(PDF) Francis Drake's 1579 Voyage: Assessing Linguistic Evidence ...

Log InSign Up

• Log In
• Sign Up
• more
• • About
  • Press
  • Papers
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center
  • less

Outline

keyboard_arrow_downTitleAbstractKey TakeawaysMethodologyConclusionReferencesFAQsdownload

Download Free PDF

Download Free PDFFrancis Drake’s 1579 voyage: Assessing linguistic evidence for an Oregon landingJohn Lyonvisibility

…

description

71 pages

descriptionSee full PDFdownloadDownload PDF bookmarkSave to LibraryshareShareclose

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Sign up for freearrow_forwardcheckGet notified about relevant paperscheckSave papers to use in your researchcheckJoin the discussion with peerscheckTrack your impact

Abstract

This article consists of a linguistic investigation of the hypothesis that Sir Francis Drake may have landed somewhere on the Oregon coast in 1579 rather than in California, as is usually assumed (Heizer 1974; Heizer and Elmendorf 1942), and surveys language data from select Native Oregon languages. There are some compelling and plausible matches which come to light in this study, and though they are by themselves inconclusive as evidence, that should be considered in light of any forthcoming physical evidence, especially since some of the matches from these Oregon languages are as-close-to or stronger than the Miwok correspondences cited in Heizer and Elmendorf (1942) and Heizer (1974).

... Read more

Key takeaways

AI

1. The study investigates the hypothesis of Drake's Oregon landing via linguistic evidence from Native languages.
2. No conclusive matches to all items in the Fletcher/Madox word list exist in Oregon languages surveyed.
3. Three out of seven cognates from the Fletcher/Madox list have plausible Coast Miwok correspondences, but with skepticism.
4. Linguistic variables create a wide margin for error in interpreting historical transcriptions of native languages.
5. Future archaeological evidence may provide more definitive support for or against the Oregon landing hypothesis.

Related papers

On Linguistics and Cascading Inventions: A Comment on Arnold's Dismissal of a Polynesian Contact Event in Southern CaliforniaKathryn Klar

American Antiquity

In her recent article, "Credit Where Credit is Due: The History of the Chumash Oceangoing Plank Canoes," Jeanne Arnold questions our 2005 paper in which we suggested that a prehistoric contact event with Polynesians resulted in conveyance of the sewn-plank boat construction technique and a particular style of compound bone fishhook to the Chumash and Gabrielino of southern California. We agree with many of Arnold's views about the cascading effects of sewn-plank boat construction on Native societies of southern California, but question her dismissal of certain aspects of the empirical record, particularly the linguistics, in portraying this invention as strictly autochthonous. Here we recast aspects of the linguistic evidence that Arnold overlooks, provide evidence from oral history which she says is lacking, and discuss chronological issues that are much less straightforward than she suggests. We also mention implications of recent findings from South America. Finally...

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLuca Codignola, review of David Salomoni, Francis Drake. Il corsaro che sfidò un impero, Bari, Rome: Laterza, 2023: in Journal of Early American History, XIV, 2-3 (2024), pp. 291-293, ISSN 1877-0223Luca CodignoladownloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLanguages of discovery: a comparative linguistic study of English and Spanish after the discovery of AmericaJose Belda-Medina

2002

In Historical Comparative Study of English and Spanish after the Discovery of America, Dr. Jose R. Belda draws a detailed, rigorous comparison between English and Spanish after the discovery of America. Dr. Belda's analysis is rich and muitidisciplinary, since it focuses on a wide range of relevant aspects that not only have to do with linguistics but also relate to society, geography, history and politics. The study has as its first aim to show the reader what the historical, sodal and political context was like at the time and how iliat context influenced both English and Spanish. In this respect, Dr. Belda refers to concepts such as those of barbarism and Americanism, which have traditionally been associated with the Americao varieties of English aud Spanish, and describes ilie life of d:Jese two languages in the American continent, which clearly reveals that they became increasingly separated from the standard language spoken in (he metropolis or mothe r country (Btitish English and Iberian Peninsula Spanish, respectively). Regarding social context, Dr. Belda provides the reader with an overview of the best known theories about the provenance of the earliest English and Spanish settlers in America, which allows him to dwell on the consequences thar social and geographical origin (reflected, above all, in the presence of dialectalisrus and regionalisms) had for the later evolution of both languages. A particularly significant area in Dr. Belda's study is that dedicated to the role played by vocabulary, and more broadly speaking, by word-formation, in the naming of objects, animals, natural sceneries, geographical accidents, etc., which were in most cases comple[ely unknown to the newly-arrived European settlers. Mechanisms like composition and derivation are widely exemplified, and a special emphasis is laid on the loanwords that came into the American English and Spanish varieties from both local Amerindian languages and other European languages such as French, Dutch, German and Portuguese, among others. Finally, Dr. Belda g•uides readers on a tour in which they become witnesses of the evolution of two important semantic fields in the English and Spanish of America, namely toponymy and crossbreeding vocabulary. In this respect, a thorough description is made of lbe designation patterns that were most often applied in these two linguistic contexts. In short, Dr. Belda's srudy represents a very significant contribution to the field of Comparative Historical Linguistics. It must be remembered that this kind of studies have so far been one-sided, i.e., the y have always taken an exclusively English-based or Spanisb-based perspective. Instead, Dr. Belda's analysis manages to bring together both perspectives, thanks to which, and using a consistent technique of comparison and contrast, he succeeds in giving readers an extremely interesting historical, social and linguistic recreation of the fascinating process of discovery and invention of a new continent through the eyes and the language of its English and Spanish settlers. Victor M. Pina Lecrurer in English 10 Languages ofDiscovery Generally, most native speakers of contemporary English and Spanish in Europe feel proud when considering that they speak a language used by several hundred million people around the world. Thus, most of them show satisfaction about belonging to one of the most widely spread languages on earth and their attitude towards other non-European English and Spanish linguistic variations is also very similar. 1bey manifest a common feeling of displeasure when considering that they no longer owe an allegedly historical copyright of their own language, id est, that they are not alone and, therefore, that they have to sha.re the way of speaking their own language with many other linguistic variations in the world. On the one band, few English aod Spanish common speakers on the old continent are nowadays prepared to admit that their language, as spoken on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, is actually as "correct"-for this is the word most widely used-as their own. On the other, some Americans think that British people speak a kind of old-fashioned mngue, wit.l1 no interest in the world except for the fact that Americans are nowadays the first world power and, consequently, the current lingwstic spread is partly due to them. As a matter of fact, they put together language and politics as British used to do with their former empire, and as Spaniards and all the rest of Westem Europe. an countries did in the past. Linguists know that this associatioo actually occurs very frequently. I still remember the words uttered by an American friend working at the United Nations in New York when be mentioned, as a joke, that some of his American colleagues working there considered 'England' (a historicallydeeply-based-diminished metonymy for the Uni ted IGngdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as a 'used-to-be-country' whose citizens despised Americans on the grounds of their rudeness and their way of speaking, but who never admitted that real power-we need to assume linguistic also-is nowadays held by "America" (a historically-deeply-based-enlarged metonymy for the United States of America)? Consequently, a native speaker from Englru1d will accurately feel that his/her is the most widely used international language, although this English speaker will also support the idea that 2 Both names, England and America, used in reference to tbe United Kingdom and the United States respectively, are closely connected to the problem l.bat we will deal with in the following chapters. But it is important to notice now this difference between both countries, their names as well as their common linguistic attitudes. Whereas English speakers very easily assume that England is the most important pan of the whole country, whose complete name is lhe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the citizens of the United States use the name America in order to refer to their own country. Thus, there is a meaningful difference in their linguistic attitudes. On the one band, England represent~ one part of the whole United Kingdom despite the fact rbar the final name for the language was English-never British-. Thus they reduce the geographical extent for the designation of their official language. On the or.ber, U .S. citizens call themselves Americans and often call their language American English, though it is the name for the whole American continent (including Canada, !.hat also speaks English). Thus they enlarge their geographical scope for referring to their linguistic variation, precisely the opposite to the English people. 10 This author points out the d ifficulties found by the Spanish settlers with these words: "For Spanish America, geograpby was not as kind. Deserts, mountains and dense jungle isolated one section of tbe empire from another, made administration difficult, and inhibited movement. In fact, the ulter vastness of Spanish America distinguisbed it from it<; French and English counterparts.••

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightCoyote Papers: The University of Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 11. Special Volume on Native American LanguagesErin L . O'Bryan

2000

The five papers included in this volume approach the study of American Indian languages from a diverse array of methodological and theoretical approaches to linguistics. Two papers focus on approaches that come from the applied linguistics tradition, emphasizing ethnolinguistics and discourse analysis: Sonya Bird's paper "A Cross Cultural Look at Child-Stealing Witches" and

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightZamponi, R. 2023 ‘Unclassified languages’. In The languages and linguistics of indigenous North America: A comprehensive guide. Vol. 2, ed. by C. Dagostino, M. Mithun & K. Rice, Berlin and Boston, de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1627-1647.Raoul ZamponidownloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightFrancis Ghigo The Provençal Speech of the Waldensian Colonists of Valdese, North CarolinaNathaniel Smith

Language Problems and Language Planning, 1982

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAmerican Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Lyle CampbellStefan Georg

International Journal of American Linguistics, 2001

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightHow America Was Colonized: Linguistic EvidenceJohanna Nichols

Mobility and Ancient Society in Asia and the Americas, 2015

America was colonized by Asian migrants who moved from northeastern Siberia into North America, either coastally or by an interior route through now-submerged Beringia, and from there spread southward eventually to settle the entire hemisphere. That much is made clear by the geography, the human genetics, and the archaeological record. But much else remains unclear: when did immigration begin? how many genetic populations immigrated? how many linguistic populations? how fast did they move? Linguistic evidence can shed some light on these and other questions. It is not that we can reliably trace the languages of the Americas back to one or a few ancestral languages, reconstruct the vocabulary and grammar of the ancient ancestor(s), or show that the American languages are related to some Asian language family. Far from it; only rarely can a linguistic descent be traced back more than about 6000 years, not even halfway back to the well-dated spread of the Clovis Culture across North America at about 13,000 BP. 1 Rather, the time required to generate the historically attested number of languages and language families in the Americas can be estimated; frequencies of structural properties in areally-defined linguistic populations can discriminate between populations and point to geographic origins; and attested and straightforwardly reconstructable rates of language spread can be used to estimate rates of migration and demographic spread. The beginning of Asia-America migrations The archaeological evidence for the early colonization of the Americas is fairly straightforward. The earliest firm archaeological evidence includes a pre-Clovis mastodon hunting site at Manis,

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightSICOL Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics: Vol. I, Language Contact.Jan Tent

SICOL Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics: Vol. I, Language Contact. , 1998

Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. My sincere thanks to Chris Corne and France Mugler for their helpful comments.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightTraces of Spoken Nahuatl in Colonial TextsRosa H. Yáñez Rosales

Indigenous Knowledge as a Resource. Transmission, Reception, and Interaction of Knowledge between the Americas and Europe, 1492-1800., 2021

The purpose of the chapter is to provide an approximation to speech among Nahuatl speakers from western New Spain. There are documents that we might use to learn about the interaction between Nahuatl speakers or between Nahuatl speakers and their colonial interlocutors. On the basis of fragments taken from notarial Nahuatl written between the second half of the 16th century AD and the first half of the 18th cent. AD, on the one hand we learn that Indigenous communities in western New Spain rapidly adopted the alphabetic writing system, took ownership of it, and used it to sue colonial authorities who were abusive to Indigenous people. On the other hand, we find that several of the fragments that captured speech seem to reveal that speaking and writing are not opposite entities as it is sometimes thought, but rather a continuum that allows us to see linguistic practices, argumentation and language variation.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightSee full PDFdownloadDownload PDF

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (39)

1. Berman, H. (1990). An Outline of Kalapuya Historical Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics, 56(1):27-59.
2. Buckley, E. (1988). Reconstructing the Sounds of Alsea. In DeLancey, S., ed- itor, Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian Languages Workshop, volume 1 of Publications of the Center for Amerindian Linguistics and Ethnography, pages 9-30. University of Oregon Papers in Linguistics.
3. Chinook Wawa Dictionary Project (2012). Chinuk Wawa: kakwa nsayka ulman- tilixam ìaska munk-k@mt@ks nsayka -As our Elders Teach Us to Speak It. Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde, Grande Ronde, Oregon.
4. Czaykowska-Higgins, E. and Kinkade, M. D. (1998). Salish Languages and Lin- guistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107. Morton de Gruyter, Berlin.
5. Dorais, L.-J. (1993). From magic words to word processing: A history of the Inuit Language. Arctic College, Iqaluit.
6. Drake, S. F. (1628). The World Encompassed. Nicholas Bourne, London.
7. Edel, M. M. (1939). The Tillamook Language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 10(1):1-57.
8. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1913). Coos Texts. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. Columbia University Press, New York.
9. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1914). Lower Umpqua Texts and Notes on the Kusan Dialects. CUCA, 4:107-145.
10. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1917). Myths of the Alsea Indians of Northwestern Oregon. International Journal of American Linguistics, 1(1):64-75.
11. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1918). Comparative Studies in Takelman, Kalapuyan and Chi- nookan Lexicography, a Preliminary Paper. International Journal of Ameri- can Linguistics, 1(2):175-182.
12. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1922a). Coos, volume 2 of Handbook of American Indian Languages, pages 297-429. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
13. Frachtenberg, L. J. (1922b). Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua), volume 2 of Hand- book of American Indian Languages, pages 431-629. Smithsonian Institu- tion, Washington, DC.
14. Golla, V. (1997). The Alsea-Wintuan Connection. International Journal of Amer- ican Linguistics, 63(1):157-170.
15. Grant, A. P. (1997). Coast Oregon Penutian: Problems and Possibilities. Interna- tional Journal of American Linguistics, 63(1):144-156.
16. Hakluyt, R. (1589). The Famous Voyage of Sir Francis Drake into the South Sea, and there hence about the whole Globe of the Earth, begun in the year of our Lord, 1577. Principall Navigations, Voiages and Discoveries of the English Nation. George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, London.
17. Heizer, R. F. (1947). Francis Drake and the California Indians, 1579. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 42(3):251- 302.
18. Heizer, R. F. (1974). Elizabethan California. Ballena Press, Ramona, CA.
19. Heizer, R. F. and Elmendorf, W. W. (1942). Francis Drake's California Anchorage in the Light of the Indian Language Spoken There. The Pacific Historical Review, 11(2):213-217.
20. Hymes, D. (1966). Some Points of Siuslaw Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(4):328-342.
21. Jacobs, M. (1918-1974). Melville Jacobs Collection, field notebooks. Accession Number 1693-001, University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections.
22. Jacobs, M. (1939). Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts, volume 8:1 of University of Washington publications in anthropology. University of Washington.
23. Kroeber, A. L. (1925). Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of Ameri- can Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington, DC.
24. Kuipers, A. H. (2002). Salish Etymological Dictionary. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistic, vol. 22, Missoula, MT.
25. Loy, W. G., Allan, S., Buckley, A. R., and Meacham, J. E. (2001). Atlas of Oregon. University of Oregon Press, 2nd edition.
26. Mahdi, W. (2007). Malay Words and Malay Things: Lexical Souvenirs from an Exotic Archipelago in German Publications Before 1700. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
27. Mithun, M. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK.
28. Moulton, G. E., editor (1990). The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
29. Pierce, J. E. (1966). Genetic Comparisons and Hanis, Miluk, Alsea, Siuslaw, and Takelma. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(4):379-387.
30. Powell, J. (1880). Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages with Words and Phrases to be Collected. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2nd edition.
31. Sapir, E. (1922). The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon, volume 2 of Handbook of American Indian Languages, pages 1-296. Smithsonian Insti- tution, Washington, DC.
32. Sapir, E. and Swadesh, M. (1953). Coos-Takelma-Penutian Comparisons. Inter- national Journal of American Linguistics, 19(2):132-137.
33. Shipley, W. (1969). Proto-Takelman. International Journal of American Linguis- tics, 35(3):226-230.
34. Southwest Oregon Research Project (SWORP) (n.d.). Series I: National Anthro- pological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Located at the University of Oregon Library, Eugene, OR.
35. Swadesh, M. (1965). Kalapuya and Takelma. International Journal of American Linguistics, 31(3):237-240.
36. Thompson, M. T. (1966). A Fresh Look at Tillamook Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(4):313-319.
37. Thompson, M. T. (1989). Tillamook-English Dictionary with English-Tillamook Glossary. Manuscript. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.
38. Whereat, P. (2001a). The Milluk Language: Ghaala.
39. Whereat, P. (2001b). The Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua Language: A Word List.

View morearrow_downward

FAQs

AI

What key linguistic insights emerged regarding Drake's interactions with Native languages?add

The study reveals that none of the seven recorded items have conclusive cognates in Oregon languages, suggesting linguistic complexity among the contacted groups.

How does Fletcher's transcription influence the linguistic analysis of Drake's voyage?add

Fletcher's transcription may contain inaccuracies due to orthographic conventions of the time, leading to potential misinterpretations of the languages heard.

What challenges arise from comparing historical word lists with modern languages?add

The research documents significant semantic and phonological discrepancies between the vocabulary used in Drake's accounts and present-day Oregon languages, complicating accurate linguistic comparisons.

What factors contribute to the linguistic diversity of the group Drake contacted?add

The possibility of cultural heterogeneity among the natives suggests multiple languages or trade jargon might have been used, raising challenges for linguistic identification.

How does the methodology assess historical linguistic evidence for an Oregon landing?add

The methodology includes direct and broader phonological comparisons, acknowledging limitations due to sound changes and incorrect inductions of meaning over centuries.

John LyonUniversity of Victoria BC, Post-DocaddFollowmailMessagePapers14Followers28View all papers from John Lyonarrow_forward

Related papers

New Light on the Antiquity of Chinook Jargon (Chinuk Wawa) from Francis Drake's Exploration of the Northwest CoastMelissa Darby

Journal of Northwest Anthropology, 2021

In the summer of 1579, the Golden Hind was leaking, and Francis Drake and his crew of about eight men and one woman were looking for a bay or safe harbor where they could make their repairs. They found what they called a fair & good bay on the west coast of America. Most history books tell us Drake landed and repaired his ship on the coast of California, Uncritical acceptance of the dominant paradigm of a California landing is, understandably, the norm. However, the location of Drake's so-called fair & good bay is a question that continues to vex scholars because there is no clear, unequivocal information about the geographical location of this bay, and several maps and manuscript accounts relate that Drake ascended the coast near Cape Flattery at 48° north, and careened his vessel and camped in a bay at 44° north, on the Oregon coast. Presented here is a study of several Native vocabulary words recorded by Drake and his men that are compelling sound and meaning matches for Chinuk Wawa words. Historically, Chinuk Wawa was not spoken by Native people on the central California coast or in the Bay Area. It follows that Drake and his crew met people from the Northwest Coast and that some form of Chinuk Wawa was spoken as early as 1579.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_right“And he knew our language”: Missionary linguistics on the Pacific Northwest CoastEdward J Vajda

WORD, 2015

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightSwift and linguistics: The context behind Lagado and around the fourth voyageClive Probyn

Neophilologus, 1974

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLinguistics in COLONIAL TIMESRaj Bhat

Review Errington

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightProceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 16-19, 1996 : special session on historical issues in native American languagesDavid Librik

1996

members of the expedition, were shown at the informal social gathering on Thursday evening. These included black and white and colored motion pictures of the eclipse and views of the encampment on the island and of the observing instruments. In addition to the Society and its guests the pictures attracted a large number of guests of the club who were not registered for the meeting of the Society. As an additional feature Loyd A. Jones showed a series of remarkable Kodachrome motion pictures which had been awarded a medal at the annual exhibit of the Royal Photographic Society in London. These showed the beautiful color patterns which are formed by growing organic crystals, when viewed in polarized light. SYMPOSIUM OF INVITED PAPERS ON OPTICAL MATERIALS The symposium on optical materials Friday morning was unusually interesting and aroused much discussion. The following papers were presented in the symposium: Optics and the Glass Industry. E. D. TILLYER, American Optical Company. The Availability of Optical Glasses.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightThe First Fifty Years of <i>Oceanic Linguistics</i>Byron Lynch

Oceanic Linguistics, 2011

The three editors of this journal since it was founded in 1962 look back at how it has grown and changed, with an analysis of who has contributed and what has been contributed.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightAnd now, co-occurrence and functionality of discourse markers on the Oregon CoastShahar Shirtz

Journal of Pragmatics, 2021

Please don't hesitate to message me if you have any questions / comments! This paper compares the usage patterns or usage dynamics of discourse markers and their combinations in Alsea and Siuslaw, two dormant languages of the Oregon Coast with a long history of contact and convergence. Like many languages of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Alsea and Siuslaw have a set of clause-initial markers mostly used for adverbial and pragmatic functions. These markers often co-occur, and in both languages clauses in connected discourse have zero to four such markers. Despite the similar potential range for combinations, the patterns by which these markers are used in the two languages differ: discourse markers co-occur much more frequently in Alsea, in more varied combinations, and their relative order tends to be more set. We propose that this is correlated with the coding means used to structure discourse in the two languages, particularly the different functions of individual markers and of their common combinations. We illustrate this by comparing the uses of two discourse markers, Alsea tem and Siuslaw ᵘɬ, roughly translatable to English by "and", and the uses of their combination with Alsea múⁿhū and Siuslaw wàn, roughly translatable to English by "now, then".

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_right400 Years of Linguistic Contact Between the MI'Kmaq and the English and the Interchange of Two World ViewsStephanie Inglis

2004

I Resume During the last 400 years in Acadia the original inhabitants of the area, the Mi&#39;kmaw people, have had contact primarily with French and En­ glish language speakers. English and French are Indo-European languages which are tense based. They are event-time languages. This contrasts with Mi&#39;kmaq which is an Algonquian language organized around a system of evidentials. Evidentials are markers of speaker&#39;s knowledge source. Mi&#39;kmaq is not a tense based language. This paper presents a comparison between the world view of the Mi&#39;kmaq, as evi­ denced through their language, and the world view of the English colonists in Acadia. The focus of the discussion will be on examples of linguistic contact and the interchange of the two world views, Mi&#39;kmaq and non-Mi&#39;kmaq (English), as evidenced by their relevant linguistic sys­ tems.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightLinguistics and Archaeology in the Americas: The Historization of Language and Society . Edited by Eithne B. Carlin and Simon van de Kerke . Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pp. xxiii + 276. $153.00simon van de kerke

International Journal of American Linguistics, 2015

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightThe Role of Richard Hakluyt’s The Principall Nauigations (1589) in the Introduction and Dissemination of Spanish Loanwords in the English LanguageSara von der Fecht-Fernández

Neophilologus, 2023

Richard Hakluyt's Principall Nauigations (1589) was a landmark in the history of English travel literature which compiled and glorified the naval deeds and expeditions undertaken by the English throughout the world. This article focuses on the third volume of Hakluyt's compilation devoted to America which gathers first-hand accounts describing the way of life and the natural environment of the new territories conquered and populated by the Spaniards. The incorporation in these texts of almost 100 borrowings from Spanish to designate elements related to sea voyages and experiences in the Spanish colonies has raised the following research questions: What kind of terms were most likely to be introduced? And, given that these Spanish terms were unfamiliar to English readers, did the authors resort to any kind of strategy to explain the meaning of the new words? This article will address these questions by setting the following objectives. (i) to compile an inventory of the Spanish terms that have been incorporated into the English texts; (ii) to classify these terms according to the lexical fields they refer to; (iii) to analyse how the meaning of these new words is explained to English readers.

downloadDownload free PDFView PDFchevron_rightkeyboard_arrow_downView more papers

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400San Francisco, CA, 94104© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved