Book contents
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- 1 Hunter-Gatherer Anthropology and Language
- 2 Genetic Landscape of Present-Day Hunter-Gatherer Groups
- 3 Linguistic Typology and Hunter-Gatherer Languages
- 4 Ethnobiology and the Hunter-Gatherer/Food Producer Divide
- Part II Africa
- Part III Tropical Asia
- Part IV New Guinea and Australia
- Part V Northeastern Eurasia
- Part VI North America
- Part VII South America
- Appendix A Preliminary Worldwide Survey of Forager Languages
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
3 - Linguistic Typology and Hunter-Gatherer Languages
from Part I - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2020
Book contents
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- 1 Hunter-Gatherer Anthropology and Language
- 2 Genetic Landscape of Present-Day Hunter-Gatherer Groups
- 3 Linguistic Typology and Hunter-Gatherer Languages
- 4 Ethnobiology and the Hunter-Gatherer/Food Producer Divide
- Part II Africa
- Part III Tropical Asia
- Part IV New Guinea and Australia
- Part V Northeastern Eurasia
- Part VI North America
- Part VII South America
- Appendix A Preliminary Worldwide Survey of Forager Languages
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
It has long seemed plausible that the languages of hunter-gatherer societies might be systematically different from those of food producers. Compared to food-producing societies, hunter-gatherer societies are usually smaller and less complex, with lower population density. They are often based on kinship as a main organizing factor and usually lack large-scale sociopolitical organization with its concomitant traits such as language standardization.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Language of Hunter-Gatherers , pp. 67 - 75Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bickel, Balthasar. (2008). A refined sampling procedure for genealogical control. Language Typology and Universals 61: 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B. (2011). Statistical modeling of language universals. Linguistic Typology 15: 401–414.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. (2013). Distributional biases in language families. In Bickel, B., Grenoble, L. A., Peterson, D. A., and Timberlake, A. (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: A festschrift to honor Johanna Nichols. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 415–444.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Nichols, Johanna, Zakharko, Taras, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Hildebrandt, Kristine, Rießler, Michael, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando, and Lowe, John B.. (2017). The AUTOTYP typological databases. Version 0.1.0. https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. (2006). Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas. In Z. Antić, C.Chang, C. Sandy, and M. Toosarvandani (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Special Session on the Languages and Linguistics of Oceania. 3–15.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Nichols, Johanna. (2011). Does phoneme inventory size correlate with population size? Linguistic Typology 15(2): 161–170.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. (1989). Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13: 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) (2005). The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moran, Steven, McCloy, Daniel, and Wright, Richard. (2012). Revisiting population size vs. phoneme inventory size. Language 88(4): 877–893.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (2009). Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (2011). Monogenesis or polygenesis: A single ancestral language for all humanity? In Tallerman, Maggie and Gibson, Kathleen R. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 558–572.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (2015). Types of spread zones: Open and closed, horizontal and vertical. In De Busser, Rik and La Polla, Randy (eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by