Various nations from Europe—English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Russian
The concept “multilingualism” has received various definitions. Quite simply, I employ it in order to categorize the existence of and communication between two or more linguistic cultures, intralingual and interlingual, within a particular region and/or society. Economic, religious, scientific, social, military and political interaction
A “lingua franca” constitutes a supralanguage
In 1492 (the year Christopher Columbus
Language associated with philosophy, ideology, or a belief, symbol and practice system is definitely a powerful strategy when instigating not only a religious but also a cultural, economical, political, and social conquest. This combination of linguistics and theology is manifested by the grammarian Nebrija and the Bishop of Avila respectively. Language does not merely represent a linguistic system of grammar
Portuguese is incommensurate with Pirahã in many areas and culturally incompatible, like all Western languages, in that it violates the immediacy of experience constraint on grammar and living in so many aspects of its structure and use. The Pirahã say that their heads are different. In fact, the Pirahã language is called 'apaitiso a straight head, while all other languages are called 'apagiso a crooked head. …Given the connection between culture and language in Pirahã, to lose or change ones language is to lose ones identity as a Pirahã – hiaitih, a straight one/he is straight.18
Portuguese is incommensurate with Pirahã in many areas and culturally incompatible, like all Western languages, in that it violates the immediacy of experience constraint on grammar and living in so many aspects of its structure and use. The Pirahã say that their heads are different. In fact, the Pirahã language is called 'apaitiso a straight head, while all other languages are called 'apagiso a crooked head. …Given the connection between culture and language in Pirahã, to lose or change ones language is to lose ones identity as a Pirahã – hiaitih, a straight one/he is straight», Everett (2005, 633–634).
There are various categories of linguistic borrowings
There are, however, examples where loanwords are ultimately ignored. As observed by Edward P. Dozier,25 there is a reluctance in the Pueblo communities
Middle America or Mesoamerica33 contains many pre-European writing and semiotic systems, which display variant examples of multilingualism. There were contacts between the different Mesoamerican cultures through migrations, pilgrimage, trade, diplomacy
The earliest documented, in writing, lexical borrowing between Indigenous languages of the Americas is probably the Mixe-Zoquean
Besides various loanwords from the neighbor linguistic culture (proto-) Mixe-Zoquean there are examples of borrowed terms from the more remote Uto-Aztecan language family (Nahuatl) in the classic Maya
Scholars have identified many examples of calques or loan translations
There may be a variant (esoteric) language within a linguistic entity—where multilingualism becomes social, political, philosophical, or religious—categorized as the lingua nobilis or lingua sacra of a political and/or religious group in addition to “knowledge specialists.” This can be oral and scriptural where literacy can be both lexical and numerical, that is, in the latter case outline an exclusive numeracy.
The language of the classic Maya writing system may be classified as a lingua nobilis
A colloquial (common) vernacular might not only oppose a political lingua nobilis
|Normal Vocabulary||Special Day-Sign|
|1. Ee coo yechi||ca, co quevui (1 Alligator).|
|2. Vvui tachi||ca, co, cu chi (2 Wind).|
|3. Uni huahi||co cuau; mau (3 House).|
|4. Qmi, cumi (ti) yechi||qui q(ue) (4 Lizard).|
|5. Hoho coo||q yo (5 Serpent).|
|6. Iño ndeye, sihi||ñu na mahu(a) (6 Death).|
|7. Usa idzu, sacuaa||sa cuaa (7 Deer).|
|8. Una idzo||na sayu (8 Rabbit).|
|9. Ee nduta||q tuta (9 Water).|
|10. Usi ina||si hua (10 Dog).|
|11. Usi ee codzo||si i ñuu (11 Monkey).|
|12. Usi vvui yucu||ca cuañe (12 Grass)|
|13. Usi uni ndoo||si huiyo (13 Reed).|
|14. Cuiñe||huidzu (Jaguar).|
|15. Yaha||sa (Eagle).|
|16. (ti)sii||cuii (Vulture).|
|17. tnaa, nehe||qhi (Movement).|
|18. Yuchi||cusi (Flint).|
|19. Dzavui||co (Rain).|
|20. Ita||huaco (Flower).|
Moreover, Michael W. Swanton and G. Bas van Doesburg64 have found that not only the Mixtec but also the Chocho-Popoloca, whose 260-day calendar
|Calendar numbers||Mixe numbers||Day names|
|1. Tu.m||tu’k||hukpi (root)|
|2. mac||meck||sa’a (wind)|
|3. tu:k||tukok or to.hk||how (palm)|
|4. makc||maktask||hu:’n (hard, solid, resistant|
|i.e. of tree or hb).|
|5. moks||mugo.sk||ca’an (serpent)|
|6. tuht||tudu:k or tuhtti.k||?uh (earth, world)|
|7. kuy||westu:k||koy (rabbit)|
|8. tu.gut||tuktu:k||na:n (deer)|
|9. ta:s||tastu:k||ni’in (water, river)|
|10. mahk||mahk||ho’o (?)|
|11. ki’in||mahktu’k||hai.m (fine white ashes)|
|12. ki’is||mahkmeck||ti’ic (tooth)|
|13. pagac||mahktikok or maktu.hk||kep (reed)|
|16.||pa’a (edge, border, to break)|
|18.||tahp (covered up, darkening)|
|20.||hugi’ñ (point [weaving])|
The different designations of numbers suggest an exceptional numerology or perhaps a lingua numerica today used in some Mixe communities.67
An especially sacred (ceremonial) terminology is not uncommon in Indigenous linguistic cultures of the Americas where there is an extraordinary and an ordinary vocabulary with different words for semantic equivalents (synonyms). In Pueblo languages
Kroskrity advocates that a strategic usage of interlingual or intralingual diglossia
I conclude this section elucidating how Nahuatl as lingua sacra is employed in order to convey a divine message from the European (and Middle Eastern) Virgin Mary
There are indeed numerous regional lingua francas (Sp. “lenguas generales” in Latin America
First, however, I will give examples of lingua francas in North America, although much of the data are uncertain regarding lingua franca between Indigenous peoples. There are French reports in the seventeenth century about Algonquin
There is more knowledge about the linguistic empires just before the European invasion of Middle America and South America. Classical Nahuatl
The practice of a lingua franca differed, however, among linguistic groups in the same multilingual region.97 For instance, in Villa Alta, Oaxaca, three variants of Zapotec
Codex Sierra Texupan
Nahua intellectuals recorded history in the Latin script not in Spanish but Nahuatl
Like Chimalpahin, the bilingual-speaker Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala
Apart from Southern Peruvian Quechua
The different linguistic strategies of literacy (writing and semiotic) systems reflect multilingualism and lingua francas of the Americas. The various graphic communication systems can be multilingual but also predominantly monolingual.114 They may well also represent a hegemonic lingua franca.
Multilingualism and lingua franca are communicated and manifested in different manners in the various graphic systems of indigenous cultures of the Americas. A graphic (writing and semiotic) system may represent a particular language—although it can include grammatical elements, loanwords, calques, or neologisms
Due to phoneticism, the logosyllabic
A logosyllabic writing system, also called “hieroglyphic”
The Maya system of writing was first decoded in the second half of the 1980s and the 1990s.124 As we have seen, the classic Maya inscriptions are written in Ch’oltian
Paleographic as well as linguistic (phonological) distinctiveness of the individual city was, however, an identity marker in the logosyllabic writing system of the individual city, according to Søren Wichmann. Maya script
Situated not far from Tenochtitlan (Mexico City),134 Teotihuacan
In 1904 Silas John Edwards constructed a particular “phonetic-semantic” system recording ritual prayers for the Western Apache in east central Arizona. Despite the influence of Christianity
Numerical notation systems are principally translinguistic non-phonetic whereas lexical numeral systems are phonetic or linguistically determined.142 These epitomize open as opposed to close (language) systems.143 We have seen that for the Mixtec and Mixe
Civilizations of Central Mexico have a graphic or pictorial-logographic system called “Mixteca-Puebla Horizon Style”
According to David Charles Wright Carr, calques represent concepts of scriptura franca in these pictorial-logographic manuscripts, because the various languages of Central Mexico—Nahuatl, Mixtec, and Otomí—employed the same signs to express the same concepts. But each linguistic culture group could employ homophonic words in order to construct glottographs or logograms (morphemes and phonographs).155 For instance, the lexical entries for “writing” in Mixtec (tacu), Nahuatl (tlacuilo), Maya (tz’ihib’) and Zapotec (tozeea) are synonyms of semantically derivative terms from the word for painting and sculpturing.156 Moreover in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis a Nahua scribe writes bilingual signs for “day” in Maya (k’in) and Nahuatl (ilhuitl). The same signs can be found on 56a in the postclassical Maya Codex Dresden.157
In the pre-European period there were regional scribal schools among the Nahua and the Maya, with a phonetic and a non-phonetic emphasis respectively.165 This signifies that synchronically, language was important for the scribes of the “phonetic school” whereas it did not play a significant role for scribes of the “non-phonetic school.” In most cases graphic communication systems diachronically “evolve.” But when a graphic system becomes more attached to a specific language (i.e. phonetic) should not to be seen as a progressive cultural-linguistic evolution. Maya logosyllabic writing
Intercommunication in multilingual cultural regions of pre-European America required a spoken common language, lingua franca, but other non-oral strategies could be used between different linguistic entities. Khipu
Khipu (pl. khipukana)—from Quechua or chinu from Aymara (pl. chinunaka), which both signify “knot”—constitutes a quite complicated system. It apparently represents a combination of dyed knotted strings where form, ply, structure, color, direction, placement, and number are significant for communication.168 This system—which may have a binary codified, mnemonic, or phonetic (i.e. writing) function—is, however, not deciphered. Frank Salomon169 has summarized three theoretical positions for the principles of khipu: a Quechua syllabography or phonography;170 a semasiographic system; a neutral binary code.171 Leland Locke172 decoded the decimal arithmetic code of khipu173 and recently Sabine Hyland, Gene A. Ware, and Madison Clark have corroborated the hypothesis by Gary Urton174 that khipu semantically (not phonetically) conveys affiliation to moiety.175 It is likely that Inka and other linguistic groups of the Andes of South America used khipu in order to record and convey a variety of interrelated accounts (narratives) and transference of quantitative (mathematical) information: calendars, censuses, tribute records, royal deeds, inventories, genealogies, ritual records, and so forth.176 It might well have functioned as a scriptura franca in the multilingual Andes region and for the Inka Empire. Khipu was not reserved for the elite since thousands of people were probably competent in its use in the Inka Empire.177 Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that khipu were only employed as individual mnemonics.178 Archaeology and anthropology have demonstrated that the fiber-based media in the Andes known as khipu was used a long time before the Inka Empire. Speakers of languages other than Quechua also practiced it more than 400 years after its demise. Perhaps it was for that reason not connected to a specific language179 but represented a scriptura franca. Extant Andean khipus
The sign systems among native peoples of North America185 did not contain logosyllabic inscriptions (phonetic), as in Mesoamerica, but logograms or petroglyphs (stone). Therefore, they were iconic, and had a mnemonic function not related to a specific language. The Kiowa, Lakota, Mandan, Hidatsa, Cheyenne, Praire Apache, Blackfeet had a pictorial-logographic calendar historiography. Community historians, known as season count keepers, maintained and used these pictographic records as mnemonic devices to remember the sequence of events that marked each year or season. As some Lakota people learned to write their own language in the nineteenth century, a few keepers began to add written words to the pictures, and eventually some winter counts consisted entirely of written year names.186 European missionary linguists
Conventionalized sign language of the Gulf Coastal Plain as far north as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba of North America, also known as Plains Sign Talk (PST), was used for interlinguistic communication between nations where some even speak languages of different language families. PST had regional variations but it was a lingua (scriptura) franca which has survived to a limited extent among elders. English replaced PST as lingua franca in North America. It was invented before the European arrival, probably at the Gulf Coast, where it later dissipated and was first used by the Kiowa-Tanoan
Although there are many languages in these five missions, [...] the language of making signs alone is universal in all the nations, making long orations for any purpose, as if it were just any other language that is spoken.190
How the principles of a regional North American pictorial-logographic system are associated with the principles of PST can be exemplified by the following story: after the great Civil War, a charter member of the Ethnological Society of Great Britain, Dr. William A. Bell, gives an eyewitness account in his book, New Tracks in North America: A Journal of Travel and Adventure whilst engaged in the survey for a southern railroad to the pacific ocean during 1867–8, a quite peculiar event involving the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux
Dr. Bell was the photographer of a survey expedition organized by the Kansas Pacific Railway Company (KPRC) with the purpose of finding the best course for a southern railway to the Pacific coast. The problem, from the perspective of KPRC, was the encounter with so-called “hostile” indigenous nations on the way. His sojourn in the Far West entailed a remarkable incident on June 26, 1867, near Fort Wallace in western Kansas.192 A party of soldiers was attacked by a war party led by the famous Cheyenne war-chief Roman-nose. Seven soldiers were killed and five were wounded. This attack was most likely a retaliation for the infamous massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne village at Sand Creek, around 100 miles southeast of Denver about three years before. On November 29, 1864, a state militia of Colorado Volunteers headed by the former Methodist minister Colonel J. M. Chivington mutilated and scalped men, women, and children of the Cheyenne and Arapaho. In all, seventy people were murdered.193 During another attack near Fort Wallace in 1867, Sergeant Frederic Wylyams—an Englishman educated at Eton and later disowned by his bourgeois family who subsequently immigrated to America—encountered a quite remarkable fate. Wylyams was found lying dead with his horse, and both horse and man had been stripped of their clothes and trappings:194
A portion of the sergeant’s scalp lay near him, but the greater part was gone; through his head a rifle-ball had passed, and a blow from the tomahawk had laid his brain open above his left eye; the nose was slit up, and his throat was cut from ear to ear; seven arrows were standing in different parts of his naked body; the breast was laid open, so as to expose the heart; and the arm, that had doubtless done its work against the red-skins, was hacked to the bone; his legs, from the hip to the knee, lay open with horrible gashes, and from the knee to the foot they had cut the flesh with their knives. Thus mutilated Wylyams lay beside the mangled horse.195
By analyzing the body of Sergeant Wylyams,196 Bell was able to acknowledge “some meaning in the wounds”:
The muscles of the right arm, hacked to the bone, speak of the Cheyennes, or “Cut arms;” the nose slit denotes the “Smeller tribe,” or Arapahoes; and the throat cut bear witness that the Sioux
were also present.197
The sign of the Cheyenne, or “Cut arm,” is made in peace by drawing the hand across the arm, to imitate cutting it with a knife; that of the Arapahoe, or “Smeller tribe,” by seizing the nose with the thumb and fore-finger; of the Sioux, or “Cut-throat,” by drawing the hand across the throat. The Comanche, or “Snake Indian,” waves his hand and arm, in imitation of the crawling of a snake; the Crow imitates with his hands the flapping of wings; the Pawnee
, or “Wolf Indian,” places two fingers erect on each side of his head, to represent pointed ears; the Blackfoot touches the heel, and then the toe, of the right foot; and the Kiowa’s most usual sign is to imitate the act of drinking.198
Consequently, there is semiotic evidence that warriors of the Cheyennes, Arapahoes, and the Sioux partook in the battle. Bell admits that he did not find, “what tribe was indicated by the incisions down the thighs, and the laceration of the calves of the legs, in oblique parallel gashes. The arrows also varied in make and colour, according to the tribe; and it was evident, from the number of different devices, that warriors from several tribes had each purposely left one in the dead man’s body.”199
How can these symbols or signs be deciphered? I put forward the theory that the wounds on the Sergeant’s body represent the sophisticated sign language of Plain Indians—which the Cheyennes, Arapahoes (both Algonquian
Many different languages were spoken on the Great Plains. Thus the PST sign language functioned as a lingua (scriptura) franca. Captain William Clark employed sign language during his field research in the 1870s. Later he wrote the book The Indian Sign Language
As semiotic technology
Wampum belts were quite commonly used in native diplomacy
From the beginning of the sixteenth century, Catholic missionaries almost immediately followed the European military invasion and initiated religious-linguistic and -semiotic campaigns against indigenous cultures. The missionary linguist applied various linguistic and semiotic strategies. They imposed Indo-European lingua franca and translated indigenous languages, in particular lingua franca of the region, into alphabetic script but they also constructed transcultural intersemiotic systems transmediated towards different indigenous language groups, accordingly representing an innovative form of scriptura franca.
In particular in Mesoamerica and the Andean region of South America—where the Europeans encountered numerous city-states and empires with sophisticated semiotic- and writing systems
Pictorial Roman Catholic catechisms for conversion were constructed for Quechua and Aymara speakers from the Lake Titicaca region of Bolivia and Peru in the Andes as late as in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Andean religious practices influenced by European Catholic Christianity is communicated. Most of the Andean pictorial catechisms are, as is the case with the Testerian, written in boustrophedon, although there is no iconographic relation to the Mexican Testerian tradition. Neither is the visual language of these two traditions associated with the ledger art tradition of the nineteenth-century North American Plains Indians or the Cunas of Panama.217 Intriguingly the pictographs follow the syntax of Quechua and Aymara. They convey concepts by using natural and abstract signs. Ideas are also transmitted with phonetic rebus
Wampum was employed by Jesuits in the Catholic mission among Northeastern American Indigenous cultures in the eighteenth century. Wampum-belts, strings, and pearls could be displayed in churches. Latin
An unsurpassed work, written by an ethnographer missionary in America, is Fray Bernardino de Sahagun’s (c. 1499–1589) encyclopedia
The missionary linguistic operation of French Catholics (in particular Jesuit) and English Protestants and Anglicans in North America (Canada and the US) originated around 1620 CE. Apart from Moravian (German), the “English tradition” of missionary linguistics began in reality with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) in the mid-1930s.241 Missionary linguists mainly applied Latin
Translated Catholic doctrinal scriptures—for example, catechisms and confessionals—were produced in the Latin alphabet. Missionary linguists
The postcolonial twentieth and twenty-first centuries brought a new wave of missionary linguists. North American Evangelical Protestantism is characterized by a theology about the Bible as the single authority of faith, life, and teachings
Translations can be conveyed through different media: written, oral, and visual. Christian
Rachel M. McCleary asserts that since Guatemala is a highly illiterate country with limited access to expensive translated New Testaments, Protestant missionaries began, at the beginning of the twentieth century, to mass evangelise
SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators are beginning to make translated New Testaments available in PDF. They are accompanied by film and sound.271 Films and audio (Mp3), which can be downloaded free of charge, gain more and more importance in evangelization and proselytizing for SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators. Using technological visual media like the “The JESUS Film Project”272 from the Gospel of Luke, in addition to text, is a powerful tool in the future converting work for the missionary linguists. The “JESUS”
Considerable systematic research on multilingualism and lingua franca as intellectual phenomena, in both literate and oral traditions, is left to be executed both synchronically and diachronically in the Americas—where there exist an enormous amount of indigenous
Aaseng, Nathan (1992). Navajo Code Talkers: America’s Secret Weapon in World War Ii. New York: Walker & Company.
Acosta, José de (2002 ). Historia Natural Y Moral de Las Indias. Crónicas de América 43. Dastín: Las Rozas.
Adelaar, W. F. H. (1986). “La Relación Quechua-Aru: Perspectivas Para La Separación Del Léxico.” Revista Andina 4 (2): 379–426.
Adelaar, W. F. H. with the collaboraton of Pieter C. Muysken (2007). The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adelaar, W. F. H., and S. Wichmann (2011). The Linguistic Past of Mesoamerica and the Andes: A Search for Early Migratory Relations Between North and South America. MesAndLin(g)k. ERC Advanced Grant 2011: Research Proposal.
Adorno, R. (2011). “Andean Empire.” In Mapping Latin America: A Cartographic Reader, edited by J. Dym and K. Offen, 74–78. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2002). Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Anders, F., and M. Jansen (1993). Manual Del Adivino, Libro Explicativo Del Llamado Códice Vaticano B. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Anders, F., M. Jansen, and G. A. Pérez Jiménez (1992). El Origen E Historia de Los Reyes Mixtecso, Libro Explicativo Del Llamado Códice Vindobonensis. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Arnold, P. P. (2011). “Indigenous ‘Texts’ of Inhabiting the Land: George Washington’s Wampum Belt and the Canandaigua Treaty.” Postscripts: The Journal of Sacred Texts and Contemporary Worlds 6 (1–3): 277–89.
Asensio, Eugenio (1960). “La Lengua Compañera Del Imperio: Historia de Una Idea de Nebrija En España Y Portugal.” Revista de Filología Española, no. 43: 399–413.
Basso, K., and N. Anderson (1973). “A Western Apache Writing System: The Symbols of Silas John.” Science 180: 1013–22.
Baudot, G. (2001). “Malintzin.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. Vol. 2, edited by Davíd Carrasco, 156–57. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, W. A. (1965 ). New Tracks in North America: A Journal of Travel and Adventure Whilst Engaged in the Survey for a Southern Railroad to the Pacific Ocean During 1867–1868. Albuquerque, NM: Horn; Wallace Publishers.
Boone, E. H. (2000). Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the Aztecs and Mixtecs. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2007a). Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate. Joe R. And Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture. Texas: University of Texas Press.
——— (2007b). “The House of the Eagle.” In Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2, edited by D. Carrasco and S. Sessions, 27–47. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
——— (2011). “Ruptures and Unions: Graphic Complexity and Hybridity in Sixteenth-Century Mexico.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by E. H. Boone and G. Urton, 197–225. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Boone, E. H., and M. E. Smith (2003). “Postclassic International Styles and Symbols Sets.” In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by M. E. Smith and F. F. Berdan, 186–93. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Boone, E. H., and G. Urton, eds. (2011). Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Brokaw, G. (2010). History of the Khipu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, C. H., S. Wichmann, and D. Beck (2014). “Chitimacha: A Mesoamerican Language in the Lower Mississippi Valley.” International Journal of American Linguistics 80 (4): 425–74.
Burkhart, L. M. (2014). “The ‘Little Doctrine’ and Indigenous Catechesis in New Spain.” Hispanic American Historical Review 94 (2): 167–206.
Callaghan, C., and G. Gamble (1996). “Borrowing.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 111–16. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Calvet, L.-J. (1987). La Guerre Des Langues et Les Politiques Linguistiques. Paris: Hachette Littératures.
Campbell, L. (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, L., and M. Mithun, eds. (2014). The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Campbell, L., T. Kaufmann, and T. C. Smith-Stark (1986). “Meso-America as a Linguistic Area.” Language 62 (3): 530–70.
Carrasco, D. (2001). “Preface.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, Vol. 1, edited by D. Carrasco, ix–xvii. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carrasco, D., and S. Sessions, eds. (2007). Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo (2008). Quechumara: Estructuras Paralelas Del Quechua Y Del Aimara. 2nd ed. La Paz, Bolivia: Universidad Mayor de San Simón; PROEIB Andes; Plural Editores.
Chrisomalis, S. (2010). Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, W. P. (1982 ). The Indian Sign Language. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Closs, M., ed. (1986). Native American Mathematics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Colop, S. (2011). Popol Wuj. Guatemala: F & G Editores.
Contreras García, I. (1987). “Bibliografía Catequistica Mexicana Del Siglo Xvi.” Boletín Del Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas 1: 163–243.
Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cushman, E. (2011). The Cherokee Syllabary: Writing the People’s Perseverance. American Indian Literature and Critical Studies Series. Norman: University Oklahoma Press.
Cysouw, M., and B. Wälchli (2007). “Parallel Texts: Using Translational Equivalents in Linguistic Typology.” Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung 60 (2): 95–99.
Dahlgren, B. (1954). La Mixteca: Su Cultura E Historia Prehispánicas. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Dakin, K. (2010). “Linguistic Evidence for Historical Contacts Between Nahuas and Northern Lowland Mayan Speakers.” In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange Between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period, edited by G. Vail and C. Hernández, 217–40. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard University Press.
Dakin, K., and S. Wichmann (2000). “Cacao and Chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan Perspective.” Ancient Mesoamerica 11 (1): 55–75.
Daniels, P. T., and W. Bright, eds. (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dibble, C. E. (1971). “Writing in Central Mexico.” In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Part One: Archaelogy of Northern Mesoamerica. Vol. 10, edited by R. Wauchope, general ed., G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, 322–32. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Dozier, E. P. (1956). “Two Examples of Linguistic Acculturation: The Yaqui of Sonora and Arizona and the Tewa of New Mexico.” Language 32 (146–157).
——— (1958). “Cultural Matrix of Singing and Chanting in Tewa Pueblos.” International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 268–72.
Duinmeijer, B. (1997). “The Mesoamerican Calendar of the Mixes, Oaxaca, Mexico.” Yumitzilob 9 (2): 173–205.
Durán, J. G., ed. (1984–1990). Monumenta Catechetica Hispanoamericana: Siglos Xvi–Xviii. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Teología de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina “Santa María de los Buenos Aires”.
Durrett, D. (2009). Unsung Heroes of World War Ii: The Story of the Navajo Code Talkers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Durston, A. (2007). Pastoral Quechua: The History of Christian Translation in Colonial Peru, 1550–1650. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
d’Olwer, L. N., and H. F. Cline (1974). “Sahagún and His Works.” In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 13, edited by R. Wauchope, general ed., H. F. Cline, vol. ed., and J. B. Glass, ass. vol. ed., 186–207. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Edgerton, S. Y. (2001). Theaters of Conversion: Religious Architecture and Indian Artisans in Colonial Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Epps, P., and H. Ladley (2009). “Syntax, Souls, or Speakers? On Sil and Community Language Development.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 85 (3): 640–46.
Everett, D. L. (2005). “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language.” Current Anthropology 46 (4): 621–46.
——— (2008). Don’t Sleep There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle. New York: Vintage Departures, Vintage Books, A Division of Random House.
Farnell, B. (1996). “Sign Language.” In Encyclopedia of North American Indians: Native American History, Culture, and Life from Paleo-Indians to the Present, edited by F. E. Hoxie, 589–90. Washington, DC: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ferguson, C. (1959). “Diglossia.” Word 15: 325–40.
Fishman, J. (1967). “Bilingualism with and Without Diglossia; Diglossia with and Without Bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues 23 (2): 29–38.
Foster, M. K. (1996). “Language and the Culture History of North America.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 64–110. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Galarza, J., and A. Monod-Bequelín (1992). Códices Testerianos. Catecismos Indígenas. El Pater Noster. Método Para El Análisis de Un Manuscrito Pictográfico Del Siglo Xviii Con Su Aplicación En La Primera Oración: El Pater Noster. México: Editorial Tava.
García Quintana, M. L. (2000). “Los Huehuetlatolli En El Códice Florentino.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 31: 123–247.
Glass, J. B. (1975). “A Survey of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts.” In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 14/15, edited by R. Wauchope, general ed. and H. F. Cline, vol. ed., 3–80. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Goddard, I. (1996). “The Description of the Native Languages of North America Before Boas.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 17–42. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Greene, C. S. (2009). One Hundred Summers: A Kiowa Calendar Record. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Greene, C. S., and R. Thornton (2007). The Year That Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Grube, N. (1990). Die Entwicklung Der Mayaschrift. Grundlagen Zur Erforschung Des Wandels Der Mayaschrift von Der Protoklassik Bis Zur Spanischen Eroberung. Dissertation Zur Erlangung Der Würde Des Doktors Der Philosophie Der Universität Hamburg. Acta Mesoamericana 3. Berlin: Verlag von Flemming.
Hamell, G. R. (1996). “Wampum.” In Encyclopedia of North American Indians: Native American History, Culture, and Life from Paleo-Indians to the Present, edited by F. E. Hoxie, 662–64. Washington, DC: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hanke, L. (1959). Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World. Chicago: Henry Regnery Comp.
Hansen, M. P. n.d. “Report from the 7th Pastoral Workshop on Nahuatl Language and Culture.” Accessed June 11, 2014. http://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.mx/.
Harrison, R. (1992). True Confessions: Quechua and Spanish Cultural Encounters in the Viceroyalty of Peru. Latin America Studies Center Rockefeller Fellow Series 5. College Park: University of Maryland.
——— (2002). “Pérez Bocanegra’s Ritual Formulario.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by J. Quilter and G. Urton, 266–90. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2008). “Doctrinal Works.” In Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, 1530–1900. Vol. 1, edited by J. Pilsbury, 217–34. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
——— (2014). Sin & Confession in Colonial Peru: Spanish Quechua Penitential Texts, 1560–1650. Joe R. And Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hartmann, R. (1991). “Christian Religious Pictographs from the Andes: Two Examples.” Latin American Indian Literatures Journal (Beaver Falls) 7 (2): 172–91.
Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Language Science and National Development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hämäläinen, P. (2009). The Comanche Empire. The Lamar Series in Western History. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heggarty, Paul (2005). “Enigmas En El Origen de Las Lenguas Andinas: Aplicando Nuevas Tecnicas a Las Incognitas Por Resolver.” Revista Andina, no. 40: 9–57.
Hewitt, J. B. (1910). “Wampum.” In Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Vol. 2, edited by F. W. Hodge. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Instituion.
Hill, J. H., and K. C. Hill (1986). Speaking Mexicano: The Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Houston, S. D. (2004). “Writing in Ancient Mesoamerica.” In The First Writing, edited by S. D. Houston, 274–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——— (2011). “All Things Must Change: Maya Writing over Time and Space.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by E. H. Boone and G. Urton, 21–42. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library; Collection.
Houston, S. D., and M. D. Coe (2003). “Has Isthmian Writing Been Deciphered?” Mexicon XXV (December): 151–61.
Houston, S. D., and T. Inomata (2009). The Classic Maya. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houston, S. D., and D. Stuart (1996). “Of Gods, Glyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya.” Antiquity 70 (286): 289–312.
Houston, S. D., O. Chinchilla Mazariegos, and D. Stuart, eds. (2001). The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Houston, S. D., J. Robertson, and D. Stuart (2000). “The Language of Classic Maya Inscriptions.” Current Antropology 41: 321–56.
Hvalkof, S., and P. Aaby (1981). “Introducing God in the Devil’s Paradise.” In Is God an American?: An Anthropological Perspective on the Missionary Work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, edited by S. Hvalkof and P. Aaby, 9–21. Copenhagen, London: IWGIA, Survival International.
Hyland, S. (2014). “Ply, Markedness, and Redundancy: New Evidence for How Andean Khipus Encoded Information.” American Anthropologist 116: 643–48.
——— (2017). “Writing with Twisted Cords: The Inscriptive Capacity of Andean Khipus.” Current Anthropology 58 (3).
Hyland, S., G. Ware, and M. Clark (2014). “Knot Direction in a Khipu: Alphabetic Text from the Central Andes.” Latin American Antiquity 25 (2): 189–97.
Ibarra Grasso, D. E. (1948). “Escritura Indigena Andina.” Annali Lateranensi 12: 9–124.
——— (1953). Escritura Indígena Andina. La Paz: Alcaldía municipal.
Itier, C. (2011). “What Was the Lengua General of Colonial Peru?” In History and Language in the Andes, edited by P. Heggarty and A. Pearce, 63–85. London: Plagrave-Macmillan.
Jackson, J. (1974). “Language Identity of the Colombian Vaupés Indians.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by R. Bauman and J. Sherzer, 50–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jansen, M. (1985). “Las Lenguas Divinas Del México Precolonial.” Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos Y Del Caribe 38: 3–14.
Jansen, M. E. R. G. N., and G. A. Pérez Jiménez (2010). “Mixtec Cultural Vocabulary and Pictorial Writing.” In Linguistics and Archaeology in the Americas: The Historization of Language and Society, edited by E. B. Carlin and S. van de Kerke, 45–82. Leiden: Brill.
Jansen, M. E. R. G. N., and G. A. Pérez Jiménez (2011). The Mixtec Pictorial Manuscripts: Time, Agency and Memory in Ancient Mexico. Early Americas: History and Culture. Leiden: Brill.
Jemison, G., and A. M. Schein, eds. (2000). Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.
Karttunen, F., and J. Lockhart (1977). Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. University of California Publications in Linguistics 85. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Kaufmann, T. (with the assistance of John Justeson) (2003). “A Preliminary Maya Etymological Dictionary.” FAMSI Grantee Report.
King, D. (1996). Native America in the Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia. Edited by M. B. Davis, M. E. Graham J. Berman, and L. A. Mitten. Garland Reference Library of Social Science 452. New York; London: Garland Publishing Inc.
Kirchhoff, P. (1943). “Mesoamérica: Sus Límites Geográficos, Composición étnica Y Caracteres Culturales.” Acta Americana 1 (1): 92–107.
Kirchhoff, P., L. O. Güemes, and L. Reyes García (1976). Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. México: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
Koerner, K. (2004). “Notes on Missionary Linguistics in North America.” In Missionary Linguistics [I] / Lingüística Misionera [I]. Selected Papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics: Oslo, 13–16 March 2003, edited by O. Zwartjes and E. Hovdhaugen, 47–80. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kroskrity, P. V. (1992). “Arizona Tewa Public Announcements: Form, Function, and Language Ideology.” Anthropological Linguistics, no. 34: 104–16.
——— (1993). Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona Tewa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
——— (1998). “Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant Language Ideology.” In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, edited by B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, and P. V. Kroskrity, 103–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——— (2000). “Language Ideologies in the Expression and Representation of Arizona Tewa Ethnic Identity.” In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, edited by P. V. Kroskrity, 329–59. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
Lacadena García-Gallo, A. (1995). “Evolución Formal de Las Grafías Escriturarias Mayas: Implicaciones Históricas Y Culturales.” PhD thesis, Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
——— (2005). “Los Primero Vecinos Letrados de Los Mayas: Implicaciones Históricas de La Presencia de Rasgos Lingüísticos No-Mayas En La Escritura Maya.” In The Maya and Their Neighbours: Internal and External Contacts Through Time, edited by L. van Broekhoven, R. V. Rivera, B. Vis, and F. Sachse. Leiden University.
——— (2008). “Regional Scribal Traditions: Methodological Implications for the Decipherment of Nahuatl Writing.” PARI Journal 8 (4): 1–22.
——— (2010). “Highland Mexican and Maya Intellectual Exchange in the Late Postclassic: Some Thoughts on the Origin of Shared Elements and Methods of Interaction.” In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange Between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period, edited by G. Vail and C. Hernández, 383–406. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard University Press.
Lacadena García-Gallo, A., and S. Wichmann (2002). “The Distribution of Lowland Maya Languages in the Classic Period.” In La Organización Social Entre Los Mayas: Memoria de La Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque Vol. 2, edited by V. Tiesler, R. Cobos, and M. G. Robertson, 275–314. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia; Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.
——— (2004). “On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya Writing.” In The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by S. Wichmann, 103–62. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
——— (2005). “The Dynamics of Language in the Western Lowland Maya Region.” In Art for Archaeology’s Sake: Material Culture and Style Across the Disciplines: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by A. Waters-Rist, C. Cluney, C. McNamee, and L. Steinbrenner, 32–48. Calgary: The University of Calgary Archaeological Asssociation.
Laso de la Vega, L., L. Sousa, S. Poole, J. Lockhart, and M. Sánchez (1998). The Story of Guadalupe: Luis Laso de La Vega’s Huei Tlamahuiçoltica of 1649. Edited by L. Sousa, S. Poole, and J. Lockhart. UCLA Latin American Studies 84: Nahuatl Studies Series 5. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Law, D. (2014). Language Contact, Inherited Similarity and Social Difference: The Story of Linguistic Interaction in the Maya Lowlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leavitt, R. M. (2011). “Reading a Dictionary: How Passamaquoddy Language Translates Concepts of Physical and Social Space.” In Born in the Blood: On Native American Translation, edited by B. Swann, 43–60. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Leibsohn, D. (2001). “Testerian Manuscripts.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. Vol. 3, edited by D. Carrasco, 214–15. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lipp, F. J. (1983). “The Mije Calendarical System: Concepts and Behavior.” PhD thesis, New York: New School for Social Research.
——— (1991). The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual and Healing. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Locke, L. L. (1923). The Ancient Quipu, or Peruvian Knot Record. New York: The American Museum of Natural History.
——— (1928). “Supplementary Notes on the Quipus in the American Museum of Natural History.” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 30 (2). New York: The American Museum of Natural History: 39–71.
Lockhart, J. (1992). The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
López Austin, A. (1967). “Términos Del Nahuallatolli.” Historia Mexicana 17: 1–36.
——— (2001). “Aztec.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America, Vol. 1, edited by D. Carrasco, 68–72. New York: Oxford University Press.
López Austin, A., and L. López Luján (1998). Mito Y Realidad de Zuyúa: Serpiente Emplumada Y Las Transformaciones Mesoamericanas Del Clásico Al Posclásico. Fideicomiso Historia de Las Americas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
López García, U. (2007). “Sa’vi: Discurso Ceremoniales de Yutsa to’on (Apoala).” PhD thesis, Leiden: Leiden University.
——— (2008). “Sa’vi: El Lenguaje Ceremonial.” In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de ñuu Dzaui, edited by M. E. R. G. N. Jansen and L. N. K. van Broekhoeven, 407–21. Amsterdam: KNWA Press. Kominklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
Mackey, C. J. (1970). “Knot Records in Ancient and Modern Peru.” PhD thesis, Berkeley: University of California.
——— (2002). “The Continuing Khipu Traditions.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by J. Quilter and G. Urton, 321–47. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Macri, M. J. (2010). “Scribal Interaction in Postclassic Mesoamerica.” In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange Between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period, edited by G. Vail and C. Hernández, 193–215. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard University Press.
Mallery, G. (1880). Collection of Gesture-Signs and Signals of North American Indians with Some Comparisons. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
——— (1881). “Sign Language Among North American Indians Compared with That Among Other Peoples and Deaf-Mutes.” In Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report, 262–552. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Mannheim, B. (1991). The Language of the Inka Since the European Invasion. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Martin, S., and N. Grube (2000). Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames; Hudson.
Mathes, W. M. (1982). Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco: La Primera Biblioteca Académica de Las Américas. Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano, Cuarta época 12. México: Secretaría de relaciones exteriors.
McCleary, R. M. (forthcoming in 2017). “Protestant Innovative Evangelizing to Oral Cultures in Guatamala.” In Oxford Handbook of Latin American Christianity, edited by D. T. Orique and S. Fitzpatrick Behrens. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meadows, W. C. (2002). The Comanche Code Talkers of World War Ii. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Mikulska Dabrowska, K. (2008). El Lenguaje Enmascarado: Un Acercamiento a Las Representaciones Gráficas de Deidades Nahuas. México, D.F.: UNAM.
——— (2010). “Secret Language in Oral and Graphic Form: Religious-Magic Discourse in Actec Speeches and Manuscripts.” Oral Tradition 25 (3): 325–63.
Miller, R. W. (1996). “The Ethnography of Speaking.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 222–43. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Mitchell, W. P., and B. H. Jaye (2008). “Pictographic Catechisms.” In Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, 1530–1900 EmphVol. 1, edited by J. Pillsbury. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press In collaboration with the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art.
Mitchell, W. P., and B. H. Jaye (1996). “Pictographs in the Andes: The Huntington Free Library Quechua Catechism.” Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 12 (1): 1–42.
Mithun, M. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mooney, J. (1992 ). James Mooney’s History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees. Edited by G. Ellison. Asheville, NC: Historical Images.
Mora-Marín, David F. (2003). “Pre-Ch’olan as the Standard Language of Classic Lowland Mayan Texts.” http://davidmm.web.unc.edu/files/2010/08/PreCholanSSILA.pdf.
Mora-Marín, David F., Nicholas Hopkins, and Kathryn Josserand (2009). “The Linguistic Affiliation of Classic Lowland Mayan Writing and the Historical Sociolinguistic Geography of the Mayan Lowlands.” In The Ch’orti’ Area: Past and Present on the Southeastern Maya Periphery, edited by Brent E. Metz, Cameron L. McNeil, and Kerry Hull, 15–28. University Press of Florida.
Murra, J. V. (1998). “Litigation over the Rights of ‘Natural Lords’ in the Early Colonial Courts in the Andes.” In Native Traditions in the Postconquest World, edited by E. H. Boone and T. Cummins, 55–61. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Nicholson, H. B. (1966). “The Significance of the ‘Looped Cord’ Year Symbol in Pre-Hispanic Mexico: An Hypothesis.” In Estudio de Cultura Náhuatl Vol. 6, 135–48. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricos; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
——— (2002). “Fray Bernardino de Sahagún: A Spanish Missionary in New Spain, 1529–1590.” In Representing Aztec Ritual: Performance, Text, and Image in the Work of Sahagún, edited by E. Quiñones Keber, 21–42. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
Olson, K. (2009). “SIL International: An Emic View.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 85 (3): 646–52.
Padley, G. A. (1985–1988). Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500–1700: Trends in Vernacular Grammar. Vol. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagden, A. (1982). The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pärssinen, M. (1992). Tawantinsuyu: The Inca State and Its Political Organization. Studia Historica 43. Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.
Pärssinen, M., and J. Kiviharju (2004). Textos Andinos: Corpus de Textos Khipu Incaicos Y Coloniales. Vol. 1. Acta Ibero-Americana Fennica. Series Hispano-Americano 6. Madrid: Instituto Iberoamericano de Finlandia & Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
——— (2010). Textos Andinos: Corpus de Textos Khipu Incaicos Y Coloniales. Vol. 2. Acta Ibero-Americana Fennica. Series Hispano-Americano 9. Madrid: Instituto Iberoamericano de Finlandia & Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Peralta Ramírez, V. (2004). “Las Metáforas Del Náhuatl Actual Como Una Estrategia Discursiva Dentro de Los Eventos Rituales.” In La Metáfora En Mesoamérica, edited by M. Montes de Oca Vega, 171–91. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Pérez Jiménez, G. A. (2008). Sahìn Sàu: Curso de Lengua Mixteca (Variante de ñuù Ndéyá). Oaxaca, México: CSEIIO.
Pharo, L. K. (2016). “Transfer of Moral Knowledge in Early Colonial Latin America.” In The Globalization of Knowledge in the Iberian Colonial World, edited by Helge Wendt, 29–94. Berlin: Edition Open Access.
——— (2017). Concepts of Conversion: The Politics of Missionary Scriptural Translations. Religion and Society. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Poole, S. (2001). “Guadalupe, Nuestra Señora de.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. Vol. 1, edited by D. Carrasco, 444–46. New York: Oxford University Press.
Porras Barrenechea, R. (1999). Indagaciones Peruanas: El Legado Quechua. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Prem, H. J. (1992). “Aztec Writing.” In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians. Epigraphy. Vol. 5, edited by V. R. Bricker, 53–69. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Quilter, J., and G. Urton, eds. (2002). Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rafael, V. L. (1992). Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society Under Early Spanish Rule. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ramos, G. (2011). “Language and Society in Early Colonial Peru.” In History and Language in the Andes, edited by P. Heggarty and A. Pearce, 19–38. London: Plagrave-Macmillan.
Rappaport, J. (2005). Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation, and Ethnic Pluralism in Colombia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Resines, L. (1992). Catecismos Americanos Del Siglo Xvi. Vol. 2 vols. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla Y León, Consejería de Cultura y Turismo.
——— (1997). La Catequesis En España, Historia Y Textos. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
Ricard, R. (1966). The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Rivet, P., and G. de Créqui-Montfort (1951–1965). Bibliographie Des Langues Aymará et Kičua 4 Vols. Travaux et Mémoire de L’Institut d’Ethnologie 51. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, Université de Paris.
Robinson, G. (2011). The Language of Victory: American Indian Code Talkers of World War I and World War Ii. Bloomington: Universe Publishing.
Rodríguez Martínez, M. del C., P. Ortíz Ceballos, M. D. Coe, R. A. Diehl, S. D. Houston, K. A. Taube, and A. Delgado Calderón (2006). “Oldest Writing in the New World.” Science 313 (5793): 1610–4.
Rojas Curieux, T. (2001). “Transportar La Cosa Hablada a Otra Lengua: La Experiencia Del La Traducción de La Constitución Del República a Lenguas Indígenas.” In Conceptiones de La Conquista: Aproximaciones Interdisciplinarias, edited by F. Castañeda and M. Vollet, 361–88. Bogóta: Ediciones UniAndes.
Rojas Curieux, Tulio (1997). “La Traducción de La Constitución Del La República de Colombia a Lenguas Indígenas. República de Colombia, Dirección General de Asuntos Indígenas.” In Del Olvido Surgimos Para Traer Nuevas Esperanzas: La Jurisdicción Especial Indígena, 229–44. Santa Fe de Bogotá: Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca, Ministerio de Interior, Dirección General de Asuntos Indígenas.
Rojas Martínez Gracida, A. (2012). “El Tiempo Y La Sabiduría En Poxoyëm: Un Calendario Sagrado Entre Los Ayook de Oaxaca.” PhD thesis, Leiden: Leiden University.
Ruiz Medrano, E. (2007). “The Lords of the Land: The Historical Context of the Mapa Cuauhtinchan No. 2.” In Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2, edited by D. Carrasco and S. Sessions, 91–119. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Sahagún, B. de (1982 ). Florentine Codex: The General History of the Things of New Spain. 13 Vols. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de (1997 ). Primeros Memoriales. Edited by H. B. Nicholson, A. J. O. Anderson, C. E. Dibble, E. Quiñones Keber, and W. Ruwet. The Civilisation of American Indian Series 200. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, in cooperation with the Patriomonio Nacional; the Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid, Spain.
Salomon, F. (2002). “Patrimonial Khipus in a Modern Peruvian Village: An Introduction to the Quipocamayos of Tupicocha, Huarochirí.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by J. Quilter and G. Urton, 293–319. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2004). The Cord Keepers: Khipus and Cultural Life in a Peruvian Village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
——— (2008). “Late Khipu Use.” In The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication, edited by J. Baines, J. Bennet, and S. D. Houston, 285–310. London: Equinox.
Salomon, F., and S. Hyland, eds. (2010). Graphic Pluralism: Native American Systems of Inscription and the Colonial Situation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Salomon, F., and M. Niño-Murcia (2011). The Lettered Mountain. Durham: Duke University Press.
Salomon, F., C. J. Brezine, R. Chapa, and V. Falcón Huayta (2011). “Khipu from Colony to Republic: The Rapaz Patrimony.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by E. H. Boone and G. Urton, 353–78. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Sandstrom, A. R. (2010). “The Nahua.” The Nahua Newsletter 49: 22–37.
Saturno, W. A., D. Stuart, and B. Beltrán (2006). “Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala.” Science 311 (5765): 1281–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121745.
Schroeder, S. (2001). “Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuantzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñon.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and Central America. Vol. 1, edited by D. Carrasco, 196–98. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schwaller, R. C., ed. (2012). A Language of Empire, a Quotidian Tongue: The Uses of Nahuatl in New Spain. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1996). “Dynamics of Recent Linguistic Contact.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 117–36. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Smalley, W. A. (1991). Translation as Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement. The Modern Mission Era, 1792–1992: An Appraisal. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Smith, M. E. (1973). Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. The Civilization of the American Indian Series 124. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Stoll, D. (1982). Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire?: The Wycliffe Bible Translators in Latin America. London: Zed Press.
——— (1990). Is Latin America Turning Protestant?: The Politics of Evangelical Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stross, B. (1983). “The Language of Zuyua.” American Ethnologist 10: 150–64.
Stuart, D. (1998). “The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History.”
——— (2000). “The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History.” In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: Teotihuacán to the Aztecs, edited by L. Jones D. Carrasco and S. Sessions. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
——— (2005). “A Brief Introduction to Maya Writing.” In The Sourcebook for the 29th Maya Hieroglyph Forum, edited by D. Stuart, 3–90. Austin: University of Texas.
Sullivan, A. (1986). “A Scattering of Jades: The Words of the Aztec Elders.” In Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas Vol. 1, edited by G. H. Gossen, 9–17. Albany, NY: State University of New York, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.
Svelmoe, W. L. (2009). “‘We Do Not Want to Masquerade as Linguists’: A Short History of Sil and the Academy.” Language 85 (3): 629–35.
Swann, Brian, ed. (2011). Born in the Blood: On Native American Translation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Swanton, M. (2008). “Multilingualism in the Tocuij ñudzavui Region.” In Mixtec Writing and Society: Escritura de ñuu Dzaui, edited by M. E. R. G. N. Jansen and L. N. K. van Broekhoeven, 347–80. Amsterdam: KNWA Press. Kominklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
Swanton, M. W. (2001). “El Texto Popolocua de La Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca.” Relaciones 22 (86): 117–40.
Swanton, M., and G. Bas van Doesburg (1996). “Some Observations on the Lost Lienzo de Santa María Ixcatlan (Lienzo Seler I).” Baesler Archiv 44: 359–77.
Taube, K. A. (1992). The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan: Schellas Revisited. Studies in Pre-Columbien Art and Archaeology 82. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
——— (2000). The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacan. Ancient America 1. Barnardsville, NC: Center for Ancient American Studies.
——— (2004). “Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan.” In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G. E. Braswell, 273–314. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2011). “Teotihuacan and the Development of Writing in Early Classic Central Mexico.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by E. H. Boone and G. Urton, 77–109. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Taube, K. A., and B. Bade (1991). An Appearance of Xiuhtecuhtli in Dresden Venus Pages. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 35. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.
Taylor, A. (1996). “Nonspeech Communication Systems.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 275–89. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Taylor, A. R. (1981). “Indian Lingua Francas.” In Language in the Usa, edited by C. A. Ferguson and S. B. Heath, 175–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1975). The Warriors of the Plains. New York: Arco Publishing Company.
——— (1991). “The Plains.” In The Native Americans: The Indigenous People of North America, edited by C. Taylor and W. C. Sturtevant, 62–99. San Diego, CA: Thunder Bay Press.
Tehanetorens (Ray Fadden) (1999). Wampum Belts of the Iroquois. Summertown, TN: Book Publishing Company.
Terraciano, K. (2001). The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Nudzahui History, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
——— (2015). “Parallel Nahuatl and Pictorial Texts in the Mixtec Codex Sierra Texupan.” Ethnohistory 62 (3): 497–524.
Torero, A. (1974). El Quechua Y La Historia Social Andina. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.
——— (2002). Idiomas de Los Andes: Lingüística E Historia. Lima: Insituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Umberger, E. G. (1981a). “Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History.” PhD thesis, New York: Columbia University.
——— (1981b). “The Structure of Aztec History.” Archaeoastronomy 4: 10–18.
Urcid, J. (2001). Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library; Collection.
——— (2005). Zapotec Writing: Knowledge, Power, and Memory in Ancient Oaxaca. Waltham: Brandeis Univ., Dept. of Anthropology.
Urton, G. (2002). “Recording Signs in Narrative-Accounting Khipu.” In Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu, edited by J. Quilter and G. Urton, 171–96. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2003). Signs of the Inka Khipu. Austin: University of Texas Press.
——— (2008). “Andean Quipu: A History of Writings and Studies on Inca and Colonial Knotted-String Records.” In Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, 1530–1900Vol. 1, edited by J. Pillsbury, 65–86. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
——— (2009). “Sin, Confession, and the Arts of Book and Cord-Keeping: An Intercontinental and Transcultural Exploration of Accounting and Governmentality.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 (4): 801–31.
Urton, G., and C. J. Brezine (2011). “Khipu Typologies.” In Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America, edited by E. H. Boone and G. Urton, 319–35. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Valdeón, R. A. (2014). Translation and the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Benjamins Translation Library 113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Doesburg, S., and M. Swanton (2008). “La Traduccion de La Doctrina Cristiana En Lengua Mixteca de Fray Benito Hernández Al Chocholteco (Ngiwa).” In Memorias Del Coloquio Francisco Belmar: Conferencias Sobre Lenguas Otomangues Y Oaxaquñeas. Vol. 2, edited by A. López Cruz and M. Swanton, 81–117. México: Biblioteca Francisco de Buroa, UABJO.
Wake, E. (2007). “The Serpent Road: Iconic Encoding and the Historical Narrative of the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2.” In Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2, edited by D. Carrasco and S. Sessions, 205–54. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Walker, W. (1981). “Native American Writing Systems.” In Language in the Usa, edited by C. A. Ferguson and S. B. Heath, 145–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——— (1996). “Native American Writing Systems.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages, edited by W. C. Sturtevant and I. Goddard, 158–84. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
West, L. (1960). “The Sign Language: An Analysis.” PhD thesis, Indiana University.
White, L. A. (1944). “A Ceremonial Vocabulary Among the Pueblos.” International Journal of American Linguistics 10 (4): 161–67.
Whitecotton, J. W. (1977). The Zapotecs: Princes, Priests, and Peasants. The Civilization of the American Indian Series. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Whittaker, G. (1986). “The Mexican Names of Three Venus Gods in the Dresden Codex.” Mexicon 8 (3): 56–60.
Wichmann, S. (1995). The Relationship Among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexcio. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
——— (1999a). “A Conservative Look at Diffusion Involving Mixe-Zoquean Languages.” In Archaeology and Language Ii: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, edited by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, 297–323. London: Routledge.
——— (1999b). “On the Relationship Between Utoaztecan and Mixezoquean.” Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (2): 101–13.
——— (2000). “Mayaernes Skrift: Introduksjon Og Håndbok.”
——— (2006a). “A New Look at Linguistic Interaction in the Lowlands as a Background for the Study of Maya Codices.” In Sacred Books, Sacred Languages: Two Thousand Years of Ritual and Religious Maya Literature. Proceedings of the 8th European Maya Conference, Madrid, November 25–30, 2003, edited by V. Rivera and G. L. Fort, 45–64. Acta Mesoamericana 18. Markt Schwaben: Verlag Anton Saurwein.
——— (2006b). “Mayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A New Synthesis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 279–94.
——— (2006c). “Mixe-Zoquean Loanword on the Late Preclassic Maya Murals of San Bartolo?” 2006.
Wright Carr, D. C. (2007). “Los Dioses En Las Lenguas Otomí Y Náhuatl, Ponencia Presentada En El Ix Coloqiuo Internacional Sobre Otopames, Xalapa, 13 de Noviembre de 2007.”
——— (2008). “La Sociedad Prehispánica En Las Lenguas Náhuatl Y Otomí.” Acta Universtaria de Mexico 18 (special no. 1). Mexico City: 15–23.
——— (2009). “El Calendario Mesoamericano En Las Lenguas Otomí Y Náhuatl.” Revista de Fuentes Para El Concimiento de Las Culturas Indígenas de México XVI: 217–53.
Wurtzburg, S., and L. Campbell (1995). “North American Indian Sign Language: Evidence of Its Existence Before European Contact.” International Journal of American Linguistics 61: 153–67.
Yannakakis, Y. (2014). “Making Law Intelligible: Networks of Translation in Mid-Colonial Oaxaca.” In Indigenous Intellectuals: Knowledge, Power and Colonial Culture in Mexico and Andes, edited by G. Ramos and Y. Yannakakis. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Yoneda, K. (2007). “Glyphs and Messages in the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2: Chicomoztoc, Itzpapalotl and 13 Flint.” In Cave, City, and Eagle’s Nest: An Interpretive Journey Through the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2, edited by D. Carrasco and S. Sessions, 161–203. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
The Nahuatl name derives from the most disastrous sign, Ce Malinalli (“1 Twisted Grass”) of the Nahua divinatory 260-day calendar.
Spanish chroniclers called La Malinche la lengua, “the tongue” or nuestra lengua, “our tongue,” Valdeon (2014, 51).
It is not known whether La Malinche mastered the Aztec aristocratic language, tecpillahtolli, an eloquent oratory which was also used in diplomacy, in order to translate Moctezuma. See Valdeon (2014, 55–56).
Baudot (2001, 156–157). Cf. also Valdeón (2014, 52–56).
There are quite a few, although it is disputed how many, phylogenetic lineages, for example, language stocks, language families, and linguistic isolates in the Americas (cf. http://mesandlingk.eu/project), accessed April 4, 2017.
Based upon civilization theories of the sixteenth century claiming that multilingualism is a sign of barbarism quite a few of the European invaders perceived the huge linguistic diversity of the cultures of South America as uncivilized: Pagden (1982, 126–136, 180); Mannheim (1991, 36–37).
Around 42 million Indigenous people inhabit the American continent today.
Cf. Campbell (1997); Mithun (1999). Linguists have classified different Indigenous American “Sprachbunde” and linguistic areas: Campbell (1997, 330–376); Mithun (1999, 311, 297–616). General surveys of American languages can be found in Adelaar et al. (2007); Campbell (1997); Mithun (1999); Campbell and Mithun (2014). Cf. also: http://mesandlingk.eu/project, accessed April 4, 2017.
Miller (1996, 239).
Cf. Lockhart (1992, 20–28).
Swanton (2008, 347–349, 360–361).
For North America, cf. Miller (1996).
Hanke (1959, 8). In the prologue to Grámatica Nebrija had, however, already stated: “siempre la lengua ha sido compañera del imperio,” “always the language has been the companion of empire,” Hanke (1959, 127, note 31). In addition, Nebrija writes in Grámatica that “one thing I discovered and concluded with certainty is that language was always the companion of empire; therefore it follows that together they begin, grow, and flourish, and together they fall,” Rafael (1992, 23). This is an idea inspired by Lorenzo Valla’s Elegantiae claiming a Latin connection to the empire of Rome. It also was asserted in Cicero’s De senectute and later in grammars into Portuguese, Padley (1985–1988, 162, note 38); Asensio (1960).
Leavitt (2011, 43). Cf. Swann (2011) for analysis of translations of Indigenous American languages into European languages.
Kroskrity (1998, 104; 2000, 336).
Mithun (1999, 2).
Everett (2005, 621).
Everett (2005, 633–634).
Linguistic research aims to establish early and secondary linguistic and migratory relations between North America and South America. Cf. for instance Adelaar and Wichmann (2011); Brown, Wichmann and Beck (2014).
Haugen (1972, 325).
Campbell (1997, 10–13, 260–329); Mithun (1999, 311–325).
In tonal languages there can be various categories of oral cultural communication and function: whistle speech, speech, hum speech, musical speech, yell speech in Pirahã (Everett 2008, 185–189). Cf. Chinantec and other Mesoamerican whistle languages, Campbell (1997, 346, note 17).
Cf. classifications by Haugen (1972, 79–109).
Mithun (1999, 312). Cf. various lexical and grammatical borrowings of North America in Callaghan and Gamble (1996) and among North American Indigenous peoples, Foster (1996, 66–67).
Dozier (1956; 1958).
Mithun (1999, 311).
Kroskrity (1998, 104, note 2, 118–119, 105–110, 112; 2000, 331).
Quechua and Spanish are official languages of Peru.
Mannheim (1991, 24–26).
Cf. Pharo (2016; 2017).
Adelaar et al. (2007, 5).
Cf. Adelaar (1986; 2007, 34–36); Heggarty (2005); Cerron-Palomino (2008).
Mesoamerica has been defined as a cultural-geographical region incorporating the northwestern, central, and southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and the western part of Honduras and El Salvador. In this area people, like the Maya, Aztec, Olmec, Zapotec, Toltec, Tlapanec, Teotihuacano, Tarascos, Otomí, Mixtec, and so forth, lived in sophisticated urban civilizations c. 1000 BCE–1521 BC ‘Mesoamerica’ was originally outlined as a cultural and geographical unity by Paul Kirchoff in 1943, Kirchhoff (1943). Other definitions of this region have been suggested as well, cf. Carrasco (2001, ix, xiii). For a linguistic definition of Mesoamerica cf. Lyle Campbell, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas Smith-Stark (1986).
Karen Dakin gives a survey of languages and language families in Mesoamerica at the time of the European arrival, Dakin (2010, 218, fig. 1).
Dakin (2010, 222).
Miller (1996, 224).
White (1944). Cf. Mithun (1999, 318).
Saturno (2006, 8).
See Brown, Wichmann and Beck (2014); Dakin and Wichmann (2000); Kaufmann (2003); Lacadena and Wichmann (2004); Wichmann (1995; 1999a). Wichmann argues that there was an exchange of loanwords between UtoAztecan and MixeZoquean (1999b).
Taube and Bade (1991); Taube (1992, 120–121, 125–127); Whittaker (1986).
Lacadena (2010, 389–390).
It would be interesting to look into the grammatical level where there might be in some “[...] stable bilingual communities [...] accommodation between symbiotic languages, such that they cease to reflect distinct cultural worlds: their sentences approach a word-for-word translatability, which is rare among really autonomous languages,” Haugen (1972, 335).
Wright Carr (2009).
Wright Carr (2008).
Toponyms, anthroponyms, gentile nouns, “difrasismos,” and the names of social structures, animals, and plants, according to Wright Carr (2007; 2008). Thomas Smith-Stark has collected lists of calques in Mesoamerica giving evidence for linguistic diffusion in Mesoamerica. Cf. also Campbell, Kaufman and Smith-Stark (1986, 553–555).
Cf. Calvet (1987, 44–49); Ferguson (1959); Fishman (1967).
Adelaar et al. (2007, 478–479).
Archaeologists has designated the period of the lowland Maya as “classic” because of the existence of dates from the so-called Long Count calendar corresponding to c. 200–c. 900 CE found inscribed in their writing system on monumental architecture.
The constructed denomination “Maya” comprises around seven or eight million people who speak a Mayan language today (there are 29 extant Mayan languages). The various contemporary Mayan peoples constitute cultural and linguistic minorities in the Mexican states Veracruz, Tabasco, San Luis Potosí, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo, in Belize, in Guatemala, in the western parts of El Salvador and Honduras.
Cf. Martin and Grube (2000); Houston and Inomata (2009). The regents of the most prestigious dynasties are from the fourth century bearing the k’uhul ajaw (“sacred lord”) title, a title that spread to the smaller cites during the Classic period. This was to distinguish the rulers from the increasing aristocracy who came to usurp the ajaw title, Houston and Stuart (1996, 295); Martin and Grube (2000, 17).
Houston, Robertson, and Stuart (2000).
Cf. Houston and Inomata (2009).
Houston (2011, 27–28).
Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2005, 40). Cf. the thorough grammatical study by Danny Law about interaction and contact between Maya languages in the lowlands (2014).
Lacadena and Wichmann (2002, 313); Wichmann (2006a).
The Mixtec language is called Tu’un Savi “language of the rain” where tu’un can be translated as “words; talk; language; history.” Dadavi, “language of the rain” where da is a contraction from da’an, “language” and davi is “rain.” A variant is Daidavi, “sacred language of the rain” where i of dai means sacred. Da’an Ñuu Davi, “language of the Pueblo of the Rain” whereas da’an enka ñuu, “language of the other Pueblo” is used in order to describe a foreign language. In addition the verb ka’an can be employed to describe the language of the Mixtecs, López García (2008, 407–408).
There are different spellings according to the various dialects (Perez Jimenez (2008, 13).
The term “Mixtec” derives from Nahuatl mixtecatl, “Cloud People,” Whitecotton (1977, 23).
Mixtec is a tonal language with high, mid, and low tones, which probably explains the apparent identical words for different numerical coefficients. See Smith (1973, 26).
Dahlgren (1954, 282–287); Smith (1973, 23–27); Boone (2007a, 4).
The 260-day calendar consists of the combination of 13 numbers and 20-day names (13 x 20 = 260 days).
Swanton and Doesburg (1996).
The term Mixe or Mije originates from Nahuatl. The Mixe apply Ayu:k, “word” or “language,” which is etymologically connected to ha’ ’y yu:k, “people of the mountains” to identify themselves as a particular culture. See Lipp (1983, 7; 1991, 1).
Smith (1973, 23–27); Lipp (1983, 203–205; 1991, 62–63); Duinmeijer (1997, 180–181); Boone (2007a, 4). The application of the thirteen calendar numbers is today restricted to pueblos of the lowland. The calendar numbers are close to ordinal numerals of the Zoque of the same language family, for example, Mixe-Zoque, Lipp (1983, 204); Duinmeijer (1997, 181–182). The Mixe calendar numbers might have become tabooed in everyday life and therefore confined to the 260-day calendar according to Søren Wichmann, Duinmeijer (1997, 181–182).
Cf. Lipp (1983; 1991).
White (1944, 164). Cf. Miller for ceremonial rhetoric of various Indigenous cultures in North America (1996, 225, 231–232).
Rojas Martínez Gracida (2012, 122).
Campbell, Kaufman and Smith-Stark (1986, 558); Campbell (1997, 346, note 19).
Anders and Jansen (1993); Jansen and Pérez Jiménez (2010; 2011); Anders et al. (1992); Mikulska Dabrowska (2008; 2010).
Jansen (1985, 7–10).
Pérez Jiménez (2008, 220–222); López García (2007; 2008, 409–412).
López Austin (1967).
Peralta Ramírez (2004, 175).
López Austin (1967).
García Quintana (2000); Sullivan (1986); Mikulska Dabrowska (2010).
Stross (1983); López Austin and López Luján (1998). For a comparative analysis and a survey of sources to this subject cf. the work of Katarzyna Mikulska Dabrowska (2008; 2010).
Kroskrity (1998, 104, 118–119 note 2, 105–110, 112; 2000, 25, 331, 336–340).
Kroskrity (2000, 340–342). Cf. also Kroskrity (1992; 1993).
Laso de la Vega (1998, 61–89).
Poole (2001, 446–447).
Silverstein (1996, 117).
Campbell (1997, 10, 18–25, 145); Mithun (1999, 319, 322–325, 603–604).
Silverstein (1996, 118–121); Mithun (1999, 319, 322–325); Taylor (1981, 177–179).
Cf. overview in Mithun (1999); Taylor (1981).
Cf. Hämäläinen (2009); Mithun (1999, 542).
Classical Nahuatl refers to the colonial Nahuatl dialect that is generally used in documents from Central Mexico.
The Prussian scholar Alexander von Humboldt and the American historian William H. Prescott introduced the word “Aztec” to the Western public in the early nineteenth century. I apply the term “Aztec” instead of “Mexica” despite the fact that several scholars, since Robert Barlow in 1949, have pointed out that this designation is incorrect.
The term “Aztec” derives from aztecatl, “person from Aztlán.” Aztlán, which can be paraphrased as “the white place” or “the place of the herons” in Nahuatl, was the designation for their mystic place of origin. The name “Mexica” was given to the Aztecs by their patron deity, Huitzilopochtli, during their migration from Aztlán. The Aztecs or Mexica was originally a Nahuatl-speaking nomadic nation. They founded the city of Tenochtitlan, today’s Mexico City, which became the capital in the northern and central part of Mexico 1345–1521 CE, (López Austin2001); Nicholson (2002, 17).
Nahuatl-speakers reside in Federal District (Mexico City, D.F.), Durango, Guerrero, Michoacán, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Jalisco, Nayarit, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Sonora, Sinaloa, and Veracruz in Mexico, but also in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, Sandstrom (2010, 23).
Karttunen and Lockhart (1977); J. H. Hill and K. C Hill (1986); Lockhart (1992).
Robert C. Schwaller (2012) argues that Nahuatl as lingua franca varied, according to different factors, in the colonial period.
Yannakakis (2014, 83–87).
Cf. Terraciano (2015).
Schroeder (2001, 196–198).
Quechua is probably an invention by the Spaniards from qheswa simi, “valley speech,” Mannheim (1991, 6).
Cf. Pärssinen (1992).
Around two million peoples use Southern Peruvian Quechua today in the departments of Apurímac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cuzco, Huancavelica and Puno, Mannheim (1991, 4–5).
Cf. Ramos (2011, 21–23) for references to theories about the origin and dissemination of Andean languages.
Cf. Adelaar et al. (2007); Ramos (2011, 21–23); Torero (1974; 2002); Durston (2007, 37, 40–42, 190–191); Mannheim (1991, 2, 6, 9, 16–21, 34–35, 43–47, 50–51, 64, 80); Itier (2011, 74). Durston (2007, 109–110) claims that this “Standard Colonial Quechua” was a written construction by Spanish clergy used in pastoral scriptures and not a spoken language. Itier (2011) argues that this was a spoken lingua franca. Cf. Itier (2011) for summary and references to theories about Quechua as a colonial lingua franca (lengua general).
“The linguistic complexity was socially significant. For instance, in Vilcashuamán language, differences were used as one of the bases for determining the pattern of resettlement of mitmaq colonists, with Quechua speakers assigned to the temperate valleys (qheswa) and Aymara speakers assigned to contiguous high punas. In Collaguas and Cavanas (Arequipa), the Quechua-speaking Cavanas maintained a stable symbiotic relationship with the Aymara-speaking Collaguas,” Mannheim (1991, 49).
Ramos has, however, recently suggested that the Inka introduction of other linguistic groups into the Cuzco region fortified Quecha as a lingua franca. This immigration continued after the Spanish arrival, Ramos (2011, 27–28).
Mannheim (1991, 2, 16, 45–47, 49–53).
Adorno (2011, 76–77).
Adelaar (2007, 3).
Aikhenvald (2002, 16, 20–21, note 8).
Cf. Jackson (1974); Mannheim (1991, 32–33).
Cf. Frank Salomon and Sabine Hyland for examples of Indigenous American systems of graphic pluralism (2010).
The category “scriptura franca” was put forward by Florentina Badalanova Geller at the conference “Multilingualism, Linguae Francae and the Global History of Religious and Scientiﬁc Concept” at The Norwegian Institute at Athens April 3–5, 2009, organized by the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (MPIWG).
The recently discovered although not deciphered Cascajal Block found in the Olmec region of Veracruz, Mexico derives from the first millennium BCE. It represents the oldest known system of writing in the Americas, Rodríguez Martínez et al. (2006).
European missionary linguists created specific North American writing systems, that is, syllabaries for indigenous languages. Western Apache and Cherokee represent exceptions as they were constructed by indigenous people in the (post)colonial period (see below). North American indigenous literacy culture competes with the new dominating lingua franca of English (and to a lesser degree French) and Latin script as a scriptura franca. Cf. for bibliographic references Campbell (1997) and Mithun (1999, 34–36).
More than a dozen graphic systems are recognized in Mesoamerica: Ñuiñe of Mixteca Baja, Teotihuacan, Xochicalco, Chalco, Teotenango, Cacaxtla, Tula, Aztec of Central Mexico and the Mixteca Alta (Mixteca-Puebla), Mixtec, Zapotec of Oaxaca (Monte Alban; Mitla), Coztumalhuapa of Highland Guatemala, Epi-Olmec (Isthmian), and Maya, Urcid (2001, 1–4). Some of the many American writing systems are recently presented in Boone and Urton (2011).
The concept “hieroglyph” is ambiguous. It is a designation for both individual signs and combinations of signs in expressions, like words or compound of words. For example the “hieroglyph” for “to be born” incorporates three signs: SIY-ya-ja, Wichmann (2000). A more correct category for the writing system is therefore logosyllabic.
Stuart (2005, 7–8).
Lacadena (2005; 2010).
Urcid (2001; 2005); Houston and Coe (2003).
Houston, Chinchilla Mazariegos and Stuart (2001).
Houston, Robertson and Stuart (2000); Wichmann (2006b).
Houston, Robertson and Stuart (2000).
Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2002; 2005).
See also Mora-Marín (2003) and Mora-Marín, Hopkins, and Josserand (2009, 15–28). Cf. Wichmann (2006b) for a synthesis of Mayan historical linguistics and epigraphy.
Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2002, 313).
Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2002, 313–314).
Grube (1990); Lacadena (1995).
Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2002); Wichmann (2000); 2006b). Thus “Just as Mesopotamian syllabic cuneiform in the Near East was used to write not only Akkadian as the prestige written language, but also vernacular Akkadian, Hurrian and Hittite, the Maya hieroglyphic system was used for transcribing several languages [...],” Lacadena García-Gallo and Wichmann (2002, 313).
Teotihuacan is situated c. 40 km northeast of Tenochtitlan (today Mexico City), the capital of the later Aztec Empire.
Taube (2000, 1; 2004, 273, 285–287).
Language unknown but probably Nahuatl. Cf. Dakin and Wichmann (2000).
Cf. Taube (2011).
Stuart (1998, 29–32; 2000, 495–498); Martin and Grube (2000, 207–208).
Cf. Basso and Anderson (1973).
King (1996, 95).
Daniels and Bright (1996); King (1996, 97); Walker (1996, 162–167); Mithun (1999, 34–35); Coulmas (2003, 69–74); Cushman (2011).
Chrisomalis (2010, 3).
Chrisomalis (2010, 284–300). For a summary of the mathematics and numeral notation and systems in America cf. Closs (1986); Chrisomalis (2010). Numeral systems of the world languages: https://mpi-lingweb.shh.mpg.de/numeral/, accessed April 4, 2017.
Cf. Jansen and Pérez Jiménez (2010).
Boone (2000, 32).
Cf. Boone and Smith (2003).
Dibble (1971, 324).
Prem (1992, 54).
Boone (2000, 30–31).
Dibble (1971, 324).
Boone (2000, 30–35).
Boone (2000, 35–38); Dibble (1971, 324, 326).
Nicholson (1966); Umberger (1981a;1981b); Boone 2000, 41–42).
Wright Carr (2008).
Urcid (2001, 4).
Macri (2010, 207–209, figs. 15 and 16).
These are Mapas de Cuauhtinchan 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Mapa pintado en papel europeo y aforrado en el indiano. Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca written in Nahuatl (alphabet) and pictorial-logographic script has been a “Rosetta Stone” in the explication of these manuscripts, Kirchhoff et al. (1976).
Cf. Carrasco and Sessions (2007).
In the story related in MC2 the bilingual Coatzin is described as a linguistic mediator and interpreter between the Toltecs and the Chichimecs.
Ruiz Medrano (2007, 92–94); Wake (2007, 208).
Boone (2007b, 29); Yoneda (2007, 186); Wake (2007, 209–211).
Swanton (2008, 354–356).
Cf. Terraciano (2015).
Urcid (2001, 4; 2005, 5–9).
Urton (2002; 2008); Hyland (2014).
Salomon (2008, 286–287).
Sabine Hyland maintains that khipu have a logosyllabic principle (2017). Cf. below.
Cf. also Quilter and Urton (2002).
Locke (1923; 1928).
Salomon (2008, 286).
Hyland et al. (2014). Cultures in Mesoamerica used a vigesimal system.
Urton (2009, 823–824, note 10).
Salomon (2008, 288). Cf. also Salomon and Niño-Murcia (2011, 71–79).
Urton (2003, 15–26); Salomon (2008, 286).
Salomon (2008, 285). For khipu used today cf. Salomon (2008) and Salomon et al. (2011).
Urton and Brezine (2011, 321–325).
Urton and Brezine (2011, 328).
Urton and Brezine (2011, 344–345). Hyland (2014) argues that the ply directional technique was semiotic and not phonetic.
In annual reports and bulletins and other series, the Bureau of American Ethnology documents linguistics, religions, history, and traditions of indigenous peoples of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century in North America. John Wesely Powell established the Bureau of Ethnology in 1879, renamed the Bureau of American Ethnology from 1897.
Mooney (1992 ); Greene and Thornton (2007); Greene (2009).
Taylor (1996, 283–287, 289).
Cf. Clark (1982 ); Mallery (1880; 1881); West (1960).
See Mithun (1999, 292–294); Campbell (1997, 10); Wurtzburg and Campbell (1995); Taylor (1996).
Mithun (1999, 292–293); Wurtzburg and Campbell (1995, 160).
Taylor (1975, 90–93; 1991, 78–81).
Bell (1965 , 60–65).
Taylor (1975, 90; 1991, 78–79).
Bell (1965 , 62).
Bell (1965 , 62–63).
Cf. drawing on p. 64 in Bell (1965 ).
Bell (1965 , 63).
Bell (1965 , 63).
Bell (1965 , 63). An intriguing feature, not mentioned by Bell, is that a quite large tattoo was removed from the Sergeant’s chest. The tattoo was recaptured from the Cheyennes sometime later. Photographs of the deceased Sergeant and of his chest skin scalp showing the tattoo are located in the archives of the Smithsonian, Taylor (1975, 91).
Cf. Clark (1982 ).
Sign language can also accompany speech.
Farnell (1996, 589–590).
Hamell (1996, 662).
Hamell (1996, 663).
Dutch traders used wampum as money from the beginning of the seventeenth century. This was never its function among indigenous peoples. Wampum became a currency in New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In West New Jersey wampum was the main currency up to 1682. Until 1693 passengers on the ferry between New York and Brooklyn could pay for their ticket with wampum. The last known exchange of wampum as payment was a transaction in New York in 1701, but as late as 1875, Germans in Bergen, New Jersey employed wampum in trade with indigenous peoples, Hewitt (1910, 905–909).
Arnold (2011, 5). For a description of various extant wampum belts of the Haudenosaunee, cf. Tehanetorens (1999).
Arnold (2011, 6); Hewitt (1910, 907–908).
Hewitt (1910, 908). Wampum is featured in the story of the founding of the Great Binding Law of Peace, which is the beginning of the Confederacy of the Iroquois, or the Haudenosaunee, which is composed of the Seneca, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk. See Arnold (2011, 3).
Lockhart (1992, 261–325). Cf. Boone (2011, 205–219).
Ricard (1966, 104).
But cf. Burkhart (2014, 186–187, note 58).
Edgerton (2001, 28–30); Glass (1975); Galarza and Bequelín (1992).
Burkhart (2014, 186).
Edgerton (2001, 28–30).
Leibsohn (2001, 214–215); Burkhart (2014).
Mitchell and Jaye (2008, 265, 267). Cf. also Hartmann (1991); Ibarra Grasso (1948; 1953); Mitchell and Jaye (1996).
Mitchell and Jaye (2008, 266–267).
Cf. Hyland et al. (2014).
Acosta (2002 ). Cf. Urton (2009, 824–827); Salomon (2008, 295–296); Harrison (1992; 2002; 2008; 2014); Hyland et al. (2014). Cf. also http://sabinehyland.com, accessed April 4, 2017.
Urton (2009, 823–824, note 10); Pärssinen and Kiviharju (2004; 2010).
Brokaw (2010, 137–139).
Salomon (2004, 199; 2008, 290–292); Porras (1999).
Murra (1998, 55).
Salomon (2008, 286–287, 292, 297, 299–300). Khipu are kept in some villages today but only as community symbols. They are applied in corporate kin groups (ayllu). There is no evidence of people able to read or produce khipus after the mid-twentieth century: Mackey (1970; 2002); Salomon (2002; 2004; 2008, 292, 296–302); Salomonetal (2011).
Hamell (1996, 664).
Arnold (2011, 11–12).
Arnold (2011, 14).
Cf. Arnold (2011); Jemison and Schein (2000).
Arnold (2011, 1).
Adelaar et al. (2007, 478, 609).
Cf. Aaseng (1992); Durrett (2009); Meadows (2002); Robinson (2011).
The Florentine Codex is named after the manuscript’s (Ms. 218–220, Col. Palatina) present place of residence, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana of Florence, Italy.
An earlier work than The Florentine Codex is Primeros Memoriales (a name given to it later by Francisco Paso y Troncoso) (1558–1560), Sahagun (1997 , 3–4). This manuscript incorporates chapters about the rituals and gods, the heavens and the underworld, and government and human affairs.
Olwer and Cline (1974, 188).
Olwer and Cline (1974, 187–188).
Sahagun (1982 , 45–46).
Sahagun (1982 , 53–56).
Nicholson (2002, 25).
Sahagun (1982 , 53–55).
Koerner (2004, 49, 63).
Cf. Walker (1981); 1996); Goddard (1996).
See http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188&Itemid=259, accessed April 4, 2017.
Walker (1996, 164).
Walker (1996, 174); Koerner (2004, 74, note 47).
Cf. Walker (1996).
Cf. Durston (2007); Harrison (2008); 2014; Durán (1984–1990); Rivet and Crequi-Montfort (1951–1965).
Mexico, after the name of the capital Mexica-Tenochtitlan of the Aztecs, was the name the Spaniards eventually chose to denominate this country. The Aztecs, as noted, were called Mexica.
Catechisms and other doctrinal multilingua alphabetic texts in Spanish and many different Indigenous languages (cf. Contreras Garcia (1987); Resines (1992); 1997).
Cf. Doesburg and Swanton (2008).
Cf. for instance Swanton (2001) and Indo-European languages (cf. Lockhart (1992); Terraciano (2001).
Mathes (1982). Cf. the catalogue of known books in Mathes (1982).
The designation SIL derives from the first Summer Institute of Linguistics in 1934 in Arkansas, Olson (2009, 646, note 2).
WBT consists of many independent organizations and international partners, Olson (2009, 646, note 1).
The two designations, WBT and SIL, serve respectively to represent the mission for Conservative North Americans and to present an image of disinterested scholarship to Latin American authorities, according to Stoll (1990, 17).
Olson (2009, 650).
Epps and Ladley (2009).
Svelmoe (2009, 629).
Cf. SIL webpage for an outline of procedures, goals, cooperation and team roles in making the translation (http://www.sil.org/translation/bibletrans.htm), accessed April 4, 2017.
There are around 7,000 languages spoken today according to SIL reference work called Ethnologue: Languages of the World (http://www.ethnologue.com/), accessed April 4, 2017.
Hvalkof and Aaby (1981); Stoll (1982).
Svelmoe (2009, 635).
Hvalkof and Aaby (1981, 11); Stoll (1982, 237); Smalley (1991, 167).
Cf. Pharo (2017).
Mannheim (1991, 47–48); Durston (2007, 123–124).
Nahuatl; Mixteco de la Costa; Amuzgo; Chianteco Alta; Triqui de Sn Juan Copala; Mazateco; Alto, Cuicateco; Huaves; Chatino de Yaitepec; Zapoteco del Valle; Zapoteco Sierra Sur; Zapoteco del Istmo; Zapoteco de Teotitlan de Valle.
Cf. Pharo (2017).
McCleary (forthcoming in 2017).
http://www.scriptureearth.org/00i-Scripture_Index.php?sortby=country&name=MX, accessed April 4, 2017.
Cf. Pharo (2017).
Mannheim (1991, 61–63).
This also applies to the various idioms or dialects of a language. For instance, in order to make a “Unified Nahuatl” translation of the Roman Catholic Mass the discussion between Nahuatl speaking priests at the 7th Pastoral Workshop on Nahuatl Language and Culture in 2014 in Tehuipango, in the Sierra de Zongolica in Central Veracruz, Mexico, exhibited conflicting issues of grammar due to the diverse language practices of various dialects (cf. Pharao Hansen (n.d.)).
Cysouw and Wälchli (2007, 95).
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/SearchByLang.aspx, accessed April 4, 2017.
Rappaport (2005, 93–98, 235–240). Cf. Rojas Curieux (1997; 2001).
Table of Contents
Markham J. Geller, Jens Braarvig
Markham J. Geller, Jens Braarvig
Part I: General Reflections
2 Dependent Languages
Part II: Europe
4 Konrad of Megenberg: German Terminologies and Expressions as Created on Latin Models
5 What Language Does God Speak?
Florentina Badalanova Geller
6 Islamic Mystical Poetry and Alevi Rhapsodes From the Village of Sevar, Bulgaria
Florentina Badalanova Geller
Part III: Ancient Near East
8 Sumerian in the Middle Assyrian Period
9 The Concept of the Semitic Root in Akkadian Lexicography
Markham J. Geller
10 Multilingualism in the Elamite Kingdoms and the Achaemenid Empire
12 Some Observations on Multilingualism in Graeco-Roman Egypt
Alexandra von Lieven
Part IV: India and Central Asia
14 Aspects of Multilingualism in Turfan as Seen in Manichaean Texts
Part V: China
15 Multilingualism and Lingua Franca in the Ancient Chinese World
William G. Boltz
Part VI: The Americas
18 Multilingualism and Lingua Francae of Indigenous Civilizations of America
Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo
This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany (cc by-nc-sa 3.0) Licence.