Bertranpetit, E.
Bosch, D.G. Bradley, G. Brede, G. Cooper, H.B.S.M. Corte-Real, P. de Knijff, R.
Decorte, Y.E. Dubrova, O. Evgrafov, A. Gillissen, S. Glisic, M. Golge, E.W. Hill, A.
Jeziorowska, L. Kalaydjieva, M. Kayser, T. Kivisild, S.A. Kravchenko, A. Krumina,
V. Kucinskas, J. Lavinha, L.A. Livshits, P. Malaspina, M. Syrrou, K. McElreavey,
T.A. Meitinger, A.-V. Mikelsaar, R.J. Mitchell, K. Nafa, J. Nicholson, S. Norby, A.
Pandya, J. Parik, P.C. Patsalis, L. Pereira, B. Peterlin, G. Pielberg, M.J. Prata, C.
Previdere C, Roewer L, Rootsi S, Rubinsztein DC, Saillard J, Santos FR, Stefanescu,
B.C. Sykes, A. Tolun, R. Villems, C. Tyler-Smith, and M.A. Jobling. 2000. Y22

22

chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography,

rather than by language. American Journal of Human Genetics 67.1526-43.
Rubicz, Rohina, Kristin L. Melvin, and Michael H. Crawford. 2002. Genetic evidence for the
phylogenetic relationship between Na-Dene and Yeniseian speakers. Human Biology
74.743-60.
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A guide to the world's languages, vol. 1: classification. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
_____. 1994a. On the origin of languages: studies in linguistic taxonomy. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
_____. 1994b. On the origin of languages: tracing the evolution of the mother tongue. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Salzano, Francisco Mauro, Mara Helena Hutz, Sabrina Pinto Salamoni, Paula Rohr, and
Sidia Maria Gallegari-Jaques. 2005. Genetic support for proposed patterns of
relationship among lowland South American languages. Current Anthropology
46.121-9.
Savontaus, Marja-Liisa and Pivi Lahermo. 1999. Uralilainen muinaisuutemme
vestgentiikan valossa [Our Uralic antiguity in the light of population genetics].
Pohjan Poluilla: Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksn mukkaan [On northern paths:
Finnish roots accoring to current research], ed. by Paul Fogelberg, 60-3. Helsinki:
Suomen Tiedeseura.
Sims-Williams, P. 1998. Genetics, linguistics, and prehistory: Thinking big and thinking
straight. Antiquity 72.505-527.
Smith, David Glenn, Joseph Lorenz, Becky K. Rolfs, Robert L. Bettinger, Brian Green,
Jason Eshleman, Beth Schultz, and Ripan Malhi. 2000. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 111.557 572.
Sorensen, Arthur P. 1967. Multilingualism in the northwest Amazon. American
Anthropologist 69.670-84.
Spuhler, James N. 1979. Genetic distances, trees, and maps of North American Indians. The
first Americans: origins, affinities, and adaptations, ed. by William S. Laughlin and
Albert B. Harper, 135-83. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
Szathmary, Emke J. 1994. Modelling ancient population relationships from modern
population genetics. Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the
Americas, ed. by Robson Bonnichsen and D. Gentry Steele, 117-30. (Center for the
Study of the First Americans.) Corvallis: Oregon State University.
23

23

Torres, Maria M., Claudio M. Bravi, Maria-Ctira Bortolini, Constanza Duque, Sidia
Callegari-Jaques, Daniel Ortiz, Gabriel Bedoya, Helena Groot de Restrepo, and
Andrs Ruiz-Linares. 2006. American Journal of Human Biology 18.59-65
Trask, R[ichard] L[arry]. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Trejaut Jean A., Kivisild Toomas, Loo Jun Hun, Lee Chien Liang, He Chun Lin, Hsu Chia
Jung, Li Zheng Yuan, and Lin Marie. 2005. Traces of archaic mitochondrial lineages
persist in Austronesian-speaking Formosan populations. PLoS Biology 3(8)e281.
Trudgill, Peter. 1989. Contact and isolation in linguistic change. Language change:
contributions to the study of its causes, ed. by Leiv Egil Breivik and Ernst Hkon
Jahr, 227-38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
_____. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. Handbook of language variation and change,
ed. by J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 707-28, Oxford:
Blackwell.
_____. 2004a. Linguistic and social typology: Austronesian migrations and phoneme
inventories. Linguistic Typology 8.305-20.
_____. 2004b. On the complexity of simplification. Linguistic Typology 8.384-88.
Watkins, Calvert. 1990. Etymologies, equations, and comparanda: types and values, and
criteria for judgement. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, ed. by
Philip Baldi, 289-303. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
_____. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: ancient Anatolia.
Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? Areal diffusion and
genetic inheritance: problems in comparative linguistics, ed. by Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, 44-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, Elizabeth T., Daaryn Stover, Christopher Ehret, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Gabriella
Spedini, Howard McLeod, Leslie Louis, Mike Bamshad, Beverly I. Strassmann,
Himla Soodyall, and Michael F. Hammer. 2005. Contrasting patterns of Y
chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic
processes. European Journal of Genetics 2005.1-10.
Zerjal, Tatiana, Lars Beckman, Gunhild Beckman, Aavo-Valdur Mikelsaar, Astrida Krumina,
Vaidutis Kuinskas, Matthew E. Hurles and Chris Tyler-Smith. 2001. Geographical,
Linguistic, and Cultural Influences on Genetic Diversity: Y-Chromosomal Distribution
in Northern European Populations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18.1077-87.
1

I would like to thank Russell Gray, Victor Golla, and Dennis ORouke for helpful feedback on an earlier
version of this paper.

24

24

Moreover, sometimes there is a mismatch between MtDNA and Y-chromosome patterns, each suggesting a
different linguistic correlation for the population (see, for example, Nasidze et al. 2004, Nasidze and Stoneking
2006, Wood et al. 2005).
3

Chulup (Nivacl), Chorote, and Wich are Matacoan languages whose difference from one another is like that
of English from German.
4

Trudgill (2002, 2004a, 2004b) has elaborated his earlier views, though most commentators find no support for
Trudgills claims, rather they find numerous problems and counterexamples. (Hajek 2004, Bakker 2004, Kabak
2004, Pericliev 2004, Rice 2004).
5

Torres et al. 2006 would appear to confirm that the genetic marker of their study (haplogroup C) does not fall
squarely into any single one of Greenbergs large South American linguistic groupings, but, nevertheless seem
critical because there is no apparent correlation between Campbells [1997] linguistic classification and the
population distribution of the revertant C lineages (p.64). That is, they seem to expect a priori a direct human
genetic-linguistic association; however, their three languages (Guahibo [Guajiboan], Sliva [Slivan], and
Piacopo [Arawakan]), though members of different language families, are spoken in adjacent regions, and it
should be no surprise that genes could flow across adjaacent populations though speakers of not demonstrably
related to one another phylogenetically.
6

Curiously, some papers come up with the right answer that there is no meaningful linguistic-human genetic
correlations for some of these proposed but disputed linguistic macro-families but for the wrong reasons (for
example Hunley and Long 2005, Rubicz et al. 2002). That is, they assume the hypotheses of remote linguistic
affiliation such as those of Greenberg and Ruhlen (though rejected by most historical linguists), but show their
failure to match the human genetic picture. Of course for linguists who reject these hypotheses, it is no surprise
that the correlation of something linguistic that does not exist with genetic material should produce no
meaningful correlations.
7

In later work Ruhlen (Ruhlen 1994a, 1994b) reduces the number to only 12 phyla, and in fact he believes
ultimately there was only one, in his Proto-World hypothesis.
8

Nichols (1998:128) points out that, according to the method, after 6,000 years of separation, two languages
are expected to exhibit only 7% shared cognates; and 7% represents the lowest number of resemblant items that
can safely be considered distinct from chance.

25

25