Na-Dene Language Family

Culture areas: California, Northwest Coast, Plains, Plateau, Southwest, Subarctic

Tribes affected: Ahtna, Apache, Beaver, Carrier, Chipe-wyan, Dogrib, Eyak, Galice-Applegate, Haida, Hare, Hupa, Ingalik, Kaska, Kolchan, Koyukon, Kutchin, Mountain, Navajo (Dine), Sarcee, Sekani, Slave, Tagish, Tahltan, Tanaina, Tanacross, Tanana, Tlingit, Tolowa, Tutchone, Tututni, Umpqua

Na-Dene, considered to be a language phylum by some comparative linguists, is composed of one large language family (Athapaskan-Eyak) and two possibly related language isolates (Haida and Tlingit). The distribution of Na-Dene languages extends through six culture areas, making it one of the largest linguistic units in North America.

99109868-94796.jpg99109868-94795.jpg

The Western Subarctic is dominated by groups speaking Na-Dene-related languages (all Athapaskan). These include such groups as the Beaver, Carrier, Chipewyan, Dogrib, Hare, Ingalik, Kaska, Koyukon, Kutchin, Mountain, Slave, Tahltan, Tanaina, and Tanana. In the northern Plains, the Sarcee speak a language which has been subsumed under the Na-Dene phylum. In the Southwest cultural area, languages closely related to Plains and Subarctic Athapaskan are represented by Navajo (Dine) and Apache (Apachean stock). In the Northwest Coast culture area and extending partially into the Plateau, Na-Dene languages can be found in central Oregon. These are represented by Galice-Applegate, Tututni, and Upper Umpqua. Farther north, in British Columbia and southeastern Alaska, are Haida and Tlingit, both classified as possible relatives of Athapaskan. In California, the Hupa and Tolowa are known to speak Athapaskan languages closely related to those of the Oregonean groups.

The designation of Na-Dene as a linguistic entity has been called into question by many comparative linguists. In 1915, Edward Sapir, a linguist who specialized in classifying and analyzing North American languages, established Na-Dene as a possible phylum composed of, as he saw it, remotely related languages. Problems arose, however, over the supposed relationship of Haida and Tlingit to Athapaskan. Many comparative linguists now believe that Haida and Tlingit are not members of the Athapaskan language family; they recognize that Haida and Tlingit share phonological and grammatical structures with Athapaskan but argue that they are significantly different in morphology and lexicon (basic semantics). This controversy has not been adequately resolved.