Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Eriksen Galucio 2014 Tupi Expansion

    Загружено:

    Edson Matarezio
    43 просмотров23 страницы
    Eriksen Galucio 2014 Tupi Expansion

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Eriksen Galucio 2014 Tupi Expansion

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    43 просмотров23 страницы

    Eriksen Galucio 2014 Tupi Expansion

    Загружено:

    Edson Matarezio
    Eriksen Galucio 2014 Tupi Expansion

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 23
    8 The Tupian expansion Love Eriksen and Ana Vilacy Galucio This chapter explores the expansion of the Tupian languages and culture across greater Amazonia to better understand the mechanisms and processes of cultural and linguistic contact and change. Tupian languages are or were spoken among indigenous groups in Lowland South America from the Brazilian Atlantic coast through Paraguay to the eastern Andean slopes of Peru. The investigation uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the spatial distribution of cul- tural and linguistic features associated with Tupi-speaking groups in order to plot the historical expansions of the Tupian languages and to characterize the sociocultural and linguistic context and consequences of these events, parti ularly relating to internal and external contact situations. Research is directed toward multidisciplinary integration of linguistic data with cultural data derived from anthropology, archaeology, ethnohistory, and geography in order to reach a multifaceted understanding of the history of contact and exchange involving ‘Tupi-speaking groups. The chapter breaks new ground in combining traditional studies of material culture with linguistic data through the use of GIS, as well as in mapping and investigating the spatial distribution of linguistic features and their relationship to cultural attributes. 1 Introduction Attempts to reconstruct the expansion of the major linguistic families have a long and proud history in the research of the tropical lowlands of South Amer- ica. Schmidt (1917) described the expansion of Arawakan, while Nordenskiéld (1918-38) dealt with both Arawakan and Tupian, along with other ethnolin- guistic groups. Lathrap (1970) described the expansion of Panoan, Arawakan, and Tupian, and his followers Brochado (1984) and Oliver (1989) concerned themselves with Tupian and Arawakan, respectively. Meggers (e.g. 1971) tried Parts of the studies reported on here were carried out under the Tupi Comparative Project, a collaborative project ongoing at the Museu Goeldi/Brazil, since 1998, in cooperation with various Tupian specialists. We thank Pieter Muysken for making his personal notes on Lingua Geral Amazénica and Cocama-Cocamilla available to us. 177 178 Love Eriksen and Ana Vilacy Galucio to explain the expansion of the major linguistic families in the region as a consequence of population movements triggered by climate fluctuations, and Meggers and Evans (1978) proposed an origin of the Tupian family east of the Madeira River (a hypothesis already advocated by Métraux (1928) and Rodrigues (1964); see below). Noelli (1998, 2008) and Urban (1996) also devoted studies to the Tupian expansion, while Heckenberger (2002) addressed the Arawakan dispersal. More recently, Neves (201 1) has attempted to correlate ceramic styles with Arawakan and Tupian languages from an archaeological perspective; Walker and Ribeiro (2011) have modeled the linguistic history of Arawakan, and Eriksen and Danielsen (this volume) have studied the Arawakan dispersal from a transdisciplinary perspective. There have been several advances in various academic disciplines relevant to our understanding of linguistic expansions in pre-Columbian Amazonia during the last two decades. One decisive theoretical advance in this field of research comes from the work of Hornborg (2005) and Hornborg and Hill (2011), who stress the importance of understanding the development of ethnic identi- ties through the process of ethnogenesis (i.e. the development and continuous renegotiation of ethnic identities through sociocultural interaction) in order to decipher processes of cultural and linguistic exchange among indigenous groups. Another important factor includes the use of large-scale computer- ized databases of spatially distributed cultural and linguistic data (Geographic Information Systems, or GIS), which promotes multidisciplinary comparative studies of the interplay between cultural and linguistic variables through time (Eriksen 2011). And finally, the field of linguistics has seen a veritable boom both in good quality documentation of South American languages and in the use of computational tools and large-scale databases to probe the internal rela- tionships of Amazonian language families as well as the areal diffusion of lexical and structural features between different linguistic groupings (Muysken and O'Connor, this volume). 2 The Tupian language family and its branches In order to contextualize the current investigation, we start with a basic and non-exhaustive orientation to what has been accomplished in previous Tupian studies. The Tupian family is one of the largest and most widely distributed language families in lowland South America, with languages still spoken in a large geographic area that covers a great part of Brazil as well as adjacent areas in Paraguay, Argentina, French Guiana, Bolivia, and Peru (Map 8.1). It has long been recognized, based on the time depth of regional Tupian diversity, that the vast expansion of the Tupian family stems from a single point of origin (Métraux 1928; Rodrigues 1964; Noelli 2008), located east of the Madeira- Guaporé basin, in the Brazilian state of Rond6nia. From this point of origin, the ‘The Tupian expansion 179 HE Tear GM Tupi-Guarani Andes Map 8.1 The location of Tupi-speaking groups at the time of European contact family has expanded into ten branches: Tupari, Arikém, Purubora, Ramarama, Mondé, Juruna, Mundurukd, Tupf-Guaranf, Aweti, and Mawé (Figure 8.1) over a time span of roughly 4~5,000 years (cf. estimates by Rodrigues 1964 and other researchers). These ten branches encompass about 40-45 languages, not counting the differences among dialects spoken by distinct ethnic groups (Moore et al. 2008). 180 Love Eriksen and Ana Vilacy Galucio TUPI FAMILY Ramarsma,Pursbord Maw: Aves -Tup-Guarani Tapa Kens ta Np Say Ak 2b Gaile Cha Sek Kea Mets Kay into Me A ape Tip Map £22807 a Ma Figure 8.1 The branches of the Tupian language family! The genetic relationship and internal classification of the Tupian family shown schematically in Figure 8.1 incorporates recent historical-comparative studies concerning internal classification and proposals of intermediary stages in the evolution from Proto-Tup( to the current languages, including the results of lexical and grammatical comparison and reconstruction for the different branches of the Tupian family (Rodrigues 1984, 1985; Gabas Jr. 2000; Galucio and Gabas Jr. 2002; Moore 2005; Drude 2006; Picango 2010; Galucio and Nogueira 2012). The close relationship between Aweti, Mawé, and the Tupi-Guarani lan- guages has long been recognized (Rodrigues 1964, 1984, 1985; Rodrigues and Dietrich 1997), and it is by now well established that these languages constitute a large branch inside Tupi, the Mawé-Aweti-Tupi-Guaran{ branch (Drude 2006; Correa da Silva 2011; Drude and Meira to appear), termed the Maweti-Guarani branch by the latter two authors. This branch represents the major branch of the family, in number of languages and in territorial extension. Given the enormous diversity within the family in terms of territorial expan- sion, it is clear that the different Tupian groups have been shaped by distinct and individual historical experiences. An attempt to reconstruct the internal diversification and expansion of Tupian languages must therefore take these experiences into account, aided by a multidisciplinary approach that seeks to understand not only the genealogic relationship and contact history of the lan- guages from a linguistic point of view, but also the particular historical experi- ences of the groups by mapping the sociocultural features associated with them. 3 Lexical and structural distances between Tupian languages The genealogical classification of the Tupian family is presented in Figure 8.1, which shows the distinct levels of relationships between the ' The Tupi-Guarané branch has s lines, which are not shown in the ral languages and sub-branches, represented by the dotted agram. n 181 ‘The Tupian expan: languages and their evolutionary paths from the ancestor language, Proto-Tups. In this section, we present another view of Tupian language relations, based on distance matrices of shared features. We analyzed the data compiled for this study using quantitative techniques to visualize patterns of relationship in terms of lexical and structural similarity, without presuming an explicit genealogical history. We then compare assessments of similarity presented in network rep- resentations (Figures 8.2 and 8.3) to the internal relationships and genealogy of the Tupian family (Figure 8.1). 3.1 Linguistic distance based on lexical similarity analysis Galucio and colleagues (to appear) present the results of a lexicostatistical and phylogenetic study based on the analysis of the Swadesh list of 100 diag- nostic words considered to be most stable over time (Swadesh 1955) for all the nineteen Tupian languages outside the Tupi-Guaran{ family and for four Tupi-Guarané languages (Guaranf, Parintintim, Tapirapé, and Urubu-Kaapor). ‘Their study shows the degree of distance across Tupian languages, confirms the two more recently established branches of Ramarama-Purubora and Mawé- Aweti-Tupi-Guarani, and also supports the internal structure of each branch of the family based on historical-comparative methods. In the case of Tuparf and Mondé, the two most diversified branches outside Tupf-Guaranf, the phyloge- netic similarity tree agrees exactly with the independent internal classification of these branches (Moore 2005; Galucio and Nogueira 2012). We took their study and extended it to include a more complete set of languages from the Tupi-Guarani branch. Using the NeighborNet algorithm implemented in Splits- Tree4 (Huson and Bryant 2006), we generated an unrooted network expressing a distance measure among the Tupian languages on the basis of lexical similar- ity in the basic vocabulary for thirty-one Tupi-Guarané languages and dialectal varieties and the nineteen languages from the other Tupian branches already established by Galucio et al. (to appear). The distances between the languages based on the percentage of shared lexical items are shown in the NeighborNet representation in Figure 8.2.2 The analysis is not intended to show the historical development of these languages but rather the degree of distance between them, based on lexic: similarity that may also reflect the result of horizontal transfer. It is nonetheless remarkable that the major clusters of languages that surface from the distance measure shown in the graphic are comparable to the proposed path of historical development for the Tupian languages, on the basis of the comparative method (cf. Figure 8.1). The NeighborNet representation places Aweti as the closest ? Analysis relative to the non-Tuj juarani languages draws directly from Galucio et al. (Go appear) Figure 8.2. NeighborNet representation of lexical distances among Tupian languages ‘The Tupian expansion 183 language to the Tupi-Guarané cluster, followed by Mawé, and together forming the Mawet/-Guaran/ larger cluster, which is consistent with the proposed path of evolution in the history of these languages (Drude 2006; Correa da Silva 2011; Drude and Meira, to appear). The six other lexical clusters (Juruna, Arikém, Ramarama-Purubord, Mondé, Tupari, and Mundurukd) and their sub- splits correspond exactly to the more recent genealogic classification of these languages, as clearly seen in the Tupari and Mondé branches (Moore 2005; Galucio and Nogueira 2012). The linguistic cohesiveness of the Tupi-Guarani branch is also prominent in the network representation. Horizontal transfers due to contact and borrowing may be responsible for a great number of the synchronic resemblances in the Tupi-Guarani lexicon, not all of them due to retention from a common ancestor language. Nonetheless, as expected from the known history of these languages, the thirty-one Tupi-Guarané languages are closer to each other than to any other language in the Tupian family. However, the splits inside the Tup{-Guaran{ cluster do not correspond exactly to classifications of the Tupi-Guarani branch based on phonological criteria (Mello 2000; Rodrigues and Cabral 2002) or on a combination of lexical, phonological and grammatical criteria (Dietrich 1990). There is an overall absence of well-delimited lexical clusters inside the Tupi-Guaranf group in Figure 8.2. Among the few specific clusters that surface from the quantitative lexical comparison are the Kawahib languages (Parintintim, Tenharim, Amon- dawa, and Uru ju-uau) that are classified as dialectal variants (Sampaio 1997); the Yuki-Sirioné cluster of two closely related Tupian Bolivian lan- guages; the Wayampi-Emérillon cluster of languages spoken in the same geo- graphic area in French Guiana; the Lingua Geral Amaz6nica?-Urubu-Kaapor grouping, for which there have been claims of mutual influence through con- tact; and a Guaranj cluster that includes most of the languages in Rodrigues and Cabral’s subgroup I of Tupi-Guaranf (2002) but also includes Guarayo, spo- ken in Bolivia. The Cocama-Cocamilla language* appears close to Xeta. The Cocama lexicon, including the core vocabulary, is primarily Tupian (Cabral 1995), but it also shows lexical traits of Arawakan, Panoan, and Quechuan origin, in addition to Portuguese and Spanish (Muysken 2012b). 3.2 Linguistic distance based on structural similarity analysis For the structural analysis, we designed a preliminary questionnaire of twenty prominent typological features, divided between phonology, morphology and 5 Also known as Nheengatt, * Also known as Kokama. In this volume the spelling Cocama-Cocamilla is adopted, following Peruvian usage. * The question of Cocama’s genetic affiliation is discussed in Section 5, 184 Love Eriksen and Ana Vilacy Galucio syntax.° Due to the availability of data, our structural sample is smaller than the lexical sample. It consists of thirty languages, including eighteen from the Tupi-Guaranf branch and twelve from the other nine branches of the family. The features were coded on the basis of published material, complemented with direct verification with specialists working on particular languages. The current location of the analyzed languages is shown in Map 8.2. Only two features are identical for all the languages in the sample. All Tupian languages have the order possessor-possessed in the possessive phrase, and all have noun- postposition order in the noun phrase, which is consistent with the general head- marking characteristic of the family. With the exception of Cocama-Cocamilla, which has a causative suffix -ta, all other languages have a causative prefix of the form mV- (

    Вам также может понравиться