Language Contact in North America

Full text

2021. Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.). 503-527.
1
Language Contact in North America
Marianne Mithun
1. INTRODUCTION
The languages indigenous to North America north of Mexico have much to tell us about the
potential effects of language contact. They are numerous: at least 275 are known to have been
spoken at the time of contact with Europeans, and there were undoubtedly more. They show
considerable genealogical diversity, constituting 55-60 distinct families and isolates. They are
typologically diverse, but certain characteristics are pervasive, in particular often complex
morphological structures. Many have been shaped by contact with their neighbors. Some
similarities are shared across pairs of adjacent languages, and many across larger groups.
A number of contact effects in North America differ from those in some other parts of the
world in an interesting way. While it is often assumed that vocabulary is the first feature to be
affected in contact situations, many neighboring languages show surprisingly few shared words,
but extensive structural parallelisms. In these areas speakers often put special efforts into keeping
their languages distinct, working to avoid transferring what they are most conscious of: words.
At the same time, they may transfer other less obvious features, such as propensities to specify
certain distinctions or patterns of expression. Over time, the most frequent can become
routinized and ultimately crystallized in grammar. Of course the kinds of features copied in
contact situations reflect complex social, cultural, and historical circumstances. One of the most
important, described in detail by Thomason and Kaufman (1988), is whether features are adopted
by speakers into their first language (with language maintenance), or carried into another
language from their first language (with language shift). Another is attitudes toward code
switching. Still others are how long the languages have been in contact and how intense the
contact has been. And with longstanding contact, language structures may gradually converge,
further facilitating transfer.
North America is also home to some contact languages. Some developed entirely among
indigenous groups, and some were used between indigenous groups and Europeans. Some
remained mainly trade jargons, some became elaborate pidgins, and some originated as mixed
languages in communities of skilled bilingual speakers.
The investigation of language contact in North America has the potential to deepen our
understanding of the powerful ways in which contact can shape the development of languages,
but it also presents certain challenges. We lack deep historical and philological records
comparable to those for some European and Asian peoples, so it is not possible to trace
developments through time in the same ways. And, sadly, many of the languages are no longer
spoken, so we are often working with closed corpora.
2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
In part because of the wealth of languages indigenous to North America, particularly during the
first half of the twentieth century efforts were directed at bringing order to apparent chaos by
finding deeper genealogical relationships. Edward Sapir (1921a, 1929) proposed an ambitious
classification in which all of the families and isolates of North America were grouped into just

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
2
six superstocks. The proposals raised important questions about what kinds of resemblances
between languages might constitute evidence for genealogical relationship, and what might be
the result of language contact.
Early on Franz Boas maintained that purely grammatical similarities, particularly
morphological structures, could not be spread by contact, so they must constitute evidence of
common inheritance. Discussing the relationship between Tlingit and Haida in the Northwest, he
maintained that though lexical similarities are few, structural similarities are sufficient to link
them.
The structural resemblance of the two languages and their contrast with the neighboring
languages can be explained only by the assumption of a common origin. The number of
words which may be connected by etymology is small, and the similarities are doubtful.
Nevertheless, the structural resemblance must be considered final proof of a historical
connection between the two (Boas [1894] 1974: 162).
Sapir put forth the same argument when he assembled his six superstocks.
So long as such direct historical testimony as we have gives us no really convincing
examples of profound morphological influence by diffusion, we shall do well not to put too
much reliance in diffusion theories (Sapir 1921b: 206).
But the possibility of contact effects on structure was soon recognized. Boas described his
change of heart.
As early as 1893 I pointed out that the study of the grammar of American languages has
demonstrated the occurrence of a number of striking morphological similarities between
neighboring stocks which, however, are not accompanied by appreciable similarities in
vocabulary. At that time I was inclined to consider these similarities as proof of relationship
of the same order as that of languages belonging, for instance, to the Indo-European family.
While further studies, particularly in California, have shown that we may generalize the
observations which I made based on the languages of the North Pacific coast, I doubt
whether the interpretation given at that time is tenable. (Boas 1920: 211).
Sapir similarly acknowledged the possibility of contact effects on structure.
It is well known to students of language that striking phonetic and morphologic similarities
are not infrequently found between neighboring languages that, so far as can be ascertained,
are in no way genetically related. Such resemblances, insofar as they are not merely
fortuitous, must be due to the assimilatory influence asserted by one language over another.
(Sapir 1916, cited in Darnell and Sherzer 1971: 24.)
Since that time, it has become increasingly clear that structure, even morphological structure,
can indeed be transferred via contact. Tlingit and Haida are no longer considered genealogically
related, and most of Sapir’s superstocks, some covering wide swaths of California and the West,
are no longer considered established. The classification generally accepted today is not far from
that consisting of 55 families established by the late nineteenth century (Powell 1891).

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
3
Some histories of work on contact within North America can be found in Darnell and Sherzer
1971, Sherzer 1973, 1976, Bright and Sherzer 1976, Campbell and Mithun 1979, Mithun 1999,
2010, 2017a, to appear, Silverstein 1996, Campbell 1997, and Thomason 2016.
3. CRITICAL TOPICS
A fundamental question is what aspects of language can be transferred in contact situations. It is
often assumed that the first aspect of language to be copied is vocabulary. In North America, as
elsewhere, there is indeed evidence that speakers have adopted words from neighboring
languages. Kari (1977) provides examples from two Athabaskan languages of Alaska, Tanaina
and Ahtna. Tanaina consists of four varieties: three Lower Cook Inlet dialects, which are quite
similar, and the more divergent Upper Inlet dialect. Upper Inlet Tanaina shares a number of traits
with the neighboring Ahtna. Kari concludes from patterns of trade, bilingualism, intermarriage,
and various mutual cultural influences, that the two groups have been in intimate contact for
centuries. The clan system of the Upper Inlet Tanaina more closely resembles that of the Ahtna
than it does those of the other Tanaina groups.
Most of the Upper Inlet Tanaina have kin ties with the Ahtna. The pattern of intermarriage
favored Ahtna resettlement in or adjacent to Upper Inlet Tanaina territory. Interestingly,
Ahtna influence is also present in the kinship terminology of Upper Inlet Tanaina. (1977:
279)
The languages are not mutually intelligible, but apparently many Tanaina speakers could use
Ahtna.
When the languages in question are related, spotting copied vocabulary can be tricky.
Sometimes it is clear simply from the distribution of words. There are Upper Tanaina words that
do not resemble their counterparts in the other Tanaina dialects, but match those in Ahtna, as in
(1).
(1) Some Athabaskan loanwords (Kari 1977: 286)
Lower Inlet Tanaina Upper Inlet Tanaina Ahtna
‘robin’ kaɬnay six̣ suux̣
‘magpie’ tšk’naqaɬts’ɣya taqɣlbi staqalbeey
‘buteo species’ q’uluq’ɣya k’tsu k’etsaa
‘goshawk gižakəɣ̣ k’əmbɔg k’enbeg
An understanding of the sound changes which have occurred in the histories of the two
languages is useful. The original Proto-Athabaskan vowels have undergone some changes in
Tanaina, but remained essentially unchanged in Ahtna. In Tanaina, *a > u, for example. In some
Upper Tanaina words, the vowels match those of Ahtna rather than their Lower Tanaina
cognates.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
4
(2) Athabaskan loanwords (Kari 1977: 283)
Lower Inlet Tanaina Upper Inlet Tanaina Ahtna
‘beach’ tubyɣ̣ tabaɣ̣ tabaaɣ̣
‘also, too’ k’u k’a k’ah
Such differences suggest that Upper Inlet Tanaina speakers borrowed these words from Ahtna.
Other words show similar patterns involving other sound changes and stress patterns.
Sometimes borrowed words can shed light on interactions between the groups in contact.
Kari notes (1977: 285), ‘Patterns of shared lexical innovations in specific semantic domains such
as flora and fauna, trade goods, potlatching, or material culture will provide clues to the nature
and frequency of intra-Athapaskan intercourse’. He reports that of the 66 Tanaina and Ahtna
names for species of birds he assembled, 25 are shared between Upper Inlet Tanaina and Ahtna
but are not found elsewhere in Tanaina, like those in (1). Of 41 animal terms, 11 are common to
just Upper Inlet Tanaina and Ahtna. Adoption of terms for flora and fauna can indicate that
speakers of the borrowing language moved into territory occupied by speakers of the source
language. There is also a probable Ahtna place name in Upper Inlet Tanaina territory: Mt.
Kliskon from tsələs qan ‘arctic ground squirrel lodge’. The Ahtna term for ‘arctic ground
squirrel’ is tseles, while the Tanaina term is qunša (1977: 278). Kari points to a group of 34 verb
stems used in Upper Inlet Tanaina and Ahtna but not elsewhere in Tanaina, including ‘make
potlatch speech’. Such terms can suggest that speakers of the borrowing language adopted
cultural practices from their neighbors.
Similar patterns can be seen elsewhere in North America. Nater (1974, 1977, 1984, 1994)
describes vocabulary borrowed into Nuxalk (Bella Coola, a Salish language on the British
Columbia coast) from neighboring Northern Wakashan and Athabaskan languages in the
Northwest, much of it in earlier times.
Figure 1 about here
Loether (1998) provides evidence of a central California language area. Mono (also called
Monache), is a language of the Numic branch of the Uto-Aztecan family, with extensive
contacts.
As was common for all the Indians of California, the Western Mono maintained a complex
set of relations with neighboring and more distant tribes, which included political, social,
religious, economic, and kinship ties. (Loether 1998: 102)
Neighbors included speakers of Yokuts (Yokuts family) and Miwok (Utian family).
Multilingualism was the norm, and loanwords were transferred in all directions. Many are terms
for animals, birds, insects, and plants, but there are others as well, such as ‘boat’ and,
significantly, ‘co-parents-in-law’.
Figure 2 about here
Lexical copying can have further effects on a language. If competent bilinguals adopt enough
words from another language, sounds in those words may be added to the phonological inventory

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
5
as well. Callaghan (1964) describes the sounds of Lake Miwok, a language of the Utian family,
spoken in the Clear Lake area of California. It has three series of stops not found in any other
Utian languages (aspirated, ejective, and voiced), as well as /r/, /ɬ/, and affricates /č, c’, č’, and
ƛ’/. The Lake Miwok words containing these sounds do not have cognates in other Utian
languages. Lake Miwok is spoken, however, in a recognized linguistic area, with Pomoan,
Wappo, and Patwin neighbors, groups also not related to each other. The Lake Miwok consonant
inventory closely matches those of the neighbors. Of 260 Lake Miwok words containing the
unusual sounds, Callaghan identified 78 with identical or nearly identical forms in a nearby
language but no other Miwok language. Lake Miwok búkʰal ‘fish trap’, for example, resembles
Southwestern Pomo buhqʰal’. Lake Miwok c’a:yakami ‘salamander’ resembles Wappo
č’ay:akamin. Lake Miwok c’akáttu ‘blackbird’ resembles Patwin c’akatu. Many terms denote
birds (‘kingfisher’, ‘blackbird’, ‘small blackbird’, ‘yellowhammer’, ‘mudhen’, ‘buzzard’, ‘snow
bird’, ‘crested bluejay’, ‘small bluebird’, ‘hummingbird’), animals (‘mink’, ‘salamander’,
‘snake’, ‘rattler’s rattles’, ‘snail’, ‘small eels’, ‘angleworm’, ‘cricket’, ‘large black ants’), or
plants (‘tan oak’, ‘manzanita mushroom’), not surprising given that the Clear Lake area was
already inhabited when the Lake Miwok moved into it. There are also place names for Dry Lake,
an island in Clear Lake, and Mt. St. Helena. Some loans are more cultural, like ‘fish trap’, ‘sweet
black acorn bread’, ‘large storage basket’, ‘large bowl-like basket’, ‘cocoon rattle’, ‘abalone
shell ornament’, and ‘spouse’s sibling’. And some are more general, indicating more intimate
contact (‘’heart’, ‘throat’, ‘breast’, ‘finger’, ‘to club’, ‘to be bald’, ‘to bump one’s head’, ‘to
kiss’, ‘to slap’, ‘to puff, like smoke from a chimney’).
Morphemes themselves have been transferred only in very rare instances. Kroskrity (1985)
describes possessive constructions in Arizona Tewa, a Kiowa-Tanoan language. This dialect is
spoken in a community within the Hopi reservation, which is in turn surrounded by the Navajo
reservation. Arizona Tewa contains a possessive suffix -bi that is absent not only from all other
Tewa dialects, but also all other Kiowa-Tanoan languages. Some examples are sen-bí kʰaw’ ‘a
man’s song’ (man-POSS song) and na’in-bí cé ‘our dog’ (we-POSS dog). The suffix matches a
third person possessive prefix bi- in the unrelated Apachean languages of the Tlingit-Eyak-
Athabaskan family, as in Navajo hstiin bi-ye’ ‘the man’s son’ (man 3POSS-son) and dziɬ bi-tsíín
‘the mountain’s base’ (mountain 3POSS-base) (Kroskrity 1985: 488, citing Young and Morgan
1980: 73, 77). Kroskrity explains the shift from prefix to suffix in terms of the full construction;
in both Arizona Tewa and Navajo the possessive affix occurs between the possessed and the
possessor.
But contact effects can proceed along a different path as well. In a number of areas of North
America, grammatical structures of languages have been shaped by contact without substantial
lexical borrowing.
4. CURRENT CONTRIBUTIONS AND RESEARCH
It can be tempting to view contact situations as static, to assume that features transferred via
contact were passed between languages in their current states among speakers in their current
locations. Recognizing the element of time in contact situations can greatly enhance our
understanding of the ways that contact can shape not only vocabulary but also language structure
on all levels.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
6
4.1 Phonology
The importance of the temporal dimension in shaping sound systems is illustrated by work on
some Southern California languages by Hinton (1991). The languages are from five different
genealogical groups, stretching from the Central California coast south to the Mexican border.
Individual languages are in bold in (3). (Each family contains additional branches and
languages.)
(3) Southern California
Esselen isolate
Salinan isolate
Chumash family
Uto-Aztecan family
Takic branch
Cupan subgroup
Cupeno
Cahuilla
Luiseño
Yuman family
California-Delta branch
Diegueño
IIpai, Kumeyaay, Tipai
Cocopa
River branch
Mojave
Yuma
Maricopa
All of these groups participated in networks of contact within this area and beyond.
Hinton’s focus is on the Cupan languages Cupeño, Cahuilla, and Luiseño, spoken in an area
adjacent to the Yuman languages. They have not always been spoken in their current locations,
however. It is estimated that Takic speakers separated from other Uto-Aztecans 4500-3000 years
ago (Hale 1958, cited in Hinton 1991: 135). At that time they were in the northeastern portion of
their current territory and have since been spreading southward and westward (Moratto 1984:
559 cited in Hinton 1991: 135). The other Southern California families were already in place at
that point.
Hinton examined phonological developments within the Takic languages after their
separation. She found three new phonological traits shared with Esselen, Salinan, Chumash, and
Yuman. One is a distinction between velar and uvular stops (k/q). She suggests that both sounds
may have been present in Proto-Takic but simply as allophones, with q before back vowels.
Contact may have pushed them to become distinctive, as vocabulary was copied and
conditioning environments disappeared. A second addition is the alveo-palatal affricate č. A third
is the velar fricative x, which may have been a variant of k between vowels (except before a,
where it was q).
Two additional traits then developed in Takic that exist only in Yuman: s/ṣ and r/l
distinctions. Within just the Cupan languages Cahuilla, Cupeño, and Luiseño, the sound xʷ was
added, also present in Yuman. In just Cahuilla and Cupeño, palatal ñ and lʸ were added, also

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
7
present in Yuman. While Proto-Uto-Aztecan had a five-vowel system, Proto-Yuman had a three-
vowel system. Cahuilla and Cupeño merged *e and *i to i, perhaps under the influence of
Yuman. A kʷ/qʷ distinction exists in all Yuman languages except Kiliwa, Paipai, and Diegueno,
and appears allophonically in Cahuilla and Cupeño. Interestingly, most Yuman influences did
not come from the Yuman languages currently spoken in the region: Diegueño, Yuma, or
Mojave. But their sources can be reconstructed for Proto-Yuman, the ancestor of the modern
Yuman languages, estimated to have been spoken 4800-2300 years ago (Ochoa 1982, Laylander
1985, cited in Hinton 1991: 138). Hinton concludes that Takic speakers replaced speakers of
other Yuman languages when they moved into the region.
A few phonological traits are now entering Cupan languages from their modern Diegueño
neighbors: voiceless laterals ɬ and ɬʸ, and a t/ṭ distinction. These are not distinctive in any Uto-
Aztecan languages of Southern California, but both Luiseño and Cupeño, those in closest contact
with Digueño, have them as allophones.
We can thus see layers of contact shaping the Cupan phonological systems over time. Hinton
describes the social context in which they took place.
Language-exogamous marriages were so common among the Cupan peoples that women in
the leadership families were raised multilingually with the express purpose of marrying into
other groups. Early mission records show a great many intertribal marriages, and certainly
today that is still the case ... Cupan peoples spread their languages southward into Yuman
territory through force and marriage, which resulted no doubt in a generation or more of
bilingualism in Yuman-Cupan communities, wherein both languages were widely influenced.
For each village, the Yuman language eventually disappeared, leaving only the changed
Cupan language. (Hinton 1991: 154)
The evidence suggests that the mechanisms involved were not necessarily instigated by transfer
of vocabulary, but rather strong bilingualism and perhaps language shift.
4.2. Morphology
North America provides numerous examples of contact effects on grammatical structures
without substance. In many cases neighboring languages show parallel morphological structures,
but the morphemes themselves are nothing alike. It is difficult to imagine that speakers would
simply copy an abstract morphological structure. Apparently the structures were not copied in
their current states. It was rather their precursors that were copied: propensities for specifying
certain distinctions and using certain patterns of expression, with word-by-word translations in
the target language.
Such effects can be seen in languages of California and beyond. Large numbers of languages,
belonging to different genetic groups, show sets of means/manner verb prefixes, variously
translatable with noun-like, verb-like or adverbial-like meanings. Aoki (1970: 84-86) lists 167
such prefixes in Nez Perce, a Sahaptian language spoken in Idaho and adjacent Washington and
Oregon, among them wex̣tú:- ‘with seat, by sitting’, we:p- ‘with hand or paw’, nim ‘with eyes,
visually’, cú: ‘with pointed object’, him- ‘with mouth’, té:- ‘by speech’, ĉimí- ‘by lying on’, and
we:- ‘flying’.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
8
(4) Nez Perce means/manner prefix (Aoki 1970: 82)
Pí:waqalpsix.
pí:-weqe-lpis-i-k
RECIP-in.arms-seize-PL-INDIC
‘We are hugging each other.’
Large numbers of languages across the area also show locative/directional verb suffixes. Among
the Nez Perce suffixes are -éhse ‘up’, -éhne ‘down’, -éhyek ‘upstream’, ewí: ‘downstream’,
-eylé:k ‘into’, and -éht ‘out’.
(5) Nez Perce locative/directional suffix (Aoki 1970: 83)
watawí:ksa
wet-weí:ks-e
wade-upstream-SG
‘I wade upstream.’
The inventories of such prefixes and suffixes can be quite large, but they vary across the
languages in size and content. Within language families they are often cognate, suggesting that
they are ancient, but across genetic lines there is little similarity in form. Apparently it was not
the forms themselves that spread, but rather propensities on the part of multilingual speakers to
specify certain distinctions. Over time, frequently-occurring expressions became routinized and
processed as chunks, with means/manner and location/direction words fusing to verb roots and
eventually eroding to affixes. A full description is in Mithun 2007a.
Another morphological pattern with no shared substance can be seen in the Northwest, a
strong linguistic area, in languages of the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimakuan families and the
isolate Kutenai. All have what are termed ‘lexical suffixes’, suffixes with generally more
concrete meanings than other affixes. They can be numerous: Kinkade (1991) identified 298 in
the Salish language Upper Chehalis. Their forms are often cognate within families, indicating
that they are old, but there are no similarities across genealogical boundaries, and inventories
vary in size and meanings. Apparently what was transferred was a propensity to form certain
kinds of compounds. Over time, perhaps under continuing contact, frequently-recurring second
constituents of such compounds eroded in form and became more general in meaning. The
developments are described in further detail in Mithun 2017b.
4.3. Alignment
While a number of North American languages show nominative/accusative patterns,
distinguishing subjects and objects, there are also geographical areas in which languages show
other, less common patterns.
The Muskogean languages are indigenous to a wide area over the Southeast. All show
essentially the same patterns and forms for indicating core arguments with pronominal affixes on
their verbs. Examples in (6) are from Mikasuki of Florida.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
9
(6) Mikasuki (Boynton 1982)
a. aɬayi-li ‘I’m going’
impom-li ‘I’m eating’
takalkom-li ‘I was working’
hi:com-li ‘I saw (it)’
yataplom-li ‘I hit (it)’
cima:saho:cá:m-li ‘I will help you all’
b. ca-hicom ‘(it) sees me’
ca-ko:slomicka ‘you are cutting me’
is-ca-nonɬi:cickal ‘you trick me’
The system looks straightforward, with suffix -li for ‘I’ and prefix ca- for ‘me’. The suffix -li
occurs with both intransitive verbs (‘go’, ‘eat’, ‘work’) and transitives (‘see’, ‘hit’, ‘help’), and
with all tenses. It appears to mark subjects. The prefix ca- appears to mark objects. But a closer
look reveals a different picture. Ca- sometimes corresponds to English subjects.
(7) Mikasuki (Boynton 1982)
ca-to:ɬohayhkas ‘I coughed’
ca-lipa:mis ‘I’m going to die’
ca-ba:n-om ‘I want (it)’
ca-wasi:lo:tom ‘I’m ticklish’
ca-wasi:lom ‘I itch’
ca-no:cipom ‘I’m sleepy’
This is an agent/patient system. Essentially, participants in control are classified as grammatical
agents, while those not in control but affected are grammatical patients: -li marks first person
agents, and -ca- first person patients. Pronominal inflection is lexicalized with each verb, so that
speakers are not making online decisions as they speak.
Such systems have sometimes been referred to as active/stative. The distinction does not
reflect aspect, however. ‘Go’ and ‘eat’ which appear with -li, are actions/events, but so are
‘cough’ and ‘die’, which appear with ca-. ‘Being ticklish’ is a state and it appears with ca-, but
so is ‘living somewhere’, which appears with -li. I have no control over being ticklish, but I do
control where I live.
(8) Mikasuki (Boynton 1982)
coko:lom-li ‘I live there’
no:ci:pa-li ‘I’m going to sleep’
Note that ‘being sleepy’, over which I have no control, appears with the patient prefix ca-, but
‘going to bed’ appears with the agent suffix -li. The agent/patient pattern and pronominal affix
forms are old and can be reconstructed for Proto-Muskogean. (There is also a third Muskogean
for participants indirectly affected.)
Figure 3 here

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
10
The Southeast is home to a number of other, unrelated language families and isolates as well,
but it is a strong linguistic area. The other languages also show agent/patient systems, though the
forms of the pronominal affixes are completely different. One of the isolates is Atakapa. Here
first person pronominal agents are identified with a suffix -ō, and patients with a prefix hi-.
(9) Atakapa (Swanton 1929)
a. tsak’c-ō ‘I chew’
wan puxkint-ō ‘I (will) go dancing’
na iwēuckint-ō ‘I am mocking you’
cakhu-ō ‘I see them’
wi cakits-ō ‘I wake somebody up’
wi hattsickic-ō ‘I shall be chief’
b. hi-nimahaxc ‘Don’t kill me!’
kō-hi-pamulet ‘they seized and beat me’
hi-tsan
̄ct ‘I get pushed’
wi-hi-makawetl ‘I fell’
hi-cōkec ‘I am sick’
icak hi-imilc ‘I hate this man’
The system is not based on transitivity: the agent suffix -ō occurs with intransitive verbs (‘chew’,
‘go dancing’) and transitives (‘see’, ‘mock’). It is not based on aspect: the agent suffix occurs
with both events (‘wake someone up’) and states (‘be chief’); as does the patient prefix hi-
(‘kill’, ‘beat’, ‘push’, ‘fall’) and states (‘be sick’, ‘hate’).
Similar patterns can be seen across the Southeast, though the actual forms of the pronouns
have nothing in common. (The systems are described in further detail in Mithun 2008). It is
unlikely that this is a coincidence. In her survey of alignment systems, Nichols (1992: 187)
found that agent/patient systems occurred in just 14 percent of the 172 languages she examined.
But how could such a system spread? In most of the languages described here, basic third
persons are not represented in verbs. It would be easy for speakers to reanalyze transitive clauses
as intransitive (or the reverse), and objects as patients, in accordance with systems in their first
language.
(10) Reanalysis
‘(it) sickens me.OBJECT’ < > ‘I.PATIENT am sick’
‘(it) hurts me.OBJECT’ < > ‘I.PATIENT am in pain’
Agent/patient systems appear in several other areas in North America, in neighboring but
unrelated languages. Yuki, a Yukian language of the Clear Lake area of California, shows an
agent/patient system unlike its relative Wappo, but like its Pomoan neighbors. Tlingit, a Tlingit-
Eyak-Athabaskan language of the Northwest, does as well, unlike all 36 other languages in the
family, but like its unrelated neighbor Haida.
Several other less common alignment systems also show areal distributions. Hierarchical
systems are found in the Northwest Coast and Northern California areas (Mithun 2007b, 2012).
Ergativity has developed in three languages on the Oregon coast (Mithun 2005).

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
11
4.4 Contact languages
North America is also home to a number of languages whose vocabulary and grammar are drawn
from multiple sources: jargons, pidgins, and mixed languages. The first two are used among
speakers who share no other language. Jargons are, typically used for narrow purposes such as
trade, with relatively little conventionalization. Pidgins are more conventionalized, must be
learned, and are generally not understood by monolingual speakers of any of the contributing
languages. The distinction between the two is not sharp, nor can it always be determined,
particularly when the only available documentation is in historical accounts. Mixed languages,
by contrast, emerge in communities of skilled bilinguals. They, too, are not understood by
monolingual speakers of the source languages, but they often draw on the most complex aspects
of these languages.
4.4.1 Jargons and pidgins
Jargons and pidgins developed in a number of areas of North America, some before the arrival of
Europeans, and some after. Some were rudimentary, but others developed considerable
complexity and were used over wide areas.
Pidgin Delaware was used between Delaware speakers of Unami and Munsee (Algonquian
languages) and Dutch traders on the Delaware River in New Jersey beginning in the 1620’s. It
was eventually used by Swedish and English colonists as well. The last documentation of it is
from 1785. Goddard (1997) provides a detailed history, description, and analysis.
The phonologies of Eastern Algonquian languages are not complex, and the sounds of Pidgin
Delaware essentially match that of Unami, on which it is based. Initial unstressed short-vowel
syllables are often lost, and consonant clusters simplified. Goddard cites, for example Pidgin gω̄s
‘nail’ compared to Southern Unami məko-s, and pack ‘weep’ compared to ləpákw ‘he weeps
(1997: 64, from Campanius 1696: 143, 141).
The morphological structures of Algonquian languages can be complex, however. The Pidgin
shows no active morphology, though some forms contain frozen affixes. Distinctions indicated
by prefixes and suffixes in Algonquian languages, such as pronominal arguments, are expressed
instead with independent words. The same pronouns are used for subjects, objects, indirect
objects, and possessors; for singulars and plurals; and for animates and inanimates.
(11) Delaware Pidgin (Goddard 1997: 59, citing Thomas 1698)
Keco kee hatah kee weekin?
what 2 have 2 house
‘What do you have in your house?’
The same verb forms are used for all persons. The Pidgin verb entaami ‘rise up’ probably comes
from a verb with a first person subject prefix n-, but it is used with all subjects. Algonquian verbs
take different forms according to the animacy of their subjects (if intransitive) or objects (if
transitive). The same Pidgin verb forms are used with both animate and inanimate participants.
The transitive verb tahóttamen ‘love, like’ appears to be adopted from a Unami verb with
animate suffix -amən, as in ntahɔ՛:t:amən ‘I love it’, but it is used no matter what is liked
(Goddard 1997: 67, citing Campanius 1696: 33, 36, 2).

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
12
Vocabulary is built up by compounding. A term for ‘mountain lion’ is Manúnckus mochijrick
Sínwæs, literally ‘angry big wildcat’ (Goddard 1997: 72, citing Campaniius 1696: 145). Some
function words have developed from content words. The word recorded as taan, thaan ‘to, of,
from, until’ matches taan ‘go’. The word ana ‘by’ matches aana ‘road, way, route’, exemplified
in the phrase ana mochijrick bij ‘by sea’, literally ‘road big water’ (Goddard 1997: 73, citing
Campanius 1696.4).
Like most pidgins, Delaware Pidgin shows considerable variation, in part because it was used
by speakers of different dialects and languages.
On the other side of the continent is Chinook Jargon. It was once spoken from the southern
border of Oregon north to the Alaska panhandle, and from the Pacific coast east to Montana. It is
estimated that there were perhaps 100,000 speakers, with over 100 mother tongues, languages
from the Chinookan, Salishan, Wakashan, Tsimshianic, Athabaskan, Sahaptian, and Kalapuyan
families in the area, and also eventually French, English, Hawaiian, Chinese, and others. There is
an extensive literature on it. Good overviews are in Jacobs 1932, Boas 1933, Thomason 1983,
and Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 256-263. The earliest documentation is from the 1830’s by
Europeans not trained in linguistics, but later records are more sophisticated. As with most
pidgins, particularly those spoken over a wide area, there was variation. Thomason argues
convincingly that it did not begin with the arrival of Europeans, but rather was already fully
formed well before. It shows many marked features that are unusual cross-linguistically, but
common in languages indigenous to the Northwest.
The phonological inventory contains numerous sounds that are rare cross-linguistically but
common in the region, such as distinctions between velars and uvulars (k, kʷ, k’, kʷ’, x, xʷ versus
q, qʷ, q’, qʷ’, x̣, xʷ), plain and labialized velars and uvulars (k, k’, x, q, q’, x̣ versus kʷ, kʷ’, xʷ, qʷ.
qʷ’, x̣ʷ), plain and ejective stops and affricates (p, t, ts, tš, k, kʷ, q, qʷ versus p’, t’, tɬ’, ts’, k’, kʷ’,
q’, q’), and voiced and voiceless laterals (l versus ɬ).
As is common among pidgins, there are not complex morphological structures, though such
structures are common in the area. Jacobs notes, however, the beginning of such developments.
The most interesting structural trait in Jargon is this compounding, clustering, or tying of
words. To generalize: compounds and clusters are of several degrees of firmness of knit; the
more frequent component elements of compounds are, in order from firmer to looser: the
shorter personal pronouns, the demonstrative article, the auxiliary verbs, the adverbs. (Jacobs
1932: 34)
In certain traits, the language seems to be moving towards polysynthesis. (Jacobs 1932: 38)
As in many languages indigenous to the region, pronominal enclitics appear even when
coreferential lexical nominals are also present in the clause. The same proclitics are used for
subjects and possessors. Enclitics are used for objects.
(12) Chinook Jargon pronominal clitics (Jacobs 1932: 44)
a. Ya-ɬádwa.
3SG-go
‘He went.’

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
13
b. Ya-wáwa-yáx̣ga.
3SG-tell-3SG
‘He told me.’
c. Ya-ɬútšmən ya-sa:likš.
3SG-woman 3SG-be.angry
‘The woman was angry.’
d. uk-ɬútšmən ya-háus
the-woman 3SG-house
‘the woman’s house’
Tense and aspect are not indicated by verbal morphology, but time can be indicated with separate
adverbials. As in many pidgins, negation is marked with an initial particle, here wík ‘no, not’.
Sometimes Jacobs writes it as a separate word, sometimes attached to a following verb.
(13) Chinook Jargon negation (Jacobs 1932: 40)
Wík háyu nánitš ayáq ayáq!
not very look quick quick
‘Don’t be looking so often!’
(14) Chinook Jargon negation (Jacobs 1932: 47
Wík-ya-tq’i mákmak lí:li.
NEG-3SG-want eat-eat long.time
‘For a long time she would not eat.’
Vocabulary is largely from Lower Chinook (Chinookan family), Nuuchahnulth (Nootka,
Wakashan family), Chehalis (Salishan family), with later loans from English and French.
Some of these traits can be seen in the excerpt below from a text recorded by Jacobs in 1930
from Mrs. Victoria Howard, of Oregon City, whose first language was Clackamas (Upper
Chinook). Word boundaries and hyphens are as in the original.
(15) Chinook Jargon text (Jacobs 1932: 45-50)
Łas-mí:ɬait íxt-lamyái bi-yá-kwiʔim.
3PL-live one-old.woman and-3SG-grandchild
they were living one old lady and her grandchild
‘One old lady and her grandchild were dwelling there.’
Uk-dənəs-ɬútšmən gwa:nisim ya-ɬádwa múŋk-lagámas.
that-little-female always 3SG-go do-camas
that little girl always she went to dig camas
‘The little girl always used to go dig camas (cat-ear roots).’

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
14
Gwá:nisim ya-q’úʔ k’í:labai kába-ɬas-háus.
always 3SG-come home there-3PL-house
always she come home to their house
‘She would always return home.’
Alda-ya-p’ínəs úk-lagamás.
then-3SG-bake that-camas
then she bake the camas
‘Then she would bake the camas under ashes.’
Álda-ya-ú:ma ya-tsə՛tš.
then-3SG-give 3SG-grandmother
then she give to her grandmother.
‘Then she would give them to her grandmother.’
Jargons and pidgins in other areas of North America have also been described. Bakker (1989,
1991, 1996a, 1996b) discusses possible trade jargons and pidgins in eastern Canada between the
Gulf of St Lawrence and the entry to Hudson Bay. The area was in use by Inuit, Innu
(Montagnais), Saint Lawrence Iroquoians, Beothuk, and Micmac over centuries. Their languages
are mutually unintelligible, but archaeological and historical evidence indicates they engaged in
trade. There were also early Norse settlements, and from about 1500, Portuguese, English,
Norman, Breton, and Basque fishermen and traders. Bakker discusses a possible Micmac pidgin
Portuguese from the 16th century, a Micmac pidgin Basque, and Montagnais pidgin Basque from
the 16th and 17th centuries, an Inuktitut French jargon from the 17th and 18th centuries, an
Inuktitut English Pidgin from the 17th century, a Micmac Pidgin English from the 19th century,
and pidginized Inuktitut used in the 20th century. Van der Voort (1996) describes a more or less
stable contact variant of Kalaallisuut (Greenlandic) used between the Greenlandic Inuit and
European whalers and traders from the 17th to the 19th centuries. Bakker points out that most of
these pidgins contain vocabulary from multiple sources and identifies an Inuit Pidgin French-
Inuktitut-Montagnais-Basque, and an Inuit Pidgin Inuktitut-Cree, with terms passed along by
middlemen through trade networks. Discovering the true nature of these early contact languages
is a challenge, because documentation is sparse and orthographic conventions not established.
In the western Canadian Arctic there were at least two jargons. Broken Slavey, also known as
Slavey Jargon, was used in the Mackenzie River district and Jargon Loucheux along the Yukon
River. Bakker (1996b) surveys descriptions of the languages and cites the missionary Petitot
(1889), who reported that the first was made up of French, Cree, and Dene Slave, and the second
of French, English, Chpiewyan, Slave, and Gwich’in (Loucheux). Cree is an Algonquian
language, and the others are Athabaskan, known for their complex phonologies and verb
morphologies. They were apparently used by speakers of Slave and Chipewyan (Athabaskan),
Cree, French and other European languages, and Inuit.
In the Southwest was Trader Navajo, a simplified version of Navajo used by Anglo traders at
isolated trading posts (Werner 1963).
In the Southeast was Mobilian Jargon (Crawford 1978, Drechsel 1997). It apparently
developed in the lower Mississippi Valley in what is now French Louisiana, and eventually
spread north into present Illinois, east into Florida, and west into Texas. It was eventually used
by speakers of Choctaw, Chickasaw, Apalachee, Alabama, and Koasati (Muskogean family);

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
15
Atakapa, Chitimacha, Natchez, and Tunica (Gulf isolates); Ofo and Biloxi (Siouan family);
Caddo (Caddoan family); perhaps Kiowa Apache (Athabaskan); some Algonquian languages;
and by European speakers of French, English, Spanish, and German. Most of the lexicon is from
Choctaw and Alabama.
4.4.2 Mixed languages
Mixed languages arise from a combination of two identifiable source languages, usually in
communities of fluent bilinguals. Some important ones are indigenous to North America.
Michif is spoken by the Métis, descendants of Cree-speaking mothers and French-speaking
fur trader fathers. It developed in Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada, and North Dakota and
Montana in the United States. It is estimated that there were 2000-3000 speakers at the turn of
the last century (Bakker 1997: 3). Though it was originally formed by skilled Cree-French
bilinguals, it is not mutually intelligible with either Cree or French.
Cree, an Algic language, has elaborate verb morphology, but relatively simple nouns. Michif
combines the complexity of Cree verb structure with the complexity of French noun phrase
structure. Essentially, verbs show Cree phonology, while noun phrases show French phonology.
Both languages have obligatory grammatical gender distinctions, but Cree distinguishes
animates and inanimates, and French masculines and feminines. Referents are accordingly
distinguished as animate/inanimate within the verb, but masculine/feminine within the noun
phrase. In (16), the verb ‘he pulled it’ is essentially Cree. The suffix -am indicates that it is
transitive inanimate (with grammatically inanimate object, here the head), and has a third person
subject and fourth person object. The rest of the sentence is essentially a Canadian French noun
phrase: ‘the turtle’s head.’ Here the head is classified as grammatically feminine, as we can see
from the form sa of ‘his’. The turtle is also classified as grammatically feminine, indicated by the
article la ‘the’.
(16) Michif (Bakker 1997: 87)
Ki:-učIpIt-am sa tɛt la tɔrčy.
PAST-pull-TR.INAN.3>4 his.F head F.SG.DEF turtle
he pulled it his head the turtle
‘The turtle pulled back his head.’
The constituent order is essentially Cree, governed by the information each constituent
contributes at that point in the discourse.
Another North American mixed language is Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut (CIA). It
apparently emerged in the 19th century on Mednyj (Copper) Island, part of a western extension of
the Aleutian chain off the southwest coast of Alaska. Russian fur trappers and traders established
settlements on the islands in 1819, then brought in Aleuts from various islands beginning in
1826. Children of Aleut mothers and Russian fathers, known as Creoles, were fluent Aleut-
Russian bilinguals, but they were not fully accepted by either group. Thomason (1997: 452)
reports that in 1860, before the departure of the fur company, there were 4656 Aleuts, 595
Russians, and 1896 Creoles. The Mednyj Aleut language, a combination of Aleut and Russian,
emerged in this last group. In the late 1960’s all speakers were moved to Bering Island.
English descriptions of the language are in Golovko 1994, 1996, 2003, Golovko and Vakhtin
1990, Sekerina 1994, and Thomason 1997. It combines structural features of both languages, but

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
16
most vocabulary is from Aleut. Working from a vocabulary of about 500 words, Sekerina (1994)
found that 94% of verb roots were from Aleut and 6% from Russian; 61.5% of nouns were from
Aleut and 38.5% from Russian (particularly terms for introduced items), and 31.5% of function
words were from Aleut and 68.5% from Russian.
The phonology is nearly the same as that of Aleut, though the Aleut velar/uvular opposition
is no longer obligatory, and Aleut phonemes /δ/, /hŋ/, and /hw/ are absent from Mednyj Aleut.
Russian words that entered the language early were assimilated to Aleut phonology, but later
ones were not. A p/b distinction not present in Aleut appears in Russian loans, and Russian
words maintain voicing assimilation and final devoicing of obstruents. Phrasal intonation is
Russian.
Eskimo-Aleut morphology is complex, and most of the complexity appears in Mednyj Aleut
as well. Aleut itself distinguishes ergative and absolutive noun case, with the ergative matching
the genitive. Mednyj Aleut has both forms, but the absolutive is now used for all subjects, and
the ergative now serves only as a genitive. Possessive pronouns in Eskimo-Aleut languages are
transitive (POSSESSOR>POSSESSED), and Mednyj Aleut concurs. Nominal and verbal derivational
suffixes match Aleut forms as well. Noun suffixes include an augmentative; diminutive;
agentive, instrumental, and locative nominalizers; and suffixes ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Verb suffixes
include a rich set of causatives, transitivizers and detransitivizers, a verbalizer, desiderative,
continuative, durative, inceptive, completive, iterative, distributive, resultant state, suffixes
‘have’ and ‘do well’.
Finite verb inflection, however, is essentially Russian. Verbs are inflected for person,
number, tense, and optionally gender. (The symbols x
̂ and ĝ represent uvular fricatives.
Apostrophes indicate palatalization.)
(17) Mednyj Aleut verb inflection ‘stand’ (Golovko 1994: 70)
Mednyj Aleut Russian
anqax
̂ta- sto-
1SG anqax
̂ta-ju sto-ju
2SG anqax
̂ta-iš sto-iš’
3SG anqax
̂ta-it sto-it
1PL anqax
̂ta-im sto-im
2PL anqax
̂ta-iti sto-ite
3PL anqax
̂ta-jut sto-jat
Past tense sentences are formed with the Russian verb suffix -l and Russian independent
pronouns. Future tense is formed periphrastically on the Russian model, with the auxiliary bud-
inflected with Russian-based person endings followed by a verb with the Russian infinitive
suffix -t’. Non-finite verb forms, however, are Aleut.
In all Eskimo-Aleut languages, arguments are identified by pronominal suffixes on verbs. An
example from the Aleut spoken on the same island is in (18a). Mednyj Aleut has largely replaced
these with independent Russian subject and object pronouns, as can be seen by comparing (18b)
and (18)c).

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
17
(18) Mednyj Aleut pronouns (Golovko 1994: 71)
a. Bering Island Aleut
Ilax
̂ta-ku-u.
love-REAL-3SG>3SG
‘S/he loves him/her/it.’
b. Mednyj Aleut
Ona hix
̂ta-it čto ona ego ilax
̂ta-it.
she.NOM say-3SG.PRES that she.NOM he.ACC love-3SG.PRES
‘She says that she loves him.’
c. Russian
Ona govor-it čto ona ego ljub-it.
she.NOM say-3SG.PRES that she.NOM he.ACC love-3SG.PRES
‘She says that she loves him.’
Aleut contains two negative suffixes, a realis -laka(ĝ)- and an irrealis -(g)ula-(x)-. Both are
replaced in Mednyj Aleut with the Russian prefix ne- [ni], as can be seen in (19) (Aleut itself has
no prefixes.)
(19) Mednyj Aleut negation (Golovko 1994: 72)
a. Bering Island Aleut
Iglu-ng tuta-qaĝi-laka-x
̂.
grandson-1SG listen-DETRANS-NEG-3SG.PRES
‘My grandson does not listen.’ (= ‘My grandson does not obey.’)
b. Mednyj Aleut
Iglu-ng n’i tuta-qaĝi-it.
grandson-1SG NEG hear-DETRANS-3SG.PRES
Other words from Russian include some modals (nado ‘ought to’, dolžen ‘must’, moč’ ‘can’,
xotet ‘want’), the predicate negator net(u), and various conjunctions and adverbs of time, degree,
and quality.
While Eskimo-Aleut languages generally show clear SOV order, Mednyj Aleut order follows
the more pragmatic Russian patterns. In complex sentences, Russian conjunctions and
complementizers are used, as in (18b) above.
A more recent mixed language is Bilingual Navajo, described by Schaengold (2004). It
emerged when Navajo-speaking children were sent away to boarding school during the first half
of the 20th century and forbidden to speak their language. When they returned to their Navajo
communities, they brought it with them. Neither Navajo nor English monolinguals understand it,
and fluent Navajo-English bilinguals cannot automatically speak it.
Bilingual Navajo draws most of its grammatical and discourse structure from Navajo, but
some vocabulary from English, primarily nouns, some adjectives and adverbs, and a few verbs.
Standard Navajo often contains nouns borrowed from English. They are easily integrated into

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
18
Navajo structures, where nouns have little morphological complexity in Navajo, apart from
possessive prefixes and locative suffixes. Loanwords for ‘clinic’ and ‘check-up’ in Standard
Navajo can be seen in (20a). Some adverbs and adverbial phrases are integrated for similar
reasons. In both Standard and Bilingual Navajo the pronunciation of the copied words is adjusted
to Navajo phonology, like that of ‘clinic’. The Bilingual Navajo sentence in (20b) contains a
borrowed adverbial phrase all day and lacks the subordinate clause structure of the Standard
equivalent, marked morphologically with the subordinator -go.
(20) Bilingual Navajo: Schaengold 2004: 50
a. Standard Navajo
Tɬinic-di check-up bi-niyé sédá:-go
clinic-at 3POSS-reason 1SG.PFV.wait-SUB
‘I went to the clinic for a check-up and’
shei’íí’ah.
1SG.OBJ.PFV.went.down
‘waited until it [the sun] went down with me.’
b. Bilingual Navajo
Tɬinic-di check-up bi-niyé all day sédá-.
clinic-at 3POSS-reason 1SG.PFV.wait
‘I went to the clinic for a check-up and waited [there] all day.’
Navajo verb morphology can be complex, like that of many North American languages, with
distinctions of person (first, second, third, fourth), number (singular, dual, plural), tense, aspect,
mood, and transitivity, often with considerable fusion. It is not easy to incorporate English verbs
into the structure. When verbs are brought in, an auxiliation strategy is exploited involving a
verb -léeh ‘make/prepare’.
(21) Bilingual Navajo (Schaengold 2004: 54)
a. Bi-’éé’ change íí-lééh.
3POSS-clothes 1DU-make
‘We are changing her clothes.’
b. Standard Navajo
Bi-’éé’ ɬahgo át’éhí b-ii ndeezhteeh.
3POSS-clothes altered differently 3-into 1DU.move.animate.being.PROG
Furthermore, sets of what are termed ‘handling verbs’ in Navajo distinguish the shape,
consistency, number, or animacy of items moving, handled, or located somewhere. The Standard
Navajo verb in (21b) is based on the progressive form -teeh of the stem -t į́ ‘handle single animate
being’. The Bilingual Navajo counterpart does not require such classification. The event is
portrayed slightly differently in the Bilingual and Standard Navajo versions: in (21a), it is the
clothes that are manipulated. In (21b) it is the person who is manipulated, propelled into clothes.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
19
5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Over the last century, recently, purism has often been a value in the documentation of languages
indigenous to North America. Speakers working to leave a record of their traditional languages
have often put special effort into avoiding obvious recent loanwords from English, French, or
Spanish, or code switching, as they were being recorded and certainly as they produced
curriculum materials for heritage language learners. Such concern is not surprising in these
situations where European languages are menacing the traditional ones to the point where so
many are now spoken only by the oldest generation, and many others by no one. As a result,
there may be some underdocumentation of the dynamics of language contact situations involving
these languages. In some communities, however, attitudes are beginning to change, as
revitalization efforts gain momentum and knowledge of more than one language is recognized as
a value. Because the vast majority of speakers of languages indigenous to North America are
bilingual, opportunities are now greater than ever for learning about effects of language contact
under both situations of language maintenance (in elder first-language speakers) and language
shift (in younger, second-language learners).
At the same time, modern speakers are generally less aware of older contact effects among
indigenous languages, so there is little effort to avoid evidence of them. For the most part, the
lingua franca for indigenous peoples of North America communicating across language lines is
now English, or in some areas French or Spanish. Fewer speakers now recognize loanwords from
other indigenous languages, and they are certainly not conscious of the kinds of factors that can
lead to the longterm structural convergence discussed in earlier sections, such as replication of
frequencies of certain semantic distinctions or particular syntactic constructions.
At present, as more detailed documentation of North American languages becomes available,
we continue to learn about the kinds of features that can be transferred in contact situations.
Particularly important is the documentation of unscripted connected speech, especially
conversation, which holds the key to understanding the kinds of features that can be transferred
in contact situations, some of the cultural circumstances which may promote or restrain such
transfer, and the pathways via which grammatical patterns may converge.
6. FURTHER READING
Bakker, Peter. (1997). A Language of our own. Oxford: Oxford University.
This volume describes the genesis of the mixed Cree-French language Michif.
Mithun, Marianne. (2008). The emergence of agentive systems. The Typology of Semantic
Alignment Systems. In Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann, eds., Oxford: Oxford
University, pp. 297-333.
This chapter traces the areal concentrations of agent/patient systems in North America and
describes how they can spread through contact.
Mithun, Marianne. (2012). Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations: Hierarchical
systems in Northern California. In Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie, and Valery Solovyev
eds., Typology of Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
pp. 257-294.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
20
This chapter shows how alignment systems in unrelated neighboring languages have converged
via different pathways of development.
Thomason, Sarah. (1983). Chinook Jargon in areal and historical context. Language 59: 820-870.
This article addresses two controversies about the nature and origin of Chinook Jargon: whether
it is a true pidgin rather than a jargon, and whether it existed before the arrival of Europeans.
7. RELATED TOPICS
Social factors, Pragmatic factors, Cognitive factors, Typological factors, Convergence and
grammaticalization, Pidgins and creoles, Mixed languages.
8. REFERENCES
Aoki, Haruo. 1970. Nez Perce Grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics 62.
Berkeley: University of California.
Bakker, Peter. (1989). “The language of the coast tribes is half Basque”. A Basque-Amerindian
pidgin in use between Europeans and Native Americans in North America, ca. 1540 - ca.
1640. Anthropological Linguistics 31: 117-147.
Bakker, Peter. (1991). Trade languages in the Strait of Belle Isle. Journal of the Atlantic
Provinces Linguistic Association 13: 1-19.
Bakker, Peter. (1996a). Language contact and pidginization in Davis Strait, Hudson, Strait, and
the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (northeast Canada). In Ernst Håkon Jahr and Ingvild Broch, eds.,
Language Contact in the Arctic. Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages, Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, pp. 261-310.
Bakker, Peter. (1996b). Broken Slavey and Jargon Loucheux: A first exploration. In Ernst Håkon
Jahr and Ingvild Broch, eds., Language Contact in the Arctic. Northern Pidgins and Contact
Languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 317-320.
Boas, Franz. (1894). Classification of the languages of the North Pacific Coast. Memoirs of the
International Congress of Anthropology, Chicago: Schulte, 339-46.
Boas, Franz. (1920). The classification of American languages. American Anthropologist 22:
367-76.
Boas, Franz. (1933). Note on the Chinook Jargon. Language 9: 208-213.
Boynton, Sylvia. (1982). Mikasuki grammar in outline. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
Bright, William and Joel Sherzer. (1976). Areal features in North American Indian languages. In
William Bright, ed., Variation and Change in Language. Stanford: Stanford University, pp.
228-268.
Callaghan, Catherine. (1964). Phonemic borrowing in Lake Miwok. In William Bright, ed.,
Studies in Californian Linguistics, University of California Publications in Linguistics 34:
46-53.
Campanius, Johannes. (1696). Lutheri Catechismus Öfwersatt på American-Virginiske Språket.
Stockholm: Burchardi. (Facsimile edition issued with the title: Martin Luther’s little
catechism translated into Algonquian Indian, bound with Collijn 1937, Stockholm: Ivar
Hæggström and Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1937.)

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
21
Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native
America. Oxford: Oxford University.
Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun. (1979). Introduction: North American Indian historical
linguistics in current perspective. In Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun, eds. The
Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin, TX:
University of Texas , pp. 3-69.
Crawford, James. (1978). The Mobilian Trade Language. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Darnell, Regna and Joel Sherzer. (1971). Areal linguistic studies in North America: A historical
perspective. International Journal of American Linguistics 37.1: 20-28.
Drechsel, Emanuel. (1997). Mobilian Jargon. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Goddard, Ives. (1997). Pidgin Delaware. In Sarah Thomason ed., Contact languages: A wider
Perspective, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 43-98.
Golovko, Evgeniy. (1994). Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut: An Aleut-Russian mixed
language. In Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous eds., Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in
Language Intertwining. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT, pp. 113-121.
Golovko, Evgeniy V. (1996). A case of non-genetic development in the Arctic area: The
contribution of Aleut and Russian to the formation of Copper Island Aleut. In Ernst Håkon
Jahr and Ingvild Broch, eds., Language Contact in the Arctic. Northern Pidgins and Contact
Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63-77.
Golovko, Evgeniy. (2003). Language contact and group identity: The role of ‘folk’ linguistic
engineering. In Yaron Matras and Peter Bakker, eds., The Mixed Language Debate:
Theoretical and Empirical Advances, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 177-208.
Golovko, Evgeniy and Nikolai Vakhtin. (1990). Aleut in contact: The CIA enigma. Acta
Linguistica Hafniensia 72: 97-125.
Hale, Kenneth. (1958). Internal diversity in Uto-Aztecan: I. International Journal of American
Linguistics 14: 101-7.
Hinton, Leanne. (1991). Takic and Yuman: A study in phonological convergence. International
Journal of American Linguistics 57: 133-157.
Jacobs, Melville. (1932). Notes on the structure of Chinook Jargon. Language 8.1: 27-50.
Kari, James. (1977). Linguistic diffusion between Tanaina and Ahtna. International Journal of
American Linguistics 43.4: 274-288.
Kinkade, M. Dale 1991. Upper Chehalis Dictionary University of Montana Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 7.
Kroskrity, Paul (1985). Areal-historical influences on Tewa possession, Intwernational Journal
of American Linguistics 51: 46-49.
Laylander, Don. (1985). Some linguistic approaches to Southern California’s prehistory. Casual
Papers, Cultural Resource Management 2.1. San Diego: Cultural Resource Management
Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.
Loether, Christopher. (1998). Yokuts and Miwok loanwords in Western Mono. In Jane Hill, P.J.
Mistry, and Lyle Campbell, eds., The Life of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101-
121.
Mithun, Marianne. (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Mithun, Marianne. (2005). Ergativity and language contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea,
Siuslaw, and Coos. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (26), pp. 77-95.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
22
Mithun, Marianne. (2007a). Grammar, contact, and time. Journal of language Contact - THEMA
1: 144-167.
Mithun, Marianne. (2007b). Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the
Northwest Coast. Diversity in Language. In Yoshiko Matsumoto, David Oshima, Orrin
Robinson, and Peter Sells, eds., Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information,
pp. 9-36.
Mithun, Marianne. (2008). The emergence of agentive systems. In: Mark Donohue and Søren
Wichmann, eds. The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University,
pp. 297-333.
Mithun, Marianne. (2010). Contact and North American Languages. In Raymond Hickey, ed.,
Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 673-694.
Mithun, Marianne. (2017a). Native North American languages. In Raymond Hickey, ed., The
Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 878-933.
Mithun, Marianne. (2017b). Polysynthesis in North America. In Nicholas Evans, Michael
Fortescue, and Marianne Mithun, eds., Handbook of Polysynthesis, Oxford: Oxford
University, pp. 235-259.
Mithun, Marianne. (To appear). Contact and North American Languages. In Raymond Hickey,
ed., Handbook of Language Contact, 2nd edition.. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Moratto, Michael. (1984). California Archaeology. New York: Academic .
Nater, Hank. (1974). Lexical comparisons between Bella Coola and neighboring languages.
Ninth International Conference on Salish Languages, Colville Reservation.
Nater, Hank. (1977). Stem List of the Bella Coola Language. PdR Publications on Salish
Languages no. 4. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.
Nater, Hank. (1984). The Bella Coola Language. Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercury
Series 92.
Nater, Hank. (1994). The Athapaskan component of Nuxalk. International Journal of American
Linguistics 60.2: 177-190.
Nichols, Johanna. (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Ochoa, Zaueta, Jesus Angel. (1982). Sociolingüistica de Baja California. Los Mochis:
Universidad de Occidente.
Petitot, Emile. (1889). Quinze ans sous le Cercle Polaire. Mackenzie, Anderson, Youkon. Paris:
E. Dentu.
Powell, John Wesley. (1891). Indian linguistic families of America north of Mexico. Bureau of
American Ethnology-Annual Report 7: 142. Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted 1966 in
Preston Holder, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska .
Sapir, Edward. (1916). Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture, a Study in Method.
Geological Survey Memoir 90: 13, Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau.
Sapir, Edward. (1921a). A bird’s eye view of American languages north of Mexico. Science n.s.
54: 408. Reprinted in Bright, William. ed. (1990). The Collected Works of Edward Sapir 5:
American Indian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 93-94.
Sapir, Edward. (1921b). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.

To appear in the Routledge Handbook of Language Contact, Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras (eds.).
23
Sapir, Edward. (1929). Central and North American Indian languages. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 14th ed. 5: 138-41. Reprinted in Mandelbaum, David, ed. (1949, 1963). Selected
Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. Berkeley: University of
California, pp. 169-78, and in Bright, William. ed. (1990). The Collected Works of Edward
Sapir 5: American Indian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95-104.
Schaengold, Charlotte. (2004). Bilingual Navajo: Mixed Codes, Bilingualism and language
Maintenance. Ph.D dissertation, Ohio State University.
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?osu1092425886
Sekerina, Irinia. (1994). Copper Island (Mednyj) Aleut: A mixed language. Languages of the
World 8: 14-31.
Sherzer, Joel. (1973). Areal linguistics in North America. In Sebeok, Thomas, ed. Current
Trends in Linguistics 10 Linguistics in North America, pp. 749-95. Reprinted in Sebeok,
Thomas, ed., Native Languages of the Americas, 1: 121-73. New York: Plenum.
Sherzer, Joel. (1976). An Areal-typological Study of American Indian Languages North of
Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Silverstein, Michael. (1996). Dynamics of recent linguistic contact. In Ives Goddard, ed.,
Handbook of North American Indians 17: Languages. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution, pp. 117-136.
Swanton, John R. 1929. A sketch of the Atakapa language. International Journal of American
Linguistics 5.2/4 129-141.
Thomas, Gabriel. (1698). An historical and geographical account of the Province and Country of
Pennsylvania; and of West-New-Jersey in America. London: A. Baldwin. (Facsimile reprint:
New York: for Henry Austin Brady by Francis Michelin, 1848).
Thomason, Sarah. (1997). Mednyj Aleut. In Sarah Thomason ed., Contact Languages: A Wider
Perspective, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 449-468.
Thomason, Sarah. (2016). Language contact and change in the Americas: The state of the art. In
Andrea Berez-Kroeker, Diane Hintz, and Carmen Jany, eds, Language Contact and change
in the America: Studies in honor of Marianne Mithun. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1-13.
Thomason, Sarah and Terrence Kaufman. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California.
Voort, Hein van der. (1996). Eskimo pidgin in West Greenland. In Ernst Håkon Jahr and Ingvild
Broch, eds., Language Contact in the Arctic. Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157-258.
Werner, Oswald. (1963). A Typological Comparison of Four Trader Navajo Speakers. Ph.D
dissertation in linguistics, Indiana University.
Young, Robert and William Morgan. (1980). The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial
Dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.