The Classification Problem within the Muskogean Language Family

The Classification Problem within the Muskogean Language Family

Daniel Hogue

LING 4095 – 05/09/2015

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to form a comprehensive study

over the previous research done on the Classification Problem that is

present within the Muskogean Language Family by compiling previous

findings, and to determine which assertion provides the most concrete

answer to the problem. While this does not seek to solve the debate at

the moment, it is intended to serve as a more complete view over the

major points that have been made so that future research knows what is

paramount to focus on in hopes of eventually answering this debate.

Introduction

In the field of Native American languages and the study of them,

there are a couple languages that typically get frequented both in

mention and in study – languages like Cherokee and Navajo, for

instance, but there are over 500 Native American languages in total

above the Mexican border. Many of these languages have, thankfully,

gotten more attention in the academic and scientific realm lately, but

many are still grossly under-studied, under-documented, or simply

skimmed over. One of those language groups is the Muskogean Language

Family (MLF). The MLF, before the mass relocation of the Natives, was

geographically located in the Southeast of the Continental United

States, spanning from around Mississippi to the northern part of

Florida. The MLF has 9 confirmed daughter languages; Choctaw,

Chickasaw, Alabama, Coushatta, Miccosukee, Hitchiti, Creek, Seminole,

and Apalachee. Both Hitchiti and Apalachee are considered extinct

(Haas 1978).

Choctaw is, relatively speaking, a popular language that is more

often discussed in academic circles, which leads to a stronger rise of

data and documentation. However, many of the other languages within

this family suffer from a dearth of comprehensive data. Whatever the

reason is, there is much debate surrounding an otherwise basic

attribute of other language families – the classification of the

languages within the MLF. Possibly due to a mix of interest and

indifference with regards to the research that has been done, the

classification is under much discussion and there is not yet an

accepted consensus on which one is correct. There are, at the time of

writing this, three assertions that are accepted as feasible

possibilities; the Haas Classification (1941), the Munro

Classification (1987), and the Kimball Classification (1989). Despite

an increasing amount of research being conducted regarding this

language family, it does not appear that any persuasive arguments have

been presented with intent to solve this debate.

For the purposes of this project, my goal is to more clearly

outline the logic behind the classifications, what questions arise

from the individual trees, and, most importantly, to try and collect

the data into a single location so that it may ease future research.

The intent of this, however, is not to solve the debate by any means,

as that would require far too much time. The main aspect that will be

focused on with regards to data analysis will be the phonological

inventories of the languages and the phonological properties of the

words themselves.

Literature Review

The first objective of this project was to become familiar with

not just the logic of the assertions that were put forth, but also to

understand how the languages were understood to have interacted with

each other. In terms of location, it appears that it is well

understood where the tribes that speak these languages would have

existed within the Southeast US before their removal and even before

that.

Along with that, much research seems to have found eligible,

accepted sub-groups within the MLF that indicate relation between two

languages. These groupings are: Choctaw-Chickasaw, Alabama-Coushatta,

Hitchiti-Miccosukee, and Creek-Seminole (Swanton 1922). Apalachee,

though extinct, is commonly paired with the Alabama-Coushatta group

(Haas 1949). It is important to note that these groupings do not

necessarily imply that the languages within each sub-group are

mutually intelligible with each other, but there is a consensus that

states that Seminole is effectively just a minimally divergent dialect

of Creek (Hardy 2005). There have been similar claims for Chickasaw

and Choctaw, but it should be noted that speakers of Choctaw have

reportedly said they cannot understand familiar narratives and stories

when told in Chickasaw as opposed to Choctaw, which casts a lot of

doubt on Chickasaw and Choctaw being mutually intelligible (Munro

1987, Munro 2005). In t should be stated that Haas considered Choctaw-

Chickasaw, Hitchiti-Miccosukee, and Creek-Seminole to all be highly

similar -- no more different than the divergence from British English

to American English.

It also appears that while there is, obviously, no consensus as

to which classification is correct, much of the debate hinges on a few

specific innovations from Proto-Muskogean into present day. One

particular transformation that appears as classification-significant

is the theorized *kw > b. From my understanding, if this is truly the

innovation that occurred, then this will likely imply that Creek-

Seminole is a candidate for a very early divergence from the rest of

the family. Haas, however, has compelling data that paints Choctaw-

Chickasaw in a similar light due to *θ > n in Choctaw-Chickasaw, but

*θ > ɬ in the other languages, and a vowel shift of final *a > i (Haas

1941).

One of the major hurdles is while some of the languages are

fortunate enough to have some rather in-depth research done, others

do not, which causes a gap in necessary information for the purposes

of accurate comparison. A fine example is the first English-Choctaw

Dictionary, authored by the Rev. Cyrus Byington (?). This is a

helpful tool in the realm of documentation of the languages within the

MLF (and it should be noted that Byington helped make great strides in

compiling a very complete lexicon and grammar of Choctaw), but when

the other languages lack any analog to that, the data becomes

increasingly exclusive in use to that one language. Another issue is

the lack of overall consistency between the works of MLF researchers.

It took a while before researchers started to gravitate towards a

singular method of orthography when describing the sounds and words,

and even then, there are many works that simply define their own terms

and phrases from the start, which complicates analysis of these works.

Though consistency is a possible issue in many fields of study,

some of the more general topics discussed within this particular field

have started to standardize, namely with respect to the abbreviations

for the individual languages, and certainly with the accepted sub-

groups.

Grammar-related works have been hard to find for a more

comprehensive look at the family as a whole, but there are some fairly

in-depth ones in regards to Choctaw and Alabama specifically. Creek

and Miccosukee have been difficult to find adequate grammatical and

morphological data for beyond what has been discussed in Muskogean

Linguistics. However, upon studying the grammar that was available and

well-researched, it was decided that it would take a very limited role

to the subsequent research due, primarily, to the fact that one of the

key aspects of genetic relationship between languages is Shared

Innovation – a phonological trait. There are, however, arguments for

special cases where morphology and syntax have been used to try and

prove relationship between languages, but it is uncommon and to be

thought of as an exception, not a rule. Morphology and grammatical

aspects do, however, seem to carry significance to the relationship of

these languages (Munro 1987), but aside from time constraints, the

lack of analogous, well-researched data amongst all the language

cripples this endeavor currently.

While searching for helpful sources in the way of grammar,

lexical items, or general morphology has been limited, it hasn’t been

fruitless. It has required a substantial amount of trust that the data

is correct upon being found, however. Much of the information,

particularly for the phonological inventories of the less frequently

studied languages, has been gathered from a few, choice sites online[x].

Proposed Classifications of MLF

When first conducting the research for this, the prime objective

was to understand why classifications were problematic in the first

place. Haas’ (1941), being the first proposed classification, was

studied first. Her main argument centers on the phonology of the

languages, and the most distinct aspect of her assertion is that

Choctaw-Chickasaw are considered to be the most unique and divergent

within the MLF. Another point of interest is how she classifies Creek-

Seminole. She groups the proto-form with Hitchiti-Miccosukee,

indicating a close relation.

(Figure 1: Haas’ Classification of the Muskogean Daughter Languages (Broadwell 1992))

Despite the above, it should be noted that further research published

by Haas in 1947 over the reconstruction of Proto-Muskogean *kw

complicated her original arguments for the classification. This was

primarily due in part to some of the implications on how *kw ended up

shifting in the daughter languages. Haas’ argument, overall, is quite

compelling, given that there are numerous examples which could

indicate a systemic sound shift that separates Choctaw and Chickasaw

from the rest of the languages.

After Haas’ logic was understood for her reasoning of this

classification, Munro’s (1987) was studied next. Her focus seemed to

pertain mostly to the phonology as well, but there was also a stronger

usage of morphology for some of her arguments. Specifically, Munro

argues that there are observable, shared morphological and

phonological innovations between the four Southwestern Languages (As seen

in the figure below). Her classification happens to look like an

almost exact mirror of Haas’, only with the most divergent of the

languages being Creek-Seminole. Perhaps one of the more interesting

features in the proposed classification below is the preservation of

the similarities Haas observed between Hitchiti-Miccosukee and Creek-

Seminole. I will argue later that this classification raises the

least amount of questions in terms of how the languages are

classified.

(Figure 2: Munro Classification (Broadwell 1992))

It is also worth noting that the geography of the divides between

these two is in direct opposition to each other as well

(Eastern/Western for Haas, Northern/Southern for Munro’s).

Finally, a third option is posited by Geoffrey Kimball (1989).

His tree seems to be somewhat of a direct compromise of the two prior

ones. For one, both Creek-Seminole and Choctaw-Chickasaw are

considered very divergent. Along with that, Alabama-Coushatta is

considered more solitary, only being tangentially related to Hitchiti-

Miccosukee. That, in particular, is challenged when analyzing some of

the data sets that were collected. Despite the fact that there are a

few places that provide what Kimball argues in terms of the figure

below, at the time of writing this, I was unable to find the source

material he compiled and therefore cannot make any concrete

conclusions about what Kimball officially posited.

(Figure 3: Kimball Classification(Broadwell 1992))

Data Collection and Methodology

The first data collected was the phonological inventories of both

the Proto-Muskogean Language as well as each of the daughter

languages. Due to a lack of data, Apalachee is excluded in this sense

from my studies, and as such is not mentioned explicitly from here on

out.

(Figure 4: Compiled list of Pan-Muskogean sounds, unique sounds, and

sounds that are present amongst all languages with one or two

exceptions)

I constructed a list of sounds that were found in every one of

the daughter languages, and a list of the unique sounds found only in

a few of the languages or, in the case of Creek-Seminole and

Miccosukee, which sounds were missing (but otherwise present in all

other languages). There were already some interesting findings from

that alone, but unsurprisingly there was nothing that presented itself

as a clear indicator of which classification was correct.

While it is true that Choctaw-Chickasaw leads the pack with the

most amount of unique sounds, some of these are shared with Coushatta.

In agreement with prior research, it does appear significant that

Creek-Seminole lacks a /b/. At my current understanding of genetic

relationship between languages, I do not know if either the inclusion

of or lacking of significant sounds takes precedence over the other,

but I can make some assumptions based off of other claims from past

researchers, namely regarding the importance of the proto-forms and

their transformations to present day.

Looking at sounds that are present is not enough, however. When

discussing the idea of shared innovation, it means that two languages

changed in the same way from a proto-language. This is a big part of

why Haas argued that Choctaw and Chickasaw were so divergent; they

seemingly had many examples of unique innovations (Haas 1941).

Applying that logic, though, the lack of a /b/ seems vitally

important. Since the reconstruction from PM of *kw > b in the daughter

languages seems plausible, it would then make sense to argue that this

is evidence that Creek-Seminole diverged rather immediately, since all

other languages have a /b/. Similarly, applying the same logic to

Miccosukee, it is both somewhat divergent from a lack of a /s/, but

is, at the same time, more closely related to other languages by

sharing a /ʃ/.

When discussing sound change and innovation, we cannot leave out

the vowels. Vowels are a bit peculiar in languages because shifting

can occur which does not actually impact the presence of the vowels,

just the environment in which they’re seen. It should be noted,

though, that vowel shifts seem to shift less when less vowels are

present. However, as with other innovations, the inclusion or lack of

a vowel is quite significant. As stated above, much of the information

regarding phonological inventories had to be gathered while lending a

fair amount of trust that the information was correct. Given that,

Coushatta, interestingly enough, leads the pack with a total of 5

vowels. That said, Creek-Seminole has 4 vowels. It should serve as a

disclaimer that a vowel shift alone may not account for a systemic

change from one vowel to another as in the argument Haas makes for

Choctaw-Chickasaw being primarily divergent. This is merely a

discussion point that may or may not be relevant, ultimately.

While shared innovation is, indeed, key for determining

interrelatedness between languages, it is important to note that there

are instances where morphological rules or, more generally speaking,

non-phonologically based arguments have been made to argue for

language relations. This is the exception, however, not the rule, but

this so happens to be the case in Munro’s argument. In what ends up

being rather equally compelling data, Munro argues for the true

reconstruction of some Proto-Muskogean morphology, specifically with

respect to the II prefixes. The II prefixes are used for subjects of

certain other intransitive verbs that may be characterized as

primarily stative, and for objects of most transitive verbs, and also

for most inalienable possessors (Munro 1993).

(Figure 5: Proto-Muskogean II Prefixes(Munro 1993))

Munro’s arguments centered around what she argues is an

innovation present within the “Southwestern Group” of languages (from

her proposed classification). She argues that a dispersal of

initial /a/ specifically within the context of these developed

environments must indicate a relation. Technically speaking, this is a

shared innovation, however the one caveat is aside from specific

phonological environments, sound change does not typically restrain

itself to specific contexts. That is, these changes occurring

specifically within the context of morphologies is atypical of

classical sound change, but it is a fair point to be made, and could

provide some very vital information with regards to the history of

this family’s development.

(Figure 6: Muskogean II Prefixes, current day(Munro 1993))

Though the purpose of this project is not to solve the debate,

when looking specifically at the sounds present within the

inventories, there are some trends that are seemingly unavoidable.

Choctaw and Chickasaw, unsurprisingly, are highly similar in their

uniqueness. However, Coushatta also shares many of these otherwise

unique sounds as well. Since Alabama is considered intimately tied to

Coushatta, it begs the question of the relationship between Choctaw-

Chickasaw and Alabama-Coushatta. While no supposition will be made in

this paper, I do consider it important to understand how these

languages in particular are related to each other.

After looking at the words from a strictly environmental

approach, I thought about applying the Swadesh 100-word test. It is a

test that can help determine interrelatedness between languages by

translating the words present in the list into all languages one

wishes to compare, though are already understood to be related in some

way, which will allow an observer to calculate the level of

similarity, and therefore interrelatedness, from a phonological

standpoint. Thankfully, I came across an application of this test to

these languages.

Quoting Broadwell directly, “Assuming an 86% retention rate per

thousand years (Swadesh 1954) for items on the 100 word list, the data

yield the following dates of separation, rounded to the nearest

decade:

(Figure 7: Swadesh Results)

The range of error is computed at the 7/10 confidence level

according to the procedures in Gudschinsky (1956). “ (Broadwell 1992)

Given that this does not supply data for Hitchiti, Coushatta, or

Seminole specifically, I will presume that the given sub-groupings

posed by Swanton will suffice. From the Swadesh results alone, it is

already abundantly clear that Creek is highly different from Choctaw-

Chickasaw, unsurprisingly, but it is almost as different from Alabama

and Miccosukee as well. However, Miccosukee is also a bit of an

outlier, sharing its greatest similarity with Alabama at a somewhat

low value of only 63%. Granted, this is talking specifically about the

cognates shared, it does not seem outrageous to presume that a low

sharing of cognates directly implies an early divergence compared to a

higher sharing of cognates which would seemingly imply a much later

divergence. Incidentally, this seems to point to Creek-Seminole being

primarily divergent. This also indicates a rather small similarity

between Miccosukee and Alabama, which conflicts with the perceived

logic behind Kimball’s assertion.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the argument seems to be centered almost

exclusively around transformations from a proto-form sound to a

present day sound, but there are certain transformations that

complicate using this single criterion to determine the actual

relationship between the Muskogean Languages. Morphological

innovations seem to be studied to help understand further relatedness

as with Munro (1987), which may aide future research, but at the

present time is not a primary aspect that is studied. And finally, the

Swadesh test seems to align itself more with Munro’s classification.

In regards to sound shifts alone, I still am uncertain as to how

to prioritize significance, or if it is really even a question to be

answered given current information. Unique sound transformations are

presumably observed in Choctaw-Chickasaw, but key sounds are missing

from Creek-Seminole and Miccosukee. There are many unique sounds

present in Choctaw-Chickasaw, but assuming all data gathered is

correct, Coushatta, but not Alabama, shares quite a few of these

innovations. It would seem that this directly implies that Choctaw-

Chickasaw and Alabama-Coushatta possess a higher degree of relation,

and it seems that the Swadesh test confirms this, but this seems to

conflict with the findings that Haas observed (1941). The Swadesh test

also seems to confirm that Kimball’s tree presents an unobservable

degree of relation between the Alabama-Coushatta group and the

Hitchiti-Miccosukee group, which casts doubt on that assertion. And

finally, to revisit what Munro has found, there are observed

innovations between the 4 “Southwestern Languages” but only within a

morphological environment. Due to this, despite a questionable

positioning of Choctaw-Chickasaw if we are to fully consider Haas’

arguments, Munro’s classification seems to pose the least questions.

It accounts for the possible early divergence of Creek-Seminole, and

it seems to account for the Swadesh results between Hitchiti-

Miccosukee and Creek-Seminole, as well as the higher relatedness

between Choctaw-Chickasaw and Alabama-Coushatta. Along with that, it

demonstrates a possible link between languages that already have a lot

of seeming surface relation. Additionally, this would also account for

the higher degree of related sounds between Coushatta and Choctaw-

Chickasaw as well.

To conclude, I think there are still many questions to answer.

Primarily surrounding the true relatedness of Alabama-Coushatta and

Choctaw-Chickasaw as well as how the observations that Haas made fit

in when the data seemingly supports a classification more like

Munro’s. With the coming years, hopefully future research can help

answer those questions.

References

Munro, Pamela, ed. 1987. Muskogean linguistics. UCLA Occasional papers

in linguistics, no. 6. Los

Angeles.

Haas, Mary R. 1949. The position of Apalachee in the Muskogean family.

International Journal of

American Linguistics 15:121-27.

Haas, Mary R. 1947. The development of Proto-Muskogean *kw.

International Journal of American

Linguistics 13:135- 37.

Haas, Mary R. 1941. The classification of the Muskogean languages. In

Language, culture and

personality: Essays in memory of Edward Sapir, ed. L. Spier, et

al. 41-56. Menasha, WI:Banta

Publishing.

Byington, Cyrus. 1915. A dictionary of the Choctaw language. Edited by

J.R. Swanton and H.S. Halbert.

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 46.

Swanton, John R. 1922. Early history of the Creek Indians and their

neighbors. Bureau of American

Ethnology Bulletin 73. Washington: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Broadwell, George. Reconstructing Proto-Muskogean Language And Prehistory:

Preliminary Results.

1st ed. 1992. Web. 8 May 2015.

Munro, Pamela. 1993. The Muskogean II prefixes and their significance.

International Journal of

American Linguistics v. 59, no. 4.