Terena, chané, guaná and kinikinau are one and the same language: setting the record straight on southern Arawak linguistic diversity
In this paper I evaluate the available linguistic materials on Chané, Guaná and Kinikinau, often presented in comparative and referential works as distinct Southern Arawak languages. I argue that the existing evidence is not compatible with the recognition of these labels as denoting languages that...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Liames (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8646165 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/liames/article/view/8646165 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Arawak. Terena. Guaná. Kinikinau. Chané. Classificação Linguística Histórica. Línguas Ameríndias Terena Guaná Chané Arawak Classification. Amerindian Languages |
| Sumario: | In this paper I evaluate the available linguistic materials on Chané, Guaná and Kinikinau, often presented in comparative and referential works as distinct Southern Arawak languages. I argue that the existing evidence is not compatible with the recognition of these labels as denoting languages that are distinct from the much better attested and still spoken Terena Language. Motivated by this conclusion – and by the fact that Guaná and Kinikinau confusingly refer to languages belonging to groups other than the Arawak family – I propose that the labels Chané, Guaná and Kinikinau should be dropped from linguistic classifications of the Arawak family and from reference works on the Chaco-Pantanal languages, as they misleadingly imply the existence of greater linguistic diversity than is actually the case. This proposal supports some referential classifications that have employed these labels either as alternative names of the language known as Terena or, at best, as denoting specific dialectal varieties thereof. Finally, I discuss some open issues regarding the internal diversity within these temporally and geographically separate varieties, including the role of contact with Guaraní and Guaicurúan groups. |
|---|