VIEWERS :   PLEASE  CLICK  HERE  FOR
FULL  SITE.      UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
HAS  PREVENTED  ACCESS  TO  COMPLETE  SITE
FROM  THIS  WEB  ADDRESS (www.tc.umn.edu/~reed0180)

 

 
 
 

THEORY OF LINGUISTIC DERIVATION


   

      For those who are not familiar with linguistics, there is one definition that is needed to understand this work   -   voiced fricatives    -   consonant speech sounds ( phones or phonemes ),  that are produced by vibration of the vocal cords and some other speech organ
( such as lips, tongue, teeth ),  that produce buzzing sounds, such as   v ,   th  in "them" ,   j ,  and  z.

 

Scroll down to read.        Use View menu to increase font size.

Click here to return to Universal Verbal Language home page
Click here for Moral Science Foundation home page

Click here for glossary - definitions of phonemes, allophones, and uncommon words

 

If you have any questions or comments, you are invited to click here  or send them to me at :   reed0180@tc.umn.edu


         Note that some International Phonetic Alphabet (  I. P. A. ) symbols may not appear as they were originally written.
   Most  I. P. A. characters are included as GIFs and may not appear in some programs.

         -   Note also that, despite the finding that the probability that there is an association between social approval of violence in a culture and the presence of voiced fricative consonants in the language of the culture is greater than 95% in the groups considered here ( see Appendix 2, Statistical Analysis, last two pages ), this work only presents evidence of the existence of the relationship.   Because the groups included in the Continuing Study were not selected randomly, the evidence does not constitute scientific proof at the present time.   Results indicate a relationship that may, in the future, be proven to be both factual and observable in reality, and may represent a new field of exploration of human consciousness.

   Interesting reading  -  Sections Two, Three, Five, Six, and Statistical Analysis in Appendix 2 ( last 2 pages).
 

THEORY OF LINGUISTIC DERIVATION: CONTINUING STUDY

Jan Reed



  © Copyright 1999 by Jan Pierre Reed

      All rights reserved
      Any unaltered and unedited reproduction of this work that is not sold for profit
      IS APPROVED by the author and copyright holder, Jan Reed
 
 
 

      With thanks to Samuel and Beatrice, and to
Marc, Renee, and Toni


 
 

General Theory of Linguistic Derivation



     Specific aspects of a cultural milieu tend to produce characteristic phones.

     There is a definite predictable relationship between the collective consciousness of a linguistic group and the phonetic structure of the language of that group. In isolated cultures the relationship is direct.

     In neurological terms stimulation of a given area of the brain causes a given psychosomatic state. It is postulated that particular areas of the brain are associated with the formulation of phonetic representations of psychosomatic states. It is further postulated that the areas of the brain that formulate lexical referents (words) tend to create or use characteristic phonetic representations for given psychosomatic states.
 
 


First Hypothesis of Linguistic Derivation


     The phonetic surrogates of violence are the voiced fricatives.

     In neurological terms, the area of the brain stimulation of which causes violence, in its interactions with the linguistic areas of the brain, tends to produce characteristic phonetic representations: the voiced fricatives.

     In other words, voiced fricatives are phonetic symbols that, in general, represent social approval or social toleration of unprovoked violence.
 
 

Addendum to First Hypothesis


     These allophones form a mutually reinforcing system with the psychosomatic state associated with their initial articulation. The verbalization of specific allophones tends to remind speakers of the psychosomatic state associated with the creation of a phonetic (lexical) referent for a given internal-external context. The unenlightened verbalization of, as well as the unenlightened act of hearing these allophones facilitates and encourages ( there is no English word known to the author to express the idea of creation of unconscious cultural patterning ) identification on another level than the level of conscious awareness with the psychosomatic state associated with the creation of the referent
 
 


Corollaries to General Theory and First Hypothesis
 
 

Corollary 1


     In general, the higher the proportion of voiced fricatives in ordinary conversation in a linguistic group, the higher the level of violence in that group.
 
 

Corollary 2


     If a linguistic group includes two or more tribes, bands, branches, or national groups that incorporate distinct and differing attitudes toward violence, then, prior to subjugation by other linguistic groups: 1) Among linguistic groups with voiced fricative phones (phonemes or allophones) in their language, the population of the more violent or most violent tribe, band, or national group should, in general, be larger than the population(s) of the less violent group, band, or nation(s); and 2) Among linguistic groups with no voiced fricative phones in their language, the population of the less violent or least violent tribe or band (there are no national languages currently known to the author in which voiced fricative phonemes or allophones are absent) should be larger than the population of the more violent tribe(s) or band(s).
 
 

Addendum to General Theory



     Nikolaas Tinbergen found that a red area on the stomach of a male stickleback minnow, or on the lower half of a minnow-shaped form, acted as a stimulus to other male stickleback minnows to attack under certain circumstances.

     The first hypothesis similarly suggests that the verbalization of certain allophones - the voiced fricatives - and the unenlightened act of hearing voiced fricative allophones in normal conversation, acts as a conditioning stimulus which: 1) acts to suppress natural or innate inhibitions against violent impulses and behavior; 2) suggests - unconsciously - to speakers that violence is an unalterable aspect of human nature; and 3) by suggesting that violence is an unalterable part of human nature, causes, or contributes to, the suppression of the individual and collective will to - and belief in - the possibility of - and ability to alter reality on the level of creation of language - and reduce violence in a culture or linguistic group.

     To summarize this in a slightly different form: the hypothesis implies that the presence of voiced fricative allophones in a language represents a largely unperceived conditioning stimulus or social force that acts to shape the consciousness of individual members of the group; contributes to the creation of a social environment that essentially nurtures violence by operating to suppress natural inhibitions (if such inhibitions exist) to violent impulses, or by operating as a counteracting force to attempts to socialize inhibitions to expression of violent impulses (suggesting that offensive violence is natural and therefore unalterable); and acts to suppress the individual and collective (communally held) perception of the collective consciousness as possessing the ability to act intentionally on the level of creation of language - the level of the collective consciousness   (the perception of the limits of the collective ability to alter the collective consciousness) to reduce violence by conscious, intentional, collective action of the culture or linguistic group.

     For example, the collective consciousness of the English linguistic group accepts virtually no limits on the imagination in the area of creation of materials and devices for "national defense" - in the construction of new, more effective, and more efficient means to destroy life. However, English culture generally perceives the individual consciousness and the English collective consciousness as powerless and unable to act on the level of creation of language; or, in some areas, actively opposes efforts to act on the level of creation of language - the level of creation of economic and cultural systems - to reduce violence by collective action (such as efforts to reduce the disparity between the most economically advantaged, and the least economically advantaged groups). The English collective consciousness manifests opposition to action - or a perceived inability to act - on the level of creation of language because reduction of unnecessary (aggressive) internal and external violence is not, at present, regarded as an important social priority or goal by the English linguistic group - reduction of violence on the level of collective consciousness - the level of creation of language - is not, at present, regarded as a goal worthy of the expenditure of any significant amount of resources by the English linguistic group.

     The theory suggests that the human community - or enlightened members of the human community - may well have the power to make use of science - directed by the intent to serve the interests of the human community  -  moral science -  to reduce levels of violence in cultures by conscious, intentional action - by intentional revision or redesign of the structure of language  and,  or  of the structure of other means of internalization and propagation of morality and culture.
 


1 Tinbergen, Nikolaas,   "Social Releasers..."     Wilson Bulletin      Vol. 60    # 1         1948       P. 6-52
          Id.       The Study of Instinct       Yale University Press     New Haven       1952
 
 



THEORY OF LINGUISTIC DERIVATION: CONTINUING STUDY



      The first hypothesis of linguistic derivation postulated that the voiced fricatives are the phonetic surrogates of violence.   The hypothesis implies an association between the presence or absence of voiced fricative allophones or phonemes in a linguistic group, and the collective attitude or perspective of that group toward violence.   The primary focus of this study is, first, on the position of voiced fricative allophones as an expression of a cultural perspective toward violence, and, second, on the affect and effect of voiced fricatives, as a conditioning force, influence, or stimulus that could promote either conscious or unconscious social approval and acceptance of violence in a culture, or, conscious or unconscious social rejection of unprovoked violence.

      The analysis of cultural and linguistic groups in this work is divided into six sections.    The first section is a consideration of criteria for evaluation of relative levels of violence in linguistic groups; a proposed scale for ranking individual tribes and linguistic groups in relation to their attitude toward violence against other linguistic groups in their area, a proposed scale for ranking of linguistic groups in relation to socially approved violence within the linguistic group, and a proposed overall classification system for linguistic groups in relation to relative levels of violence.    The second section consists of an examination of what I consider to be (and what I believe most people would consider to be) some of the more violent, or most violent practices and linguistic groups known on this planet, in regard to which, in every case known to the author for which conclusive linguistic information is available, the language of the group responsible for the practice or action includes voiced fricative phonemes or allophones.    The third part consists of a consideration of the groups of which the author is aware, that have been identified by presumably independent observers to be significantly less violent than groups in proximity to them, or less violent than any other groups known to the observer.    The fourth section is a consideration of the ethnographic and linguistic information presently known to the author, in relation to the second corollary to the hypothesized relationship, linguistic groups that include two or more tribal or national groups that incorporate differing attitudes toward violence. The fifth section is an examination of Native American linguistic groups in the southwest area of North America north of the Gulf of California, the first area of concentration in what is intended to become an examination of all (or a sufficient number to prove the theory) of the approximately 5,000 languages known on this planet in relation to the postulated relationship between voiced fricative phones and social acceptance of violence in linguistic groups.    The sixth section is a comparison of general characteristics and range of violent practices in groups that do and do not have voiced fricative phonemes or allophones, and some observations about the relationship between socially approved attitudes toward violence and the presence of voiced fricative phonemes or allophones in languages.

      For the purposes of this study, the voiced fricatives will be considered to be those consonantal phones or semi-vowels (speech sounds - phonemes or allophones) that are considered by speakers to be meaningful units of speech, and are identified in the International Phonetic Alphabet ( I. P. A. ) as voiced fricatives: v,  z,  ð (voiced dental fricative, pronounced as "th" in them), and "  " (voiced postalveolar fricative, pronounced as "g" in beige).   A complete list of standard  I. P. A. voiced fricative phones (consonants) includes the following, which have no English equivalents:  (voiced bilabial fricative),  (retroflex fricative),  (palatal fricative),   (velar fricative),  (uvular fricative),  (pharyngeal fricative),  (glottal fricative), and  (lateral fricative).   All affricates (consonant combinations) as in " j ",  combined " d " and "  " ( symbolized in I. P. A. as "  " ), that include any of the voiced fricatives will also be considered to be voiced fricatives (phonemes or allophones).
 
 

1

      In this study, linguistic groups will be considered first on two scales, violence in relation to other linguistic groups, and violence between individuals and groups within the linguistic group.   Groups will be classified as either more violent or less violent on each of the two scales (internal and external).    Second, an approximate overall relative level of violence will be proposed for each linguistic group.    Collective entities (linguistic groups, tribes, and national groups) will be divided into four overall groups: most violent, more violent, less violent and least violent.    In some cases, an attempt will be made to distinguish between relative levels of violence within a specific classification.    Groups will be classified as least violent only if they are classified as both less violent in relation to other linguistic groups, and less violent in regard to socially approved violence within the linguistic group, or if the group is implicitly or explicitly identified as less violent by one or more independent (anthropological or historical) sources.    There is obviously a need for reasonable assurance of independent concurrence on relative levels of violence in linguistic groups, so evaluations will be considered by more than one independent observer, when appropriate.

      In general, violence in relation to other linguistic groups will be considered to take precedence over relative levels of violence within a linguistic group, except in unusual or extreme cases (such as the New Guinea groups described in Section Two), in the evaluation of overall levels of violence.

      Criteria for classification of linguistic groups in relation to relative levels of external violence will include these practices, all of which are intended to destroy, or are likely to precipitate, the destruction of human life.    The approval of any of these practices, or forms of violence, in a culture will be considered by the author to be sufficient cause to identify a linguistic group as most violent:

   1)  Genocide, or, as I prefer to call it, ethnocide.
   2)  Positive valuation of unprovoked, offensive warfare.
    A. Social or cultural glorification of warfare.
    B. Offensive territorial warfare (unprovoked attacks on other linguistic groups with the intent

         to displace the targeted group).
    C. Raiding and attacks on other groups as subsistence industries.
   3)  Warfare and attacks on groups with the intent to control, dominate, and

         subjugate other linguistic groups - colonialism.
   4)  Cannibalism as a regular source of protein.
      Any other practices that may be destructive or injurious to human life may also be considered.

      For evaluations of relative levels of violence within a linguistic group, these practices, all of which are intended to destroy otherwise healthy human life, will also be considered by this study to be sufficient cause to identify a linguistic group as most violent:

   1)  Infanticide.
   2)  Regular or large-scale human sacrifice.
   3)  Execution as a regular and frequent punishment for violation of taboos that have no direct relation

         to the survival of any members of the linguistic group  -  such as the multitude of Hawaiian taboos
         against such activities as females eating or possessing bananas, the penalty for which was death.
      In the absence of any of the practices identified as requiring classification of a group as most violent, a group will ordinarily be classified as more violent, less violent, or least violent; first on the basis of the explicit or implicit evaluation of an anthropologist or other observer, unless obviously biased, regarding the general level of violence in the group.    Ordinarily, a linguistic group will be considered to be among the least violent only if the group approves of few, if any, of the practices identified as conditional criteria, or if, as stated, the group is identified by an anthropologist or other (unbiased) observer to be notably or significantly less violent than most, or any other groups in proximity to them.

      Second, groups will be considered on the basis of the presence, absence, frequency, and extent of use of the following practices in the culture, which will be considered to be conditional criteria:

     1 )  Execution for community reprobation, or what is commonly referred to as witchcraft.
     2 )  Summary execution of prisoners of war.
     3 )  Rate or relative level of extreme violence, including murder.
     4 )  Violence and possible murder as a socially approved form of competition or entertainment (such as boxing).
     5 )  Euthanasia.
     6 )  Positive valuation or social approval of violence as a means of settling disputes or differences.
     7 )  Ritual torture.
     8 )  Ritual mutilation.
     9 )  Self mutilation.
     10 )  Physical coercion (corporal punishment) as a child-rearing practice.
      If a group makes extensive use of murder or execution as a socially approved means of control of independent thinking, refusal to conform to collectively approved belief systems and sophistries, or as a punishment for community reprobation, or for what could be reasonably considered to be innocuous social deviance, such as hysteria or mental illness that does not involve violent behavior, the group will ordinarily be classified as more violent.    For example, among the Zuni, the refusal to support and conform to a communally held belief in human causation of all events inimical to the interests of the community, such as droughts, insect infestations, and diseases, resulted, in some cases, in the accusation and execution of a non-conforming individual as the cause of the event, by witchcraft or, more rationally, as a result of alleged malevolent intent toward the community.

      In groups in which there was no extensive use of execution as a means of control of independent thought or innocuous social deviance, the extent of use of , and attitude of the group toward use of other practices identified as conditional criteria will be considered in order to differentiate between less violent and least violent groups.    A group will be identified as less violent if there is some (occasional), but not extensive emphasis on the practices identified as conditional criteria, such as among the Tiruray in the Philippines, in which group some of the conditional violent practices were known, but not frequent (such as a moderate form of torture, filing the teeth [incisors] to points, as canine teeth, as an initiation rite), and the violent practices did not commonly play a significant part in their lives.    As stated earlier, a group will be considered to be among the least violent only if the group is implicitly or explicitly identified by an anthropologist or other (unbiased) observer as notably or significantly less violent than most, or any groups in proximity to them; or if the group approved of few, if any, of the practices identified as conditional criteria.
 
 

2

      This section will consider some of the most violent groups and practices on the planet in relation to other linguistic groups and within their linguistic group. I have divided the section into seven categories:

   1 )   Groups that have been responsible for genocide or ethnocide.
   2 )  Groups in which the initiation of unprovoked warfare against other linguistic groups is regarded as a

          self-justifying pursuit.
   3 )   Groups in which warfare and attacks on other linguistic groups in order to dominate, subjugate,

          and control unincorporated linguistic groups are socially approved.
   4 )   Groups that have been responsible for mass kidnapping, mass relocation, and associated mass murder,

          commonly known as "slave trade".
   5 )   Groups in which violence, warfare, and accompanying cannibalism provide a

          major source of protein.
   6 )   Groups that practiced infanticide as a primary means of population control.
   7 )   Groups that practiced regular or ritual human sacrifice.

      In forty of the forty-one groups considered to date that have been responsible for any of these practices, and for which conclusive phonetic information is available, the language of the group responsible for the practice has included voiced fricative phonemes or allophones.    In the case of two linguistic groups, Aztec and Inca, the phonetic evidence is inconclusive (some dialects spoken in this century include voiced fricative allophones, and some may not - see discussion of Nahuatl in Appendix 1).   One group that had no voiced fricatives in its language, the Quileute of the Northwest coast of North America, was originally incorrectly classified as "more violent", due to insufficient review of the evidence in 1999 from sources evaluated originally in 1977.     The group, evaluated in the first study, "Theory of Linguistic Derivation", should have been classified as one of the "most violent" groups because of their approval of violence and raiding.

      There are eight linguistic groups known to the author that have been responsible for genocide or ethnocide.    They are: Cambodian, English (in North America), German, Japanese (against conquered populations in Asia), Pakistani (Urdu), Rwandan (Kinyarwandan), Serbian, and Turkish (against Armenians).    I will not discuss the specifics of ethnocide in any of these groups because they are common knowledge.    All of these groups have voiced fricative phonemes or allophones in their languages (see Appendix 1).

      The second group includes groups that consider initiation of attacks and warfare against other linguistic groups to be, effectively, a means of affirmation of masculinity: Mohave, Quechan, (Yuman), Yavapai, and Comanche (all southwestern North America, to be discussed in sections four and five). The second category also includes groups that raided other tribes and engaged in attacks on other linguistic groups as a means of access to subsistence and property: Vikings (Norwegian and Scandinavian), Navaho (discussed in Theory of Linguistic Derivation, 1995), the Apache groups (Western, Chiricuahau, Jicarilla, and Mescalero - to be discussed in section five).

      Before discussing the third group, it would be appropriate to introduce a new word for a concept that is useful in studying linguistic groups from this perspective, but for which there exists no English word. The concept is the union that consists of a writing system and all verbal languages that use that writing system. The word is kom (constructed from universal language phoneme meanings, and pronounced kohm, identically to English comb, as in - the Latin kom, the Chinese kom).

      The third category, groups known to the author to have engaged in warfare against other linguistic groups in order to dominate, subjugate, and control unincorporated groups includes linguistic groups that established colonies: Latin (Roman), English, French, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Danish, Belgian, Russian and Japanese, and other groups: Greek, Turkish, Arabic kom linguistic groups, Persian, Chinese, Zulu, Ngoni, Aztec (Nahuatl), and Inca (Quichua). All have voiced fricative phonemes or allophones or, again, I have been unable to make a conclusive determination (with Quichua or Nahuatl) regarding the presence or absence of voiced fricative phones.

      The Persian invasion and effective colonization of India in the 9th century is not generally as well known as the colonization large areas of the planet by members of the Latin and Cyrillic koms in later centuries.

One of these groups, the Ngoni of Nyasaland is not well known. In the 19th century, the Ngoni established control over other tribal groups in an area of Nyasaland before they were subjugated by English and Dutch colonizers of South Africa (Margaret Read, The Ngoni of Nyasaland, P. 4-16)1.

      The Zulu group invaded a large area in what is currently South Africa in the 18th and early 19th centuries and established dictatorial (and tyrannical) rule over that area2.


      1 Read, Margaret, The Ngoni of Nyasaland,     International African Institute
         Oxford University Press     Oxford     1956
      2 Gump, James O.,  Formation of the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa 1750-1840,   P. 130-135
         Mellen Research University Press     San Francisco       1990
 
 
 
 

       The fourth category, groups that have been significantly involved in mass kidnapping, mass relocation of prisoners of war, associated mass murder, and forced labor by prisoners of war, commonly known as "slave trade", includes at least four major linguistic groups (English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese) and one kom  -   Arabic. I do not suggest here that forced labor by kidnap victims and prisoners of war has been eradicated on this planet, only that the massive scale of continental relocation, and the associated mass murder, has been substantially reduced or eradicated. All groups have been previously mentioned.

      In the fifth category, groups in which cannibalism was regarded as a major source of protein, there are four tribal groups living in the eastern highlands of New Guinea that I would consider to be (before colonial rule was imposed), among the most violent, if not the most violent tribal groups on the planet. The tribes, the Jate, Fore, Uturupa (Usarufa), and Kamano, in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea, were studied by Ronald and Catherine Berndt from 1951 to 1953, and described by Ronald Berndt in: Excess and Restraint: Social Control Among a New Guinea Mountain People3. Among these tribes, minor territorial disputes and minor thefts could amount to cause for torture, or escalate into cause for violence and, possibly, the death of antagonists. Attacks and warfare between villages and groups were apparently common, and, until colonial authorities suppressed them, an accepted and collectively tolerated part of their culture, with the cannibalism that followed (of their own dead, the enemy dead, or both) apparently providing a major source of protein to the surviving villagers. Quoting Ronald Berndt, in Excess and Restraint : "the diet of the region is apparently deficient in protein. Pigs are not really plentiful, and, generally, are kept for ceremonial occasions.    ... There is no evidence that people fight to obtain meat; but it is quite possible that this is one of the underlying motives for interdistrict warfare."(P.271) "Dead human flesh, to these people, is food, or potential food."(P.270)
"Fighting [and killing] was, and remains, the ‘breath of life’ to these people, one of their main preoccupations." (P. 266).      Mr. Berndt goes into some detail on practices and incidents of violence, torture, warfare, rape, necrophilia, and murder (P. 85 - 310) in the tribes. The book is available for anyone interested in specific examples.

      These four tribes (and possibly others) were so violent as to warrant (if it were needed, which it is not, at the present time) the creation of a new category of violence:  extremely violent.    All the tribes have voiced fricative allophones in their languages. Phonetic sources are listed under New Guinea languages, and under Auyana, Fore, Kamano (Jate and Kamano), and Uturupa (Appendix 1).



3Berndt, Ronald M., Excess and Restraint: Social Control Among a New Guinea Mountain People
         University of Chicago Press      Chicago      1966
 
 
 
 

       The sixth category includes groups in which infanticide was considered a socially approved means of population control.   While there are many groups in which that was the case, I am presently aware of only one: Tahitian.    Warfare was also accepted, effectively, as a means of population control in Tahiti.   Douglas Oliver ( P. 375)4, quoted William Ellis5 as saying: "...the passion for war [among the Tahitians]...and its consequent cruelties and demoralization were perhaps unequaled in any other part of the world.   Their wars were most merciless and destructive.   ...The total extermination of their enemies with the desolation of a country, was often the avowed object of the war.    This design...has been [on occasion] literally accomplished: every inhabitant of an island, excepting the few that may have escaped by flight in their canoes, has been slaughtered; the bread fruit trees have been cut down, and left to rot; [and] the cocoa-nut trees have been killed by cutting off their tops and crowns..."(Oliver,  P. 375).

      Oliver continues (P. 375): "Warfare does indeed appear to have been a major preoccupation of the Maohis [Tahitians]...".

      Regarding infanticide, Oliver (Op. Cit., P. 424) quoted Ellis (Op. Cit., Vol. I, P. 332-334): "Adult murder sometimes occurred; many were slain in war; and during the first years of their residence in Tahiti human victims were frequently immolated.   Yet the amount of all these and other murders did not equal that of infanticide alone."    Oliver (Op. Cit., P. 424) stated that: "Recorded estimates of the number of infants destroyed range from three fourths to two thirds of all those born."

      The seventh group, linguistic groups in which regular or large-scale human sacrifice was approved includes, to my knowledge, three groups: Aztec (Nahuatl), Inca (Quichuan), and Hawaiian.   The connection between present phonology and pre-colonial phonology is clearly tenuous, at best, for Nahuatl and Quichua, and is, at present, inconclusive in regard to the presence or absence of voiced fricative phonemes or allophones for those two groups (see discussion of Nahuatl in Appendix 1).   The Hawaiian language includes a voiced fricative phoneme.

      Frequent warfare between chiefs of small areas of the islands (kingdoms), executions for violation of prohibitions imposed by a chief (kapus, tapus, or taboos), and human sacrifice were common in pre-colonial Hawaiian culture.   James Jarves reported that in Hawaii, "Human sacrifices were common; they ocurred[sic], previous to going to war, upon the death of any high chief, or any other occasion of importance."6

      Regarding kapus (or taboos) in Hawaii, the same source stated that: "Every will of a chief, however monstrous, was promulgated as a tabu, and officers were appointed to see that it was observed." ( Ibid., P. 51).    "the slightest breach of any of its [a tabu’s] requisitions, however absurd or artificial, was punished with death." ( Ibid., P. 52).    Regarding tabus, Bingham wrote that : "Various times, places and things were placed under tabu, or declared to be sacred.   To enforce the unreasonable tabu, the highest penalty was annexed." (Ibid.,P. 20).

      Regarding pre-colonial Hawaiian religion, Bingham7 stated: "the priests of the Sandwich Islands, under the garb of religion, [seized] men and women at pleasure, binding, strangling or beating them to death, and offering them up in sacrifice to their malevolent dieties."



      4 Oliver, Douglas L.,  Ancient Tahitian Society    Vol. 1   Ethnography    (three volumes)
         University of Hawaii Press       Honolulu       1974
         Infanticide, P. 424-426,  warfare, P. 375-408.
 
      5 Ellis, William,   Polynesian Researches   Vol. II (two volumes),  P. 494
         Fisher, Son and Jackson       London       1829
 
      6 Jarves, James,  History of the Hawaiian or Sandwich Islands   P. 47    Edward Moxon Co.      London       1843
      7 Bingham, Hiram,  A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands; or the Civil, Religious, and Political
         History of Those Islands   P. 22    Hezekiah Huntington Press      Hartford, Conn.       1848
 
 


3



      There are five groups known to the author that have been identified by observers, anthropologists and ethnographers observing the groups to represent some of the least violent linguistic groups on the planet.   These groups include: Choctaw, Iraqw, Wintu, (all discussed in "Theory of Linguistic Derivation", 1995, this site, see contents page), Menomini, and Lepcha.   Two of these groups, Rong and Iraqw, have voiced fricatives as common components in their languages, and in one group, the Menomini, there is one voiced fricative allophone, a presumably voiced, bilabial fricative ( I.P.A. symbol - ) of one phoneme, "m", that occurs only in some, and not all instances of the one phoneme sequence in which it does occur.    Menomini is the only language I have observed, to date, in which there is one voiced fricative allophone of one phoneme that does not occur in all instances of the phoneme sequence in which it does occur. The allophone is presumably rare in the language, and the group was classified as among the groups in which voiced fricatives were absent or rare.

      The Iraqw language was originally incorrectly classified as one in which voiced fricative phones were absent, because the source of the phonetic information on them, W. H. Whiteley, in A Short Description of Item Categories in Iraqw , created his own symbol for a voiced pharyngal fricative, a lower case "h" with an apostrophe under it ( I. P. A. symbol - ) , and did not state in his description of the fricative whether it was voiced or voiceless. The Iraqw language has been reclassified as including voiced fricative phones in the statistical analysis in Appendix 2.

       The Wintu group was classified as among the least violent on the basis of the evaluation of Cora Du Bois, in Wintu Ethnography8.   The Wintu were originally classified as a group in which voiced fricative allophones were present on the basis of a statement in Wintu Ethnography (Ibid.,  P. 4) that the language included a sound similar to the "ch" in German "ach", only voiced, which I presumed to be a voiced velar fricative ( I. P. A. -  ).   However, a later detailed description of the language, Wintu Grammar,  by Harvey Pitkin  (University of California Publications in Linguistics,   Vol. 94,  1984,  306 pages) indicated that the allophone to which Cora Du Bois referred was probably a voiced stop, not a fricative.   The absence of voiced fricative allophones in the language was confirmed by Dr. Pitkin in a personal communication with the author (1999), "I can confirm your correct understanding re voiced fricatives in Wintu; with the single exception / j / in a loan word, there are none, to my knowledge."

       The cultures of the Menomini and Lepcha groups will be discussed in some detail.

       The Menomini group was classified as significantly less violent than other groups by several independent observers.   In his ethnography of the Menomini, Walter Hoffman (P. 34)9 quoted Augustine Grignon (P. 265)10 in Hoffman’s ethnography, "The Menomini Indians" : "The Menomonees were less warlike than the Sauks and Foxes; they, at least, did not get embroiled in wars with other indian nations as much as the other tribes."    "...my grandfather remarked, that he regarded the Menomonees as the most peaceful, brave, and faithful of all the tribes that served under him."

   Other early European contacts with the Menomini support the conclusion.    Nicolas Perrote (1667), a French fur trader, and, apparently, one of the first Europeans to report meeting the Menomini, observed that: "The harmony that exists among the ‘savages’11 is in truth displayed not only by their words, but in actual conduct.   The chiefs who are the most influential and well-to-do are on equal footing with the poorest, and even the boys - with whom they converse as they do with persons of discretion.   They warmly support and take in hand the cause of one another among friends; and when there are any disputes, they proceed therein with great moderation . . . seldom are there quarrels among them."   Perrote further observed that " . . . The father does not venture to exercise authority over his son, nor does the chief dare to give commands to his soldier . . . "12


      8 Du Bois, Cora,   Wintu Ethnography ,      University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
      Vol. 36    Number 1      Berkeley      1935
 
      9 Hoffman, Walter James,  "The Menomini Indians", Bureau of American EthnologyFourteenth Annual Report
         1892-1893    Part 1      P. 11-328      Published 1896
         Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.
 
      10 Grignon, Augustin,   Collection of the Historical Society of Wisconsin for 1856  -
         Vol. III,    P. 265      1857
 
      11 Quotation marks mine.
 
      12 Blair, E. H.,  editor and translator, The Indian Tribes of the Upper Mississippi
         Valley and the Region of the Great Lakes as Described by Nicolas Perrotte...      Arthur H. Clark and Co.
         Cleveland      1911
 
 
 

      George Spindler13 reported that: "No one has the right, on the basis of position or prestige, to exercise direct authority over another, not even a father over his son.   . . . There is love and honor in traditional Menomini marriage, but no ‘obeying’."

      In one of his articles on the Menomini group, Alanson Skinner14 wrote: "Among themselves, the rights of the individuals were paramount.  . . . Even infants had the sole right to what was theirs."

      Louise Spindler15 wrote that, among the Menomini, "Everyone knows that he or she must repress hostile emotions (control of overt aggression), practice self-control (equanimity under duress), show concern for others (generosity, hospitality), respect other’s rights (autonomy), show respect for elders, and never behave in an aggressive manner (quarrel, be too successful at any endeavor, show off)."    George Spindler16 wrote that, in the legends of the Menomini, "A good man is brave, respects the rights of others, and does not arouse antagonisms; he lives quietly ... he is modest, even tempered, and guards himself against undue pride."

      Child rearing practices apparently opposed casual use of physical coercion or violence; quoting George Spindler17, "Discipline is very mild. No adult in the native-oriented group remembers being hit as a child, and none of them whip their children now."

      It should be noted that in the early to mid-nineteenth century, there is one area in which the Menomini were apparently more violent than some other groups: treatment of prisoners purchased from other tribes (slaves).   While the Menomini, themselves, did not engage in the warfare that led to the capture and trade in prisoners, some members of the tribe apparently did purchase prisoners from other tribes.   In "The Menomini Indians", Hoffman18 quoted Grignon19: "When these Pawnee slaves had Indian masters, they were generally treated with great severity."   Grignon stated that he knew of 14 prisoners, apparently captured as children, sold to Menomini tribe members20.   This area, in which a few Menomini tribe members apparently were violent, clearly cannot be considered to outweigh the evidence and observations of many other individuals that most Menomini tribe members were considerably less violent within their group, and in relations with other groups, than most other groups in the Great Lakes area.



      13 Spindler, George D., "Personality, Sociocultural System, and Education Among the Menomini"
         Quoted in: Spindler, George D., ed., Education and Culture: Anthropological Approaches
         Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.      New York      1963
 
      14 Skinner, Alanson, Social Life and Ceremonial Bundles of the Menomini Indians
         Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History      Vol. XIII    Part 1       New York      1913
 
      15 Spindler, George and Louise, Dreamers with Power   P. 74    Waveland Press, Inc.
         Prospect Heights, Illinois      1984
 
      16 Spindler, George and Louise,      Ibid.      P. 85
 
      17 Spindler, George and Louise,      Ibid.      P. 81
 
      18 Hoffman, Walter James,  "The Menomini Indians",      Op. Cit.      P.35
 
      19 Grignon, Augustin,      Op. Cit.      P. 258
 
      20 Grignon, Augustin,      Op. Cit.      P. 258
              Grignon also stated that he knew of one case in which a woman prisoner was killed,
            apparently for being ill, by a Menomini woman.
 
 
 

      There is a point regarding Hoffman’s (1896) phonology21 of the Menomini language that should be considered in this analysis.   Hoffman listed "z" as a phoneme in the Menomini language.   However, in an examination of his word list of over a thousand Menomini words, I was able to find only one word: "ke sik", "ke shik", or "ke zhik" (all variant pronunciations for the Menomini word for "sky" or "blue") in which the allophone "z" appeared.    Apparently, Mr. Hoffman was describing a voiced alveopalatal fricative (in International Phonetic Alphabet - "  " - pronounced as "z" in "azure"), that I have observed in only one other Menomini word: "Jebainoke" or 'Jebainoket"22( a fictional hero ) .   The word Jebainoke (letter "j " in I. P. A. is "  " ) was apparently created more than a century (mid-1800’s) after the Menomini had had substantial contact with European culture and languages.   It is my opinion that, because the allophone "  " occurred in Hoffman’s word list in only one Menomini lexeme ( ke sik ), and then, only in the three cases (out of over a thousand words) when that lexeme was combined with a prefix or suffix as a name for an individual (in an ephemeral context), and because of the absence of the allophone from any common Menomini words listed by Hoffman (lexemes in the permanent Menomini vocabulary) known to have been created before European contact, that the allophone is likely to have been an anomalous artifact, acquired from contact with speakers of European languages (French and English), that included the allophone.   Leonard Bloomfield, listed only one voiced fricative allophone in the Menomini language, an allophone of the phoneme "m" ( a voiced bilabial fricative, I.P.A. symbol - ), in his comprehensive work, The Menomini Language23. The allophone apparently occurred only rarely.   According to Bloomfield, it occurred only "sometimes", in only one phonetic sequence preceding the phoneme "m", and not in all instances of that sequence.     The Menomini language was classified as a language in which voiced fricative phones were rare because it is the only language known to the author in which a voiced fricative allophone occurs, but does not occur in every instance of the the phonetic sequence in which it does occur.


      21 Hoffman, Walter James,  "The Menomini Indians",      Op. Cit.      Vocabulary, P. 295-398
      22 Spindler, George and Louise,      Op. Cit.,      P. 56
 
      23 Bloomfield, Leonard, The Menomini Language       Yale University Press
         New Haven       1963
           Phonology, P. 14-17
 
 
 

      The next linguistic group, the Lepchas of Sikkim and West Bengal, India are speakers of the Rong language, which includes several voiced fricatives (z, j, and v).   Geoffrey Gorer described the Rong culture (Lepcha is actually a derogatory term applied to them by the Nepalese) in his book, Himalayan Village24as considerably less violent than any other culture he had observed.   Violence was apparently virtually unknown within the Rong linguistic group at the time that Gorer lived in the village (1937).   The group is clearly one of the least violent on the planet at the present time.

      Mr. Gorer did allude to some practices and aspects of the history of the group that should be considered in this study, though.   First, the area in which the Rong lived had been invaded, and the population colonized, first by Tibetans in the 16th century, then by the Nepalese and Bhutanese in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and then invaded, ceded to, and colonized by the British in 1835.   The Rong area had been colonized for more than three hundred years before Gorer visited the area.   I have, to date, been unable to find any information on the form of the Rong culture before colonization by the Tibetans.   The Rong language had no orthography until the late 17th century, so the group kept no written records of their history before that time, and because of the remote location of their territory in the Himalayan foothills, other groups apparently took little or no interest in recording their history or culture until the British colonized the area.   According to the information available, it may very difficult to find records of early contacts with Tibetans, or on the form of their culture as it existed independently.

      Second, Gorer indicated that, before British colonization, occasional enslavement of orphaned members of the Rong group by other members of that group was known and socially approved (Ibid. P. 43-44).

      In spite of any questions about the independent form of their culture, though, the Rong were classified on the basis of the current form of their culture (as of 1937) as among the least violent groups on the planet.   The Rong were, again, the only group of the five currently classified as "least violent" whose language includes voiced fricative phonemes or allophones (see Appendix 1).



      24 Gorer, Geoffrey, Himalayan Village   An Account of the Lepchas of Sikkim
         Basic Books, Inc.       New York       1938
 
 

4

      The second corollary to the hypothesized relationship can be observed in some national and tribal groups.    One of the most commonly known examples is the German - Dutch, or Dutch - German linguistic group.   The two groups speak the same language, but appear to have significantly differing attitudes toward violence (except in regard to colonization), with the German group, historically, representing a considerably higher level of violence, and the Dutch-Netherlandic group representing a significantly lower level of violence.    The second corollary would predict that, in a group such as the Dutch-German linguistic group, in which voiced fricatives are included in the phonetic inventory, the numerically larger and apparently original group would be the more violent or most violent national or tribal group, and that the groups may have diverged on the basis of their collective attitudes toward violence.

      The same relationship would be predicted by the second corollary for the three Yavapai-speaking linguistic groups in southwestern North America: the Yavapai, Walapai, and Havasupai.   The language of the three groups includes voiced fricative allophones, and the numerically largest group, the Yavapai, was, according to my evaluation, based on the observations of the three tribes by anthropologists, the most violent.   The Yavapai had a long-standing enmity against the second-largest group, the Walapai, and attacked them at least once every year25.   Some of the most pathological acts that have been attributed to any tribes in the southwest area, have been attributed to the Yavapai, including the only descriptions I have read of cannibalism in the area, and, in one case, burning a child to death by holding the child down on hot coals, and eating the body26.

      According to Gifford: "Raids against the enemy were regular occurrences.    Not only did the Yavapai fight the Pima, but also their own linguistic relatives, the Maricopa, the Walapai, and the Havasupai.   In expeditions against the latter distant groups, only occasional Southeastern Yavapai took a hand."27

      "The Maricopa were hereditary enemies, to be killed whenever opportunity offered, regardless of sex or age.   The Maricopa attitude was more merciful, for occasionally a Yavapai woman was taken to wife and small children were adopted and brought up as Maricopa."28

      The Walapai and Yavapai were, according to Maurice Mook29, enemies.   However, Mook reported that: "Walapai wars seem to have been largely defensive."30.
      "Though the Walapai were neighbors and friends of the Mohave, . . . they lacked the war pride and travel impulses of these people."31

      The Havasupai were also considerably less aggressive than the Yavapai. "Warfare among the Havasupai was chiefly defensive, for they numbered too few to carry on effective offensive operations.   However, they made raids against their nearer enemies from time to time.

      "Their traditional enemies are the Yavapai and the associated western groups of the White Mountain and Tonto Apache . . . The friends of the Havasupai were the Hopi and of course the Walapai, with whom they maintained steadfast amicable relations" 32.

      "Offensive operations did not figure to any extent in Havasupai life, partly because of their numerical inferiority and partly because their material existence was better than that of any of their neighbors, with the exception of the Hopi."33

      The earliest population figures available for the three Yavapai-speaking groups are:
    Yavapai - mid 1800’s - 1,500 to 2,00034

    Walapai - late 1800’s - 66735

    Havasupai - 1776 - 34 families36

      The second corollary would also predict that among linguistic groups with no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones that include two or more tribes or bands, the less violent, or least violent group would be the numerically larger, and original group.   The Choctaw-Chickasaw language, which includes no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones, and the cultural contrast between the numerically smaller and more violent group, the Chicasaw, and the numerically larger and less aggressive group, the Choctaw, supports the predicted relationship.   The earliest available population figures for the Choctaw were approximately 20,00037 in about 1700.   The Chicasaw population was estimated to be approximately 6,00038 at about the same time.

      Frederick Hodge commented on the differences in attitudes toward violence between the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes: "The Chickasaw were noted from remote times for their bravery, independence, and warlike disposition.    They were constantly fighting with the neighboring tribes; sometimes with the Choctaw and the Creeks, then with the Cherokee, Illinois, Kickapoo, Shawnee, Mobilians, Osage, and Quapaw.   In manners and customs they differed little from their cogeners, the Choctaw, the principal difference being the more sedentary habits and greater devotion to agricultural pursuits by the Choctaw on the one hand, and the more turbulent, restless, and warlike disposition of the Chickasaw on the other."39

      This could be compared to Swanton’s observations of the Choctaw40 : "They were less inclined to display their superiority to other people by trying to kill them than is usual even in ‘more civilized’41 societies."


      25  Gifford, E. W.,  “ Northeasten and Western Yavapai” ,    P. 303 in:
          University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology      Vol. 34      Number 3      P. 247 - 350
         University of California Press      Berkeley      1937
 
      26  Gifford, E. W.,  “ The Southeastern Yavapai” ,    P. 186  in:
          University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology      Vol. 29      Number 3      P. 177 - 252
         University of California Press      Berkeley      1937
 
      27  Gifford, E. W.,  “ The Southeastern Yavapai” ,   Ibid.      P. 182
 
      28  Gifford, E. W.,  “ The Southeastern Yavapai” ,   Ibid.      P. 182
 
      29 Mook, Maurice A.,  “War” ,   P. 173 - 184 in :  Walapai Ethnography  , Alfred Kroeber, Editor      Quote - P. 174
          Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association        Vol. 42      Menasha, Wisconsin      1935
 
      30 Kroeber, Alfred, Editor,   Walapai Ethnography  ,   Ibid..       P. 174
          Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association        Vol. 42      Menasha, Wisconsin      1935
 
      31 Kroeber, Alfred, Editor,   Walapai Ethnography  , ,   Ibid.       P. 10
 
      32 Spier, Leslie, Havasupai Ethnography      P. 248      Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
          Vol. 29       Part 3       P. 81-408        New York       1928
 
      33 Spier, Leslie, Havasupai Ethnography      Ibid.      P. 249
 
      34 Ortiz, Alfonso, Editor,  Handbook of North American Indians  Vol. 10    Southwest      P. 45
         Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.       1983
 
      35 Ortiz, Alfonso, Editor,     Ibid       P. 25
 
      36 Ortiz, Alfonso,    Ibid.      P. 19
 
      37 Hodge, John R.,  Handbook of American Indians      Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology
         Vol. 30     Part 1      P. 289
          Smithsonian Institution       Washington, D.C.       1907
 
      38 Hodge, John R.,  Handbook of American Indians       Ibid.      P. 261
      39 Hodge, John R.,  Handbook of American Indians      Ibid.     P. 261
 
      40 Swanton, John R. , Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians
         Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology        Vol. 103      P. 2
         Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.       1931
 
      41 Quotation marks mine.
 
 

5
 
 

Culture Area of Southwestern North America North of Gulf of California


      Before colonization of North America, tribal groups in the Southwestern area were substantially divided into two cultural groups: the Pueblo residents, who were, in general, sedentary agriculturists who built permanent settlements; and the villagers, who relied on hunting and gathering and, frequently, seasonal migration, as well as agriculture, for subsistence.   Many of the hunter-gatherer groups also considered attacks and surreptitious raids on other linguistic groups in the area to be a legitimate means of access to subsistence needs.   The linguistic groups in the area were associated in a loose, and not always consistent, network of alliances, animosities, and raiding and trading relationships.

      The Pueblo groups lived in substantially self-sufficient, self-contained, permanent settlements that were frequently the targets of attacks by more aggressive and belligerent Apache and Yuman linguistic groups.   The Pueblo groups were usually considerably less likely to instigate unprovoked attacks on neighboring or surrounding groups than some of the hunters and raiders around them.

      From the perspective of the theory, there were also two major alliance groups outside of the Pueblos, with the Apaches (and Navaho) against all other groups, and, frequently, against each other; a second group of primary belligerents and instigators of violence, the Yavapai, Yumans (Quechans), and Mohave, generally in one loose association; and the less violent, more defensive-oriented tribes and linguistic groups, the Maricopa, Walapai, Havasupai, Cocopa, and Pima and Papago in another association, frequently helping each other when attacked by the raiders and war makers.

      Before the European (European-American) suppression of intertribal warfare, the seven linguistic groups and eight tribes in the southwest area that were, according to anthropologists and observers, responsible for instigation of most of the attacks and warfare in the area were: Western Apache, Chiricahua Apache, Mescalero Apache, Jicarilla Apache, Navaho (as stated, discussed in Theory of Linguistic Derivation, 1995), Comanche, Yavapai, and the Mohave and Quechan tribes, both possibly members of the same linguistic group.    I have not, as yet, read sufficient evidence on mutual intelligibility to determine whether the languages are dialects or separate languages.    I have examined most of these groups in some detail, as well as two other linguistic groups in the area, one Pueblo, Zuni; one Colorado River valley linguistic group, the Cocopa; and the two additional tribes considered in section four, Walapai and Havasupai, that speak the Yavapai language.

      The Apache groups will be considered first.   According to Morris Opler in: "The Apachean Culture Pattern and Its Origins" ( P. 368-392 in: Handbook of North American Indians,   Vol. 10), Apache attitudes and behavior in relation to violence, raiding, and warfare were similar in all tribes, bands, and linguistic groups (Navaho, Western, Chiricahua, Mescalero, and Jicarilla).   Because of their cultural similarity, all Apache groups will be classified as most violent, on the basis of a description of the raiding and warfare practices of the Chiricahua which will be considered to be representative of all Apacheanjkj groups.

      In his ethnography of the Chiricahua,  An Apache Life-Way42 , Morris Opler described the position and attitudes of the Apache toward raiding as a subsistence industry, and in relation to warfare against other groups:  "For men, raiding approaches hunting in economic significance.    In fact, these two pursuits may be said to be rival industries.    . . . The raid is recognized as an integral aspect of the economy." (P. 332)

      "Glory and enhanced status may be the by-products of the raid, but the immediate aims of those who organize such expeditions and participate in them are direct and practical:

        ‘... When people are poor and need supplies, the leader says, ‘We must go out and get what we need.’   It is volunteer work.    Whoever is in want of food and necessities goes.’

      "There is no absolute terminological distinction between the raid and a war expedition.( Ibid., P.333).   "...The unifying element again appears to be interest in the spoils. ‘There is no difference between the raid and war. They are going to bring back whatever they can either way.’

      "But there is a difference of primary intent which does distinguish the raid from the war expedition.   The members of the raiding party have as their sole objective the garnering of horses, cattle, or unguarded possessions of the enemy.   They do not go in numbers, they do not seek a bloody encounter.    Descriptions of typical raiding parties emphasize the business-like procedure and the pacific attitude: " ‘....When they are on a stock [livestock] raid, they don’t want to be seen.   They sneak around.   They are careful; they avoid meeting troops and taking life.   It is different from a revenge party.’

      "...But very often, raiders who do not contemplate an actual conflict, find themselves involved in one before they reach home." ( Ibid., P. 334).

      "It is when a raiding party is intercepted, or when disastrous retaliation on the camps follows a raid, that a real war party is formed." ( Ibid.,P. 335).

      "...Despite the identical designs on the enemy’s goods, the war party differs from the raiding expedition in preliminaries, personnel, and tenor: ‘only when they go out for revenge and fighting do they have the dancing beforehand.   A relative [of a dead raider] who wishes a revenge party goes to the leaders and head men and asks them to use their influence to get one up.

      ‘All the big war parties are undertaken to avenge deaths.    The war dance is a dramatization of warfare itself and a pledge on the part of the individual warrior to participate in the action and and to acquit himself bravely...’ " ( Ibid., P. 336)

      "Of the time and manner of attack on enemy camps, this account has been given: ‘We usually attack early in the morning.   We are quiet when we go to attack.   We fight in hand-to-hand action, and the individual can advance or retreat according to his chance and how the fight is going.   In the battle the men obey the leader." ( Ibid., P. 344)

      Training and preparation of boys for the lifetime occupations of hunting and raiding began at about age eight to twelve, and continued with fights and practice combat with other boys about the same age, some of which training caused injuries and broken bones ( Ibid., P. 67-73), until about age 16, when the adolescent was taken out as an apprentice on several raids before he was allowed to participate in actual raids (P.134-140).

      The Chiricahua Apache would clearly be classified as among the most violent groups.   Because, as stated, the cultures and attitudes in relation to violence of all of the Apache groups were virtually identical, all five Apache groups (Western, Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarilla, and Navaho) were, again, classified as most violent.   The languages of all of the Apache groups included voiced fricative phonemes (Appendix 1).


      42Opler, Morris E., An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, and Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians
         University of Chicago Press      Chicago      1941
 
 
 

      The Comanche will be considered next.   According to Earnest Wallace and Adamson Hoebel43, "The motives which led the Comanches to go to war were plunder, love of fighting, a desire for glory as a means of achieving personal status, eagerness for revenge, and a determination to take and hold  . . .  the hunting grounds of the South Plains.   Their bravery and their desire to win prestige for themselves inspired them to take many risks.   Prior to the introduction of the horse, plains warfare was sporadic and not bloody; but the introduction of the horse furnished all the plains tribes with a new and strong motive for war, for by war men might acquire something of great value and they now had the mobility with which to strike at each other.   Concomitantly with the horse came another new factor: the pressure of whites on the eastern frontier, setting in motion a chain reaction of tribal displacements that caused group after group to fight for a place under the . . . sun.   War became the pattern of life…" (P. 245).    "War honors provided the basis of the whole system of rank and social status in Comanche society.   Consequently, the life of the male came to be centered around warfare and raiding.   The men were all warriors. War was regarded as the noblest of pursuits, one which every man should follow; and from earliest youth boys were taught to excel in it.   They were taught that success in war brought in its train the respect and admiration of the men, women and children f the tribe, and that the most worthy virtue for a man was bravery.   They were taught that death in battle, aside from being glorious, protected one from all the miseries which threatened later life . . . " ( Ibid., P. 246).

      "The Comanches, in conformity with the general plains pattern, adhered to institutionalized procedure in giving social recognition of war honors: the practice of counting coup." ( Ibid., P. 246).   "Opinions are somewhat at variance as to why the Plains Indians counted coup.   Robert Lowie44 [states that] Plains Indian warfare ‘loomed as an exciting pastime played according to established rules, the danger adding zest to the game.   The primary goal was to score, only the loss of kindred prompting reprisals on a major scale.   Whenever men fight for glory, practical ends become secondary.’ " (Wallace and Hoebel, Ibid., P. 249).   "War parties were difficult to distinguish from raiding parties, for the Comanches conducted both in much the same manner.   The distinction rested for the most part in the stated objective of the undertaking, although a raiding party, if confronted with enemies, would fight; and a war party was not likely to pass by a chance to make off with horses or booty." ( Ibid. ,P. 256 ).    "Only the vengeance party moved with a singleness of purpose. ( Ibid.,P. 256 ) … They struck swiftly on moonlight nights or surprised undefended, isolated settlers by day when circumstances were favorable, killing or capturing their victims and driving their stolen animals back to their rendezvous, until such time as they could return to the main camp." ( Ibid., P. 257 ).

      The Comanche were classified as most violent, in spite of the fact that much of their emphasis on glorification of warfare and violence may have been caused by territorial pressure from European-American settlers, because the tendency to develop a culture in which warfare was highly valued was apparently present before colonization.   The availability of animal transportation clearly could not be considered to be causal of the attitudes that allowed social acceptance of raiding, warfare, and aggression.   The availability of horses only facilitated the expression of cultural characteristics and proclivities that were latent, but clearly present, in their perspectives and attitudes toward violence before colonization.   Furthermore, the raids and warfare in which they engaged were apparently directed indiscriminately against all other linguistic groups, not only against the colonizers who were the primary source of territorial conflict.

      The Comanche language includes voiced fricative allophones45.


      43Wallace, Earnest and Hoebel, E. Adamson, The Commanches - Lords of the South Plains
         University of Oklahoma Press      Norman      1952
 
      44Lowie, Robert H., An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology,      P. 222
         New York      1940
 
      45Robinson, Lila Wistrand, and Armagost, James, Comanche Dictionary and Grammar
         Summer Institute of Linguistic and University of Texas at Arlington      1990
         Phonology, P. 238, lists     ( I. P. A.  ), and 
 
 

      A consideration of the Yavapai-speaking groups (Section 4) would not be complete without some consideration of the position of internal violence in the tribes.   Among the Yavapai, as with most tribal groups in the southwest area, shamans and traditional healers were alleged to have the power to cure disease, and were held accountable for knowledge of the [ assumed among the Yavapai ] metaphysical cause of the death of diseased individuals they attempted to cure.   Among the Yavapai, before imposition of American rule, a "Shaman often accused woman of bewitching patient, told patient’s relatives to kill her."46   "Witchcraft was chiefly attributed to young women who were stoned to death following accusation by shamans."47 "Many . . . girls accused of witchcraft by shamans, killed . . . Nowadays shaman himself accused of making person sick; is sometimes (though rarely) killed if sick person dies."48

      The Yavapai were classified as among the most violent groups, and, as the numerically largest, the representatives of the Yavapai-speaking group for the overall study.

      A similar belief in the responsibility of traditional healers (shamans) for the death of patients was held by the Walapai:  "A doctor [shaman] who was unsuccessful or who was believed to cause disease, might be killed.    . . . This possibility may have acted as a potent factor in keeping the ranks of the profession small.   . . . One [informant] believed that shamans die young."49

The Havasupai apparently do not consider the execution of unsuccessful shamans to be necessary, " . . . in that there may be retribution for the loss of a patient, but it does not always follow."50   The small size of the Havasupai group ( 34 families in 1776 ) may have contributed to their hesitancy to execute traditional healers (in their group) who were unsuccessful.



      46Gifford, E. W., "Northeastern and Western Yavapai"
         University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
         Vol. 34      Number 3      1933      P. 247-350
 
      47Gifford, E. W., "Northeastern and Western Yavapai"        Ibid.        P. 303
 
      48Gifford, E. W., "Northeastern and Western Yavapai"        Ibid.        P. 309
 
      49McKennan, Robert, "Shamanism" , P. 185-194  in:  Walapai Ethnography,   Alfred Kroeber,  editor
         Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association        Vol. 42        1935
         Quote, P. 87
 
      50Spier, Leslie,  "Havasupai Ethnography"        Op. Cit.        P. 289
 
 

      The Pueblo groups will be considered next, starting with the Zuni.    The Zuni were primarily an agricultural tribe ruled and dominated by a religious elite and a military society, the Bow Priests (warriors who had killed an enemy in battle), who acted as the military enforcement arm - essentially a police, as well as a military force - of the religious council.

      Spanish colonizers were the first Europeans to contact the Zunis and the other Pueblo groups from 1536 to about 1600.    Spanish contacts with the Pueblos in the 16th century were, however, substantially limited to occasional contacts by explorers51.    " . . . sporadic contacts were followed in the early 1600's by Spanish efforts to establish missions through the Pueblo country."52.

      In 1680, all of the Pueblo groups united and revolted against Spanish rule in the area.   They attacked and killed or drove out all (or nearly all) of the priests, missionaries, and Spanish settlers in their midst, and held control of the area until Spanish military forces returned twelve years later in 1692, and re-established colonial control53.

      The Zuni were under Spanish and Mexican control from 1692 to 1846 and had little contact with outsiders, except for civil contacts with Spanish and Mexican controlling authorities, until the Mexican-American war.    After the war, the Zuni considered themselves to be allied with, and friends of, the American government, against their enemies, the Apache and Navahos, who frequently raided their settlements.   I have been unable to find any significant information on attitudes of the Zuni toward violence within their group, or in relation to other linguistic groups, before the 19th century, however, in the mid-19th century, it appears that their involvement in warfare was substantially defensive, against raids by Apache and Navaho groups, and, occasionally, by the Hopi, against them.54

      The first serious attempt to gather ethnographic information on the Zuni was made in an expedition sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and led by James Stevenson in 1879.   The expedition included Frank Cushing, an ethnographer who remained among the Zuni for four years after the other members left, and was, effectively, accepted into the tribe as a Zuni.   The expedition also included Stevenson’s wife, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, who wrote an extensive report on Zuni culture and customs, based on observations from that expedition and others to the southwest area55.



      51Woodbury, Richard,  "Zuni Prehistory and History to 1850"  ,    P. 467-473 in:
          Handbook of North American Indians       Vol. 9      Southwest          Alfonso Ortiz,   Volume  editor
         Alfonso Ortiz,   Volume  editor            Smithsonian Institution           Washington, D. C.            1979         P. 470
 
      52Woodbury, Richard, "Zuni prehistory and history to 1850",          Ibid.          P. 470
 
      53Woodbury, Richard, "Zuni prehistory and history to 1850",          Ibid.          P. 471
 
      54Leighton, Dorothea C. and Adair, John     People of the Middle Place - A Study of the Zuni Indians
          P. 19    Human Relations Area Files      New Haven    1966
 
      55Stevenson, Matilda Coxe, The Zuni Indians     Twenty Third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology
         P. 1 - 634        Smithsonian Institution    Washington, D. C.        1901-1902     Publication date - 1906


      By 1879, raids and attacks by the Navaho and Apache had been eliminated, and the military society of the Zuni, the Bow Priests (the enforcement agents of the governing society of religious leaders), may well have re-focused their aggressive tendencies toward internal targets of the suspicion and animosity of religious leaders: independent thinkers, social deviants and unpopular individuals who they accused of causing disease, plagues, drought, and insect infestations by witchcraft, and who they may have perceived as representing a threat to the authority of the bow Priests and the religious council.

      It does appear that torture and executions for witchcraft may have been common practices among the Zuni for many years, possibly preceding contact with Spanish explorers, however it is entirely possible that greater interest in, and social emphasis on, "protection" of the tribe from witchcraft became a practical focus of attention, and a socially approved outlet for aggression of warriors (Bow Priests) only after termination of the threat of raids and warfare from neighbors (with the defeat of the Navahos and Apaches) had virtually eliminated the need for the Bow Priests as protectors of the group from external enemies 56.

      Matilda Stevenson reported from her visits to Zuni (the name of their settlement at that time, as well as the name assigned to the tribe by colonizers - the group calls themselves Ashiwi) that when Medicine Priests (traditional healers) were unable to cure a sick individual, and the patient died, the medicine priest was required by the tribe to " ... account for his inability to cure the patient . . . which the medicine man does . . . by [accusing and] . . . bringing to trial the supposed guilty person whose malevolence defies the powers of the theurgist.", although " . . . none but the poor and unfortunate are condemned"  for witchcraft 57. The Bow Priests, effectively acting as a police force, brought the accused individual to the tribal religious authorities in, or outside of the [Catholic] mission church.   The accused individual was then tortured and interrogated by tribal priests until the individual confessed, then executed [clubbed to death].   Trials, executions, and burials, or disposal of bodies were frequently done in secret by the bow priests and the religious priests before the suppression of witchcraft trials and executions by the American government58.

      Social control among the Zuni was, and continued as recently as the 1940’s, to be based primarily on paranoia and fear regarding witchcraft: fear of becoming a victim of disease by becoming the target of witchcraft by another tribe member, and fear of being accused of causing some harm or natural event (drought) by witchcraft59.   In her essay, "Witchcraft Among the Pueblos: Indian or Spanish", Elsie Parsons stated: "Besides causing sickness, individual and epidemic, and insect plague, witches can control the weather, keeping the rain off or causing wind." (P. 107).

      " . . . as you never know who is a witch, you are always careful never to give offence - unless you are yourself a witch.   A reckless attitude toward others, ‘not caring what you say,’ seems to be one indication of witchhood."  ( Ibid., P. 107 ).

      Paranoia regarding witchcraft was apparently pervasive and superordinate in Zuni society, with residual memory and effects of executions by Bow Priests effectively imposing institutionalized police state control, and the control of mutual suspicion, over the consciousness of most tribe members.

      Paranoia about witchcraft, and fear of the religious authorities and the Bow Priests, were apparently the primary mechanisms of social control among the Zuni.  It was, and apparently remains the case, that violent crime and murders (that is, in the time before American control was imposed, murders that were not authorized by religious authorities and Bow Priests) are unusually rare among the Zuni.

      Physical coercion as a child-rearing practice was also apparently fairly common among the Zuni: "In the old days some Zunis really beat their children, made them black and blue.   About one fourth of the Zunis would really beat their children."60

      The Zuni were classified as more violent, but not most violent, because of their apparent and scientifically unjustified collective preoccupation with, and, until they were forcibly stopped, collective toleration of execution of group members for alleged causation of events over which accused individuals had no control (such as disease and droughts).

      The Ashiwi (Zuni) have no voiced fricatives in their language61.



      56Leighton and Adair, People of the Middle Place..., Op. Cit..,  P. 55
 
      57Stevenson, Matilda Coxe, The Zuni Indians Op. Cit. ,  P. 392-406   
 
      58Leighton and Adair, People of the Middle Place... Op. Cit P. 50.
 
      59Leighton and Adair, People of the Middle Place... Op. Cit    P. 73-74
 
     60 Leighton and Adair, People of the Middle Place... Op. Cit P. 71
 
     61Newman, Stanley, "A Sketch of the Zuni Language",  P. 483-506 in: Handbook of North American Indians
  Vol. 17  Languages     Ives Goddard, Volume editor   Smithsonian Institution       Washington, D. C.   1996
   Phonology, P. 485 lists no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones
 
 

        One interesting comparison in the southwest area is between the three major tribes and two linguistic groups that occupied adjacent areas in the lower Colorado River valley between the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Delta in Baja California.    Two of the tribes, the Mohave, at the north end of the valley, and the Quechan (Yuman) in the middle, were among the most aggressive and violent in the southwest area.    The languages of both, which, as stated, were possibly the same language, included voiced fricative phonemes.     The third group, the Cocopa, were more sedentary, and considerably less belligerent than the Mohave and Quechan.    The Cocopa language includes only one voiced fricative allophone.    (It is possible that the allophone may have been incorporated or introduced into the Cocopa language as a result of Spanish contact. The allophone, a retroflex "r" [I. P. A. - "  " ] occurs in Spanish, and in no other languages I have observed to date in North America that were not, for an extended period of time, under Spanish control).62

      Violence against other linguistic groups was a major preoccupation among the Yuman (Quechan).   In "Ethnography of the Yuma Indians", C. Daryll Forde wrote that among the Yuman (Quechan): "Fighting was not justified merely as a virile pursuit, nor was economic need adduced as a factor; warfare to the Yuma possessed a strong mystical value as the means whereby the spiritual power of the entire tribe was enhanced, and at the same time demonstrated.

      "With a food supply that was relatively secure and with no elaborate ceremonial cycle to maintain, the lower Colorado peoples were free to devote a good part of their activities to belligerent activities.   [Spanish explorer] Alarcon remarked [on] the incessant warfare among the tribes of the lower Colorado.    He speaks of ‘warre and that very great, and upon exceedingly small occasions; for when they had no cause to make warre, they assembled together and some of them said, let us go to make warre in such a place and then all of them set forward with their weapons.’ " 63

      Socially approved unprovoked violence within the Quechan tribe was substantially limited to the execution of shamans (traditional healers): " . . . a doctor who made three false predictions of his power to cure in one family, or nine in the tribe as a whole, was killed.   . . . informants said that a doctor was killed only when he was suspected of misusing or withholding his powers.    . . . The killing of failing doctors was general in the lower Colorado region . . . " .64

      Regarding Mohave warfare, Kroeber65 stated that: "Tribes hundreds of miles away were attacked and raided.   . . . Sheer curiosity was the main motive, for the Mohave were little interested in trade."

      "Mohave warfare was primarily carried on by . . . those men who had experienced ‘great dreams’ conferring power in battle, although in a major expedition men who had not had the proper war dreams might also participate.   In Mohave belief, warfare was instituted by a culture hero, ‘ mastamho ’ ,  who decreed that in each generation some men would have dreams giving power in war. Thus . . . [those who had dreams of power in war] were eager to validate their dreams, so to speak, by demonstrating prowess in battle." 66.   "A raid might be undertaken by 10 or 12 [war dreamers] whenever they wished to go out and fight, but more preparation preceded a major campaign  . . . Attack on an outlying settlement was at dawn, by surprise, but if the Mohave continued farther into the enemy Maricopa territory they might encounter a battle array of Maricopa and Pima warriors.   . . . The Quechan usually joined the Mohave for major campaigns, and sometimes they invited the Mohave to come down-river to join them in an attack on the Cocopa."67 .

      Socially approved internal violence (outside of training for warfare) appears, as among the Quechan, to be somewhat less common among the Mohave than among less belligerent groups. Territorial changes (caused by changes in the course of the Colorado during flooding) sometimes led to group combat; formalized group pushing matches or stick fights in which combatants were seldom killed, but sometimes died later from wounds.68.   Shamans, though, were apparently the most frequent internal victims of murder.    Shamans were believed to have power to cause or cure disease.   "The shaman lived a precarious life, since if he lost too many patients [due to disease], he might be killed."69

      The third linguistic group was the Cocopa, at the southern end of the valley and delta, described by two independent anthropologists, as clearly more sedentary, less violent, and less aggressive than the other two. In the Handbook of American Indians, Frederick Hodge wrote that: the "Cocopa were reputed to be less hostile than the Yuma [Quechan], or Mohave, who frequently raided their villages; nevertheless, they were sufficiently warlike to retaliate when necessary."70

       William Kelly made a similar observation in his study of the Cocopa: " Comparing my material with the accounts of warfare as given for other river Yumans, I am of the opinion that the Cocopa were by no means as warlike as their neighbors, the Yuma and the Mohave. On the contrary, in this respect, they seem more comparable with the Maricopa as described by Spier (1933, P. 160): 
" ‘Warfare occupied an unusually large place in the minds of the Maricopa for a people who by temperament were essentially mild-tempered and sedentary. They maintain that it was forced on them by raids of Yuma and Yavapai which had to be met or anticipated. While this seems much like the usual disavowal of aggression that can be heard from any of our western Indians, in this case I believe it to be true. No great premium attached to the man with a war record: the war leader was held in high regard, but the ordinary man who took a scalp or captive was not socially exceptional .... Nevertheless they talked a good deal of war, took pleasure in planning it, and brought up their sons to look forward to it.’ "71

      "Regarding Cocopa agriculture, Kelly stated: " . . . most interesting of all for an agricultural people, [they had] neither prayers nor rites associated with the planting, growing, or harvesting of their crops.  . . . Also typical of the Cocopa was a marked generosity with food, but food was never a symbol of wealth or an avenue to social prestige."72

      The Cocopa were apparently somewhat more likely than the other Colorado River Valley groups to execute suspected witches.   Kelly stated: " When compared with other societies in the Southwest,  . . . the Cocopa made relatively great use of the custom of executing declared or suspected witches.  . . . I think it would be safe to say that during the 65 years up to 1945 a witch was killed every two years on the average, a very high rate for such a small society."73

      "In almost all cases where I have adequate information, the killing of an accused witch is fairly obviously traceable to scapegoating in conjunction with a higher than usual number of deaths.   In the period of my fieldwork, at least, these deaths occurred in families where all or most of the members were suffering from what appeared to be tuberculosis.   In all cases the Cocopa explained a witch killing by stating that he or she had brought about the death of one or more victims.   In two cases, however, it is more than likely that witchcraft was a rationalization for executing a man whose physical violence was feared by others.   In addition, in one of my recorded cases, the killer [of the accused witch] appears to have been a homicidal criminal and was later killed by the victim’s relatives."74

      In the Colorado valley, the languages of the two (Mohave and Quechan) most violent tribes (and one or two linguistic groups) both have voiced fricative phonemes, and both would be classified as among the more violent groups in the most violent category.75   The one linguistic group in the valley that would be classified as less violent, the Cocopa, has one voiced fricative allophone in its phonetic inventory.



     62Crawford, James M., The Cocopa Language, Ph.D. dissertation University of California  Berkeley   1966
       Phonology, P. 19, lists one voiced fricative allophone of the phoneme "r",
"an apicopostalveolar retroflex, somewhat grooved, voice[d] spirant" (I.P.A. -

     63Forde, C. Daryll, "Ethnography of the Yuma Indians"   P. 161 in: University of California Publications in American
         Archaeology and Ethnology    Vol. 28   Number 4    P. 83-278   Berkeley   1931
 
     64Forde, C. Daryll, "Ethnography of ther Yuma Indians" Ibid.   P. 199
 
     65Kroeber, Alfred, Handbook of Indians of California    Bulliten of the Bureau of American Ethnology   Vol. 78    Smithsonian Institution    Washington, D. C.   1925    P. 726-753   Quotation - P. 727
 
     66Stewart, Kenneth M., "Mohave", P. 55-70 in: Handbook of North American Indians    Vol. 10  Southwest   Alfonso Ortiz, General Editor    Smithsonian Institution   Washington, D. C.     1983   Quotation, P. 64
 
     67Stewart, Kenneth M., "Mohave", Ibid., P. 64
 
     68Kroeber, Alfred, Handbook of Indians of California    op. cit.   P. 744-745
     69Stewart, Kenneth M., "Mohave", Op. Cit., P. 66
 
     70Hodge, Frederick, Handbook of American Indians    P.319  Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology    Vol. 30   Part 1   Smithsonian Institution    Washington, D. C.   1907
 
     71Kelly, Wil;liam H., "Cocopa Ethnography",    P. 129    Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona   Number 29    University of Arizona Press   Tucson   1977
 
     72Kelly, Wil;liam H., "Cocopa Ethnography",     Ibid.   P. 23
 
     73Kelly, Wil;liam H., "Cocopa Ethnography",     Ibid.   P.76
 
     74Kelly, Wil;liam H., "Cocopa Ethnography",     Ibid.   P.76
 
     75Kroeber, Alfred L.,  "Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language",    P. 45-96 in: University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology    Vol. 10   Number 3   Berkeley   1914    Phonology, P. 47, includes v and ð
                       Bee, Robert L., "Quechan",  P. 86-98 in: Handbook of North American Indians   Vol. 10    Southwest   Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor       Smithsonian Institution   Washington, D. C.   1983    Phonemes listed, P. 86, v [] and ð
 
 

      All Southwestern groups that I observed held a belief in witchcraft, or sorcery, and the human causation, or causation through human or spirit-world agents, of nearly all disease and death in their group, in conjunction with a belief in the possibility of intercession, through human agents or human mediums with the spirit world, on behalf of, or in opposition to, the interests of victims of disease or ailments; to effect or prevent a cure.    In all the tribal groups, responsibility for knowledge of the alleged metaphysical cause of the death of a patient in the care of a traditional healer, was attributed to the healer, and, frequently, personal responsibility for malevolence leading to the death of the patient was attributed to them.    This association and attribution of causing death, or of knowing the cause of death of a tribe member, appears to be the primary, and, frequently, the only socially approved cause of unprovoked murder of members of a tribe by others (in the tribe) in the Southwest area.

      It should also be pointed out that the groups that were more aggressive and violent toward other groups, in general, were less inclined to impose the maximum penalty immediately, when they attributed responsibility for a death [due to disease] to a shaman, or an accused agent of metaphysical malevolence (a witch or sorcerer - accused by the shaman, or an aggrieved family member, of causing the death), than were the groups that were less aggressive toward other groups around them.


6


      It should be noted, at this point, that the detailed study of linguistic groups in this field, has, to date, included only one linguistic group from the two areas of the world that appear to be the most likely to support the theory from the position of groups that have no voiced fricative allophones: Australia and the Philippines (both generally considered to be areas in which violence is not widely approved, and both areas in which there is apparently a relatively high frequency of groups with no voiced fricative allophones).

      When linguistic groups that have and do not have voiced fricative allophones are compared, there are some general differences in the character, form, focus, and magnitude of violence that become apparent.   Of the 49 groups whose languages include voiced fricative allophones, most of those groups (40) have been classified as among the most violent groups, with a few groups in other categories - five in the "more violent" category, one in the "less violent"category, and three in the "least violent" category. Among the groups with few or no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones, the proportion of groups in each category represents an approximately inverse proportion to the proportion of groups in those categories in groups in which voiced fricatives are common.    Among groups in which voiced fricatives are rare or absent, there is minimal representation in the most violent category (one), minimal representation in the more violent category (one), one in the less violent category, and, currently, fifty percent representation (three groups) in the least violent category.

      Among groups with no voiced fricative allophones in their languages, warfare with other linguistic groups is, most often, confined to defense of their territory.   Unprovoked collective and individual violence, when present, appears to be focused, in most cases, inward and internally, against members of the linguistic group itself (usually in the form of socially approved execution of individuals due to allegations of witchcraft).

      Among linguistic groups that have voiced fricative allophones, social approval of offensive warfare (aggressive, unprovoked, collective violence) against other linguistic groups is common (groups listed in part 2).    Violence initiated by groups that have voiced fricative allophones, in the form of genocide, and unprovoked warfare has presumably caused incalculably more loss of life than violence initiated by groups that have no voiced fricative allophones, and has, presumably, been the cause of most military violence between linguistic groups on the planet.

     

      Furthermore, of the groups identified by presumably independent and unbiased observers as noticeably less violent than groups around them (or than most groups in any location observed by the recorder of the information), both internally, and in relation to other linguistic groups (least violent groups, Section 3), half - three of the six observed to date - have had few or no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones in their language.

     

     

APPENDIX 1

PHONETIC SOURCES


Arabic

 
Abboud, Peter F., et. al. , Introduction to Modern Standard Arabic Pronunciation and Writing    Inter-University Committee for Near Eastern Languages    Ann Arbor, Mich.    1968

    Phonology (P. 2), lists "z", "j" (affricate combining "d " and "g" as in "beige"), symbolized in International Phonetic Alphabet as "  " "th" as in "them", symbolized in International Phonetic Alphabet (I. P. A.) as ð. Also lists as voiced fricatives, Arabic consonants that have no English equivalents: (P. 50) voiced pharyngeal fricative, I. P. A. symbol: "  " (P. 56) voiced velar fricative, I. P. A. symbol: "  ", and (P.64) velarized voiced interdental fricative, I. P. A. symbol: "ð"
 
 
Arapesh

 
Bukiyip (Mountain Arapesh)

   Conrad, Robert J., An outline of Bukyip Grammar      Pacific Linguistics
   Series  C  -  Books      Number 113
   Department of Linguistics      Research School of Pacific Studies
   Australian National University      Canberra      1991
     Phonology, P. 2, lists j (d) [ I. P. A. - "  " ] as a phoneme.
Auyana (Uturupa, Usarufa)

 
McKaughan, Howard, and Marks, Doreen, "Notes on Auyana Phonology and Morphology",    P. 181 - 189 in : Wurm, S. A., New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study    Pacific Linguistics    Series C   Vol. 39   Pt. 2

    Allophones listed (P. 182) voiced bilabial fricative, symbolized in I. P A. as "  "voiced velar fricative, I. P. A. symbol: , and affricate w.
 
 
Cambodian

 
Henderson, Eugenie J. A. "The Main Features of Cambodian Pronunciation",  Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies   Vol. 14   1952    P. 149-174

    P. 164 - Lists "v" as "...a labial semivowel less strongly voiced than English ‘v’."     P. 168 "v" listed as a consonantal semivowel when in final position.      P. 169 lists  in footnote.
 
 
Chinese

 
Tewksbury, M. Gardner, Speak Chinese,     Yale University Press     New Haven     1948

    Lists j [  ], and affricate "dz" (P. xiii) as phonemes.
 
 
Chiricahua Apache

 
Opler, Morris E., "Chiricahua Apache", P. 401-418 in : Handbook of North American Indians   Vol. 10   Southwest    Smithsonian Institution     Washington, D. C.    1983

    Listed phonemes (P. 401) include:  [ j ],  [voiced alveopalatal fricative, pronounced as "g " in beige], z, and .
 
 
Cocopa

 
Crawford, James M.., The Cocopa Language     Ph. D. dissertation     University of California    Berkeley    1966

   Phonology, P. 19 , lists one voiced fricative allophone of the phoneme " r ", a retroflex "r" , ( I. P. A. symbol -  ), "an apicopostalveolar retroflex, somewhat grooved, voice[d] spirant." Other voiced fricatives, " v " and , occur only in Spanish or English loan words (P. 13).
 
 
Comanche

 
Robinson, Lila Wistrand, and Armagost, James, Comanche Dictionary and Grammar     Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington     1990

   Phonology P. 238   Voiced fricative allophones listed : d (I. P. A. -  ), and   (voiced bilabial fricative).
 
 
Danish

 
Uldall, H. J., A Danish Phonetic Reader ,    University of London Press    London     1933

     Chart, P. vi, lists phonemes v, ð , and .
 
 
Fore

 
Nicholson, Ruth and Ray, "Fore Phonemes and Their Interpretation", P. 128 - 148 in : Studies in New Guinea Linguistics by Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, New Guinea Branch,  Capell, A., and Wurm, S. A., Editors.     Oceania Linguistic Monographs   Number 6     Published by the University of Sydney     Sydney     1962

 Fore allophones listed (P. 131) - , and affricate w
 
Scott, Graham, The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea     Pacific Linguistics   Series B - Books    Vol. 47     Department of Linguistics     Australian National University     Canberra     1978

     Allophones listed (P. 11) - and .

 

French

 
Valdman, Albert, Introduction to French Phonology and Morphology      Newbury House Publishers, Inc.      Rowley, Mass.      1976

      Phonemes listed, P. 27 - v, z, and 
 
 
German  - Dutch  -  Netherlandic

 
Benware, Wilbur A, Phonetics and Phonology of Modern German    Georgetown University Press      Washington, D. C.     1986


     Listed voiced fricative phonemes (P. 27) include: v, z,  , and  (voiced uvular fricative) .
 
 

Greek

 
Kuhner, Raphael, Grammar of the Greek Language, Translated by B. B. Edwards      D. Appleton and Co.     New York, New York     1879

      Phonology, P. 15-17 lists z as a phoneme.
 
 
Hawaiian

 
Pukui, Mary Kawena and Elbert, Samuel H., Hawaiian Dictionary     University of Hawaii Press     Honolulu 1986

 Phoneme listed (P. XVII) - v
 
 
Inca

 
Orr, Carolyn, "Equador Quichua Phonology", P. 60-77 in: Studies in Equadorian Indian Languages , Benjamin Elson, Editor     Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma     Norman    1962

 Identifies z, dz, and j [  ] as phonemes.
 
 
Italian

 
Saltarelli, Mario, A Phonology of Italian in a Generative Grammar     Mouton    The Hague    1970

    Phonemes listed (P. 21 and 44): z,  ,   v, and .
 
 
Japanese

 
Vatuk, Ved Prakash, Study of Modern Japanese ,     Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan     Varanasi, India     1965

     Phonology, P. 4-5, lists z and  ] as phonemes.
 
 
Jicarilla Apache

 
Tiller, Veronica, "Jicarilla Apache", P. 440-461 in: Handbook of North American Indians    Vol. 10    Southwest &nvbsp;  Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor     Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.    1983

    P. 440 states that no Jicarilla phonology was available to the author of the article, but that the language could be written using the same symbols that the volume editors used for the Chiricahua Apache language, so it was presumed that the Jicarilla language included the same voiced fricative phones as the Chiricahua language :  ,  z, and .
 
 
Kamano

 
Young, Rosemary "The Phonemes of Kanite, Kamano, Benabena, and Gahuku",    P. 90-110, in : Studies in New Guinea Linguistics by Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, New Guinea BranchOp. Cit.,

     Kamano (and Jate) allophones listed (P. 94-95):   and z.
 
 
Lakhota

 
Rood, David S. and Taylor, Allan R., "Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan Language",   P. 440-455 in : Handbook of North American Indians   Vol. 17   Languages    Ives Goddard, Volume Editor    Smithsonian Institution     Washington D. C.     1996

     Phonology, P. 441, lists z,  , and .
 
 
Maricopa

 
Harwell, Henry O., and Kelly, Marsha C. S., "Maricopa", P. 71-85 in: Handbook of North American Indians  Vol. 10  Southwest  Alfonso Ortiz,  Volume Editor     Smithsonian Institution     Washington, D. C.    1983

 Phonemes (P. 71) include : v and  [I. P. A. - ð ].
 
 
Menomini

 
Bloomfield, Leonard, The Menomini Language     Yale University Press     New Haven     1963

 
Hoffman, Walter James, "The Menomini Indians",  Bureau of American Ethnology  Fourteenth Annual Report    1892-1893     Smithsonian Institution      Washington D. C.     Published 1896

   Vocabulary - pages 295-328. Lists z, and a faint v at the end of some words,symbolized as " v " in his orthography; of indeterminate phonetic significance, but apparently not a phoneme or an allophone, and apparently of no meaningful significance to speakers ( not considered a distinct unit of speech or a meaningful component of words by speakers).   Bloomfield identifies no "z", "v" or faint "v" as phonemes or allophones in his analysis of Menomini.
 
 
Mescalero Apache

 
Opler, Morris E., "Mescalero Apache", P. 419-439 in :  Handbook of North American Indians   Vol. 10   Southwest    Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor     Smithsonian Institution     Washington, D. C.     1983

      Phonology (P. 419) lists : dz, j [  z, .
 
 
Mohave

 
Kroeber, A. L., "Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language" , P. 45-96 in:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology     Vol. 10   Number 3      Berkeley       1914

     Phonology, P. 47 includes v, and   [I. P. A. - ð ]
 
 
Mongolian

 
Bawden, Charles R., Mongolian English Dictionary      Kegan Paul International      London      1997

     Lists Cyrillic alphabet as phonemes (P. IV), including :  , B,   ,, [I. P. A. or transliteration, respectively:  or v, v,  ,  z,  i or i,  ].
 
 
Nahuatl (Aztec)

 
Bierhorst, John, A Nahuatl - English Dictionary and Concordance to the Cantares Mexicano,     Stanford University Press      Stanford, Calif.       1985

     Includes z as a phoneme.
 
Brockway, Earl, "The Phonemes of North Puebla Nahuatl", P. 14-18 in:     Anthropological Linguistics    Vol. 5   Number 2      1966

   Voiced fricative allophone listed:  ] ; based on the speech of several informants (P. 15).
 
Croft, Kenneth, "Practical Orthography for Matlapa Nahuatl",   P. 32-36 in: International Journal of American Linguistics      Vol. 17   Number 1     1951

   Phonology, P. 33, lists no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones; based on the speech of one informant.
 
Karttunen, Frances, An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl      University of Texas Press      Austin      1983

   Includes z as a phoneme.
 
Key, Harold and Mary, "The Phonemes of Sierra Nahuat",  P. 53-56 in :   International Journal of American Linguistics     Vol. 19     Number 1      1953

   Article states (P. 53) that Sierra Nahuat is the " dialect of Nahuatl,popularly known as Aztec."    Includes s and " sh " [International Phonetic Alphabet -  , pronounced as sh in show ] as phonemes;  states (P. 53) that they are voiced [ to z and  ] when followed within a word by voiced consonants. Article based on the speech of one informant.
 
     Several dialects of Nahuatl include voiced fricative allophones, and I am aware of several (including Croft’s analysis of Matlapa Nahuatl) that do not.    At present, on the basis of the dialect information that I have considered, it is not possible for me, and may not be possible in the near future, to make a conclusive determination regarding the presence or absence of voiced fricative phonemes or allophones in the language spoken in the area of the capital of the Aztec Empire at the time of, and before first contact of the Aztecs with Cortez (or Cortes),  1519.

 

 

New Guinea Languages

 
Berndt, Catherine, " Translation Problems in Three New Guinea Highlands Languages",    Oceania    Vol. 24   Number 4    1954 P. 289 - 315


   Lists allophones (P. 292) - v and z, for Kamano-Kafe (Kate or Jate)

   Lists allophones (P. 292) - v and     for Fore.
 
 

Ngoni

 
Read, Margaret, The Ngoni of Nyasaland , International African Institute   Oxford University Press    Oxford       1956

   Glossary of Ngoni Terms, P. 205-206, identifies phonemes z and j [I. P. A. - ].
 
Norwegian

 
Popperwell, R. G., The Pronunciation of Norwegian   Cambridge University Press   Cambridge    1963     Listed allophones (P. 56, 59, 60, 85-89): v and j [ ]

 

 

Paiute - Northern

 
Waterman, T. T., "Phonetic Elements of the Northern Paiute Language",     P. 13-44 in :  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology     Vol. 10   Number 2    Berkeley    1914

    Listed phonemes : z, dz, and  [ I. P. A. -  ].
 
 
Papago

 
Fontana, Bernard L., "Pima and Papago: Introduction", P. 125-136 in:   Handbook of North American Indians    Vol. 10   Southwest      Alfonso Ortiz,Volume Editor    Smithsonian Institution    Washington, D. C.    1983

     Phonology (P. 125) lists phoneme j [  ].
 
 
Persian

 
Aryanpur, Abbas, and Saleh, Jahan Shah, New Unabridged English-Persian Dictionary   Vol. 1    Amir-Kabir Publishing and Printing Institution Taban Press    Tehran 1963

Phonemes listed (P. XII - XIV) - v, z, and j [I. P. A. - d¥ ].
 
 
Pima

 
Fontana, Bernard L., "Pima and Papago: Introduction", Op. Cit.

Phonology, P. 125 lists phoneme j [ ].
 
 
Portuguese

 
Head, Brian F., A Comparison of the Segmental Phonology of Lisbon and Rio de Janeiro    Ph. D. Dissertation   University of Texas    Austin, Texas    1964

     Listed voiced fricatives (P. 108): v, z, and ¥
 
 
Quechan (Yuman)

 
Bee, Robert L. , "Quechan", P. 86-98 in: Handbook of North American Indians  Vol. 10   Southwest     Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor Smithsonian Institution   Washington, D. C. 1983

     Phonemes listed (P. 86) : v [ b ] and d [ ð ] .
 
 
Rong (Lepcha)

 
Mainwaring, G. B., Grammar of the Rong (Lepcha) Language   C. B. Lewis, Baptist Mission Press    Calcutta, India    1876 Reprinted by Manjusri Publishing House      Bibliotheca Himalayica      Series II      Vol. 5      New Delhi      1971

Consonants listed (P. 2) - v, z, j [I. P. A. - d¥ ], and Th [possibly I. P. A. - ð].
 
 
Russian

 
Dawson, Clayton L., et. al., Modern Russian I Harcourt Brace & World Inc. New York 1964

     Phonemes listed (P. 4-7),  , B,   ,, [I. P. A. or transliteration, respectively:  or v, v,  ,  z,  i or i,  ].
 
 
Serbian (Serbo-Croatian)

 
O’Beirne, J. R. R., Serbo-Croatian Self-Taught      E. Marlborough and Co.     London      1921

     Phonemes listed, P. 7-8, - v, j [ d¥ ], ñ [ ], z .
 
 
Spanish

 
Cressey, William W., Spanish Phonology and Morphology: A Generative View      Georgetown University Press      Washington, D.C.      1978

     Listed phonemes or allophones (P. 157-160): z, b , ð, p , d¥ , and £ .
 
 
Tahitian

 
Chicago Academy of Sciences Tahitian Dictionary       Special Publication Number 6      Chicago      1944 Phoneme listed (P. XV) - v

 

 

Turkish

 
Hony, H. C., Iz, Fahir, and Alderson, A. D., Oxford Turkish Dictionary      Oxford University Press Oxford 1992

     Phonemes listed (P. XIV, XV) - v, z, ¥ , and affricate d¥ .
 
 
Uturupa (Usarufa)

 
Bee, Darlene, "Usarufa Distinctive Features and Phonemes", P. 204 - 224 in: McKaughan, Howard, Ed., The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highlands Stock       University of Washington Press       Seattle       1973

      Allophones listed, P. 207 and 209 -  and p
 
 
Western Apache

 
Basso, Kieth H., "Western Apache",   P. 462-488 in : Handbook of North American Indians    Vol. 10    Southwest      Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor       Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.      1983


Phonology, P. 463, lists ¥ , d¥ , z, and p .
 
 

Wintu

 
Pitkin, Harvey, Wintu Grammar ,      University of California Publications in Linguistics     Vol. 94       Berkeley       1984

 

 

Yavapai

 
Khera, Sigrid and Mariella, Patricia S., "Yavapai", P. 38-54 in : Handbook of North American Indians

Vol. 10   Southwest      Alfonso Ortiz, Volume Editor     Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.      1983
     Phoneme listed (P. 38): v [ b ].
 
 
Yokuts

 
Silverstein, Michael, "Yokuts: Introduction",   P. 446-447 in: Handbook of North American Indians

    Vol. 8    California       Robert F. Heizer, Volume Editor      Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.      1978
      Phonology, P. 446, indicates no voiced fricative allophones in the language.
 
Newman, Stanley S., Yokuts Language of California      Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology     Number 2       New York       1944

     Phonology, P. 13-14
     There are approximately forty dialects of Yokuts, and while Silverstein’s phonology of Yokuts indicates no voiced fricative allophones, Newman’s work on (apparently) different dialects from the one or more used as reference sources by Silverstein, indicated one affricate that included a voiced fricative: dz, in two of the six dialects he studied.
 
 
Zulu

  Doke, Clement, Textbook of Zulu Grammar      Longman’s, Green and Co.      London      1931
     Phonemes listed (P. 7, 15, 17, 18) - v, z, "hh" [I. P. A. -  ],   j [I. P. A. -   ], nj, and nz.
 
 
Zuni

 
Newman, Stanley, "A Sketch of the Zuni Language",    P. 483-506 in :  Handbook of North American Indians    Vol. 17    Languages    Ives Goddard, Volume Editor        Smithsonian Institution      Washington, D. C.      1996       Phonology, P. 485, lists no voiced fricative phonemes or allophones.

 
 
 
 

APPENDIX 2

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS



      Linguistic groups from the sample drawn by lot in the first paper were reclassified on the four-category scale used in this paper and combined with the groups considered here into a 2 x 4 table - divided into two categories in regard to voiced fricative allophones: presence or absence; and the four levels of violence described in Section 1.

2 was calculated, based on the criteria stated in Section 1 and the evaluations of the author for the groups considered.
2 corrected for small sample size [ 2 ( ( | fo - fe |  - .5 ) 2  ÷  fe ) ] was calculated to be 8.5075, greater than the   value of  7.815 with d f  = 3,  for which probability of absence of association between the two variables is 5 %.    In other words, on the basis of the groups considered and the classifications made by the author, there is greater than a 95% probability that there is an association between level of violence in a linguistic group and the presence, or absence [including near-absence] of voiced fricative allophones in the language of a group.         The category of " few or no voiced fricatives ", again, includes languages ( to date, only Menomini ) in which there is one voiced fricative allophone of one phoneme,  that occurs only in some, but not all instances, of the only phonetic sequence in which it does occur.
 

                            Voiced Fricatives
                          Present in Language
        Level of
        Violence        Yes      Few or
                                         None
Most Violent 40 1
More Violent 5 1
Less Violent 1 1
Least Violent  3 3

 

      Groups identified as "Most Violent" include:   1)  Arabic,   2)    Burundian (Kirundi),  3)  Cambodian,  4)  Cheyenne,   5) Chinese,  6)  Chiricahua Apache,    7)  Comanche,   8)  Dakota,   9)  English,    10)  Fore,  11) French,   12)  German,   13)  Hawaiian,   14)  Hebrew,  15) Italian,   16)  Japanese,   17)  Jicarilla Apache,   18)  Kamano,  19)  Klamath,  20) Mescalero Apache,   21)   Mohave,  22) Mohawk,   23)  Navaho,   24)  Ngoni,   25)  Norwegian,   26)  Pakistani (Urdu),   27) Persian,   28)  Portuguese,    29)  Quileute,  30) Russian,  31)  Rwandan (Kinyarwandan),   32)  Seneca,    33)  Serbian ( Serbo-Croatian ),   34)  Spanish,  35)  Tahitian,   36) Toda,  37)  Turkish,  38)  Uturupa,   39)  Western Apache,   40)  Yavapai,   and   41)  Zulu.

      Groups classified as "More Violent" were: Arapesh (Bumbita), Bandjoun, Bangangte, Potawatomi, Winebago, and Zuni.

      There were two groups classified as "Less Violent": Cocopa and Tiruray.

      The six groups classified as "Least Violent" were: Choctaw, Iraqw, Menomini, Rong (Lepcha), Semai, and Wintu.

     See "Additional Classifications", forthcoming, for evidence establishing the basis for classifications of groups not included in this study.

      It should be observed that the sample considered in this analysis cannot be considered to represent scientific evidence because the method of selection for groups in the second paper was not random, and could be biased; and the population of groups responsible for the practices are not considered to be exhaustive, except, possibly, for the groups responsible for genocide and colonial subjugation of other linguistic groups (substantially exhaustive for colonizing groups). However, the groups considered in this paper, and the analysis, may indicate a possible (or probable) direction of future results.

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  


 
 
 
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.