The internal structure of the Athabaskan language family is complex, and its exact shape is still a hotly debated issue among experts. The conventional three-way split into Northern, Pacific Coast, and Southern is essentially based on geography and the physical distribution of Athabaskan peoples rather than sound linguistic comparisons. Despite this inadequacy, current comparative Athabaskan literature demonstrates that most Athabaskanists still use the three-way geographic grouping rather than any of the proposed linguistic groupings given below, because none of them has been widely accepted. This situation will presumably change as both documentation and analysis of the languages improves.
Overview Besides the traditional geographic grouping described previously, there are a few comparatively based subgroupings of the Athabaskan languages. Below the two most current viewpoints are presented. The following is an outline of the classification according to
Keren Rice, based on those published in
Goddard (1996) and
Mithun (1999). It represents what is generously called the "Rice–Goddard–Mithun" classification (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:73), although it is almost entirely due to Keren Rice. •
Athabaskan • Southern Alaska (Denaʼina, Ahtna) • Central Alaska–Yukon (Deg Hitʼan, Holikachuk/Kolchan, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Lower Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, N. Tutchone, S. Tutchone, Gwichʼin, Hän) • Northwestern Canada (Tagish, Tahltan, Kaska, Sekani, Dunneza/Beaver, Slavey, Mountain, Bearlake, Hare, Tłįchǫ Yatʼiì/Dogrib, Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan) • Tsetsaut • Central British Columbia (Babine–Witsuwitʼen, Dakelh/Carrier, Chilcotin, Nicola?) • Tsuutʼina/Sarsi • Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai • Pacific Coast Athabaskan (Upper Umpqua, Tututni, Galice–Applegate, Tolowa, Hupa, Mattole, Eel River, Kato) • Apachean (
Navajo,
White Mountain Apache,
Tonto Apache,
San Carlos Apache, Mescalero–Chiricahua, Jicarilla, Lipan, Plains) Branches 1–7 are the Northern Athabaskan (areal) grouping. Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai (#7) was normally placed inside the Pacific Coast grouping, but a recent consideration by Krauss (2005) does not find it very similar to these languages. A different classification by Jeff Leer is the following, usually called the "Leer classification" (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:72–74): •
Athabaskan • Alaskan (Ahtna, Denaʼina, Deg Hitʼan, Koyukon, Holikachuk/Kolchan, Lower Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, Gwichʼin, Hän) • Yukon (Tsetsaut, N. Tutchone, S. Tutchone, Tagish, Tahltan, Kaska, Sekani, Dunneza/Beaver) • British Columbia (Babine–Witsuwitʼen, Dakelh/Carrier, Chilcotin) • Eastern (Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan, Slavey, Mountain, Bearlake, Hare, Tłįchǫ Yatʼiì/Dogrib) • Southerly Outlying (Tsuutʼina/Sarsi, Apachean, Pacific Coast Athabaskan, Kwalhioqua–Tlatskanai) Neither subgrouping has found any significant support among other Athabaskanists. Details of the Athabaskan family tree should be regarded as tentative. As Tuttle and Hargus put it, "we do not consider the points of difference between the two models ... to be decisively settled and in fact expect them to be debated for some time to come." (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:74) The Northern group is particularly problematic in its internal organization. Due to the failure of the usual criteria of shared innovation and systematic phonetic correspondences to provide well-defined subgroupings, the Athabaskan family – especially the Northern group – has been called a "cohesive complex" by
Michael Krauss (1973, 1982). Therefore, the
Stammbaumtheorie or family tree model of genetic classification may be inappropriate. The languages of the Southern branch are much more homogeneous and are the only clearly genealogical subgrouping. Debate continues as to whether the Pacific Coast languages form a valid genealogical grouping, or whether this group may instead have internal branches that are tied to different subgroups in Northern Athabaskan. The position of
Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai is also debated, since it may fall in either the Pacific Coast group – if that exists – or into the Northern group. The records of
Nicola are so poor – Krauss describes them as "too few and too wretched" (Krauss 2005) – that it is difficult to make any reliable conclusions about it. Nicola may be intermediate between Kwalhioqua–Tlatskanai and
Chilcotin. Similarly to Nicola, there is very limited documentation on
Tsetsaut. Consequently, it is difficult to place it in the family with much certainty. Athabaskanists have concluded that it is a Northern Athabaskan language consistent with its geographical occurrence, and that it might have some relation to its distant neighbor Tahltan. Tsetsaut, however, shares its primary hydronymic suffix ("river, stream") with Sekani, Beaver, and Tsuutʼina – PA *-ɢah – rather than with that of Tahltan, Tagish, Kaska, and North and South Tutchone – PA *-tuʼ (Kari 1996; Kari, Fall, & Pete 2003:39). The ambiguity surrounding Tsetsaut is why it is placed in its own subgroup in the Rice–Goddard–Mithun classification. For detailed lists including languages, dialects, and subdialects, see the respective articles on the three major groups:
Northern Athabaskan,
Pacific Coast Athabaskan,
Southern Athabaskan. For the remainder of this article, the conventional three-way geographic grouping will be followed except as noted.
Northern Athabaskan The Northern Athabaskan languages are the largest group in the Athabaskan family, although this group varies internally about as much as do languages in the entire family. The
urheimat of the Athabaskan family is most likely in the
Tanana Valley of east-central Alaska. There are many homologies between Proto-Athabaskan vocabulary and patterns reflected in archaeological sites such as Upward Sun, Swan Point and Broken Mammoth (Kari 2010). The Northern Athabaskan group also contains the most linguistically conservative languages, particularly Koyukon, Ahtna, Denaʼina, and Dakelh/Carrier (Leer 2008). •
Northern Athabaskan •
Southern Alaskan subgroup •
Ahtna •
Denaʼina (also known as Tanaina, Kenaitze) •
Central Alaska–Yukon subgroup •
Deg Xinag (also known as Deg Hitʼan, Ingalik (deprecated)) •
Holikachuk (also known as Innoko) •
Koyukon (also known as Denaakkʼe, Tenʼa) •
Upper Kuskokwim (also known as Kolchan) •
Lower Tanana and Middle Tanana (also known as Tanana) •
Tanacross •
Upper Tanana •
Tutchone •
Southern Tutchone •
Northern Tutchone •
Gwichʼin (also known as Kutchin, Loucheux, Tukudh) •
Hän (also known as Han) •
Northwestern Canada subgroup • Tahltan–Tagish–Kaska (also known as "Cordilleran") •
Tagish •
Tahltan (also known as Nahanni) •
Kaska (also known as Nahanni) •
Sekani (also known as Tsekʼehne) •
Dane-zaa (also known as Beaver) •
Slave–Hare • Slavey (also known as Southern Slavey) • Mountain (Northern Slavey) • Bearlake (Northern Slavey) • Hare (Northern Slavey) •
Dogrib (also known as Tłįchǫ Yatiì) •
Dene Suline (also known as Chipewyan, Dëne Sųłiné, Dene Sounʼliné) Very little is known about Tsetsaut, and for this reason it is routinely placed in its own tentative subgroup. •
Tsetsaut subgroup •
Tsetsaut (also known as Tsʼetsʼaut, Wetalh) •
Central British Columbia subgroup (also known as "British Columbian" in contrast with "Cordilleran" = Tahltan–Tagish–Kaska) •
Babine–Witsuwitʼen (also known as Northern Carrier, Bulkley Valley/Lakes District) •
Dakelh (also known as Carrier) •
Tsilhqotʼin (also known as Chilcotin) The Nicola language is so poorly attested that it is impossible to determine its position within the family. It has been proposed by some to be an isolated branch of Chilcotin. •
Nicola (also known as Stuwix, Similkameen) •
Sarsi subgroup •
Tsuutʼina (also known as Sarcee, Sarsi, Tsuu Tʼina) The Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie language is debatably part of the Pacific Coast subgroup, but has marginally more in common with the Northern Athabaskan languages than it does with the Pacific Coast languages (Leer 2005). It thus forms a notional sort of bridge between the Northern Athabaskan languages and the Pacific Coast languages, along with Nicola (Krauss 1979/2004). •
Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie subgroup (also called
Lower Columbia Athapaskan) •
Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie (also known as
Kwalhioqua–Tlatskanie or Kwalhioqua-Tlatskanai)
Pacific Coast Athabaskan •
Pacific Coast Athabaskan •
California Athabaskan subgroup •
Hupa (also known as Hupa-Chilula, Chilula, Whilkut) •
Mattole–Bear River •
Eel River (also known as Wailaki, Lassik, Nongatl, Sinkyone) •
Kato (also known as Cahto) •
Oregon Athabaskan subgroup •
Upper Umpqua (also known as Etnemitane) • •
Lower Rogue River and Upper Coquille (also known as Tututni, Chasta Costa, Euchre Creek and Coquille) •
Upper Rogue River (also known as Galice/Taltushtuntede, Applegate/Dakubetede) •
Tolowa (also known as Smith River, Chetco, Siletz Dee-ni)
Southern Athabaskan •
Southern Athabaskan •
Plains Apache subgroup •
Plains Apache (also known as Kiowa-Apache) •
Western Apachean subgroup • Chiricahua–Mescalero •
Chiricahua •
Mescalero •
Navajo (also known as Navaho) •
Western Apache (also known as Coyotero Apache) •
Eastern Apachean subgroup •
Jicarilla •
Lipan Sicoli & Holton (2014) Using
computational phylogenetic methods, Sicoli & Holton (2014) proposed the following classification for the Athabaskan languages based exclusively on typological (non-lexical) data. However, this phylogenetic study was criticized as methodologically flawed by Yanovich (2020), since it did not employ sufficient input data to generate a robust tree that does not depend on the initial choice of the "tree prior", i.e. the model for the tree generation. •
Athabaskan • (
Yeniseian) • (
Tlingit–
Eyak) •
South Pacific Coast Athabaskan (California) • (unnamed clade) •
Tsetsaut •
Upper Kuskokwim •
Ahtna •
Denaʼina • West Alaska (Koyukon) •
Deg Xinag •
Holikachuk,
Koyukon •
North Pacific Coast (Oregon) • Alaska-Canada-2 •
Gwichʼin •
Dogrib •
North Slavey •
Carrier,
Dane-zaa (
Beaver) • Plains-Apachean •
Sarsi •
Southern Athabaskan • Alaska-Canada-1 •
Tanana •
Upper Tanana •
Lower Tanana,
Tanacross • Northwestern Canada •
Hän •
South Slavey,
Kaska •
Dene,
Northern Tutchone,
Southern Tutchone ==Proto-Athabaskan==