Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.

Behind the Mexican Mountains: Recent Developments

and New Directions in Research on Uto-Aztecan
Languages
Gabriela Caballero*
University of California, San Diego

Abstract
Featuring considerable diversity and one of the oldest and richest traditions of historical and
descriptive research in the Americas, Uto-Aztecan languages have played an important role in the
development of general methods in linguistic classification and reconstruction and the develop-
ment of typological and theoretical research. However, despite being one of the best-studied lan-
guage families in the Americas, there are still important gaps in our knowledge about these
languages. The goal of this paper is twofold: (i) to survey some recent developments in the study
of Uto-Aztecan languages, and (ii) to outline some of the gaps in our knowledge and where new
research on these languages is headed. This paper focuses on the Uto-Aztecan languages of North-
ern Mexico: although these languages have received growing attention in recent years, they
remain largely under-described. And while they are still spoken by large and vibrant speech com-
munities, the languages of this area are increasingly vulnerable to the escalating pressures imposed
by the Spanish speaking population, making the task of carrying out deep and comprehensive lan-
guage documentation both still possible and urgent. This paper argues that deepening our under-
standing of Uto-Aztecan languages, especially those of Northern Mexico, will not only positively
contribute to community-based efforts of language maintenance, it will also provide crucial keys
to linguistic typology, developing linguistic theories, as well as the reconstruction of the linguistic
and cultural past of the Americas.

1. Introduction
Every reference to the Uto-Aztecan language family begins by describing it as the largest
language family in the Americas in terms of its geographical extension (from the Great
Basin to El Salvador and Nicaragua), its number of languages (with approximately 60
varieties currently spoken) and its number of speakers (with Nahuatl varieties alone spo-
ken by more than a million people; INEGI 2005) (Campbell 1997; Miller 1983b; Mithun
1999). Spanning several cultural areas of the American continent, Uto-Aztecan languages
have a time-depth of between 4000 and 5000 years (Campbell 1997; Fowler 1983; Hill
2010a; Silver and Miller 1997; Steele 1983). Table 1 provides a non-exhaustive list of
Uto-Aztecan language varieties, their sub-grouping (to the extent it is uncontroversial),
location where currently (or formerly) spoken, and number of speakers (as reported in
the ethnologue (Lewis 2009), unless otherwise noted).
Given its time-depth and widespread geographical distribution, the Uto-Aztecan lan-
guage family displays considerable diversity in terms of typological properties. This diver-
sity, involving morphological systems, phonological patterns and syntactic structures, was
noted early on in the history of Uto-Aztecan studies (Sapir 1921; Whorf 1935). Recur-
rent Uto-Aztecan features include a predominance of suffixation, head-marking (Nichols

ª 2011 The Author

Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
486 Gabriela Caballero

Table 1. Uto-Aztecan language family (Campbell 1997; Langacker 1977a,b; Mithun 1999).

Branch Language Location Number of speakers

Numic Mono California 39

Northern Paiute Nevada, Oregon, California and 1630
Idaho
Panamint California 20
Shoshone Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and 2910
Utah
Comanche Oklahoma 200
Kawaiisu California 5
Southern Paiute Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and 1980
Utah
Tubatulabal Tubatulabal California 6
Hopi Hopi Arizona, Utah and New Mexico 5260
Takic Serrano California 1
Kitanemuk California No speakers left
Cahuilla California 14
Cupeño California No speakers left
Luiseño California 35
Tepiman Tohono O’odham Arizona and Sonora 9600
Pima Sonora, Chihuahua and Arizona 1000
Northern Tepehuan Chihuahua 6200
Southern Tepehuan Durango 19,300
Taracahitan Yaqui Sonora and Arizona 14,000
Mayo Sonora and Sinaloa 40,000
Rarámuri (Tarahumara) Chihuahua 95,200
Guarijı́o Sonora and Chihuahua 2840
Opata Sonora No speakers left
Tubar Chihuahua No speakers left
Corachol Cora Nayarit 15,000
Huichol Nayarit and Jalisco 20,000
Aztecan Nahuatl (approximately Puebla, Veracruz, Hidalgo, 1,448,936 (INEGI 2005)
30 varieties) San Luis Potosı́, Guerrero,
Estado de México, Tlaxcala,
Morelos, Durango, Michoacán
Pipil El Salvador 20
Pochutec Oaxaca No speakers left

1986), instrumental prefixes, polysynthesis,1 and the presence of reduplication, truncation,

and compounding patterns (Haugen 2008b; Sapir 1921; Whorf 1935). An early goal of
Uto-Aztecan studies was to identify the internal classification of the languages and to
reconstruct the common ancestor through the comparison of these shared structures (Hale
1958; Kroeber 1907; Lamb 1964; Sapir 1913, 1915; Voegelin et al. 1962). Uto-Aztecan
historical research continues to be a vibrant area of inquiry; in addition to being con-
cerned with classification and reconstruction, it has also been driven by questions pertain-
ing to the general mechanisms of language change.
A significant body of research has also been devoted to identifying the theoretical and
typological implications of Uto-Aztecan language structures for general linguistic theories.
In addition to the typological features mentioned above, most Uto-Aztecan languages also
possess complex morphologies, typologically unusual word prosodic systems, multiple
prosodic morphology patterns and morphologically conditioned phonology, exuberant
derivational morphological marking, rich sets of morphosyntactic operations, complex

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 487

clause structures, and other grammatical phenomena that are of great typological and
theoretical interest.
With a wealth and breadth of work which spans descriptive, theoretical, typological,
and historical questions, this review does not aspire to be exhaustive or cover the vast lit-
erature that has been produced about this language family in almost 500 years of scholar-
ship. Rather, this paper will survey some recent developments and trends in research on
these languages, and it will outline some of the gaps in our knowledge and in which
directions future research is headed. As discussed in the sections below, these new direc-
tions go beyond theoretically and typologically oriented research, to include the linguistic
and cultural past of the Americas, as well as the production of language documentation
which may positively contribute to community-based initiatives of cultural and linguistic
maintenance both north and south of the US–Mexico border.

2. Historical Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages

The first records of Uto-Aztecan languages, like many indigenous languages of the Amer-
icas, were created during the colonial period by missionary priests concerned with the
religious conversion of the indigenous populations of the New World. In the case of the
viceroyalty of New Spain, grammatical description began in what is now Central Mexico,
gradually moving northward as the colony sought to found settlements in the northern
provinces. Horacio Carochi’s (1645) grammar of Nahuatl, one of the best descriptions of
its time and a document that served as a model for grammatical description in the rest of
the Americas, was the most prominent product of this period. In the following years
more northern Uto-Aztecan languages began to be recorded in the form of grammars,
dictionaries and vocabularies, which varied greatly in terms of their quality and complete-
ness. Some documents created during this early stage include: Basilio’s (1645) grammar
and vocabulary of Cahita (also published as Buelna 1890)2; Guadalajara’s (1683) Raramuri
(Tarahumara) grammar; Lombardo (1702) [Guzmán Betancourt 2009] and Barbastro’s
(1792) descriptions of Ópata; Rinaldini’s (1743) Northern Tepehuan grammar and vocab-
ulary; Ortega’s (1732) Cora vocabulary; and Pinart’s (1879) Tohono O’odham (formerly
known as Papago) vocabulary.
During the 20th century, grammars, texts, and lexica of previously unstudied varie-
ties continued to be produced.3 As the growing number of grammatical descriptions
began to reveal the recurrent patterns and structures of this group of languages, a
strong interest in historical change developed: a large body of research was devoted to
the comparison of lexical, morphological, and (mostly) phonological patterns in order
to reconstruct the common ancestor and to establish the internal classification of the
language family (Hale 1958; Kroeber 1907; Lamb 1964; Miller 1967; Sapir 1913, 1915;
Voegelin et al. 1962; Whorf 1935). However, despite the increasing number of
descriptions of Uto-Aztecan varieties at the time, no consensus could be reached as to
the division of the family into a Northern and a Southern branch, a subject that
remains controversial until today: while Northern Uto-Aztecan (which includes the
Numic, Tübatulabal, Takic and Hopi branches) has been generally recognized as a valid
genetic unit (Heath 1978; Manaster Ramer 1992), there is still debate regarding the
status of the southern languages (the Taracahitan, Tepiman, Tubar and Corachol-
Aztecan branches) as an equivalently valid unit (Campbell and Langacker 1978; Cortina
Borja and Valiñas Coalla 1989; Hill 2001a,b; Kaufman 1974a,b; Miller 1983a,b, 1984).
Internal classification at the level of lower level sub-groups has also attracted attention
(De Wolf 2001; Lionnet 1977, 1985, for instance, have approached the question of the

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
488 Gabriela Caballero

relationship between Taracahitan languages and other Southern languages; Silver and
Miller 1997), but it has been the larger sub-groupings that have remained the most
controversial. For detailed reviews of this debate, see Campbell (1997) and Haugen
(2008b).4
The question of determining the internal classification of the family has recently been
approached through novel methodologies: Cortina Borja et al. (2002), building on Cor-
tina Borja and Valiñas Coalla (1989), make a statistical and multivariate analysis of data
from 19 Uto-Aztecan languages in order to determine their relationship in low-level and
higher sub-groupings. Through comparison of both lexical and phonological data, they
established similarity matrices between the languages in their sample and found evidence
for a significant difference between Northern- and Southern-Uto-Aztecan languages, as
well as the status of particular branches within both of these larger groupings (through
measures of individuality and similarity of particular languages in particular sub-branches).
Given its size, its geographical distribution, and number of languages described, the
Uto-Aztecan language family is a good testing case for statistic and graph-theoretic
methodologies and the application of computational methods in determining language
classification.
In addition to classification, recent publications continue to focus on diachronic pho-
nology (e.g., Dakin 1996; Manaster Ramer 1992, 1997; Miller et al. 2005; Shaul 2000;
Stubbs 1995), morphological reconstruction (e.g., Dakin 2004; Haugen 2008a; Toosar-
vandani 2010; Valiñas-Coalla 2008), and syntactic change (e.g., Campbell 1987; Haugen
2007, 2008b; Jelinek 1998, 2003). New diachronic research, as in the earliest
Uto-Aztecan tradition, continues to be driven by questions pertaining to the general
mechanisms of linguistic change. An example of such a question is raised in Babel et al.
(forthcoming): are shared innovations of related languages the result of descent from a
common ancestor or rather the product of diffusion through already differentiated vari-
eties? This question is addressed by Babel et al. through the study of Western Numic
dialects, a set of language varieties for which a reasonable amount of documentation
exists (Lamb 1957; Liljeblad 1966; Nichols 1974; Norris 1986; Snapp et al. 1982;
Thornes 2003). The comparative analysis reveals that these varieties are defined by a set
of lexical, phonological, and morphological innovations. Crucially, the geographic dis-
tribution of these shared innovations does not completely match the boundaries across
dialects, supporting the thesis that they originated through diffusion after the Western
Numic varieties had already become distinct. As Babel et al. note, diffusion of features
had already been documented specifically for the Numic family (most recently in
McLaughlin 2000); what this new research shows, however, is that diffusion did not
involve a single phonological change, but rather a significant number of features across
a well established boundary (Babel et al. forthcoming). The Western Numic case thus
contributes a relevant case to research devoted to the dynamics of language change
brought about by language contact and general mechanisms involved in language differ-
entiation.
More recently, Uto-Aztecan historical research has also focused on the prehistoric past
of the Americas and the Proto-Uto-Aztecan speech community. This area of inquiry
involves an interdisciplinary effort, where archeological, historical, anthropological,
genetic, and linguistic evidence are taken together to determine the location of the
Proto-Uto-Aztecan community homeland and subsequent population movements. Jane
Hill’s (2001a,b) proposal that speakers of Proto-Uto-Aztecan were maize cultivators
located in Mesoamerica confronts the longer-held view that they were foraging peoples
located in the US Southwest and Northern Mexico (Campbell 1997; Fowler 1983; Miller

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 489

1983a,b, 1984). In her model of northward expansion (supported also in Dakin (2003,
2004) and Dakin and Wichmann (2000)), Hill provides linguistic evidence in the form of
early cognates of water management and cultivation in southern and northern languages
(especially Hopi), suggesting that agriculture-related vocabulary was present in Uto-Azte-
can before the break-up of the northern and southern branches. Most recent arguments
against this proposal are found in Merrill et al. (2009), who argue that the available arche-
ological evidence (new radiocarbon dates on maize macrofossils) support the hypothesis
that maize cultivation spread from Mesoamerica to the Southwest area only after the
breakup of Proto-Uto-Aztecan.5 While archeological and genetic evidence will continue
to play an important role in this debate, linguistic evidence in the form of water manage-
ment and cultivation cognate forms of under-described Uto-Aztecan varieties is crucial in
determining the original Uto-Aztecan ecosystem and history of dispersal of its speakers
(Hill 2010b).

3. Phonology and Morphology

Description of particular phonological and morphological systems has traditionally
received a great deal of attention in Uto-Aztecan studies (some examples include Sapir
1930 (Southern Paiute); Saxton 1963 (Tohono O’odham); Hale 1965 (Tohono O’od-
ham); McMahon 1967 (Cora); and McLaughlin 1987 (Panamint)). A well-known phono-
logical phenomenon of the family is consonant gradation, synchronically active in the
Numic branch. In Numic consonant gradation, there is a threefold alternation that affects
consonants intra-morphemically or across morpheme boundaries (a phenomenon termed
‘final features’ in the Uto-Aztecanist literature): consonants are lenis, fortis or nasal (‘spir-
antizing’, ‘geminating’ and nasal, respectively, in terms of Sapir (1930)). In the Southern
Paiute example in (1), the adjectival verb suffix -qa, is either lenis (-Va-) (1a), fortis (-q:a-)
(1b) or nasal (-Nqa) (1c), depending on the preceding root morpheme (for more details
about consonant gradation in Numic and Uto-Aztecan, see Sapir (1930), Nichols (1974),
Miller (1982), and Miller et al. (2005)).
(1) Southern Paiute consonant gradation
a. aNqa¢-Va- ‘red-VERB-’ ‘to be red’
b. qU ‘tca’-q:a- ‘gray-VERB-’ ‘to be gray’
c. paı̈ ¢-Nqa ‘smooth-VERB-’ ‘to be smooth’
(Sapir 1930: 63)

Some phenomena have received a larger share of attention in recent years, since
they pose interesting analytical puzzles and challenge the empirical predictions of
developing theories of phonology and morphology. These phenomena can be grouped
in three general areas: the phonology–morphology interface, prosodic morphology, and
prosody.
Uto-Aztecan languages are ripe with phonological patterns that are exclusively found
in particular morphological environments. An example can be found in River Guarijı́o
(Taracahitan). In River Guarijı́o, the mid-close front vowel [e] and the low front vowel
[a] raise to [i] only in certain morphological constructions, including the present tense -na
suffix, the past participle -a suffix, the reportative = ra clitic, among other constructions
(Miller 1996a: 56).6 In the examples of morphologically conditioned raising in (2), the
raised vowel is root final.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
490 Gabriela Caballero

(2) River Guarijı́o morphologically conditioned vowel raising

a. ne¢né-na ‘see-PRS’
b. ne¢nı́-a ‘see-PST.PTCP’
c. ne¢nı́-o ‘see-WHEN’
d. ihkóge-na ‘give.away-PRS’
e. ihkógi-a ‘give.away-PST.PTCP’
f. ihkógi-o ‘give.away-WHEN’
(Miller 1996a: 55)

Another example can be found in Tohono O’odham (Tepiman). In Tohono O’odham,

the leftmost syllable bears primary stress, and secondary stress is assigned in alternating,
odd-syllables (Fitzgerald 1997; Zepeda 1983). Crucially, the distribution of secondary
stress is determined by the morphology, since stress may be word final only if the word is
polymorphemic. This contrast is illustrated in (3) and (4) (Fitzgerald 1997, 2002; Yu
2000).7
(3) Stress assignment in Tohono O’odham monomorphemic words (no final
stress allowed)
a. músigo ‘musician’ (from Sp. músico)
b. /ásuga¤ ‘sugar’ (from Sp. azúcar)
c. páko/ò¤a ‘Pascola dancer’ (from Sp. Pascual )
(Fitzgerald 2002: 255)

(4) Stress assignment in Tohono O’odham polymorphemic words (final stress

allowed)
a. pı́-pibà ‘PL-pipe’ (from Sp. pipa)
b. /ásugà¤-t ‘make.sugar-IMPF’ (from Sp. azúcar)
c. mú-msigò ‘PL-musician’ (from Sp. músico)
(Fitzgerald 2002: 255)

Phenomena such as River Guarijı́o vowel raising and Tohono O’odham stress assignment
make good testing grounds for the empirical adequacy of developing theories of the pho-
nology–morphology interface. The Tohono O’odham case, for instance, has raised con-
troversy as to its proper treatment in Optimality-Theoretic frameworks. Fitzgerald (1997,
2002) analyzes this case as derived through a single phonological grammar (a version of
Indexed-Constraint Theory (Alderete 2001; Benua 1997; McCarthy and Prince 1995;
Pater 2000, 2007); in her analysis, the asymmetry between monomorphemic and poly-
morphemic contexts in terms of stress assignment is dealt with through the introduction
of a special morphological constraint which requires every morpheme to bear stress. For
Yu (2000), on the other hand, this case shows the need for positing that stress is assigned
cyclically; morphological conditioning on stress assignment is modeled through multiple
phonological grammars or cophonologies associated with specific constructions within the
morphological constituent structure (Anttila 2002; Inkelas and Zoll 2005; Orgun 1996).
Another hallmark property of Uto-Aztecan languages is the presence of complex
prosodic morphology patterns. A well-known phenomenon in the language family is
subtractive truncation, an a-templatic process that yields shortening of a morphological
constituent where the lost material is of a determined phonological shape or size (Bat-El

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 491

2002; Weeda 1992).8 Subtractive truncation is highly relevant for synchronic theories of
word structure, since it strongly challenges the classical notion of ‘morpheme’, and theo-
ries that rely on arguments based on an additive component (e.g., Generalized Template
Theory; McCarthy and Prince 1994). An example of subtractive truncation can be found
in Southeastern Tepehuan (Tepiman). Southeastern Tepehuan past tense verbs can be
either imperfective or perfective. Perfective aspect is marked by subtracting a final CV
syllable from imperfective stems. This is exemplified in (5) (deleted material is in bold-
face):
(5) Southeastern Tepehuan perfective truncation
Imperfective Perfective
a. ma/gooñi ma/goo ‘get tired’
b. huruñdza huruñ ‘sojourn’
c. hoohoidza hoohoi ‘look at’
d. sava/ñcidza sava/ ñci ‘buy for’
(Willet 1991: 28)

Another prosodic morphology phenomenon that has taken a fair share of the spotlight is
reduplication. Uto-Aztecan languages have complex reduplication systems that offer inter-
esting analytical puzzles and challenges, the solution of which have relevant implications
for theories of reduplication. For instance, Pima (Tepiman) exhibits a reduplication pat-
tern where the reduplicant is either C- or CV- depending on phonotactic conditions: the
C- reduplicant is preferred unless an illicit coda or coda cluster would result (Riggle
2006). What is unusual about this case is the fact that in words with diphthongs in the
word-initial syllable the default is reversed and the CV- reduplicant preferred, even
though no phonotactic restrictions would be violated. Riggle analyzes this reduplication
pattern as infixing and attributes reduplicant size variation to several emergent phonotac-
tic restrictions in the language.
Other interesting reduplication patterns are found in Taracahitan languages. In Yaqui,
habitual aspect is marked through a reduplicative prefix that exhibits variation that is
dependent on the syllabic status of the material from the base: a coda of the first syllable
of the stem may be the coda of the reduplicant, but an onset of the second syllable of the
base may not (Haugen 2003, 2009). This ‘syllable copy’ reduplication is illustrated in
(6 and 7) (reduplicative prefixes are boldfaced):
(6) Yaqui syllable copy reduplication: CV.CV- stems

a. vu.sa vu.vu.sa vus.vu.sa ‘awaken’
b. he.wi.te he.he.wi.te hew.he.wi.te ‘agree’
(Haugen 2009: 507)

(7) Yaqui syllable copy reduplication: CVC.CV- stems


a. vam.se vam.vam.se va.vam.se ‘hurry’
b. bwal.ko.te bwal.bwal.ko.te bwa.bwal.ko.te ‘soften, smooth’
(Haugen 2009: 508)

In Mayo, a variety closely related to Yaqui, there is also variation as to what may be the
base for reduplication, either the first syllable of the stem (e.g., from nó.ka, ‘know a lan-
guage’, nón.no.ka) or the full stem (or first foot) (e.g., from no.ká, ‘speak’, nok.nó.ka)
(Haugen 2009: 512). This variation is dependent on the accentual class of the stem (for

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
492 Gabriela Caballero

details, see Hagberg 1993). One general implication from the analysis of the Pima, Yaqui
and Mayo reduplication patterns is that they raise the question of what may serve as the
base for reduplication, and what are possible limits in variation on differential assignment
of bases in different morphological and phonological contexts within a single language
(Haugen 2009: 505).
Prosodic morphology and morphologically conditioned phonological patterns have also
been examined in detail in Cupeño (Alderete 2001; Hill and Hill 1968), Southeastern
Tepehuan (Kager 1997; Willett 1982, 1991), Mayo (Hagberg 1989, 1993), Tohono
O’odham (Fitzgerald 2000, 2001, 2002; Fitzgerald and Fountain 1995; Hill and Zepeda
1992; Yu 2000), Guarijı́o (Caballero 2006; Miller 1996a), Cora (Vázquez-Soto 2000),
Yaqui (Haugen 2003, 2009), and Rarámuri (Caballero 2008, 2010a).
Finally, research on phonology has covered a broad range of issues, but a strong
emphasis has been placed on word prosody. Uto-Aztecan languages have been docu-
mented to have a wide variety of stress-accent systems. Some recurrent features of these
systems include lexical stress, iterative stress assignment, left-edge alignment, and window
restrictions (Munro 1977). The development of lexical tone, as well as the interaction of
pitch with lexical stress-accent has also been documented in a number of Uto-Aztecan
languages, including Huichol (Corachol; Grimes 1959), Northern Tepehuan (Tepiman;
Bascom 1959; Woo 1970), Hopi (Manaster Ramer 1986), Yaqui (Tarachitan; Demers
et al. 1999), Mayo (Taracahitan; Hagberg 1989, 2006), and Rarámuri (Tarahumara)
(Taracahitan; Caballero 2010b). Most recently, research on word-prosodic systems is con-
cerned with identifying the acoustic correlates of stress-accent and tone: a detailed study of
two closely related dialects of Balsas Nahuatl (spoken in the Mexican state of Guerrero)
shows that these varieties, which have historical penultimate stress accents, are in the
process of developing lexical tone (Guion et al. 2010). Comparison of the two varieties
suggests that the source of lexical tone is the loss of a breathy-voiced [s] coda (a develop-
ment also proposed for Hopi; Manaster Ramer 1986). Specifically, in Balsas Nahuatl a
lower pitch associated with this breathy-voiced coda is being reinterpreted as a high pitch
in the preceding syllable, with a resulting high-low tonal contour. The two varieties are
at different stages of phonologization of this co-articulatory effect and in this process they
are going through a transitional ‘hybrid’ stage, in which there is both stress-accent and
tone in their word prosodic systems. Crucially, stress-accent and tone display a dissimila-
tory interaction, where words with innovated lexical tones shift stress-accent from the
penultimate to the final syllable. While systems where stress and tone interact are not rare
(Hyman 2006), the specific kind of interaction attested in Balsas Nahuatl had not been
documented before (Guion et al. 2010: 25). Further research into the acoustic correlates
of word level prominence in other Uto-Aztecan varieties will reveal more clues about
the development of tone in this language family, and will contribute more generally to
growing efforts of documentation of prosody of endangered and understudied languages
(Himmelmann 2006) and to the development of word prosodic typology (Hyman 2006).

4. Morphosyntax and Syntax

While phonology and morphology have occupied a more prominent role in Uto-Aztecan
studies, descriptive and theoretical research on Uto-Aztecan languages has also been con-
cerned with the morphosyntactic properties and syntactic structures of these languages.
Some recurrent morphosyntactic and syntactic features include: SOV word order, auxiliary
clitic sequences, bound pronominal markers (affixes or clitics) for subject ⁄ object agree-
ment, nominative-accusative case marking, suppletive verb stems that trigger agreement

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 493

with the object, denominal and deverbal morphology, compounding, and a rich system of
argument-structure changing morphology (Harley et al. 2009; Haugen 2008b; Langacker
1977a). Consistent with the trend of earlier decades, much of the research on syntax was
descriptive and had a historical ⁄ comparative bent (e.g., Jeanne and Hale 1989; Langacker
and Munro 1975) or was squarely focused on syntactic reanalysis and change (e.g.,
Campbell 1987; Jacobs 1972; Langacker 1977b; Seiler 1985; Steele 1975, 1976, 1977).
Research on synchronic aspects of these structures, on the other hand, has ranged from
descriptive accounts to more theoretical analyses, both from functionalist (e.g., Estrada
Fernández et al. 2007) and generative perspectives (e.g., Jelinek 1984).
Some Uto-Aztecan syntactic and morphosyntactic constructions have become highly
visible in the typological and theoretical literature, due to the prominence of particular
studies in morphosyntactic theory and generative syntax. One example comes from
Tohono O’odham, which is argued to instantiate a type of non-configurational language
with a split case system (Jelinek 1984). Another example is Nahuatl noun incorporation,
which is given as a canonical example of Mithun’s Type III (‘discourse manipulation’)
incorporation in the typological and theoretical literature (Baker 1996; Mithun 1984,
1986; Rosen 1989). In Nahuatl, only a noun that has become old information in
discourse may form a morphological unit with the verb root (as in (8b)):
(8) a. kanke eltok kočillo? Na¢ ni-¢-neki amanci
where is knife I I-it-want now
‘Where is the knife? I want it now.’
b. ya¢ ki-kočillo-tete¢ki panci
he (he)it-knife-cut bread
‘He cut the bread with it (the knife)’
(Mithun 1984: 861)

There are less visible examples of Uto-Aztecan morphosyntactic patterns in the theoretical
literature, which nonetheless pose interesting analytical challenges. For instance, patterns
of prosodic morphology (some aspects of which were discussed in Section 3) have also
been examined from the point of view of their morphosyntactic and semantic proper-
ties. In Yaqui, there are multiple reduplicative allomorphs and multiple reduplication
constructions associated with different meanings, including habitual aspect, progressive ⁄
continuative aspect, and emphatic. More infrequently, reduplication also marks agreement
with a plural argument or a ‘change of state’ interpretation for some stative verbs.
Crucially, reduplicative allomorphy and the meanings of reduplication interact largely as
independent systems. That is, it is not possible to predict the meaning of a construction
from the shape of the reduplicant (Harley and Florez-Leyva 2009: 255).
Recent research has gravitated strongly towards argument structure and its interaction
with voice and transitivity. As noted above, Uto-Aztecan languages have robust systems
of argument structure changing morphology, including reflexive, causative, reciprocal,
applicative, passive, and impersonal marking. The morphological properties of these
systems have been addressed in most grammatical descriptions with varying degrees of
exhaustiveness. Most recently, however, there has been an interest in describing these
systems in detail and in identifying the semantic properties of each type of construction,
especially in relation to how each of these constructions is sensitive to the aspectual
properties of events. In this respect, Uto-Aztecan varieties offer an ideal testing ground
for competing theories of argument linking and the semantic structure of verbs, which

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
494 Gabriela Caballero

differ in the predicted contribution of temporal structure and causal structure of events
(e.g., Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). For descriptive
analysis of argument structure changing operations in Uto-Aztecan languages, see Bascom
(1996), Escalante (1990), Estrada Fernandez (2003, 2005, 2007), Felix Armendariz (2007),
Guerrero (2007), Launey (2002), Vázquez Soto (2002b), Voegelin and Voegelin (1967)
and Willet (2006, 2007).
Other recent research on morphosyntax ad syntax has focused on clause structure and
clause combination (Estrada Fernández 1991; Guerrero 2006, 2008, forthcoming; Marti-
nez Fabian 2005; Peralta Ramı́rez 2004; Vázquez-Soto 2002a), quantification and posses-
sion (Jelinek 2003; Munro 1984), inflectional morphology (Shaul 1990), and secondary
predication (Vázquez-Soto 2004a). There has also been an upsurge in interest in syntactic
structures within the larger context of information structure (e.g., Guerrero and Belloro
2010; Vázquez-Soto 2004b) and discourse analysis (e.g., Carrillo-Carrillo 2010; Montes
de Oca 2006, 2007; Payne 1987), although Uto-Aztecan syntactic research is still largely
confined to the lexical and clause levels.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that there is a great deal of syntactic and morphosyn-
tactic research that is currently undreway in Mexico. This work is characterized by the
analysis of data obtained through field research and by being mostly framed in a func-
tional perspective. While some of this research appears on international publications and
gets widely disseminated, a fair amount of this good quality work is not easily accessible,
either because it exists only in the form of unpublished manuscripts or conference presen-
tations, or because it is published and distributed locally.

5. Language Documentation and Language Endangerment

The previous sections have highlighted recent trends and new directions of research on
historical, typological and theoretical aspects of Uto-Aztecan languages. Research agendas
in this language family have, however, gone beyond the long-standing questions of inter-
nal classification and the description and analysis of basic structures and features, to
include issues on language contact (Carrillo-Carrillo and Estrada-Fernández 2006; Dedrick
1977; Flores Farfán 1999; Hill and Hill 2004; Hinton 1991; Silver and Miller 1997;
Yáñez 2007), language attitudes and language identity (Hill and Hill 1986), language and
gender (Hill and Zepeda 1999), language shift and language resistance (Flores Farfán
2001; Hill 1983; Moctezuma Zamarrón 1998a,b), and bilingualism and bilingual educa-
tion (Flores Farfán 2001, 2005). There is thus a growing body of work that seeks to situ-
ate these languages in larger-scale processes and to understand their structures within their
historical, cultural, and social contexts.
In this vein of work, the study of Uto-Aztecan languages has been recently concerned
with language documentation, as part of a shift in the paradigm of field linguistics that
has been taking place in recent years. This shift involves moving from ‘traditional’ gram-
matical description, which generally involves the production of a grammar, a dictionary,
and a collection of texts, to more comprehensive language documentation, the ‘making
and keeping of records of the world’s languages and their patterns of use’ (Woodbury
2003: 35). This paradigm shift stems from a growing concern about the threat of lan-
guage endangerment across the globe and awareness of stakeholders beyond linguistics
and academia (Himmelmann 1998; Woodbury 2003). Language attrition and language
shift in the Americas, as in the rest of the world, has been taking place at an accelerated
rate in recent times, as the social, cultural, and economic processes that lead to language
shift intensify due to the so-called ‘global-village’ phenomenon (Romaine 2007).

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 495

Language shift and obsolescence has critically affected the Uto-Aztecan language family
since the time of European contact: the expansion of the colonial and missionary settle-
ments implied a slow, but effective linguistic genocide. Although these processes continue
to affect all Uto-Aztecan languages both north and south of the border, this section
focuses on the languages of Northern Mexico, since they remain largely under-described,
despite the growing attention they have received in recent years. This section, thus, gives
a more detailed account of the extent of language attrition of these languages and weighs
the consequences of their potential loss.
Language extinction was particularly striking in Northern Mexico, where several lan-
guages were extinct by the 18th century (Miller 1983a; for a detailed discussion of extinct
languages of possible Uto-Aztecan affiliation, see Campbell 1997). In what is now the
Mexican state of Sonora, for instance, a specific policy of favoring ‘major’ indigenous lan-
guages (those with larger number of speakers) over ‘smaller’ languages as the means of
instruction and communication in the settlements founded by the missionaries resulted in
a situation of accelerated language shift; many languages of presumed Uto-Aztecan (possi-
bly Cahitan) affiliation thus disappeared without any trace, except a record of their names
(Moctezuma Zamarrón 2007). After the establishment of the modern nations, each coun-
try adopted a set of policies that continued affecting the vitality of the languages of the
region. The linguistic policy of the Mexican government in the last two centuries has
been critical in deepening this process of language shift, since it has involved great pres-
sures to assimilate indigenous populations to mainstream society (Garza Cuarón 1995).9
In addition to having a high rate of language extinction, Northern Mexico is an area
that has lagged behind the rest of North America in terms of linguistic description ⁄ docu-
mentation. There is a pronounced asymmetry in terms of the amount of description
available for northern and southern Uto-Aztecan languages, with the notable exception
of Nahuatl (for a review of the breath and depth of linguistic and philological research on
Nahuatl, see Hernández de León Portilla 1998). As mentioned above, northern languages
(including those of Northern Mexico) have been described since the 17th century in the
form of grammars, dictionaries, vocabularies, and texts (cf. Section 2). However, the pro-
duction of grammatical descriptions in Northern Mexico during the colony was not as
abundant as in the rest of Mexico, and many of the descriptions produced were never
published, and some were even eventually lost.10
In recent decades, there has been an increase on descriptive research on these languages,
motivated by their historical, typological and theoretical relevance. Detailed linguistic
descriptions and analyses of nuanced aspects of constructions and structures are, however,
still missing for most varieties of this area, as well as documents with extensive annotations
or collections of examples from context (a fact that is also true of many northern
languages). The amount of grammatical description is, on the other hand, in inverse
proportion to the numbers of speakers of these languages: while many languages north of
the US–Mexico border have few speakers and many have gone extinct in the last century,
languages south of the border still have vibrant speech communities (Campbell 1997;
Moctezuma Zamarrón 2007).
Despite their relatively large number of speakers, there are several factors that suggest
that the domains of usage of the Uto-Aztecan languages of Northern Mexico are
contracting at a fast pace, threatening their inter-generational transmission. Crucially,
communities of speakers of this area are being affected by the rapid socio-political changes
affecting the region, which include increased levels of drug-related violence and political
instability. For instance, consider the case of Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Rarámuri, spoken
by more than 90,000 people in the Mexican state of Chihuahua (Lewis 2009), is the

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
496 Gabriela Caballero

second largest Uto-Aztecan language (and one of the largest in Mexico in terms of
number of speakers). Language decline has, however, been documented in varying degrees
in several Rarámuri communities. Some communities display interrupted intergenerational
transmission of the language, while some others remain completely monolingual. Most
communities present an intermediate situation with varying levels of bilingualism
(Paccioto 1996). Extreme marginalization of speaker communities has already triggered
contraction of domains of usage of the language, and it is possible to speculate that
language shift might occur relatively quickly in some areas. Similar situations of language
contraction and rapid shift have been documented for other Uto-Aztecan languages of the
area (e.g., see Moctezuma Zamarrón (1998a,b) for a description of the language shift
process underway for Cahitan languages). In sum, as many other minority languages of
Mexico, the Uto-Aztecan languages of Northern Mexico are increasingly vulnerable to
the escalating pressures imposed by the Spanish speaking population.
There are thus several reasons that call for the urgent documentation of Uto-Aztecan
languages, especially those of Northern Mexico. This new documentation will hopefully
include aspects of these languages that have been largely neglected in previous descriptive
studies, including acoustic and instrumental studies of phonetic structures, word-level pros-
ody, intonation, semantics, and gesture, to mention a few. Further documentation should
also give us a clearer picture of inter- and intra-linguistic variation and the nature of dialect
variation, two areas which are also largely missing in contemporary Uto-Aztecan studies.
A further argument for conducting thorough documentation of Uto-Aztecan languages
relates to the continuing efforts in uncovering the history of the language family and its
peoples, especially in light of competing hypotheses about the location of the Uto-
Aztecan speech community homeland (cf. Section 2). In the context of this research,
Northern Mexican languages offer an invaluable opportunity to further clarify the ques-
tion of the original Uto-Aztecan ecosystem, given that these languages still have fluent
primary speakers from whom to obtain large lexicons relating to water management and
cultivation and plant resources.
Finally, but most importantly, language documentation should be carried out for the
purpose of supporting community-based initiatives of linguistic and cultural maintenance,
such as the initiative by the Tohono O’odham nation in Arizona, for which legacy
documentation is already underway (Fitzgerald 2010). Decreasing numbers of speakers of
northern languages and lack of speech communities in some cases hampers the possibility
of thorough language documentation. On the other hand, the escalating violence that
Northern Mexico has suffered in recent years (which has contributed significantly to
exacerbating the marginalization of speaker communities) presents difficult challenges for
the prospect of language documentation and revitalization efforts. However, it is the
author’s hope that language documentation will continue and grow despite these
challenges, and that this new documentation will continue providing crucial keys to
linguistic theory and typology, the reconstruction of the linguistic and cultural past of the
Americas, as well as to efforts of linguistic and cultural preservation.

Short Biography
Gabriela Caballero is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the
University of California, San Diego. She received her PhD from the University of
California, Berkeley in 2008. Her PhD dissertation provides the first description and
analysis of the phonology and morphology of Choguita Rarámuri, a previously
undocumented Uto-Aztecan language variety spoken in Mexico. Her main research focus

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 497

concerns language documentation of endangered languages, the nature of intralinguistic

and crosslinguistic variation in morphology and phonology, typology and languages of the
America, especially Uto-Aztecan languages. She teaches undergraduate courses in language
and culture, and graduate courses in linguistic field methods and morphology. She has
recently published papers on the typology of Noun Incorporation, theoretical implications
of the prosodic morphology of Guarijı́o (Uto-Aztecan), and topics in the phonology and
morphology of Choguita Rarámuri, including affix order, multiple exponence, and stress
assignment.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Andrew Garrett, Jason Haugen, Ascención Hernández de León
Portilla, Teresa McFarland, José Luis Moctezuma Zamarrón, Michel Oudijk, and Higinio
Pintado Cortina for their comments on a previous version of this paper. All omissions
and mistakes are my sole responsibility.

Notes
* Correspondence address: Gabriela Caballero, Department of Linguistics – 0108, University of California, San
Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108, USA. E-mail: gcaballero@ucsd.edu

1
Both instrumental prefixes and polysynthesis are areal features identified across North American languages (Mi-
thun 1984, 1986, 1999; Sapir 1911). Uto-Aztecan languages have developed some features present in neighboring
languages. For instance, Cupan languages in California have developed some phonological traits similar to Yuman
languages spoken in the area (Hinton 1991; Mithun 1999). Some references on language contact in the Americas
include: Haas (1976), Bright and Sherzer (1976), and Sherzer (1976) (see Hinton 1991 for a review).
2
This work is also attributed to Juan B. de Velasco, as noted in Buelna’s (1890) edition.
3
Some examples from the first half of the twentieth century include: Sapir’s Southern Paiute grammar (1930) and
dictionary (1931); Voegelin’s Tübatulabal text collection (1935) and dictionary (1958); Brambila’s Rarámuri (Tara-
humara) grammar (1953); Hale’s Tohono O’odham (formerly known as Papago) grammar (1959); and Lamb’s
Mono grammar (1957).
4
In the rest of this paper, I will avoid the controversy of genetic affiliation, and will refer to ‘northern’ and
‘southern’ languages in terms of geography (roughly corresponding to the US–Mexico border).
5
Merril et al. (2009) also argue that the breakup of Proto-Uto-Aztecan occurred at 6900 BC, almost 2000 years
earlier than the wide-held estimate for the breakup at 5000 BC.
6
Additional data in Miller (1996a,b) shows vowel raising is not a product of any phonological factor, but indeed
only dependent on the morphological construction with which the stem combines.
7
The pattern is more intricate, involving the interaction of stress assignment, vowel epenthesis and truncation.
Details can be found in Fitzgerald (1997, 2002).
8
A phenomenon which contrasts with templatic (‘fake’) trucation widely attested in hypocoristic formation across
languages, where the result of truncation is uniform and a byproduct of the imposition of templatic constraints.
9
This program included the development in the twentieth century of a bilingual ⁄ bicultural education program,
which has helped increase Spanish proficiency among indigenous populations in detriment of local language varie-
ties. For a brief review of this bilingual ⁄ bicultural program and its effects on a particular community in Mexico, see
Lastra (2001).
10
The Jesuits, in charge of the northern Mexican missions, were significantly behind their Franciscan counterparts
in the amount of grammars written in that period. Most of their writings were never published and were only dis-
seminated as unpublished manuscripts, some of which were lost after their expulsion from the Colony in 1767
(Guzmán Betancourt 2009).

Works Cited
Alderete, John. 2001. Root-controlled accent in Cupeño. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 455–502.
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 20. 1–42.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
498 Gabriela Caballero

Babel, Molly, Andrew Garrett, Michael J. Houser, and Maziar Toosarvandani. forthcoming. Descent and diffusion
in language diversification: a study of Western Numic dialectology. International Journal of American Linguistics.
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barbastro, Francisco A. 1792. Sermones, confesionario breve, catecismo breve, oraciones, vocabulario breve en la
lengua Opata. Berkeley, CA: Housed at the Bancroft Library, University of California, ms.
Bascom, Burt. 1959. Tonemechanics of Northern Tepehuan. Phonetics 4. 71–88.
——. 1996. Construcciones reflexivas, pasivas e impersonales en el tepehuano del norte. Memorias del III encuen-
tro de lingüı́stica en el noroeste, Vol. 1, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández, M. Figueroa-Esteva and G. López-Cruz,
289–306. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Basilio, Tomás. 1654. Arte de la lengua cahita. Berkeley, CA: Housed at the Bancroft library, University of Califor-
nia, ms [Published as Buelna, Eustaquio. 1890. Arte de la lengua Cahita por un padre de la Compañı́a de Jesús. Mex-
ico: Imprenta del Gobierno Federal].
Bat-El, Outi. 2002. True truncation in colloquial Hebrew imperatives. Language 78. 651–83.
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts dissertation.
Brambila, David. 1953. Gramática Raramuri. Mexico: Editorial Buena Prensa.
Bright, William, and Joel Sherzer. 1976. Areal features in North American Indian languages. Variation and change
in language: essays by William Bright, ed. by A. S. Dil, 228–68. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Caballero, Gabriela. 2006. ‘‘Templatic back-copying’’ in Guarijı́o abbreviated reduplication. Morphology 16.
273–89.
——. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. Berkeley, CA: University of California
dissertation.
——. 2010a. Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara)
variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20. 165–204.
——. 2010b. Tone in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) word prosody. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Baltimore.
Campbell, Lyle. 1987. Syntactic change in Pipil. International Journal of American Linguistics 53. 253–80.
——. 1997. American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
——, and Ronald Langacker. 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels, pts. I–III. International Journal of American Linguistics
44. 85–102, 197–210, 262–79.
Carochi, Horacio. 1645. Arte de la lengva mexicana, con la declaracion de los adverbios della. Mexico: Juan Ruyz.
Edicion facsimilar 1983, con estudio introductorio de Miguel León-Portilla. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autó-
noma de México.
Carrillo-Carrillo, Araceli. 2010. Conectivos discursivos en el tepehuano del norte. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Friends of Uto-Aztecan Conference, Guadalajara.
——, and Zarina Estrada-Fernández. 2006. Adaptaciones fonológicas y ámbitos semánticos de los préstamos en tep-
ehuano del norte. Memorias del VIII encuentro internacional de lingüı́stica en el noroeste, Vol. 3, ed. by M. del
Carmen Morúa-Leyva, 289–307. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Cortina Borja, Mario, Jane Stuart-Smith, and Leopoldo Valiñas Coalla. 2002. Multivariate classification methods for
lexical and phonological dissimilarities and their applications to the Uto-Aztecan family. Journal of Quantitative
Linguistics 9. 97–124.
——, and Leopoldo Valiñas Coalla. 1989. Some remarks on Uto-Aztecan classification. International Journal of
American Linguistics 55. 214–39.
Dakin, Karen. 1996. Long vowels and morpheme boundaries in Nahuatl and Uto-Aztecan: comments on historical
developments. Amerindia: Revue d’ethnolinguistique Amérindienne 21. 55–76.
——. 2003. Uto-Aztecan in the linguistic stratigraphy of Mesoamerican prehistory. Language contacts in prehistory:
studies in stratigraphy, ed. by H. Andersen, 259–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——. 2004. Nahuatl –ka words: evidence for a proto-Uto-Aztecan derivational pattern. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 57. 6–22.
——, and Sören Wichmann. 2000. Cacao and Chocolate, a Uto-aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11.
55–75.
De Wolf, Paul. 2001. Eudeve and Opata: a reassessment of their classification. Avances y balances de lenguas
yutoaztecas, ed. by J. L. Moctezuma-Zamarrón and J. H. Hill, 237–65. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia.
Dedrick, John M. 1977. Spanish influence on Yaqui grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 43.
144–9.
Demers, Richard, Fernando Escalante, and Eloise Jelinek. 1999. Prominence in Yaqui words. International Journal
of American Linguistics 65. 40–50.
Escalante, Fernando. 1990. Voice and argument structure in Yaqui. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
Estrada Fernández, Zarina. 1991. Arguments and clausal relations in Pima Bajo. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona
dissertation.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 499

——. 2003. Typological correlations and middle voice: the case of Pima bajo. Studies in Uto-Aztecan, Working
Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 5, ed. by L. Barragán and J. Haugen, 181–99. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
——. 2005. The pronominal form-a as a middle marker in Pima Bajo. International Journal of American Linguistics
71. 277–302.
——. 2007. Causatives and applicatives in Pima Bajo: the interplay of the causative and the applicative in sociative
causation. Studies in voice and transitivity, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández, S. Wichmann, C. Chamoreau and
A. Álvarez, 147–64. Munich: Lincom.
——, Sören Wichmann, Claudine Chamoreau, and Albert Álvarez (eds). 2007. Studies in voice and transitivity.
Munich: Lincom.
Félix Armendáriz, Rolando. 2007. The passive in the Taracahitic languages Yaqui, Warihio and Tarahumara.
Studies in voice and transitivity, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández, S. Wichmann, C. Chamoreau and A. Álvarez,
165–82. Munich: Lincom.
Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 1997. O’odham rhythms. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
——. 2000. Vowel Hiatus and faithfulness in Tohono O’odham reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 713–22.
——. 2001. The morpheme-to-stress principle in Tohono O’odham. Linguistics 39. 941–72.
——. 2002. Tohono O’odham stress in a single ranking. Phonology 19. 253–71.
——. 2010. Language documentation in the Tohono O’odham community. Language documentation: theory,
practice and values, ed. by L. Furbee and L. Grenoble, 231–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——, and Amy V. Fountain. 1995. The optimal account of Tohono O’odham truncation. Tucson, AZ: University
of Arizona, ms.
Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 1999. Cuatreros somos y toindiamo hablamos. Contactos y conflictos entre el náhuatl y
el español en el sur de México. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologı́a Social.
——. 2001. Spanish in the Balsas river basin: from language shift to language apropiation and resistence. Lo propio
y lo ajeno en las lenguas amerindias y austronésicas, ed. by K. Zimmermann and T. Stolz, 179–98. Madrid:
Vervuert Iberoamericana.
——. 2005. Intervention in indigenous education. Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Náhuatl speakers.
Mexican indigenous languages at the dawn of the 21st century, ed. by M. Hidalgo, 301–23. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Fowler, Catherine S. 1983. Lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory. International Journal of American Linguistics
49. 224–57.
Garza Cuarón, Beatriz. 1995. Polı́ticas lingüı́sticas en el siglo XIX mexicano. Vitalidad e influencia de las lenguas
indı́genas en Latinoamérica – II Coloquio Mauricio Swadesh, ed. by R. Arzápalo and Y. Lastra, 76–96. Mexico:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1959. Huichol tone and intonation. International Journal of American Linguistics 25. 221–32.
Guadalajara, Tomás. 1683. Compendio del arte de la lengua de los tarahvmares y guazapares. London: Housed at
the British Museum, ms.
Guerrero, Lilián. 2006. The structure and function of Yaqui complementation. Munich: Lincom.
——. 2007. Yaqui causation, its form-function interface. Studies in voice and transitivity, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández,
S. Wichmann, C. Chamoreau and A. Álvarez, 201–21. Munich: Lincom.
——. 2008. Alternative expressions of ‘want’ complements. Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics inter-
face, ed. by R. Van Valin, 321–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——. forthcoming. On relative clauses and related constructions. A typological overview of relative clauses in
languages of the Américas, ed. by Z. Estrada Fernández and B. Comrie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——, and Valeria Belloro. 2010. On word order and information structure in the Yaqui language. On information
structure in the languages of the Americas, ed. by J. Camacho, R. Gutiérrez-Bravo and L. Sánchez, 115–38.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guion, Susan G., Jonathan D. Amith, Cristopher S. Doty, and Irina A. Shport. 2010. Word-level prosody in Balsas
Nahuatl: the origin, development, and acoustic correlates of tone in a stress accent language. Journal of Phonetics
38. 137–66.
Guzmán Betancourt, Ignacio. 2009. El arte de la lengua tegüima, vulgarmente llamada ópata, compuesta por el
padre Natal Lombardo. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Haas, Mary R. 1976. The Northern California linguistic area. Hokan studies, ed. by M. Langdon and S. Silver,
347–59. Janua Lingarum, Series Practica, no. 181. The Hague: Mouton.
Hagberg, Larry. 1989. Floating accent in Mayo. Coyote papers 9, Ed. by. S. Lee Fulmer, M. Ishihara and W. Wis-
wall, 32–47. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
——. 1993. An autosegmental theory of stress. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona doctoral dissertation.
——. 2006. The place of pitch-accent in a typology of phonological prominence. Paper presented at the BeST
conference, University of Leiden.
Hale, Kenneth. 1958. Internal diversity in Uto-Aztecan: I. International Journal of American Linguistics 24. 101–7.
——. 1959. A Papago grammar. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University dissertation.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
500 Gabriela Caballero

——. 1965. Some preliminary observations on Papago morphophonemics. International Journal of American
Linguistics 31. 295–305.
Harley, Heidi, and Maria Florez-Leyva. 2009. Form and meaning in Hiaki (Yaqui) verbal reduplication. Interna-
tional Journal of American Linguistics 75(2). 233–72.
——, Mercedes Tubino-Blanco, and Jason Haugen. 2009. Applicative constructions and suppletive verbs in Hiaki.
Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 42–51.
Haugen, Jason D. 2003. Allomorphy in Yaqui reduplication. Studies in Uto- Aztecan, working papers on endan-
gered and less familiar languages #5, ed. by L. M. Barragan and J. D. Haugen, 75–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Haugen, Jason. 2007. On the development of pronominal clitics and affixes in Uto-Aztecan. Southwest Journal of
Linguistics 26. 39–60.
——. 2008a. Denominal verbs in Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 74(4). 439–70.
——. 2008b. Morphology at the interfaces: reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
——. 2009. What is the base for reduplication? Linguistic Inquiry 40. 505–14.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Uto-Aztecan na-class verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 44. 211–22.
Hernández de León Portilla, Ascensión. 1998. El náhuatl en vı́speras del siglo XXI. Casi cinco siglos de aportaci-
ones lingüı́sticas y filológicas en torno a él. Tiempo, población y sociedad. Homenaje al maestro Arturo Romano
Pacheco, ed. by M. T. Jaén Esquivel, S. López, L. Márquez and P. Hernández, 737–47. México: Instituto Nac-
ional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Hill, Jane H. 1983. Language death in Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 49.
258–76.
——. 2001a. Dating the break-up of Southern Uto-Aztecan. Avances y balances de lenguas yutoaztecas, ed. by
J. L. Moctezuma-Zamarrón and J. H. Hill, 345–57. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
——. 2001b. Proto-Uto-Aztecan: a community of cultivators in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist 103.
913–34.
——. 2010a. Dating Proto-Uto-Aztecan: new evidence from linguistic paleontology and lexicostatistics. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Friends of Uto-Aztecan Conference, Guadalajara, Mexico.
——. 2010b. New evidence for a mesoamerican homeland for Proto-Uto-Aztecan. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 107. 33.
——, and Ken C. Hill. 1968. Stress in the Cupan (Uto-Aztecan) languages. International Journal of American
Linguistics 34. 233–41.
——, and ——. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press.
——, and Kenneth C. Hill. 2004. Word order type change and the penetration of Spanish de in modern Nahuatl.
Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 57. 23–48.
——, and Ofelia Zepeda. 1992. Derived words in Tohono O’odham. International Journal of American Linguistics
58. 355–404.
——, and ——. 1999. Language, gender and biology: pulmonic ingressive airstream in women’s speech in Tohono
O’odham. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18. 15–40.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36. 161–95.
——. 2006. Prosody in language documentation. Essentials of language documentation, ed. by J. Gippert, N. P.
Himmelmann and U. Mosel, 163–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hinton, Leanne. 1991. Takic and Yuman: a study in phonological convergence. International Journal of American
Linguistics 57. 133–57.
Hopi Dictionary Project, University of Arizona. 1998. Hopi dictionary = Hopı̀ikwa lavàytutuveni: a Hopi-English
dictionary of the Third Mesa dialect. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Hyman, Larry. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23. 225–57.
INEGI. 2005. Perfil sociodemográfico de la población hablante de náhuatl. México: Instituto Nacional de Estadı́sti-
ca, Geografı́a e Informática.
Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication, doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jacobs, Roderick Arnold. 1972. Syntactic change: a cupan (Uto-Aztecan) case study. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Jeanne, LaVerne Masayesva, and Ken Hale. 1989. Argument obviation and switch-reference in Hopi. General and
Amerindian ethnolinguistics: in remembrance of Stanley Newman, ed. by M. Ritchie Key and H. M. Hoenigs-
walk, 201–11. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.
39–76.
——. 1998. Voice and transitivity as functional projections in Yaqui. The projection of arguments: lexical and
compositional factors, ed. by M. Butt and W. Geuder, 195–224. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 501

——. 2003. Quantification in Yaqui possessive sentences. Studies in Uto-Aztecan, working papers on endangered
and less familiar languages 5, ed. by L. M. Barragan and J. D. Haugen, 201–14. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Kager, Rene. 1997. Rhythmic vowel deletion in Optimality Theory. Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed.
by I. Roca, 463–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1974a. Meso-American Indian languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edn., ed. by Philip
W. Goetz, 11. 956–63. Chicago.
——. 1974b. Idiomas de Mesoamerica. Seminario de Integracion Social Guatemalteca, publicacion no. 33. Guate-
mala: J. de Pineda Ibarra.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1907. Shoshonean dialects of California, Vol. 4, 65–165. Berkeley, CA: Publications in Ameri-
can Archaeology and Ethnology.
Lamb, Sydney M. 1957. Mono grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.
——. 1964. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages: a historical survey. Studies in Californian linguistics,
ed. by W. Bright, 106–25. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977a. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar I: an overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Dallas,
TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
——. 1977b. Syntactic reanalysis. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by C. N. Li, 59–139. Austin, TX: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
——, and Pamela Munro. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Language 51. 789–830.
Lastra, Yolanda. 2001. Otomı́ language shift and some efforts to reverse it. Can threatened languages be saved?
ed. by J. Fishman, 142–65. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Launey, Michel. 2002. On some causative doublets in Classical Nahuatl. The grammar of causation and interpersonal
manipulation, ed. by M. Shibatani, 301–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, M. Paul. 2009. Ethnologue: languages of the world, 16th edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. [Online].
Retrieved on 21 October 2010 from: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
Liljeblad, Sven. 1966. Northern Paiute manual I: grammatical sketch of the northern dialects. Boise, ID: Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Idaho State University.
Lionnet, Andrés. 1977. Relaciones del varojı́o con el mayo y el tarahumar. Anales de Antropologı́a 14. 227–42.
——. 1985. Relaciones internas de la Rama sonorense. Amerindia 10. 26–58.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1986. Genesis of Hopi tones. International Journal of American Linguistics 52. 154–60.
——. 1992. A Northern Uto-Aztecan sound law: -c- > -y-. International Journal of American Linguistics 58. 251–
68.
——. 1997. Uto-Aztecan ps and similar clusters, again. International Journal of American Linguistics 63. 248–56.
Martinez Fabian, Constantino. 2005. Yaqui coordination. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1994. An overview of prosodic morphology. Part I: templatic form in reduplica-
tion. Paper presented at Workshop on Prosodic Morphology, Utrecht University.
——, and ——. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massa-
chusetts Occasional Papers 18), ed. by. J. N. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst:
GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
McLaughlin, John E. 1987. A phonology and morphology of Panamint. Kansas, KS: University of Kansas disserta-
tion.
——. 2000. Language boundaries and phonological borrowing in the Central Numic languages. Uto-Aztecan: tem-
poral and geographical perspectives, ed. by E. Casad and T. Willett, 209–304. Salt Lake City, UT: Idaho State
University Press.
McMahon, Ambrose. 1967. Phonemes and phonemic units in Cora (Mexico). International Journal of American
Linguistics 33. 128–34.
Merrill, William L., Robert J. Hard, Jonathan B. Mabry, Gayle J. Fritz, Karen R. Adams, John R. Roney, and
A. C. MacWilliams. 2009. The diffusion of maize to the southwestern United States and its impact. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106. 21019–26.
Miller, Irving W. 1982. Southern Paiute and Numic final features. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.
444–9.
Miller, Wick R. 1967. Uto-Aztecan cognate sets, volume 48 of University of California Publications in Linguistics.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
——. 1983a. A note on extinct languages of northwest Mexico of supposed Uto-Aztecan affiliation. International
Journal of American Linguistics 49. 328–34.
——. 1983b. Uto-Aztecan languages. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10 – Southwest, ed. by A. Ortiz,
113–24. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
——. 1984. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence. International Journal of
American Linguistics 50. 1–24.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
502 Gabriela Caballero

——. 1996a. Guarijı́o: Gramática, textos, y vocabulario. Mexico D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
——. 1996b. Sketch of Shoshone, a Uto-Aztecan language. Handbook of North American Indians vol. 17, ed. by
I. Goddard, 693–720. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
——, Dirk Elzinga, and John E. McLaughlin. 2005. Preaspiration and gemination in Central Numic. International
Journal of American Linguistics 71. 413–44.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. On the evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 847–94.
——. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62. 32–7.
——. 1999. The languages of native North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moctezuma Zamarrón, José Luis. 1998a. Procesos históricos en la dinámica de desplazamiento del yaqui y el mayo
por el español (Periodo colonial). Memoria del XXII Simposio de Historia y Antropologı́a de Sonora, ed. by
J. A. E. Acosta, 405–19. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
——. 1998b. Yaqui-Mayo language shift. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.
——. 2007. Diversidad lingüı́stica y cultural en el noroeste de México durante la colonia. El caso de las llamadas
lenguas cahitas. Estructura, discurso e historia de algunas lenguas yutoaztecas, ed. by I. Guzmán-Betancourt and
J. L. Moctezuma-Zamarrón, 115–25. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Montes de Oca, Mercedes. 2006. Los marcadores discursivos en las narraciones nahuas. V encuentro internacional
de lingüı́stica en acatlán, ed. by M. d. P. Máynez Vidal and M. R. Dosal Gómez, 441–61. Mexico: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
——. 2007. Tipos de difrasismos en el náhuatl y otras lenguas yutoaztecas. Estructura, discurso e historia de algunas
lenguas yutoaztecas, ed. by I. Guzmán-Betancourt and J. L. Moctezuma-Zamarrón, 39–46. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Munro, Pam. 1977. Towards a reconstruction of Uto-Aztecan stress. Studies in stress and accent (Southern Califor-
nia Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), ed. by L. Hyman, 303–26. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, Uni-
versity of Southern California.
Munro, Pamela. 1984. Floating quantifiers in Pima. The syntax of native American Languages, ed. by E.-D. Cook
and D. Gerdts, 269–87. New York: Academic Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking. Language 62. 56–119.
Nichols, Michael J. P. 1974. Northern Paiute historical grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California disserta-
tion.
Norris, Evan J. 1986. A grammar sketch and comparative study of Eastern Mono. San Diego, CA: University of
California dissertation.
Orgun, Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. Berke-
ley, CA: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Ortega, José de. 1732. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y Cora. [Reprinted in 1936. Tepic, Méx.: Talleres Gráficos
del Estado].
Paccioto, Carla. 1996. The Tarahumara of Mexico. Stabilizing indigenous languages, ed. by G. Cantoni, 155–61.
Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints.
Phonology 17. 237–74.
——. 2007. The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. Papers in Opti-
mality Theory III (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 32), ed. by L. Bateman,
M. O’Keefe, E. Reilly and A. Werle, 259–96. Amherst: GLSA.
Payne, Doris L. 1987. Information structuring in Papago narrative discourse. Language 64. 783–804.
Peralta Ramı́rez, Valentı́n. 2004. Las oraciones de relativo en el náhuatl de San Jerónimo Amanalco. Memorias del
VII encuentro internacional de lingüı́stica en el noroeste, ed. by I. Barreras-Aguilar and M. Castro-Llamas, 275–
92. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Pinart, Alphonse L. 1879. Vocabulario de la lengua Papaga. Mexico: Unpublished ms.
Riggle, Jason. 2006. Infixing reduplication in Pima and its theoretical consequences. Natural Language and Linguis-
tic Theory 24. 857–91.
Rinaldini, Benito. 1743. Arte de la lengua tepeguana: con vocabulario, confesionario y catecismo. Mexico: Impreso
por la viuda de Joseph Bernardo de Hogal.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2007. Preserving endangered languages. Language and Linguistic Compass 1(1–2). 115–32.
Rosen, Sara. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical analysis. Language 65. 294–317.
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13.
250–82.
——. 1913. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, a study in Uto-Aztecan, part I. Journal de la Societé des americanistes de
Paris 10. 379–425.
——. 1915. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, a study in Uto-Aztecan, part II. American Anthropologist 17. 98–120.
——. 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
——. 1930. The Southern Paiute language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65. 1–296.
——. 1931. Southern Paiute dictionary. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65. 537–730.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 New Research on Uto-Aztecan Languages 503

Saxton, Dean. 1963. Papago phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 29. 29–35.
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1985. Absolutive suffix and reanalysis in Cahuilla. International Journal of American Linguistics
51. 578–81.
Shaul, David L. 1990. Teguima (Opata) inflectional morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 56.
561–73.
——. 2000. Comparative Tepiman: phonological change and inflectional categories. Uto-Aztecan: structural, tem-
poral, and geographic perspectives, ed. by E. Casad and T. L. Willett, 319–56. Hermosillo: Universidad de
Sonora.
Sherzer, Joel. 1976. An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. Amsterdam: North
Holland Publishing Co.
Silver, Shirley, and Wick R. Miller. 1997. American Indian languages – cultural and social contexts. Tucson, AZ:
The University of Arizona Press.
Snapp, Allen, John Anderson, and Joy Anderson. 1982. Northern Paiute. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, Vol. 3,
ed. by R. W. Langacker, 1–92. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at
Arlington.
Steele, Susan. 1975. Past and irrealis: just what does it all mean? International Journal of American Linguistics 41.
200–17.
——. 1976. A law of order: word order change in Classical Aztec. International Journal of American Linguistics
42. 31–45.
——. 1977. Clisis and diachrony. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by C. N. Li, 539–79. Austin, TX: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
——. 1983. Preface – papers presented at a symposium on Uto-Aztecan historical linguistics. International Journal
of American Linguistics 49. 223.
Stubbs, Brian D. 1995. The labial labyrinth in Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 61. 396–
422.
Thornes, Timothy J. 2003. A Northern Paiute grammar: with texts. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon dissertation.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2010. Patterns of nominalization in Numic. International Journal of American Linguistics
76. 71–100.
Valiñas-Coalla, Leopoldo. 2008. El sistema de interrogativos en la lengua tepeguana colonial. Memorias del IX
encuentro internacional de lingüı́stica en el noroeste, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández and A. L. Munguı́a-Duarte,
513–37. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Van Valin Robert D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vázquez-Soto, Verónica. 2000. Morphology and syllable weight in Cora: the case of the absolutive –ti. Uto-
Aztecan: temporal and geographic perspectives, ed. by T. L. Willet and E. H. Casad, 105–24. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
——. 2002a. Claúsulas relativas en Cora meseño, Del Cora al maya yucateco. Estudios sobre algunas lenguas indı́genas
mexicanas, ed. by P. Levy, 269–348. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
——. 2002b. Some constraints on Cora causative constructions. Typology studies in language, causation and inter-
personal manipulation, ed. by M. Shibatani, 197–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
——. 2004a. Algunos aspectos de predicación secundaria en Cora. Memorias del VII encuentro internacional de
lingüı́stica en el noroeste, ed. by I. Barreras-Aguilar and M. Castro-Llamas, 315–34. Hermosillo: Universidad de
Sonora.
——. 2004b. Structure, focus and topic types in Cora (Uto-Aztecan). Language, culture and mind, ed. by
M. Achard and S. Kemmer, 345–61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Voegelin, Charles F. 1935. Tübatulabal texts. University of California Publications in American Anthropology and
Ethnology 34. 191–246.
——. 1958. Working dictionary of Tübatulabal. International Journal of American Linguistics 24. 221–8.
——, and Florence M. Voegelin. 1967. Passive transformations from non-transitive bases in Hopi. International
Journal of American Linguistics 33. 276–81.
Voegelin, Charles, Florence Voegelin, and Kenneth Hale. 1962. Typological and comparative grammar of
Uto-Aztecan I: phonology Vol. 17. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and
Linguistics.
Weeda, Donald S. 1992. Word truncation in prosodic morphology. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1935. The comparative linguistics of Uto-Aztecan. American Anthropologist 37. 600–8.
Willett, Elizabeth. 1982. Reduplication and accent in Southeastern Tepehuan. International Journal of American
Linguistics 48. 168–84.
Willet, Thomas L. 1991. A reference grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Arlington: Summer Institue of Linguistics
and the University of Texas.
——. 2006. Voz y valencia en tepehuano del sureste. Memorias del VIII encuentro internacional de lingüı́stica en
el noroeste, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernández, 275–88. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
504 Gabriela Caballero

——. 2007. La transitividad y la distributividad en los verbos del tepehuano del sur. Mecanismos de voz y forma-
ción de palabra, ed. by Z. Estrada-Fernandez, A. Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. Guerrero and M. B. Carpio, 231–60.
Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora-Plaza y Valdés.
Woo, Nancy. 1970. Tone in Northern Tepehuan. International Journal of American Linguistics 36. 18–30.
Woodbury, A. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. Language documentation and description, Vol. 1, ed. by
P. Austin, 35–51. London: SOAS, University of London.
Yáñez, Rosa H. 2007. El náhuatl de la periferia occidental y los préstamos del español en textos coloniales.
Estructura, discurso e historia de algunas lenguas yutoaztecas, ed. by I. Guzmán-Betancourt and J. L. Moctezuma-
Zamarrón, 101–14. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Yu, Alan. 2000. Stress assignment in Tohono O’odham. Phonology 17. 117–35.
Zepeda, Ofelia. 1983. A Papago grammar. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Further Reading
Buschmann, Johann Carl Eduard. 1859. Die Spuren der aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico und höheren
amerikanischen Norden. Abhand-lungen aus dem Jahre 1854 der Königlichen Akadamie der Wissen-schaften zu
Berlin, supplemental, Vol. 2. 146–321.
Campbell, Lyle. 1979. Middle American languages. The languages of Native America: historical and comparative
assessment, ed. by L. Campbell and M. Mithun, 902–1000. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Casad, Eugene H., and Thomas L. Willet. 2000. Uto-Aztecan: structural, temporal, and geographical perspectives.
Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Guzmán Betancourt, Ignacio, and José Luis Moctezuma-Zamarrón. 2007. Estructura, discurso e historia de algunas
lenguas yutoaztecas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 43. 27–36.
Hill, Jane H. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño. University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1976. Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Levy, Paulette (ed). 2002. Del Cora al Maya Yucateco: estudios lingüı́sticos sobre algunas lenguas Indı́genas Mexi-
canas. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
López Cruz, Gerardo, and José Luis Moctezuma Zamarrón. 1994. Dialectologı́a cahita. I encuentro de lingüı́stica
en el noroeste, ed. by G. López-Cruz and J. L. Moctezuma-Zamarrón, 221–74. Hermosillo: Universidad de
Sonora-Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
Mckay, Carolyn, and Verónica Vázquez (eds). 1994. Investigaciones lingüı́sticas en Mesoamérica. México: Instituto
de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Moctezuma Zamarrón, José Luis, and Jane H. Hill (eds). 2001. Avances y balances de lenguas yutoaztecas. México:
Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.

ª 2011 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 5/7 (2011): 485–504, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00287.x
Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd