Loan translations in the U.S. Southeast

Abstract

Term paper, 'Languages in contact’, Prof. Marianne Mithun, Winter 2014, UC Santa Barbara.

Full text

Hieber, Daniel W. 2014. Loan translations in the U.S. Southeast. Term paper, ‘Languages in
contact’, Prof. Marianne Mithun, Winter 2013, UC Santa Barbara.
1
Loan translations in the Southeastern United States
Daniel W. Hieber
University of California, Santa Barbara
1 Introduction
It has long been recognized that the Southeastern United States forms a strong linguistic
area (Campbell 1997:341–344; Mithun 1999:319–320; Nicklas 1994; Rankin 1988). This is
typically illustrated by way of structural comparisons among languages of the region. Lexical
diffusion, however, is little discussed (though see Ballard (1982)). This paper aims to contribute
to the study of the Southeast linguistic area by examining lexical borrowings in the form of
calques or loan translations among the languages of the region.
Matras (2009) distinguishes two types of borrowing – the replication of linguistic matter,
and the replication of linguistic patterns, each of which can occur at different levels of grammar
(lexicon, discourse, morphology, phonology, etc.). When pattern replication is widespread
through a geographic zone, this is known as a CONVERGENCE AREA (Matras 2009; Weinreich
1966). The U.S. Southeast appears to be one of these zones, with extensive pattern borrowing
in grammatical structures and even parallel grammaticalization (Campbell 1997:341–344;
Heaton 2014; Hieber forthcoming; Mithun 1999:319–320; Mithun to appear). At the level of
the lexicon, the replication of linguistic matter is generally referred to as a LOANWORD, while
the replication of a linguistic pattern is termed a CALQUE or LOAN TRANSLATION. In many cases
it is difficult to determine which terms are loans and which are independent innovations, and
doing so often requires additional knowledge about the sociolinguistic history of the speakers
that used them. Like Thomason & Kaufmann (1988) and Matras (2009), I take language
contact to be a matter of contact between speakers attempting to accomplish communicative
goals, rather than an abstract contact between linguistic systems. It is the sociolinguistic history
of speakers that determines the results of language contact. As such, this paper will also briefly
discuss the social situations in the Southeast that could explain the patterns of loan translations
in the region.
This study focuses on data from three languages in the Southeast: Chitimacha (C), Ishak
(known as Atakapa in the literature
1
; I), and Biloxi (B), with occasional data taken from other
languages of the region as well (additional abbreviations are given in Appendix I:
Abbreviations). Unless otherwise stated, data for the sample come from the following sources:
1
The term
Atakapa
comes from the Choctaw term for ‘cannibals’, and is strongly despised among present-day
members of the Ishak community. They prefer their native term
Ishak
‘people’, a preference I honor here.

2
Chitimacha: Hieber (2013); Ishak: Gatschet & Swanton (1932); Biloxi: (2012). I retain the
transcription of the original in all cases. The location of these three languages at the time of
European contact is shown in Figure 1, which depicts present-day Louisiana and the
surrounding regions (from Mithun 1999:xvii–xix).
Figure 1. Languages of the Gulf south (from Mithun 1999:xvii–xix)
Chitimacha and Ishak are, to the best of our present knowledge, isolates, though there have
been numerous attempts to show their relatedness (Gursky 1969; Haas 1951; Haas 1952;
Swadesh 1946; Swanton 1919). Biloxi is a distant member of the Siouan family. Between these
three languages sit the Muskogean language Choctaw, and another isolate Natchez. Little data
is available for Natchez or Choctaw that allow researchers to easily determine the makeup of
compound words without requiring extensive knowledge of the grammar, and so data for these
languages were not included in this study. Nevertheless, the three languages included in the
sample are sufficient to establish diffusion over a linguistic area, and suggest that any
borrowings may have spread through the intervening languages, Natchez and Choctaw, as well.
The paper examines first the different types of borrowings related to or motivated by
European contact in §2.1, and then the borrowings which derive from other languages of the
region (or Mesoamerica, in the case of terms relating to maize) in §2.2, before drawing some
general conclusions about the patterns seen in the data in §3.
2 Types of loan translations in the Southeast
2.1
Borrowings relating to European contact
A number of calques in the Southeast refer to items obtained through contact with
Europeans:
(1) ‘barrel’
C šušwahy ‘wood-cut’
I teku < te ‘wood’ (Gursky 1969:87)

3
T rihkumera < rihku ‘wood’ (David Kaufman, p.c.)
(2) ‘cart, wagon, car’
C šuški ‘on wood’
I nec pal hidson ‘wood flat small’
B yaduxt < ‘pull’
(3) ‘church’
C hanečʼin ‘holy house’
I aⁿ̃ hiwe-u ‘powerful house’
B yakode thi ‘sing-together house’
(4) ‘alcohol’, etc.
C kuː tep ‘fire water’ (any alcohol)
I kitsonc ak ‘fire water’ (‘whisky’)
kitsak he ‘strong whisky’ (‘beer’)
B anipha ‘bitter water’ (‘whisky’)
anipha ckuuye ‘sweet whisky’ (‘wine’)
aniphaxka ‘sour water’ (‘beer’)
(5) ‘drunk, intoxicated’
C kap kuːkš nuːp- ‘be dying of liquid’
I kitsak ka-u ‘whisky dead’
B duniyê ‘cause to be twisted’
(6) ‘watermelon’
C čiška nowa ‘ripe / mellow pumpkin’
B kôôckuuyê ‘sweet gourd’
(7) ‘sugar’
C ney cʼahccʼahcn ‘sweet salt’
I neck-ol ‘sweet salt’
B neck-ol ‘sweet salt’
(8) ‘earring’
C waːš šahčti ‘put in ear’
I an hatkomc ‘in ear’
B hauni citutka ‘dangle shine’
nixuxi hauni ‘dangles from ear’

4
(9) ‘pants’
C makta kap šahi ‘put your buttocks in’
I cakiōl cukoke < ‘put in’
B nduxpê ‘buttocks cloth’
(10) ‘pocket’
C wiš tuːkun ‘leg bag’ (< tuʔu ‘hole’)
I komhopc ‘hanging hole’
B pah yįki ‘little sack’
In this category of calques, I also include terms for ‘New Orleans’.
(11) ‘New Orleans’
C tata ʔatikʼi ‘big city’
I – (reported as ‘big village’ by Darensbourg (2014))
B T Nithy ‘big town’
There can also be diversity in the meanings of terms for items introduced by Europeans, as
the word for ‘shirt’ in example (12) shows. Therefore not all terms for European items were
direct loan translations from one language to another.
(12) ‘shirt’
C kipi čʼušmpa ‘sewn body’
I okotka-uc < ‘cover’
B ptato s ‘white cotton’
A number of the above terms focus on similar features of the item in question, but are not
exact calques. Both the Ishak and Biloxi terms for ‘clock’, for example, relate the technology to
the movement of the sun, but in different ways. Terms for animals brought by Europeans tend
to be a semantic extension of terms for animals already known in the region, as (13) – (15)
show.
(13) ‘goat’
C kamčin tʼišin ‘bad-smelling deer’
B ithaa xuuhi ‘stinking deer’
Cr – (connection to ‘deer’ reported by Brown (1998))
(14) ‘horse’
C kiš ʔatin ‘big dog’
I tsanuk possibly ‘run on the back’

5
B tahôôxka goat-like
(15) ‘donkey, mule’
I anmañmañ ‘long ears’
B tahôôxknixuxnaskê ‘long-eared horse’
Os ntht ‘big ears’
M haksobeš falaya ‘long ears’
N wápkup ibuk wadá ‘animal with long ears’
O ačų·kas nashúsit ‘long-eared horse’
The term
šiš neka kʼamin
‘elephant’ in Chitimacha is a variant on this theme, constituting a
semantic extension from a mythological creature known as the ‘long-nosed devil’.
Though clearly brought by Europeans, it is not clear that all the semantic parallels for some
terms are in fact borrowings rather than independent innovations, as in the word for ‘match’:
(16) ‘match’
C tep šanšti ‘gives off fire’
I kolilawi < la-u ‘blaze, burn’
B phêti ‘make fire’
Another loan translation that was also a semantic extension for European items can be seen
in the terms for ‘ribbon’:
(17) ‘ribbon’
C peːšpeːšn ‘thin / ribbon’
I po / popo ‘narrow’ / ‘ribbon’
One term that I only tentatively include under the category of European-induced calques is
the term for ‘hay’. It could be that the description of ‘hay’ as bad or dry grass spread with its
use with European livestock, or it could simply be a non-lexicalized description.
(18) ‘hay’
C poː čʼiwin ‘bad grass’
I oñ tsax ‘dry grass’
B tsuxwi ‘dry grass’
Several items introduced by Europeans – perhaps including the numeral ‘thousand’ – were
given terms using a descriptor of ‘old’ or ‘ancient’, as shown below. This was not a new
pattern, but appears in other native terms as well, such as the Biloxi terms
isi axohi
‘old toe’

6
(‘big toe’) and
caakxohi
‘old hand’ (‘thumb’). Also note that the term for ‘sheep’ in (19) is
another semantic extension for non-indigenous animals.
(19) ‘sheep’
C puːp ʔatin ‘large rabbit’ (‘sheep’)
I anhipon ‘folded ears’ (‘rabbit’ / ‘sheep’)
B cêtkohi ‘old rabbit’ (‘sheep’)
(20) ‘apple’
C nanu ʔatin ‘big persimmon’
B tokono xahi ‘ancient peach’
(21) ‘thousand’ and ‘hundred’
C puːp ʔašinčʼatʼa ‘ancient / old man hundred’
puːp ‘rabbit’ / ‘hundred’
I hiyen ‘pig, hog’ / ‘hundred’
B tsipįya ‘old man hundred’
K čokpi ‘hundred’
čokfi ‘rabbit’
(22) ‘elephant’
C šiš neka kʼamin ‘long-nosed devil’
B kawaxohi ‘something ancient’
Example (21) also illustrates a fascinating pattern common throughout the Southeast, where
terms for certain numbers are synonymous or derived from terms for animals, especially
‘rabbit’ for ‘hundred’.
Unsurprisingly since these were the metals used for specie in the American colonies, terms
for gold, silver, and copper are calques based on terms for ‘money’ + a certain color. The
particular colors chosen for each type of metal vary from language to language, but the overall
semplate (‘semantic template’, to borrow Levinson & Burenhult’s (2009) term) is the same.
(23) ‘gold’
C waːpʼit pinun ‘red money’ (‘money’ < ‘cut pieces’)
I laklakc kuts ‘red coin/money/silver’
lakilāggstat ‘yellow money’ (also used for ‘copper’)
B axisah si ‘yellow money’
(24) ‘silver’
C waːpʼit mestʼin ‘white money’ (‘money’ < ‘cut pieces’)

7
I laklakc < ‘glitter’ (also ‘money’, ‘silver coin’)
B axish s ‘white money’
(25) ‘copper’
C tʼuskunkaci ʔičʼitem ‘yellow metal’ (also used for ‘brass’)
I kutsnăn tāt ‘yellow iron’ (also used for ‘brass’)
B axisah cuuti ‘red money’
Interestingly, there appear to be almost as many calques for items acquired from the
Europeans than there are for native items. This of course does not mean that the tribes of this
region only began interacting with each upon the arrival of the Europeans. Instead, these items
and the terms associated with them must have spread through the robust networks of trade and
interaction that were already in place in the Southeast.
Brown (1998) provides ample evidence to this effect. His data show a decrease in Spanish
loanwords in the Southeast from the southeastern-most part of this area to the western-most. In
other words, the data suggest that Spanish borrowings spread from the point of contact with the
Spanish in Florida to the rest of the Southeast linguistic area. Given what we know of the
history of contact in the area, it must be the case that these words were not directly borrowed
from Spanish into the Southeastern languages in each case, but rather diffused from one Native
American language to the next. The major mechanism of this spread was the Creek
Confederacy, which most scholars agree had a (mostly unidirectional) influence on the other
languages of the region (Kimball 1994; Martin 1994; Sturtevant 1962). And while Chitimacha
and other languages in the western part of this area were not known to have used Creek as a
lingua france, they did use Mobilian Trade Jargon, which was spoken by members of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes among others. This suggests a path of lexical diffusion of
approximately the following:
(26) Spanish > Creek > Choctaw / Chickasaw > Mobilian Jargon > Chitimacha
Given this already well-established path of diffusion for borrowings from Spanish, it is very
likely that a similar chain of contact is responsible for the loan translations of the region as
well, whether induced by European contact or indigenous to the area. It is to the local calques
that I now turn.
2.2
Borrowings within the Americas
Moving away from calques stemming from European contact, we find a similar situation in
the spread of terms relating to maize, another set of technologies and processes not indigenous
to the Southeast.

8
(27) ‘corn husk’
I tso-ots tal ‘corn skin/bark’
B ayêêkahi ‘corn skin’
(28) ‘bread’
C heːš paːčpa ‘baked flour’
I cukwak ‘baked thing’
B pataaskni ‘bread’ (< ‘flat, wide’)
The other possible calques vary too widely in their translation meanings to be considered
loan translations. This may be due to the fact that the southeast already had an extended period
of domesticated agriculture before the arrival of maize, focused around seeds, gourds, and
beans (Fritz 1990). So when maize technology spread to the Southeast, local languages could
adopt terms already in use, which would have been varied and manifold. A common semantic
extension, for example, was the use of words meaning ‘seed’ to refer to maize (Hill 2006).
Keeping now within the Southeast linguistic area, body part terms seem to be a common
source of loan translations, but it is easy to see how the meanings involved could have been
independently innovated as well, especially when the body part is associated with a specific
function:
(29) ‘womb’
C naːnš šahi child(?) container
Cr hopuetak-hute ‘child-home’ (Martin & Mauldin 2000:349)
(30) ‘eye’
C kani ‘eye’ / ‘grain, seed’
T -štósu ‘head-seed’ (Gursky 1969:100)
B tac su sapi ‘black seed of eye’ (‘pupil’)
(31) ‘elbow’
C ʔakt ‘elbow’ / ‘reed, tube’
I est (/est/) ‘elbow’
āct (/ašt/) ‘reed’
(32) ‘skin’, ‘shell’, ‘bark’
C suʔu ‘skin’ / ‘bark’
I nohamc ku tal ‘chicken egg skin’ (‘eggshell’)
B ayahi ‘tree skin’ (‘bark’)
įįtahi ‘egg skin’ (‘eggshell’)

9
(33) ‘vein’
I pōck aⁿ ‘blood house’
B ayithi ‘blood house’
(34) ‘skull’
C kut kaci ‘head bone’
B phaa aho ‘head bone’
Another very common pattern occurs among animal products using terms for ‘grease’ or
‘liquid’:
(35) ‘honey’
C hihmu cʼiya ‘bee egg’
I miñ ak ‘bee liquid’
B kx acįni ‘bee grease’
(36) ‘lard’
I hiyen eñ ‘hog grease’
(37) ‘butter’
C miː kuː nema ‘milk grease’
I nik eñ ‘milk grease’
B waaktasacįni ‘cow breast grease’
O nafiči ‘cow grease’
M wak (em)peš neha ‘cow breast grease’
(38) ‘milk’
C miː kuː ‘breast liquid’
B waaktasi ‘cow breast juice’
(39) ‘cheese’ / ‘clabbered milk’
C miː kuː yaːniš ‘hardened milk’
B waaktaspataaskni ‘cow juice [i.e. milk] bread’
A number of calques are words for or relating to animals of the region. The Biloxi word for
‘groundhog’ appears to be a calque from English rather than neighboring languages. The terms
for ‘chicken’ and ‘turkey’ are related in both Ishak and Biloxi (though in the opposite semantic
direction).
(40) ‘possum’, ‘groundhog’
C suseykʼs ʔoːčʼipu ‘woods hog’

10
I kakip hiyen ‘forest hog'
B kcixkayoːka ‘swamp hog’
kcixka myįtka ‘hog in the ground’
(41) ‘chicken’, ‘turkey’
I nohamc ayip ‘chicken in swamps’ (‘turkey’)
B mxi ‘sacred turkey’ (‘chicken’)
(42) ‘gaspergou, freshwater drum’
C kipi yaːmin ‘hard meat’
I ya-u al laklak ‘fish with hard flesh’
B o psahe ‘corner fish’
(43) ‘fin’, ‘shoulder’
C makš ʔokun ‘fish shoulder’
I nok hal ‘back fin’ (‘tail, fin’) < nok ‘arm, wing, fin’ + hal ‘back’
nok teu ‘back tail’ (‘shoulder’)
B o imah ‘fish paddle’
A few final calques don’t fall into any broader patterns:
(44) ‘summer / year’
C yoːč ‘summer, year’
I ilu ‘summer, year’
B amihca ‘summer gone’ (‘year’)
(45) ‘field’
C hukaci ‘split crop’
I nē-yuc (possibly from Chitimacha
ney ʔuči-
‘work the earth’)
B amni ‘land worked/made’
(46) ‘fog, dust, smoke’
C šiʔ ‘dust, ashes’
šičt ‘fog, smoke’
I won inaha ‘like fog’ (‘damp, moist’)
B ayuxka ‘ash-like’ (‘fog’)
(47) kick
C soːkš cʼaːt- ‘spear with foot’
B naxthê ‘hit with the foot’

11
The remaining calques catalogued as part of this study may be either independent
innovations or genuine loan translations, but it would be difficult or impossible to know for
certain without a more detailed knowledge of the history of the area. Calques for parts of a
building are based on body part terms, for example, but this is common the world over (cf.
English
window
< Old Norse
vindauga
, literally ‘wind eye’, which itself replaced the Old
English terms
eagþyrl
‘eye-hole’ and
eagduru
‘eye-door’).
(48) ‘door’
C hanšaʔa ‘house mouth’
I aⁿkat ‘house mouth’
(49) ‘window’
C hanšaː minaːpu ‘short house mouth’
I aⁿ kat mōk ‘short house mouth’
(50) ‘fireplace’, ‘hearth’
C tep kani ‘fire eye’
I kidsonkc hipal ‘near the fire’
B phêtithi ‘fire house’
In each of the following potential calques, the description of the item is so closely based on
its function that independent innovation of the term is likely.
(51) ‘chimney’
C tep šič šantʼun ‘fire smoke escape’
I kōtspon-ntʼhanăⁿ ‘hole cut for the smoke to go out’
(52) ‘mud fish, buffalo fish, freshwater drum’ (known for digging in mud)
C ney tʼaːpa makš ‘mud fish’
B omduti ‘fish that eats the earth’
(53) ‘pink’
C pinun kap ʔičʼitem ‘red becoming white’
I kuts inaha ‘red white’
B cuutkas ‘reddish white’
(54) ‘meteor, comet’ or ‘Aurora Borealis’
2
C kap mahc ‘light tail
2
It is not clear to me whether the term for ‘Aurora Borealis’ would have existed prior to European contact or
was coined afterwards, but I suspect it was afterwards. In 1859 the greatest auroral event in recorded history

12
B tka thhį ‘star runs’ (‘meteor, comet’)
tka sįdy ‘star tails’ (‘Aurora Borealis’)
(55) ‘hammer’
C ʔam nehtuyna ‘what they usually strike with’
I pamkamne < ‘hit’
B masįkthê ‘hit metal’
(56) ‘blacksmith’, ‘blacksmith shop’
C tʼuskunkaci kʼetuymiš ‘one who usually beats metal’ (‘fblacksmith’)
tʼuskunkaci hana ‘metal house’ (‘blacksmith shop’)
B amaskthêhayi ‘hit metal habitually’ (‘blacksmith’)
amaskthê thi ‘hit-metal house’ (‘blacksmith shop’)
3 Conclusion
The sociolinguistic history of the Southeast provides ample opportunity for the cultural
contact that could have given rise to these borrowings detailed in this paper. In addition to the
influence of the Creek Confederacy and Mobilian Trade Jargon discussed in §2.1, there was
ample population movement in the area that would have resulted in intense periods of contact
between different language groups. Brown (1998) notes that the Koasati, Chickasaw, Shawnee,
and Yuchi are all known to have settled in Creek territory at one point or another, and Biloxi
and Tunica too cohabited an area near Marksville, Louisiana around the same time.
We have seen a number of broader patterns in the calques of the U.S. Southeast, such as
semantic extension from known animals to new, the use of terms for ‘grease’ or ‘liquid’ to
refer to animal products, body part metaphors to refer to parts of the house, the use of the term
‘wood’ for many European technologies constructed with it, and many more. Even words
which do not fall into one of these specific semantic patterns tend to fall into certain semantic
domains for which other loan translations can be found. Such is the case for terms relating to
clothing and livestock, for example. In fact, very few Southeastern calques do not fit into some
type of semantic or lexical pattern. This suggests that speakers in this region did not just calque
words indiscriminately, but rather created calques in a way that matched already existing
lexical patterns or semplates in the language, as we saw in the extension of calques using the
term ‘old’ from indigenous items to European ones. This raises the following question for
occurred, and though it could not have been visible as far south as Louisiana, it was widely reported throughout all
the newspapers of the time. Gatschet’s documentation of Biloxi was conducted in January of 1885, well within the
living memory of this event.

13
studies of loan translations: If loan translations tend to be members of broader semantic
patterns in the language, which came first, the semantic pattern or the calque? Can the calquing
of a set of terms give rise to a new semplate in the language? Could, hypothetically,
Chitimacha have calqued several terms from Biloxi using the term ‘old’ (e.g. ‘old hundred’ for
‘thousand’), and from this began to coin new terms with ‘old’ without having borrowed them
from Biloxi first? If so, how could one tell the difference between a semplate-inspired calque
and a direct calque? Historical-comparative data could help answer this question, but such
techniques are not feasible for the many isolates of the region.
There is a second trend in the data too, which is that the majority of calques stem from
some type of exogenous cultural contact with or spread from either Europe or Mesoamerica.
And many of the remaining calques have a high chance of being independently innovated.
These facts suggest that speakers are less likely to borrow a calque for terms that do not fill a
cultural gap, the major exceptions to this appearing to be body part terms and their
metaphorical extensions, and terms for food (which themselves are likely to be a matter of
cultural borrowing).
Weinreich (1966:61) suggests that “a language with many restrictions on the form of words
may be proportionately more resistant to outright transfer and favour semantic extension and
loan translation instead.” For Native American languages, known for their complex
morphophonology and verb structures, this position has an intuitive appeal. But this fact alone
cannot explain the patterns of borrowings seen in loan translations in the U.S. Southeast.
Instead, we have seen that it is the sociolinguistic history of speakers and the nature of their
intercultural contacts, as well as the existing semantic patterns of the language, which influence
the types of calques that are likely to occur. Continued research in this area, bringing in data
from additional languages of the U.S. Southeast, would make great strides in our understanding
of the sociolinguistic motivations for the replication of lexical patterns.

14
References
Ballard, W. L. 1982. Lexical borrowing among Southeastern Native American langauges. In F.
Ingeman (ed.),
Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers
.
Brown, Cecil H. 1998. Spanish loanwords in the languages of the Southeastern United States.
International Journal of American Linguistics
64(2). 148–167.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997.
American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native
America
. (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Darensbourg, Jeffrey U. 2014. Ishak words: Obstacles to langauge renewal for a historic Gulf
Coast tribe.
Conference on language revitalization: Sleeping and awakened languages of
the Gulf south
. Tulane University, New Orleans.
Fritz, Gayle J. 1990. Multiple pathways to farming in precontact Eastern North America.
Journal of World Prehistory
4(4). 387–435.
Gatschet, Albert S. & John R. Swanton. 1932.
A dictionary of the Atakapa language
. (Bureau
of American Ethnology Bulletins 108). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1969. A lexical comparison of the Atakapa, Chitimacha, and Tunica
languages.
International Journal of American Linguistics
35(2). 83–107.
Haas, Mary R. 1951. The Proto-Gulf word for “water” (with notes on Siouan-Yuchi).
International Journal of American Linguistics
17(2). 71–79.
Haas, Mary R. 1952. The Proto-Gulf word for “land” (with a note on Proto-Siouan).
International Journal of American Linguistics
18(4). 238–240.
Heaton, Raina. 2014. “Gulf” as a linguistic sub-area.
Conference on language revitalization:
Sleeping and awakened languages of the Gulf south
. Tulane University, New Orleans.
Hieber, Daniel W. forthcoming. Semantic alignment in Chitimacha. Ms. in author's possession.

15
Hieber, Daniel W. 2013.
A dictionary of Chitimacha (Scholar’s Edition)
. Charenton, LA:
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana.
Hill, Jane H. 2006. The historical linguistics of maize cultivation in Mesoamerica and North
America. In John Staller, Robert Tykot & Bruce Benz (eds.),
Histories of maize:
Multidisciplinary approaches to the prehistory, linguistics, biogeography, domestication
and evolution of maize
, 631–643. New York: Academic Press.
Kaufman, David V. 2012.
Tanêks-Ta᷂yosa᷂ Kadakathi / Biloxi-English dictionary with English-
Biloxi index
. University of Kansas.
Kimball, Geoffrey. 1994.
Koasati dictionary
. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. & Niclas Burenhult. 2009. Semplates: A new concept in lexical
semantics?
Language
85(1). 153–174.
Martin, Jack B. 1994. Modeling language contact in the prehistory of the Southeastern United
States. In P. Kwachka (ed.),
Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, archaeology, and
ethnohistory
, 14–24. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Martin, Jack B. & Margaret McKane Mauldin. 2000.
A dictionary of Creek/Muskogee
.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Matras, Yaron. 2009.
Language contact
. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. Linguistic areas of Native North America. In Raymond Hickey (ed.),
Handbook of areal linguistics
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999.
The languages of Native North America
. (Cambridge Language
Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicklas, Thurston Dale. 1994. Linguistic provinces of the Southeast at the time of Columbus.
In P. Kwachka (ed.),
Perspectives on the Southeast: Linguistics, archaeology, and
ethnohistory
, 1-13. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

16
Rankin, Robert. 1988. Quapaw: Genetic and areal affiliations. In William F. Shipley (ed.),
In
honor of Mary Haas
, 629-650. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sturtevant, William C. 1962. Spanish-Indian relations in Southeastern North America.
Ethnohistory
9(1). 41–94.
Swadesh, Morris. 1946. Phonologic formulas for Atakapa-Chitimacha.
International Journal of
American Linguistics
12(3).
Swanton, John Reed. 1919.
A structural and lexical comparison of the Tunica, Chitimacha, and
Atakapa languages
. (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletins 68). Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution.
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988.
Language contact, creolization, and genetic
linguistics
. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966.
Languages in contact: Findings and problems
. London: Mouton de
Gruyter.

17
Appendix I: Abbreviations
B Biloxi (Siouan)
C Chitimacha (isolate)
Cr Creek (Muskogean)
I Ishak (i.e. Atakapa; isolate)
K Koasati (Muskogean)
M Mobilian Trade Jargon
O Ofo
Os Osage
T Tunica (isolate)