Nakota Linguistic Acculturation

Nakota Linguistic Acculturation Vincent Collette Anthropological Linguistics, Volume 59, Number 2, Summer 2017, pp. 117-162 (Article) Published by University of Nebraska Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2017.0004 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/691767 Access provided by University of Regina (4 May 2018 17:18 GMT) Nakota Linguistic Acculturation VINCENT COLLETTE First Nations University of Canada Abstract. Nakota (Siouan) has expanded its lexicon of acculturation almost exclusively through coining and polysemy (semantic extension). The few loanwords designate only foreign types of person or animal, and some (e.g., ‘pig’, ‘Métis’) have diffused indirectly from neighboring Siouan and Algonquian languages. Loanshifts are mostly syntactic compounds that express concepts alien to traditional Nakota culture. When the influx of new entities and concepts increased at the turn of the twentieth century, semantic extension–representative of an older stratum of lexical expansion, when new experiences were commonly equated with their closest traditional analog–was replaced by coining of transparent and descriptive words. 1. Introduction. This article deals with linguistic acculturation in Nakota (also known as Assiniboine), an endangered Siouan language spoken in the Northern Plains of the United States (Montana) and Canada (Saskatchewan). More precisely, I analyze the vocabulary used in naming objects, kinds of person, animal, or plant, and concepts that are alien to the traditional Nakota culture, and identify some sociocultural and historical tendencies of the processes involved in lexical expansion. Linguists recognize four ways by which languages can expand their vocabulary: borrowing of a foreign word, polysemy (or semantic extension) of an existing word, loan shifts, and neologisms. Joseph Casagrande, in his study of Comanche lexical acculturation (1954a, 1954b, 1955:22), suggested that choices among strategies of lexical expansion (e.g., borrowing vs. coining of a neologism) depend on the extent of bilingualism and its concomitant acculturative forces. That is, although languages accommodate lexically to the new reality, particular processes of accommodation are chronologically ordered. Casagrande distinguishes “primary accommodation” from “secondary accommodation” (1955:22). During the initial phases of linguistic acculturation, monolingual speakers of a receiving language use native material (polysemy and coining) to label new experiences; this is primary accommodation. With the intensification of language contacts, bilingual speakers tend to borrow words from the donor language or to create loan shifts. This latter strategy–secondary accommodation–implies an intimate knowledge of the donor language and its mode of thought. Moreover, Casagrande points out that how a language organizes lexical accommodation depends largely on social, historical, and cultural factors (1955: 22). For instance, some languages, such as Inuktitut, make heavy use of loanwords for certain lexical domains (e.g., food), but of semantic extension for other domains (e.g., clothing) (Dorais 1970), while other languages are very resistive to loanwords altogether. The analysis below reveals that Nakota has expanded 117 118 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 its lexicon almost exclusively through polysemy and coining. However, while Casagrande simply lumps together these two processes together as primary accommodation, my analysis reveals a chronological and iconic patterning between these lexical strategies: when the complexity and influx of new objects, kinds, and concepts increased at the turn of the twentieth century, polysemy– which is representative of an older stratum of lexical expansion where new experiences were equated with their closest traditional analog–also started to fade and was replaced by semantically transparent and descriptive neologisms. 2. Nakota, a Siouan language of the northern Plains. 2.1. Historical context: bilingualism and processes of language loss. The Nakota people, also known as “Assiniboine,” an Ojibwe ethnonym meaning ‘stone enemy’ (asiniy¤ ‘stone’ + ¤pwân ‘Sioux’), are mentioned in the Relations of the Jesuits as early as 1640 (Thwaites 1898:240). In 1695, Father Gabriel Marest reported that the Nakota were allied with the Cree against the Dakota, their linguistic and cultural cousins, and he further added that “Many Assiniboëls speak Kriq and many Kriqs, Assiniboël.” (Thwaites 1899:107—11). The long-lasting alliance of the Nakota and the Cree, both of whom acted as middlemen for the Hudson Bay Company from the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century, has been well documented by historians (see Ray 1974). Intermarriage was a common practice in the Northern Plains and contributed to the formation of polyethnic coresidence groups that became tightly bonded economically, politically, and militarily (Sharrock 1974:107). From the late eighteenth century on, a series of devastating epidemics of smallpox (1782, 1838, 1856) and influenza, along with a declining bison population, provoked extreme poverty, deprivation, and considerable population decline among the Nakota, who found themselves constrained to abandon the nomadic way of life and to amalgamate with their Plains Cree, Saulteaux, and Métis allies. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Nakota was still the dominant language in many Canadian reservations, but began to lose ground in favor of Plains Cree or English. MacLeod (2000:447) reports, for example, that in Mosquito—Grizzly Bear’s Head—Leanman Reserve (located in the Battleford area in Saskatchewan), the migration of three Plains Cree women from the nearby Red Pheasant Reserve at the turn of the twentieth century weakened Nakota language transmission since the children of these mixed couples learned Plains Cree from their mother despite the fact their fathers spoke Nakota. Taylor (1981, 1983) has documented Plains Cree phonological, morphological, and lexical influences in Stoney Nakoda (also known as Stoney Assiniboine), two groups that had long-lasting and intimate contacts in northern Alberta in the nineteenth century, but indication of similar contact outcomes between Saskatchewan Nakota specifically and Plains Cree, Saulteaux, or Mitchif remain scarce and underdocumented. 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 119 The early reservation period (1890—1920) was one of radical changes for the Nakota, and Rodnick (1938) provides important information concerning language loss and bilingualism in Fort Belknap in the early twentieth century. According to him, the introduction of cattle and herding and the construction of a day school and St. Paul’s mission in 1886—1887, not to mention the wealth of newly introduced tools, concepts, and values, initiated a sociocultural clash which, in the long run, weakened the vitality of Nakota (1938:4).1 Rodnick recognized three different ethnolinguistic groups at Fort Belknap in the mid-1930s: full bloods under sixty years of age who could read, write, and speak English while speaking Nakota among themselves; full bloods and mixed bloods under forty years of age who spoke English among themselves and even with older people; and the first generation of mixed bloods who did not speak Nakota fluently and did not understand it when spoken to (Rodnick 1938:88—90). Rodnick suggests that the Nakota who were in their teenage years or younger started conforming to white behavioral patterns through formal schooling, while the older generations (those born before 1890, a date that marks the beginning of the reservation period) kept their traditional values and failed to learn English (1938:9). Rodnick states that “the use of Assiniboine was beginning to decline as more and more of the younger people began to use English among themselves and in conversation with those of middle age” (1938:20). To hinder the transmission of language and culture even more, school authorities started prohibiting the use of Nakota between youngsters, and especially when addressing elders. However, even though Rodnick’s observations remain valuable, he may have overestimated the extent of cultural assimilation and linguistic acculturation among the Nakota youth at the time. Indeed, the mechanisms of acculturation remain very subtle since these so-called acculturated Nakota of the 1930s (Rodnick’s full-bloods above) were knowledge keepers and full-fledged Nakota speakers when David Miller did his ethnographic fieldwork in Fort Belknap in the 1970s and 1980s (Miller 1987:175—76). Nakota is now a seriously endangered language, with less than 150 speakers in Montana and Saskatchewan combined. The vitality of Nakota can be summarized as follows: all competent speakers of Nakota (seventy years of age and older) are bilingual in English; some middle-age people are semifluent speakers or learners who can function minimally in the language (e.g., greetings, songs, simple commands); younger Nakota parents in their thirties and forties do not know enough of the language to teach it to their children; even though Nakota has diminished communicative viability (being principally used in ceremonies, greetings, songs, and prayers), it is still considered the backbone of Nakota culture and the basis of ethnic identity. In Canada, efforts are being made to document and teach the language on the local level with the technical help of First Nations University of Canada. In sum, Nakota is in danger of disappearing within the next twenty years or so in Saskatchewan, and in the Montana communities by the mid-twenty-first century, since in Fort Peck there are only two fluent speakers in their forties (Michael Turcotte p.c. 2017). 120 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Besides teaching grammar and vocabulary, revitalizing efforts also mean finding ways to name new experiences. Cumberland (2005:117—18) notes that lexical expansion must have ended in the mid-twentieth century since many words have not been shortened, as would be expected with any living language, and many labels for recent terms such as television, computer, casino, flight attendant, etc., have not been coined and, if they have been, there exist variants due to a lack of consensus in neology. My fieldwork experience indicates that creation of neologisms is also strongly influenced by language purism (widespread in Siouan languages) where speakers often prefer descriptive and rather lengthy neologisms over English loanwords (see also Berge and Kaplan 2005: 293). 2.2. Linguistic overview. Nakota belongs to the Dakotan group of the northern Mississippi Siouan branch, along with Dakota, Lakota, and Nakoda (also known as Stoney Assiniboine) (Parks and DeMallie 1992). Nineteenthcentury material concerning the Nakota language is scarce, since it was considered a dialect of Yanktonai Dakota (Parks and Demallie 1992:237). Denig (2000) provides a few words for animals, cultural items, numbers, personal names, dances, and ceremonies in his monograph, as well as a short word list (in Schoolcraft 1854:416—21). Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied, the German explorer and ethnologist, also collected a short Nakota word list (1906:215—17) in which he pays special attention to details of phonetics and accentuation. At the end of the nineteenth century, Edward Griva, who was stationed at St. Paul Catholic mission in Fort Belknap, compiled a dictionary and translated a catechism (Parks and Rankin 2001:110). Modern linguistic studies of Nakota include Levin (1964), Hollow (1970), Taylor (1981, 1983), and, most importantly, Cumberland (2005). Nakota texts have been published by Lowie (1960), Drummond (1976), and Schudel (1997). There exist some short lexicons of Nakota like that of Fourstar (1978), and one comprehensive dictionary compiled by Douglas Parks (2002). Typologically, Nakota has subject-object-verb word order, is head marking, and displays postpositions as well as internally headed relative clauses (Cumberland 2005:viii). Word formation is mostly agglutinating (featuring many types of affixes as well as compounding) with some nonmorphological processes such as reduplication, ablaut, and zero conversion. Grammatical categories include marking of verbs for person, number, aspect, and mood, but not tense, while nouns have no subject or object marker and number is optional (see, in particular, Rankin, Boyle, and Graczyk 2002). Nakota has twenty-seven consonants and eight vowels, as shown in table 1 (after Cumberland 2005:15, 17). The spelling of the consonant and vowel sounds in the Fort Belknap practical orthography (from Parks 2002) employed in this article is shown in italics. The representation of unaspirated and aspirated stops and fricatives in this orthography involves certain complications, discussed immediately below, and, for these, as well as for a couple of other sounds whose 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 121 pronunciation is not obvious from their spelling in the practical orthography, phonetic values have also been given (enclosed in [ ]). Table 1. Nakota Consonants and Vowels CONSONANTS Obstruents stop unaspirated aspirated glottalized Labial Laminodental [p] p, b [pÓ] p p’ [t] t, d [tÓ] t t’ Laminoalveolar affricate unaspirated aspirated glottalized Velar Laryngeal [k] k, g [kÓ] k k’ [ý] ’ [ý] j [ ýÓ ] c [ ý’ ] c’ fricative voiceless glottalized voiced Sonorants nasals glides Palatoalveolar s s’ z m w š š’ Š h© h©’ H n y h VOWELS Front Oral Nasal high mid low i high low X Central Back u o e a Ç ¾ The Fort Belknap orthography is almost phonemic except for one important detail. The letters b, d, g, j represent the unaspirated stops [p, t, k] and the unaspirated affricate [ý] in intervocalic and word-initial positions, while p, t, k, c represent both the unaspirated stops and affricate when these are not intervocalic or word-initial, and the aspirated stops and aspirated affricate [pÓ, tÓ, kÓ, ýÓ]. The data used in this article stem from the preliminary version of the English-Nakoda Student Dictionary (Parks 2002), as well as my own fieldwork with speakers of Saskatchewan Nakota. Fieldwork on lexical expansion is important in many ways. It contributes directly to lexicography by documenting neologisms as well as dialectal variations and idiolectal creations, the latter 122 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 providing an important window into worldview and conceptualization processes at play in neology. Moreover, many elderly speakers have introspective knowledge about why a new item, kind, or concept is named as it is. Although one has to remain careful with speakers’ intuition, and a tendency (for some of them) to folk etymologize, they do provide in some cases (e.g., ‘gun’, ‘bridge’, ‘Friday’) important clues as to the etymology of some semantically opaque words. 2.3. Descriptive framework. In this article, which is essentially descriptive, I use the term “linguistic acculturation” for the linguistic consequences of language contact between different ethnolinguistic groups. As seen throughout the modern history of North America, increasing contacts and cultural exchanges or imposition of European and Euro-American objects, kinds of plant, animal, or person, cultural values, and alien concepts on indigenous populations, greatly disrupted the traditional ways of life and, in some cases, threatened the very existence of subjugated populations. However, since a natural language is an organic system endowed with a remarkable power of adaptation to new experiences, speakers of a given language who have been dominated socially, culturally, economically, or politically may or may not create ways to name these new aspects of reality and integrate them into their own cultural ontology. Linguistic acculturation is thus the study of linguistic accommodation to these new experiences. Moreover, since new words are created or borrowed while old ones fall into disuse, the study of linguistic acculturation also sheds light on sociohistorical and cultural changes within a given speech community. Linguists generally recognize four ways of expanding a language’s lexicon: borrowing, loan translation, the semantic extension of native words through polysemy, and the creation (coining) of new, descriptive words (neologisms) using native material (see Bright 1952; Salzman 1954; Casagrande 1954b,1955; Basso 1967; Brown 1999: 19). Crucially, these means of lexical expansion have different implications for the understanding of linguistic acculturation, and this is why some authors have suggested a correlation between the types of words involved in lexical expansion (i.e., the morphological criterion), and the historical sequencing and intensity of language contacts. For instance, Salzman states that “one could efficiently compare the lexical responses of different languages to the more or less consistent impact of Occidental culture” (1954:137). Casagrande, in a well-known passage of his study on Comanche linguistic acculturation, provides much of the descriptive framework and research questions on which the present study is based. No knowledge of the language of an impinging culture is required for meaning extensions or new coinages and only native linguistic materials are used. This is designated PRIMARY ACCOMMODATION. A minimum knowledge of a donor language is necessary for linguistic borrowing in the form of either loanwords or loan-translations. Such linguistic borrowing is termed SECONDARY ACCOMMODATION. [1955:22] 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 123 Although an analysis of linguistic acculturation in terms of chronologically ordered types of accommodation is a good starting point, it is crucial to keep in mind that a language may show overlaps between these two types of accommodation. To clarify this observation, let us consider how data are arranged in studies of linguistic acculturation. First, many if not all studies of lexical expansion include an overview of the types of words and word formation processes used in coining (i.e., borrowing, derivation, compounding, circumlocution, loanword, etc.) (see Garvin 1948; Campbell and Grondona 2012). Second, some authors arrange the data into lexical domains, such as food, means of transportation, tools, etc. (Champion Huot 1948; Bright 1952; Dorais 1970), while others seek to circumscribe what aspect of experience (i.e., function or use, shape and appearance, or symbolic meaning of the denotatum) the word is meant to conceptualize (Jacobsen 1980), and how the words of a given lexical domain are organized structurally (see, in particular, Basso 1967 and Dorais 1977). Last, other researchers investigate the correlation between morphological types and lexical domains and aim to document lexical expansion in different lexical domains or for single items. For example, Berge and Kaplan (2005) have shed light on cross-dialectal differences in lexical expansion (semantic extension, borrowing, coining) as displayed for a small set of new items and concepts in Eskimo-Aleut languages. In his study of linguistic acculturation in Inuktitut, Dorais (1970:75—76) found that neologisms and semantic extension of native words were often used to name new clothing items (e.g., jeans, silk robe, etc.), but that loanwords were never used in that lexical domain. On the other hand, new food products were almost exclusively labeled by English loanwords, not by semantic extension. This comes about because exotic food products (e.g., chocolate, cheese), unlike new clothing items, cannot be equated in shape or appearance with traditional food products; hence, loanwords are used for this lexical domain. In sum, strategies of lexical expansion in Inuktitut do not belong solely to primary or secondary accommodation, and Dorais rightly suggests that certain domains of the new material culture “favor certain types of words” (1970: 76, my translation). The aim of the present article is to describe the means of lexical expansion in Nakota, and to verify whether the use of loanwords, loan shifts, semantic extensions, and the creation of neologisms correlates with specific lexical domains, as is the case with Inuktitut seen above, with properties of new objects, kinds of plant, animal, or person, and concepts in terms of shape and appearance, function or symbolic meaning, or with the gradual intensification of language contact (i.e., loanwords would appear in later stages of lexical expansion, but polysemy in earlier ones). The conceptual premise underlying my analysis is based on Sapir’s principle of semantic opacity (1916); words that are semantically opaque often label new tools, other entities, and concepts that have been integrated in the culture for the longest time and with which people are more familiar, while 124 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 descriptive words which are fully transparent or semitransparent often label less familiar and recently introduced entities. My analysis of Nakota lexical expansion is linguistic and sociohistorical, since my purpose is to characterize how primary and secondary accommodations processes are patterned or sequenced in Nakota, on the assumption that the way a language expands its vocabulary is not dissociable from the sociocultural and historical context, as well as the structure of the language (Casagrande 1955:22; Brown 1994). The linguistic analysis unfolds as follows. In sections 3 and 4, I describe the processes of lexical expansion through coinage of neologisms–by compounding, noun phrase construction, and derivational morphology–and referential extension (primary accommodation); section 5 is devoted to loanwords and loan shifts (secondary accommodation). In section 6, I conclude with a brief statistical analysis of the data, along with general observations and remarks on specific historical tendencies in Nakota lexical expansion. 3. Neologisms. Nakota is a mildly polysynthetic language with an incredibly rich derivational morphology that provides the speaker with a great many resources for coining descriptive words. Neologisms are far more numerous than cases of borrowing and loan shifts. In this section, I analyze these different word formation processes–compounding (section 3.1), noun phrases (section 3.2), as well as derivational affixes and nonmorphological processes (section 3.3). 3.1. Compounding. Nakota nouns are simple, derived, or compounded. Simple nouns are semantically opaque and belong to the core vocabulary of the language: šiná ‘blanket’, tá ‘moose’, wEy¾ ‘woman’, etc. I discuss derived nouns in section 3.3. Compounding is a word formation process in which two independent stems are put together to form a new word (see Boas and Deloria 1941: 67; Shaw 1985:180; Patterson 1990:164—65; de Reuse 1994; Cumberland 2005: 114). In almost all cases of compounding shown here, the head is the rightmost element. Table 2 shows all types of compounds found in Nakota. Table 2. Types of Compounds in Nakota COMPOUND PATTERN EXAMPLE NOUN + NOUN tá šàge ‘ruminant hoof’ (tá ‘ruminant’ + šagé ‘hoof’) c¾šàša ‘red willow’ (c® ‘wood’ + šašá ‘to be red’) timáhen ‘inside a house’ (tí ‘house’ + mahén ‘inside’) ¿kník yà ‘to come to observe’ (¿kník¤ ‘to observe’ + yá ‘to come’) owácegiya tìbi ‘church’ (owácegiya ‘to pray’ + tíbi ‘building’) d¾y® K ‘to be well’ (d¾y® ‘well’ + È ‘to be’) ag®n wòkmabi ‘desk’ (ag®n ‘on top’ + ¤wókmabi ‘to draw’) NOUN + STATIVE VERB NOUN + POSTPOSITION VERB + VERB VERB + NOUN ADVERB + VERB POSTPOSITION + VERB There are two major types of compounds in Dakotan dialects: lexical and syntactic compounds (Chambers and Shaw 1980; Shaw 1985:180; de Reuse 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 125 1994). A third type called “noun stripping” is discussed by de Reuse (1994). Chambers and Shaw (1980) have shown that lexical compounds are made of a dependent stem and an independent stem, and bear only one accent, which usually falls on the second syllable of the compound. This accentuation rule is known as the “Dakota Accent Rule,” or DAR (Chambers 1978). Lexical compounds have a tighter phonology (i.e., weaker boundaries between stems), are less productive, and may have idiosyncratic semantics. Moreover, lexical compounds often have nontransparent semantics. Syntactic compounds, on the other hand, are formed of two independent stems, each of which is stressed on the second syllable, then, after compounding occurs, a compound accent rule weakens the stress of the second word (Chambers and Shaw 1980:327; de Reuse 1994:204). Unlike lexical compounds, syntactic compounds have transparent phonology and semantics and greater productivity. For example, the meaning of the lexical compound in (1a) is idiosyncratic, while that of the syntactic compound in (1b) is fully transparent and predictable from the meanings of its elements. (In the following examples, primary stress is indicated as þ, while secondary stress is marked as V³.)2 (1a) h¾wí’agide (lexical compound) ‘clock’ (N) (from h¾wí ‘sun, moon’ + agíde ‘watcher’) (1b) h¾wí agìde sun/moon watcher (syntactic compound) ‘moon watcher’ (N) The phonology of lexical compounds requires some further explanation. Chambers and Shaw (1980:330; see also Shaw 1976, 1985:180—83) posit that in Dakotan dialects there is a general constraint against word-final obstruents in nouns and verbs. When this condition is violated (as in the case of syntactic compounding) an epenthetic a is inserted in the underlying form of the stem, a process they call “stem formation” (and which I call a-epenthesis); see (2a)—(3b) below. The a-epenthesis then provokes the voicing of a preceding intervocalic stop or fricative), as shown in (2b) and (3b). (2a) šÇk¤tí equine-dwelling (lexical compound; DAR) ‘barn’ (N) (2b) šÈga tCga dog to.be.big (syntactic compound; a-epenth., voicing, no DAR) ‘horse’ (N) (3a) mas¤tí money-dwelling ‘bank’ (N) (lexical compound; DAR) 126 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS (3b) máza skà money to.be.white 59 NO. 2 (syntactic compound; DAR, a-epenth., voicing) ‘money’ (N) That the segment a is an epenthetic vowel, and not part of the underlying form of the stem, is clear from the fact that it is always a (and never another vowel), but also because it does not surface in derivation, causativization, and noun incorporation. The a-epenthesis and voicing rules of consonant-final stems apply only to syntactic compounds and derivatives, while consonant-final stems occurring in initial position of lexical compounds do not undergo these rules, as illustrated by (2a) and (3a) above. Shaw (1985:183—85) postulates that lexical and syntactic compounds are formed in different levels of the lexicon; lexical compounds are formed at an earlier level, while syntactic compounds are formed at a later, post-syntactic level. However, there are some complications that blur this distinction. For example, even though phonological contrasts between these types of compounds seem to suggest clear-cut semantic differences, doublets sometimes have the same meaning, as illustrated in (4a)—(4b) and (5a)—(5b), and sometimes not, as in (1a)—(1b). (4a) mas’óc¾gu (lexical compound; DAR) ‘railroad’ (N) (from máza ‘iron’ [underlying form: mas] + oc®gu ‘road’) (4b) máza ocCgu iron road (syntactic compound; a-epenth., voicing, no DAR) ‘railroad’ (N) (5a) mas’¯bama (lexical compound; DAR) ‘metal file’ (N) (from máza ‘iron’ [underlying form: mas] + ¿báma ‘to file with’) (5b) máza ¿bàma iron to.file.with (syntactic compound; DAR, a-epenth., voicing) ‘metal file’ (N) Without entering into all the details about the formal intricacies of compounding types in Dakotan dialects, which are discussed by de Reuse (1994) and Shaw (1985), there does not seem to be a firm consensus concerning the formal distinction between types of compounds. An alternative hypothesis would be that the main difference between lexical and syntactic compounds is that the former belong to an earlier stage of lexicalization (or stratum of the language), while the latter represent a more recent stage of lexicalization. It could be further suggested that the underlying basis for this continuum in lexicalization is frequency of use and referential familiarity, both of which correlate, in many cases, with the early introduction of an item. In other words, objects, natural kinds, and types of person most familiar to the Nakota speakers were labeled 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 127 at first with nominal phrases and syntactic compounds that ended up being shortened and lexicalized relatively quickly into lexical compounds; subsequently, these compounds underwent further phonological shortening and sometimes developed idiosyncrasies in meaning. This hypothesis seems to find support in old vocabularies, since Edwin Denig (1854) lists many lexical compounds for items introduced before the mid-1850s (e.g., bread, cow, door, flour, gun, town, mast, sail, sheep, and ship). However, there are some problematic exceptions, like the syntactic compound šÈga tCga ‘horse’, an animal highly familiar to people of the Plains; this expression was listed correctly as a syntactic compound by Denig (áshún kah tún gahñ, 1854:423) and Prince Maximilian (áschón-atangañ, 1906: 217); the latter adds that áatangañ is pronounced “low.” In sum, I consider frequency of use and increasing familiarity with new referents as important causes for lexicalization and semantic opacity, since some syntactic compounds (which are listed as such in dictionaries) are often shortened in rapid speech (see ‘horse’, ‘money’, ‘Thursday’ below). This is a topic that deserves more research because there is considerable variation between speakers based on their level of fluency, not to mention the fact that speakers are more careful in elicitation in comparison to occurrences of a given compound in natural discourse. This would explain why one can record both a syntactic šÈga tCga (in elicitation) and a lexical compound šukt®ga (in natural speech) for ‘horse’. In the rest of this section, I classify and analyze the data in terms of the preceding two types of compounding. Some special cases are discussed in sections 3.1.1—3.1.3 below. Compounds that undergo further derivation are treated in the discussion of derivational morphology in section 3.3. LEXICAL COMPOUNDS ‘airplane’ wádag¿y¾ ~ mázag¿y¾ (N) wáda ‘canoe’ (N) + g¿y® ‘to fly’ (VI); máza ‘iron’ + g¿y® ‘to fly’ (VI) ‘bank check’ wa’ówabiska (N) wa’ówabi ‘paper’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) ‘blue jeans’ hÇskáto (N) hÇská ‘pant’ (N) + tó ‘to be blue’ (VS) ‘canvas’ wišóga ‘canvas’ wí ‘tipi covering’ + šóga ‘to be thick’ (VI) ‘chair’ c¾’ág¾n (N) c® ‘wood’ (N) + ag®n ‘on top’ (POST) (truncated form of c¾’ág¾n y¾gàbi [lit., ‘on a wood seat’]) ‘cigarette’ c¾níska (N) c¾ní ‘tobacco’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) (in reference to the color of cigarette paper) ‘lard’ w¯kniska (N) w¯kni ‘fat, oil, grease’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) 128 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 ‘nickel (Canadian five-cent coin)’ w¯y¾wašoga (N) w¿y® ‘woman’ (N) (refers to Queen Elizabeth II) + wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + šóga ‘to be thick’ (lit., ‘thick woman’) ‘oil lantern’ ped¯Š¾Š¾ (N) péda ‘fire’ (N) + ¿Š®Š¾ ‘to be transparent’ (VS) (with vowel coalescence) Note also the syntactic compound ped¯Š¾Š¾ wì‰ kni (N) from ped¯ŠaŠa (N) and wí‰ kni ‘grease, oil’ (N). ‘priest’ šinásaba (N) šiná ‘blanket, robe’ (N) + sába ‘to be black’ (VS). This term refers to the black robes worn by Catholic priests, but now applies to any Christian priest or clergyman. A more recent syntactic compound includes wócegiya w¿càšta ‘minister’ (N) (lit., ‘prayer person’). ‘shoe’ c®h¾ba (N) c® ‘wood’ (N) + h®ba ‘moccasin’ (N) Here the modifier c® seems to refer to the stiffness of European soles and not specifically to wooden soles. ‘steamboat’ wádapeda (N) wáda ‘boat’ (N) + péda ‘fire’ (N) Denig lists áwah tah pai tahñ (in Schoolcraft 1854:419 n. 8), as well as the syntactic compound átah tá wát tahñ tadé wàda ‘ship’ (lit., ‘wind boat’); he indicates that the Nakota “never saw a ship” but that this word “was given to it by the white interpreters,” adding also that the mast was called áchaun hoskañ (c¾h®ska) (lit., ‘long stick’) and the sail áshée náh zée pé náhñ (šinázibena) (lit., ‘thin blanket cloth’ (?)). ‘town’ ti’óda (N) tí ‘dwelling’ (N) + óda ‘to be many’ (VS) (lit., ‘many houses’) My data contains what appears to be an archaic lexical compound built with an element that could have mimicked the loud sound of seventeenth-century French trading guns. My informant explained that the first element of this word refers to the “voice of the gun.” ‘gun’ cót¾ga (N) co ‘onomatopoeia for a loud sound’ + t®ga ‘to be big’ (lit., ‘big “co”’) Old word lists include áchó tun kàhñ (Denig 1854:419) and átschótangeñ (Prince Maximilian 1906:215); other old terms include the lexical compound sukp® ‘muzzle loader, shotgun’ (lit., ‘bullet’ + ‘to load’). Onomatopoeic extension is also at play in Makah (Wakashan) puyaÂkw ‘gun’ (lit., ‘for going “poo”’) (Jacobsen 1980:173). This word has no cognates in other Dakotan languages, which have the syntactic compounds mázakh©à× (Dakota), or its noncontracted form mázawakh©à× (Lakota) (máza ‘iron’ + (wa)kh©á× ‘to be holy, mysterious’). Phonetic reduction undoubtedly indicates an early coining in the case of Dakota. 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 129 SYNTACTIC COMPOUNDS ‘bacon’ gugúša šì‰ (N) gugúša ‘pork’ (N) (from French cocoche) + š¯ ‘fat’ (N) (this is a rare case of loan blend) ‘butter’ as®bi wì‰ kni (N) as®bi ‘milk’ (N) + wí‰ kni ‘grease’ (N) ‘cabbage’ wah©pé tà‰ga (N) wah©pé ‘leaf’ (N) + t®ga ‘to be large’ (VS) ‘cheese’ as®bi sùda (N) as®bi ‘milk’ (N) + súda ‘to be hard’ (VS) ‘diabetes’ wé skùya (N) wé ‘blood’ (N) + skúya ‘to be sweet’ (VS) ‘elephant’ póõe hà‰ska (N) póõe ‘nose’ (N) + h®ska ‘to be long’ (VI) ‘envelope’ wa’ówabi hà (N) wa’ówabi ‘paper’ (N) + há ‘skin’ > ‘container’ (N) ‘flax’ w¯kni sù ‘flax’ (N) w¯kni ‘grease, oil, fat’ + sú ‘seed, pellet’ (N) (lit., ‘greasy seed’) The expression w¯kni sù probably designates the linseed oil made from flax. ‘police’ tiyóba skà (N) tiyóba ‘door’ (tí ‘house, dwelling’ (N) + óba ‘door’ (N)) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) (lit., ‘white door’ > ‘police’ by indexical extension) This is an idiolectal expression co-existing with the more common agícida (see section 4.1) and the syntactic compound cešká màza ‘band councilor’ > ‘sheriff, police’ (lit., ‘chest iron’, in reference to the badge worn by some local peace keepers). ‘sword’ mína hà‰ska (N) mína ‘knife’ (N) + h®ska ‘to be tall’ (VI) 3.1.1. Compounds built with miní ‘water’ and máza ‘iron’. Many compounds are built with the stems mni¤, miní ‘water, liquid’ and mas¤, máza ‘iron’ > ‘money’. Most of them follow the order HEAD + MODIFIER, but when máza ‘iron’ is used, not to name a distinct object, but to refer to something that is made of iron or metal, then the compound is head final. LEXICAL COMPOUNDS (WATER, IRON) ‘beer’ miní’¿biõa ~ min¯biõa (N) miní ‘liquid’ (N) + ¿bíõa ‘to boil’ (VI) (lit., ‘it (water) is boiled’) (probably in reference to the bubbles produced by fermentation) ‘soda pop’ minískuya (N) miní ‘liquid’ (N) + skúya ‘to be sweet’ (VS) 130 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 ‘submarine’ mnimáhen wàda (N) miní ‘water’ (N) + ¤mahén ‘in’ (POST) + wáda ‘canoe’ (N) ‘whiskey’ minípeda ~ miníwak¾ (N) miní ‘liquid’ (N) + péda ‘fire’ (N); miní + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) Here, the modifier does not mean that whiskey is holy, but rather refers to the mystery of its intoxicating effects, as perceived in the initial contact period. The first word is listed as ámenih¤p.htñ (lit., ‘fire water’) by Prince Maximilian (1906:216). ‘windmill’ mnijáhomni (N) mní¤ ‘water + gahómni ‘to spin it around’ (VT) (with palatalization of underlying g to j) ‘wine’ miníša (N) miní ‘liquid’ (N) + šá ‘to be red’ (VS) ‘barbed wire’ maspépe, maskáh©a (N) mas¤ ‘iron’ (N) + pépe ‘to be thorny’ ‘crowbar’ mashIpe (N) mas¤ ‘iron’ (N) + hÈpe ‘digging stick’ (N) ‘hammer, sledge hammer’ mas’¯yapa (N) mas¤ ‘iron’ (N) + ¿yápa ‘to hit it’ (VT) The word mas’¯yapa tà‰ga ‘sledge hammer’ is a syntactic compound with the stative verb t®ga ‘to be big’ (VS) as its final element (lit., ‘big hammer’). ‘to be rich’ mastIga (N) mas¤ ‘iron’ > ‘money’ (N) + tÈ ‘to bear it’ (VT) + ¤ga ‘durative’ enclitic ‘telegraph, telephone’ mas’ápabi (N) mas¤ ‘iron’ (N) + apá ‘to hit it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘thing that hits iron’) SYNTACTIC COMPOUNDS (IRON) ‘gun muzzle’ máza’ì ~ ì (N) máza ‘iron’ (N) + í ‘mouth’ (N); ì ‘mouth’ is a case of primary polysemy. ‘money, dollar’ máza skà (N) máza ‘iron’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) (this word originally referred to silver coins but was extended to fiat money) Fourstar (1978) has a lexical compound for this word, m¾záska. ‘penny’ máza šà ‘copper’ (N) > ‘penny’ máza ‘iron’ (N) + šá ‘to be red’ (VS) ‘shot, iron pellet’ máza sù (N) máza ‘iron’ (N) + sú ‘seed, pellet’ (N) ‘train’ máza wàda (N) máza ‘iron’ (N) + wáda ‘canoe’ (N) At first sight it would seem that the other term for ‘train’, wáda, is a case of primary polysemy. However, a more probable explanation is that máza wàda is abbreviated into wáda. 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 131 3.1.2. Compounds built with wak® ‘to be sacred, mysterious, and powerful’. Compounds or noun phrases built with the stative verb wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious, powerful, unexplainable’ truly express Nakota culture and worldview. This verb caused some difficulty for nineteenth-century missionaries, who translated it as ‘holy, sacred, spirit’. Voegelin and Hymes provide a more elaborate translation of wak® as “wonderful, incomprehensible, that which, not being understood, it is dangerous to meddle with” (1953:639). In the following set of neologisms, wak® expresses either the holiness of new items or concepts or the inability of Nakota speakers to explain the invisible and inherent force or agency of a particular object (e.g., battery, microwave oven). Many of these compounds denote church-related items. LEXICAL COMPOUND ‘border’ c¾gúwak¾ (N) c¾gú ‘road’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) Refers to the fact that the American army could not pursue mounted Indigenous warriors beyond the U.S.-Canada border, which came to be known as the “medicine line.” Thus, the stative verb wak® does not refer to the great length of the border (i.e., ‘great road’), but to its magical defensive power. SYNTACTIC COMPOUNDS AND NOUN PHRASES ‘Christmas’ dáguwak¾ tù‰bi ®ba (N) NP: dáguwak¾ ‘holy person’ (dágu ‘someone’ [N] + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ [VS]) + tÈbi ‘birth’ (tÈ ‘to give birth to’ [VT] + ¤bi ‘NOM’) + ®ba ‘day’ (N) (lit., ‘holy person’s birthday’) A more common term used in Saskatchewan is ®bawak¾ tà‰ga (lit., ‘great holy day’) ‘communion bread’ aõúyabi wakà‰ (N) aõúyabi ‘bread’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) ‘Holy Bible’ wa’ówabi wakà‰ (N) wa’ówabi ‘book’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) (lit., ‘Holy book’) ‘microwave’ océti wakà‰ (N) océti ‘fire, hearth’ > ‘stove’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) (idiolectal). My informant explained that a microwave is a mysterious implement because it cooks food, but without producing any flames or visible heat. Casagrande (1954b:219) observes that speakers of Comanche (Uto-Aztecan) integrated alien spiritual and religious concepts into their own cultural worldview with a similar virtuosity, resulting in a unification of traditional healing and Christian practices. For example, in Comanche the word puha ‘supernatural power’ can be combined to form neologisms pertaining to Christianity, 132 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 such as puharavenItÏ ‘Sunday’ (lit., ‘puha day’), puharekÏraivoÂý ‘minister’ (lit., ‘puha talk white man’), puhaknI ‘church’ (lit., ‘puha house’; the word is also used by other Shoshone to speak about a small hut used in healing practices); ýacaývI ‘supernatural, guardian spirit’ has been extended to designate ‘Holy Spirit, miracle’. The same process occurs in neighboring Plains Cree (Algonquian) kisemanitow ‘Great Spirit, God’, manitowi¤masinahikan ‘Holy Bible’ (see also Champion Huot [1948:153] for similar data in Mohawk (Iroquoian)). 3.1.3. Compounds expressing the days of the week and the months. The syntactic compounds expressing the days of the week in Nakota are made up of the noun ®ba ‘day’ and an ordinal number (‘second’, ‘third’, ‘fourth’, and ‘fifth’) for ‘Tuesday’, ‘Wednesday’, ‘Thursday’, and ‘Friday’, respectively. ‘Tuesday’ ®ba ¿nù‰ba (N) ®ba ‘day’ + ¿nú‰ba ‘second’ (¿¤ ‘ordinal number’ + núba ‘two’) ‘Wednesday’ ®ba ¿yàmni (N) ®ba ‘day’ + ¿yámni ‘three’ (¿¤ ‘ordinal number’ + yámni ‘three’) ‘Thursday’ ®ba ¿dòba (N) ®ba ‘day’ + ¿dóba ‘fourth’ (¿¤ ‘ordinal number’ + dóba ‘four’) (Compare the lexical compound ¾bídoba.) ‘Friday’ ®ba ¿zàpt¾ ~ tanó yùdàbiš¿ ~ tacúba à‰ba (N) 1) ¾ba ‘day’ (N) + ¿zápt¾ ‘fifth’ (¿¤ ‘ordinal number’ + zápt¾ ‘five’); 2) tanó ‘meat’ + yúdabiš¿ ‘they don’t eat it’ (lit., ‘they don’t eat meat day’); 3) tacúba (from tᤠ‘ruminant’ (N) + cubá ‘marrow’ (N)) + ¾ba ‘day’ (N) (lit., ‘the ruminant (bone) marrow day’) ‘Saturday’ ®ba owàyuŠaŠabi ~ wow¯cak’u à‰ba (N) 1) ®ba ‘day’ + owáyuŠaŠa ‘laundry’ (o¤ ‘in’ + wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + yuŠáŠa ‘to wash it’) (lit., ‘laundry day’); 2) wow¯cak’u ‘rations’ (N) (wok’ú ‘to give him/her/it food’ (VT) + infix ¤w¿ca¤ ‘3PL object’) + ®ba ‘day’ (N) ‘Sunday’ ®bawak¾ (N) ®ba ‘day’ + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) ‘Monday’ ®bawak¾ gicùni (N) ®bawak¾ ‘holy day’ (®ba ‘day’ + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’) + gicúni ‘to quit an activity’ (VI) (lit., ‘after the holy day’) According to Brown (1989:544), the days of the week are linked to social conventions and have no intrinsic saliency, but only cultural saliency. He observes that weekend days like Sunday (highest saliency) and Saturday (second highest saliency), but also days that are closer to the weekend, are important in many cultures and have higher frequency in discourse. The Nakota data support these findings, since the syntactic compounds for Sunday indicate that something important in terms of spirituality (wak®) is taking place on this day. Moreover, the complex syntactic compound for Monday has Sunday (treated as 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 133 a lexical compound) as its point of reference. A similar construction also occurs in Plains Cree kâ¤pôni¤ayamihewkîsikâk (lit., ‘day after Sunday’). The presence of three terms for Friday–the ordinal numeral—based term, another one relating to food abstinence prescribed by Catholic priests, and a third relating to the butchering of meat for distribution the next day–undoubtedly indicates a certain level of religious acculturation and dependence on the Indian agent for access to meat in times of dire need.3 One of my informants suggested that the syntactic compounds built with ‘day’ + an ordinal number were traditionally used to keep count of the days between full moons. Thus, traditionally, ®ba ¿yàmni would have been applied to ‘the third day after the full moon’; if this is so, the use of ®ba ¿yàmni to mean ‘Wednesday’ can be considered as a case of primary polysemy. Time tracking also reflects radical cultural changes, as can be seen with certain names for months that are based on Christian holidays and celebrations, as opposed to traditional ones. As a matter of fact, h¾wí ‘sun, moon’ (N) was semantically extended to indicate the concept of ‘month’, a Western counting device not fully aligned with the traditional technique of keeping track of moon cycles. ‘November’ w¿cóg¾du sÇgágu h¾wì ~ pigína wòdabi h¾wì (N) 1) syntactic compound: w¿cóg¾du ‘midwinter’ (N) + sÇgágu ‘his younger brother’ (N) + h¾wí ‘moon’ (N) (lit., ‘midwinter little brother’s month’); 2) syntactic compound: pigína wòdabi ‘Thanksgiving’ (cf. ‘Thanksgiving day’ in section 5.2) + h¾wí ‘moon’ (lit., ‘Thanksgiving moon’) ‘December’ w¿cóg¾du h¾wì ~ ®bawak¾ h¾wì 1) syntactic compound: w¿cóg¾du ‘midwinter’ (N) + h¾wí ‘moon’ (N) (lit., ‘midwinter moon’); 2) ®ba ‘day’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) + h¾wí ‘moon’ (N) (lit., ‘Christmas moon’) (syntactic compound) ‘April’ tabéh©’a tawì‰ h¾wì ~ w¯tka oyùda h¾wì 1) syntactic compound: tabéh©’a ‘frog’ (N) + taw¯ ‘his wife’ (N) (lit., ‘frog’s wife month’); 2) syntactic compound: w¯tka ‘egg’ (N) + o¤ ‘location, extent of time’ + yúda ‘to eat it’ (VT) + h¾wí ‘moon’ (N) (lit., ‘Easter moon’) 3.2. Noun phrases. Phrasal construction is another way to create new labels for introduced items or concepts. While in compounding the degree of synthesis between the elements is high, in nominal phrases the words keep their independence in terms of stress contour. Nominal phrases can be made of NOUN + NOUN, NOUN + VERB, ADVERB + VERB, and even NOUN + [NOUN + VERB]. Many, if not all, of these neologisms were recently introduced into the language (late nineteenth century, e.g., types of coins). ‘card game, deck of cards’ wa’ówabi ecIbina (N) wa’ówabi ‘paper, card’ (N) + ecIbina ‘contest, competition, game’ (N) (ecÈbi ‘they are doing it’ (VT) + ¤na ‘NOM’) 134 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 ‘clock’s watch hand’ n¾psíhu h¾wì akída (N) n¾psíhu ‘finger’ (N) + h¾wí ‘sun, moon’ (N) + akída ‘to look, watch it’ (VT) (lit., ‘the finger looks at, keeps track of the moon’; ‘the clock’s finger’) The whole phrase seems to be a calque of the English nominal compound watch hand.4 ‘dime’ gašpábi okíse (N) gašpábi ‘to break off a piece’ (N) (ga¤ ‘instrumental’ + špá ‘to break off a piece’ [VT]) + ¤bi ‘NOM’) + okíse ‘half’ (N) This term refer to the breaking of the Spanish pistareen into halves and quarters during America’s colonial period. Kays writes, “When pistareens were valued at two ‘Spanish bits,’ cutting them into halves and quarters yielded either two single bits or four half bits. When pistareens were valued at twelve pence, cutting them into halves and quarters yielded either two ‘pistareens-six-pence’ or four ‘pistareens-three-pence.’ When pistareens were valued at twenty Federal cents, cutting them in halves and quarters yielded two ‘dismes’ or four half dismes in cut” (2001:2177). ‘Easter’ w¯tka oyúde (N) w¯tka ‘egg’ (N) + o¤ ‘location, extent of time’ + yúda ‘to eat it’ (VT) + nominalizing ablaut of a to e (lit., ‘when eggs are eaten’) ‘fifty-cent piece’ máza skà h¾gé (N) máza ‘iron’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) (> money) and h¾gé ‘half’ ‘irrigation ditch’ wakpá gàõábi (N) wakpá ‘river, creek’ (N) + gáõa ‘to make it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the made/fake river’) ‘medical doctor’ peŠúda wašíju ‘medical doctor’ (N) peŠúda ‘medicine’ (N) + wašíju ‘white man’ (N) ‘oatmeal’ h¾yákena yúdabi (N) h¾yákena ‘morning’ (ADV) + yúda ‘to eat it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘morning food’) ‘to vote’ caŠé ¿yóh©pekiya (N) caŠé ‘name’ (N) + ¿yóh©pe ‘to throw into’ + ¤kiya ‘benefactive causative’ (VT) 3.3. Derivation. Derivation is the process whereby a word changes its lexical class through affixation or nonaffixal formation processes, such as ablaut or zero conversion. In some cases, derivation only contributes to further specify the meaning of a root with no change in lexical class. Nakota neologisms involves both affixation (sections 3.3.1—3.3.4) and nonaffixal derivation processes (section 3.3.5). In terms of historical sequencing and relative intensification in language contacts, cases of neologism through affixation are more numerous and generally refer to a wide range of new experiences, while neologisms built with nonaffixal processes are few and refer mainly to objects (e.g., bumper, canvas, silk) and kinds of person or animal (e.g., cowboy or rancher, monkey, Mormon) that have been relatively recently introduced. Since many derived nouns are 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 135 cases of primary polysemy and not pure neologisms, they have been classified as such in the statistical analysis in section 6. 3.3.1. Nominalizer ¤na and diminutive ¤na. The nominalizer ¤na is used to derive nouns from stative or active intransitive verbs; the noun denotes an entity that has the quality indicated by the verb (Cumberland 2005:105). For example, from snohá ‘she/he crawls’ is derived snohéna ‘snake’, and from wadópa ‘she/he paddles’, wadópena ~ wadópana ‘Band of Nakota called the “Paddlers”’. Further examples of this derivation are listed below. ‘Asian person’ gisIna (N) gisÇ ‘she/he braids his/her own hair’ (VT) (gi¤ ‘reflexive’ + sÇ ‘braid’) + ¤na ‘NOM’ ‘car’ iyéc¿gayena and amóg¿y¾ (N) iyéc¿ga ‘by itself’ (ADV) + ¤ya ‘causative’ (with verbal ablaut) + ¤na ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘it goes by itself’) Boas and Deloria (1941:60) note that in Dakota the combination ¤yena indicates a permanent condition. Many car parts are obtained by compounding ‘car’ and a word for human body part, which serves as a denotatum, e.g., iyéc¿gayena ¿štà ‘car’s headlight’ (lit., ‘car eye’) (see Basso [1967] for a structural analysis of car parts in Navajo, and Garvin [1948], who provides many terms for car parts in Kutenai). Three informants (from two different communities) stated that the noun amóg¿y¾ was archaic and seldom used nowadays. Its semantics, however, is still obscure. ‘chicken’ ¾báhotuna (N) ®ba ‘day’ (N) + hotú ‘to make its distinctive sound’ (VI) + ¤na ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘it makes its distinctive sound in the morning’) My informant states that this word originally referred to a rooster. ‘monkey’ wa’Icena (N) wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + Èca ‘to imitate him/her/it’ (VT) + verbal ablaut + ¤na ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the one who imitates’) Some nouns are formed with the diminutive suffix ¤na, which is homophonous with the nominalizer ¤na. Those included here are cases of primary polysemy and refer mostly to berries or spices that usually occur in conglomerates, hence the nominal reduplication. ‘grapes’ c¾pápana ‘chokecherry’ (N) > ‘grapes’ c¾pá ‘chokecherry’ (reduplicated) (N) + ¤na ‘DIM’ ‘pepper’ c¾pásusuna, c¾pásu ‘chokecherry pit’ (N) > ‘pepper’ c¾pá ‘chokecherry’ (N) + sú ‘pit’ (reduplicated) (N) + ¤na ‘DIM’ This word appears in Denig’s Nakota word list as ácham páh soò soòñ (in Schoolcraft 1854:426). 136 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 The formal difference between the nominalizer ¤na and the diminutive ¤na is that the former is an ablauting element that modifies the value of the final vowel of certain verbal roots, as is seen in the two examples below. As is shown below (section 3.3.6), nominalizing ablaut is a process that nominalizes a verb and, as such, it is different from verbal ablaut (as in ‘banana’ and ‘pumpkin’ below), which is a morphophonemic phenomenon with no derivational meaning attached to it. ‘banana’ škoškóbena (N) škóba ‘to be slightly crooked, concave’ (reduplicated) (VS) (with verbal ablaut) + ¤na ‘NOM’; there exists another word stostóna (lit., ‘the slightly oblong shaped one’) ‘pumpkin’ w¿cánÇh©nÇgena (N) lexical compound: w¿ca ‘man’ (N) + oh©nóh©noga ‘to be full of holes’ (VI) (with verbal ablaut) + ¤na ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the man with many holes’) I also obtained a variant for this item, ¿dénÇh©nÇgena (lit., ‘face that is full of holes’). Both probably refer to how pumpkins are decorated for Halloween. Schiltz (1990:4) notes that pumpkins, along with corn, baskets, and pottery, were traditionally exchanged by the Mandan for buffalo robes and leather goods. I suspect this descriptive term to be a recent formation that has replaced an original term cognate with Lakota wagmú ‘gourd, squash, pumpkin’. 3.3.2. Nominalizer ¤bi. The nominalizer ¤bi, which is homophonous with ¤bi ‘animate plural’, has a function similar to that of ¤na ‘NOM’. It serves to nominalize transitive as well as intransitive verbs. Nominalizer ¤bi often implies an impersonal agent and can be translated as ‘X is done by someone’, as in tíbi ‘dwelling’ (lit., ‘it is dwelt by someone’) and wacíbi ‘dance’ (‘it is danced by someone’) (Ingham 2001a:180). It is important to note that ¤bi can nominalize simple words, compounds, and noun phrases. ‘bomb’ n¾pómyabi (N) n¾pómya ‘to explode it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ Many terms related to an explosion are built on the root n¾pómya, such as an®pomya ‘to bomb it’ (VT). ‘ghost dance’ wacégiye wacìbi NP: wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + cegíya ‘to pray’ (VI) + nominalizing ablaut and waci ‘to dance’ (VI) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ Note also ktIš wacíbi ‘drunken dance’ (N) (NP: ktÇš ‘to be drunk’ [VS] and wacíbi ‘to dance’ [VI] + ¤bi ‘NOM’) (DeMallie and Miller 2001:586—87). ‘hamburger, ground meat’ tanóyukp¾bi (N) lexical compound: tanó ‘meat’ (N) + yukp® ‘to grind it into pieces’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 137 ‘mile, acre, foot’ m¾kíyutabi, tac®kiyutabi (N) lexical compounds Both compounds contain an element ¤iyúta¤ ‘unit of measurement’ which is derived from ¿yúta ‘to measure it, as with a ruler’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’. In the case of ‘mile, acre’, this element is added on the dependent stem m¾k¤ ‘earth’ (lit., ‘earth’ + ‘measurement’), while ‘foot’ is formed on tac® ‘body’ (lit., ‘body’ + ‘measurement’). The unexpected k in tac®kiyutabi may be due to contamination from m¾kiyutabi. ‘peanut’ yah©úgabi (N) ya¤ ‘with the mouth, teeth’ + h©úga ‘to crush, peel it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ ‘quarter, coin’ gašpábi (N) ga¤ ‘with an instrument’ + špá ‘to break off a piece’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ See the entry for ‘dime’ in section 3.2. ‘rubber’ yuzíkzijabi (N) yuzíja ‘to stretch it by hand’ (reduplicated) (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ ‘table’ awódabi (N) a¤ ‘locative’ + wóda ‘to eat’ (VI) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ ‘watermelon’ šp®š¿ yúdabi (N) NP: šp® ‘to be cooked’ + ¤š¿ ‘NEG’ + yúda ‘to eat it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘that which is eaten raw, not cooked’) Here, speakers of the Dakotan dialects have identified the watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), as a kind of squash (Cucurbita family) that could be eaten raw, unlike other types of squash, as indicated by Lakota wagmúšpaךni (from wagmú ‘squash’ and šp®šni ‘not cooked’). Blake (1981:196) suggests that the early acceptance and diffusion of watermelons in North America from Spanish settlements is linked to the common methods of cultivation of watermelon and native varieties of squash. The derived noun tíbi ‘dwelling’ (from ti ‘to live’ (VI) + ¤bi ‘NOM’) has been extended to denote any modern building, such as wašíju tìbi ‘framed house’ (lit., ‘white man’s house’). Compare the truncated lexical compound wašúti ‘house’ (note also áuaschiduttiñ ‘house’ collected by Prince Maximilian [1906:215]); owóde tìbi ‘restaurant’ (lit., ‘food house’); mastí ‘bank’ (lexical compound). A few nouns are derived from the causative form of active verbs which is obtained by adding the suffix ¤ya ‘to cause to’ or the causative benefactive ¤kiya ‘to cause something to be done for someone’ (Patterson 1990:164 n. 22). Causative verbs can be nominalized with the suffix ¤bi. ‘bread, flour’ aõúyabi (N) a¤ ‘direct object’ + õú ‘to be brown’ (VS) + ¤ya ‘causative’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’; aõúyabi sù ‘wheat kernel’ is a syntactic compound with sú ‘seed’ (N) ‘coffee’ h©uh©náh©yabi (N) huh©ná ‘to burn’ (reduplicated) + ¤ya ‘causative’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ 138 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 ‘radio, speaker’ i’ékiyabi (N) i’á ‘to speak to’ (VT) (with verbal ablaut) + ¤kiya ‘benefactive causative’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’ There is a homophonous suffix ¤ya ‘relational’, i.e., ‘to have as’ (Patterson 1990:164) which is used to derive verbs from nouns (e.g., h¿knáya ‘to marry someone’ (VT) from h¿kna ‘husband’), nouns from verbs, or nouns from nouns (e.g., cah®bayabi ‘Dutch’ [lit., ‘the one that has wooden shoes’] from c®h¾ba ‘shoe’). Cumberland (2005:144) notes that the relational ¤ya is used to create fictive kinship terms. ‘glasses’ ¿štáyabi (N) ¿štá ‘eye’ + ¤ya ‘relational’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the thing that is considered as eyes’) Other derivatives include the syntactic compound ¿štáyabi sàba ‘sunglasses’ (lit., ‘black glasses’). A more common word is ¿štágitu‰ (N) (lit., ‘she/he wears glasses’) ‘Indian agent’ adéyabi (N) adé vocative form ‘Father!’ (N) + ¤ya ‘relational’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the one that is considered to be as a father’) ‘President, U.S. government’ tug®šinay¾bi ‘grandfather’ (N) > ‘president’ tug®šina ‘grandfather’ (N) + ¤ya ‘relational’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the one that is considered to be as a grandfather’) The nouns for ‘President’ and ‘Indian agent’ reflect the Nakota tradition of attributing kinship ties, not on the basis of blood lines, but to create and consolidate political and economical bonds between parties. In the early 1800s, these kinship terms were used metaphorically in political discourses to create a one-sided social contract with the U.S. government. Since in Nakota culture grandfathers and fathers have to provide for their family with no prospect of immediate return, these kinship terms implied an asymmetrical contract with the Indian agent or the United States President (Whelan 1993:253). However, an anonymous reviewer suggests that these terms had been first coined in some of the eastern Indigenous languages (Algonquian, Iroquoian). By the time the American colonial power extended in the Great Plains in the late 1700s, these paternalistic expressions were already of wide currency among American officials and were probably loan translated in the languages of the Plains. 3.3.3. Derivational prefix wa¤ ‘indefinite object’. The prefix wa¤ has the following functions: to detransitivize a verb by acting like an indefinite object (wacó’Çba ‘to roast’ (VI) from co’ú‰ba ‘to roast it’ (VT)); to derive a noun from a noun (wah®bi ‘broth’ (N) from h¾bí ‘juice’ (N)) (Cumberland 2005:99—100); and to derive a noun from an intransitive verb, as in wayáco ‘judge’ (Patterson 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 139 1990:51). The prefix wa¤ can also occur with other nominalizing affixes, such as o¤ ‘location’ or ¤na ‘NOM’. ‘circus’ owábazo (N) o¤ ‘location’ + wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + bazó ‘to show it’ (VT) (lit., ‘the place where things are shown’) ‘church’ owácegiya (N) o¤ ‘location’ + wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + cegíya ‘to pray’ (VI) ‘judge’ wayáco (N) wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + yacó ‘to try him/her in court’ (VT) ‘oats’ wayáhoda (N) wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + yahóda ‘to gag, choke on it’ (VI) (lit., ‘something to choke on’) My informant notes that horses often choke when feeding on oats. The association of oats with horses is also present in the Kutenai term ák’k’.Œtl.q.Œ£tltsin kVŒ@kñ ‘oats’ (lit., ‘horse’s food’) (Chamberlain 1894: 191) and in Ojibwe bebezhigooganzhii¤manoomin ‘oats’ (lit., ‘horse—wild rice’). ‘truck’ ¿wátokšu (N) ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + tokšú ‘to haul something’ (VT) (lit., ‘that which one hauls things with’) This word is often truncated to otókšu. 3.3.4. Other minor nominalizing suffixes. Besides the nominalizing affixes seen above, there also exist other minor derivational suffixes. One such suffix is the empty nominalizer enclitic ¤ga, which derives nouns from verbs. It is homophonous with the verbal enclitic ¤ga ‘rather’ (Cumberland 2005:113). ‘bottle, glass’ wah¯yokn¾ga (N) wah¯ ‘flint’ (N) + okn® ‘through’ (ADV) + ¤ga ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘transparent flint’) ‘Frenchman’ wašíju ¿kcèga (N) syntactic compound: wašíju ‘white man’ (N) + ¿kcé ‘common’ (ADV) + ¤ga ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘common white man’) Another is the suffix ¤s’a ‘habitual’, found on some names of professions, or to designate people who have a given habit (e.g., minítkes’a ‘drunkard’). ‘artist, writer, scribe’ wa’ókmas’a (N) wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + okmá ‘to draw, write’ (VT) + ¤s’a ‘NOM, habitual’ (lit., ‘one who draws things’) This is probably a case of semantic extension. ‘sinner’ wah©tánis’a (N) wah©táni ‘to sin’ (VI) + ¤s’a ‘NOM, habitual’ 140 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 3.3.5. Ablaut and zero nominalization. In Siouan linguistics, the term “ablaut” refers to two distinct phenomena: verbal ablaut and nominalizing ablaut (Shaw 1976:137—38, 276—80). Verbal ablaut is a morphophonemic process affecting the value of the final vowels of some verb stems; it occurs when an ablaut-triggering suffix or enclitic is attached to a verbal root belonging to the ablauting class. For instance, verbal ablaut is triggered when the ablaut-triggering enclitic ¤kta ‘potential, future’ is attached to the ablauting root yúda ‘she/he eats it’, giving yúd¿kta ‘she/he will eat it, she/he intends to eat it’. In contrast, nominalizing ablaut is not conditioned morphologically and is used to derive nouns from verbs, indicating the function of an object. (It is labeled below as “nominalizing ablaut,” Shaw’s term “nominal derivation.”) Nominalizing ablaut is productive but unpredictable, since not all ablauting verbal stems change their final vowel such as a and ¾ to e (Cumberland 2005:100). Hence I define nominalizing ablaut and zero nominalization as complementary nonaffixal processes; the former operates on ablauting verb roots and changes the morphophonemic vowel to e, while the latter operates on all kinds of verbal roots (ablauting and nonablauting) without changing ablauting vowels to e. ‘bathtub’ onIwe ‘swimming hole’ (N) > ‘bathtub’ o¤ ‘location’ + nÇw® ‘to swim’ + nominalizing ablaut ‘bridle’ m¾s’¯pah©te (N) lexical compound: m¾s¤ ‘iron’ (+ regressive nasal assimilation) + ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + pa¤ ‘mouth’ + h©tá ‘to tie up’ (VT) + nominalizing ablaut ‘bumper’ ¿móh©t¾ge (N) ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + moh©tága ‘to bump accidentally with something a person is carrying’ (VT) + nominalizing ablaut (lit., ‘the thing you bump people with’) ‘hotel’ owóde (N) o¤ ‘location’ + wóda ‘to eat’ (VI) + nominalizing ablaut (lit., ‘the eating place’) ‘Mormon’ giknIge (N) giknÈga ‘to dive in water, like a bird’ (VI) + nominalizing ablaut (lit., ‘the diver’, in reference to baptism) ‘saw’ ¿c®yukse (N) lexical compound: ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + c¾ ‘wood’ + yuksá ‘to cut with a sharp tool’ (VT) + nominalizing ablaut ‘silk’ abáh©nade ‘silk’ (N) a¤ ‘indefinite object’ + bah©náda ‘to pin, stitch on’ (VT) + nominalizing ablaut (lit., ‘that which is stitched on’) ‘violin, fiddle’ c¾’¯bag¿za (N) lexical compound: c¾ ‘wood’ + ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + bag¯za ‘to make a squeaky sound by pushing, rubbing’ + nominalizing ablaut Some speakers produce a metathesis of the verb root bazíge ‘violin, fiddle’ (with nominalizing ablaut). 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 141 Zero nominalization changes a verb into a noun, but without modifying the final vowel. As stated by Ingham for Lakota, this process is tantamount to the syntactic fact that “almost any verbal form can be embedded in a nominal phrase in Lakhota without any morphological modification and can be modified by any of the syntactic particles that can modify a noun” (2001a:176; see also Patterson 1990:47—49). Thus, a word like wak®sija can mean either ‘evil spirit’ (N) or ‘she/he is evil spirited’ (VS), as indicated by the possibility of inflecting the latter (e.g., wamák¾sija ‘I am evil spirited’, with infixed first person singular inflection ¤ma¤), or of inserting the former in an NP (e.g., wak®sija né ‘this evil spirit’). It is noteworthy that many cases of zero nominalization are descriptive labels based on verbs that indicate a process. ‘battery’ wak®k’¿ (N) lexical compound: wak® ‘to be powerful, power’ + k’¯ ‘to carry on the back’ + zero nominalization (lit., ‘that which carries power’) Here, the stative verb wak¾ does not qualify the head k’¿ but indicates the theme, that is, the energy being carried. ‘cowboy, rancher’ ptekúwa (N) lexical compound: pte ‘cow, cattle’ (N) + kuwá ‘to chase, to pursue’ (VT) + zero nominalization ‘monkey’ c¾’íyupi (N) lexical compound: c¾ ‘tree’ (N) + iyúpi ‘to jump’ (VI) + zero nominalization ‘prostitute’ maskúwa (N) lexical compound: mas¤ ‘iron’ > ‘money’ (N) + kuwá ‘to chase it’ (VT) + zero nominalization ‘saddle’ ak’¯ (N) a¤ ‘locative’ + k’¯ ‘to carry on the back’ (VT) + zero nominalization (lit., ‘that which is used to carry on the back’) 4. Referential extension. According to Brown, referential or metaphorical extension involves cases where “newly encountered items are commonly named by extending referential use of a word for some familiar object or concept to a somewhat similar introduced object or concept” (1999:28). Referential extensions are of two types: primary polysemy (section 4.1.) and secondary polysemy (section 4.2). Both are found in Nakota, but cases of secondary polysemy are much less numerous than those of primary polysemy. 4.1. Primary polysemy. As stated above, cases of primary polysemy are typical of primary accommodation since speakers use already existing words and adapt their original meanings to new realities, focusing on the function, shape, or symbolic meaning of newly introduced objects, kinds of person, animal, or plant, and concepts. In Nakota, primary polysemy operates on basic or minimally derived nouns, but also on lexical compounds. The data indicate a 142 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 tendency to use primary polysemy to name things that were introduced during the prereservation period (before 1890), or in the early reservation period (1890—1920). ‘brake’ hugáška ‘to tie a horse’s leg on something’ (VT) > ‘wagon wheel brake chain’ (N) lexical compound: hú ‘leg, stalk’ > ‘wheel’ (N) + ¤ga ‘with an instrument’ + ška ‘to tie up’ (VT) + zero nominalization ‘bridge’ c¾gáh©tÇbi ‘beaver dam’ (N) > ‘bridge’ lexical compound: c® ‘wood’ (N) + gah© ‘to make it’ (VT) + tÈ ‘to bear it’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘the wood that is made to bear it’) ‘chewing gum’ c¾š¯ ‘resin’ (N) > ‘chewing gum’ lexical compound: c® ‘wood’ (N) + š¯ ‘grease’ (N) ‘electricity’ ow®h¿kne ‘to be lightning’ (VIMP) > ‘electricity’ (N) lexical compound: ow®¤ ‘light’ (N) (short variant of owáde, as in mah©píya owáde ‘northern lights’) + h¿kná ‘to be a sudden action’ (VI) + nominalizing ablaut a > e5 There exists also an older neologism wak®knikiyabi made of wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS > N) + kní ‘to return home’ (VI) + ¤kiya ‘causative’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’ (lit., ‘it brings power home’). ‘gas’ w¯kni ‘oil, grease, fat’ (N) > ‘gas’ ‘gas tank’ w¯kni hà ‘gas tank’ (N) syntactic compound: w¯kni ‘oil, grease, fat’ > ‘gas’ (N) + há ‘skin’ > ‘container’ (N) Since, traditionally, waterproof containers were made of ruminant hides or intestines, the noun há ‘skin’ has been extended to refer to containers, covers, and even clothes (e.g., hayábi ‘clothes’ (N) ha ‘skin’ + ¤ya ‘to cause to be’ + ¤bi ‘NOM’). ‘German, Russian, Frenchman’ iyášija ~ i’ášija ‘Dakota’ (N) > ‘German, Russian’ lexical compound: iyá ‘to talk’ (VI) + šíja ‘to be bad, wrong, evil’ (VS) (probably with consonant symbolism of s > š) + zero nominalization (lit., ‘bad talker’) This naming pattern is common in many aboriginal languages of the Plains: Plains Cree opîtatowêwak ‘Ukrainians’ (lit., ‘they speak differently; the different speaking ones’); Gros Ventre no¶ieekyeh ‘French, Italian, German, Saulteaux’ (lit. ‘crazy talker’). ‘gunpowder’ cah©ní ‘powder, ashes, coal’ (N) > ‘gunpowder’ ‘honeybee’ tuh©m®õa ‘wasp, hornet’ (N) > ‘honeybee’ Note also the syntactic compound tuh©m®õa cesnì ‘bee wax, honey’ (lit., ‘bee shit’). ‘house’ tíbi ‘dwelling’ (N) > ‘house, building’ tí ‘to live, reside’ (VI) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 143 Some speakers use the syntactic compound wašíju tíbi ‘framed house’ instead (lit., ‘white man’s dwelling’). ‘jack’ (cards) péša (N) pé ‘crown of the head’ (N) + šá ‘to be red’ (VS) According to Buechel and Manhart (2002:272—73) Lakota ph©éša means ‘headgear used in the Omaha Dance; Kwapa Indians; comb of a domestic rooster; jack in playing cards’. The original meaning of ‘headgear’ was probably metonymically extended to designate the jack in playing cards. (Other related terms include wapéša ‘porcupine roach’ as worn on ceremonial headdresses.) ‘matches’ péda ‘spark, fire’ (N) > ‘matches’ ‘policeman’ agícida ‘warrior’ (N) > ‘soldier, policeman’ Three syntactic compounds are built with agícida in its primary meaning: makóca agìcida ‘ground soldier’ (makóce ‘ground, land, earth’), miní agìcida ‘marine soldier’ (miní ‘water’), mah©píya agìcida ‘airforce soldier’ (mah©píya ‘sky’). ‘potato’ p¾õí ‘wild potato, Jerusalem artichoke’ (N) > ‘potato’ The Nakota noun refers to a Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), which is not a potato but a species of sunflower with edible roots, hence the association with European potatoes. ‘powder horn’ tahé ‘ruminant’s horn’ (N) > ‘powder horn’ lexical compound: tᤠ‘ruminant’ + hé ‘horn’ (N) ‘rice’ ps¯ ‘wild rice’ (N) > ‘rice’ ‘smallpox’ w¿cáh©nih©ni ‘smallpox’ (N) lexical compound: w¿cá ‘human’ (N) + h©nih©ní ‘scab’ (N) (reduplicated) ‘sugar’ c¾šmúyabi ‘maple syrup’ (N) > ‘sugar’ c® ‘wood’ (N) + šmú ‘to drip’ + ¤ya ‘causative’ (VT) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ ‘tea’ wah©pé ‘leaves’ (N) > ‘tea’ ‘tomato’ oz¯tka ‘rosehip’ (N) > ‘tomato’ This extension is due to the similar shape and color of the fruit of the rosehip and tomatoes, the latter apparently being regarded as a larger replica of the former. This extension pattern also exists in Algonquian ý languages: Gros Ventre yeeni , Ojibwe okin, Plains Cree okiniy, and Blackfoot kinii ‘rosehip, tomato’. ‘stove, oven’ océti ‘hearth, open fire for cooking’ (N) > ‘stove, oven’ ‘trigger of gun’ ceŠí ‘tongue’ ~ ¿yúkp¾he (N) > ‘trigger of gun’ The first form is based on a common metaphorical extension from body parts to gun parts (e.g., í ‘mouth’ > ‘gun barrel’), while the second form, ¿yúkp¾he, which is probably a later coinage, refers to the function of a trigger. It is also more complex and more fully transparent semantically: ¿¤ ‘instrument’ + yukp® ‘to grind into pieces’ (VT) + ¤h¾ ‘continuously’ (ENCL) + nominalizing ablaut (from yukp®h¾ ‘to fire a gun’ (VI)) (lit., ‘that which fires a gun’). 144 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 ‘wage’ wógamna ‘flattened strips of meat prepared for drying’ (N) > ‘salary, wages’ wo¤ ‘indefinite object, nominalizer’ (coalescence of wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + o¤ ‘locative’) + gamná ‘to cut thin strips of meat to be dried’ (VT) It is probable that the coining of this word has to do with the fact that thin slices of meat resemble paper money. ‘wheel’ hú ‘leg, stem, stalk’ (N) > hú (m¿mámina) ‘wheel’ syntactic compound: hú ‘leg, stem, stalk’ (N) + m¿mámina ‘round’ (ADV) The last element is optional for some speakers. In some cases, as in the following examples, words referring to traditional ceremonies and mythological beings have been extended to denote modern kinds of person or spirit and objects related to Christianity or newly introduced pan—American Indian ceremonies. Surely the influence of Nakota or Dakotaspeaking catechists (see Rodnick 1938:13) or even of bilingual missionaries is in play here. ‘scarecrow, clown’ w¿tkógaõa ‘fool dancer’ (N) > ‘scarecrow, clown’ lexical compound: w¿tkó ‘contrary’ (N) + gáõa ‘to make it’ (VT) + zero nominalization The analogy between a scarecrow or clown and the fool dancers is probably due to the awkward costume and behavior of the latter (for a description of the Fool Dancers’ society, see Lowie 1909). ‘church’ tíbiwak¾ ‘Sun Dance arbor’ (N) > ‘church’ lexical compound: tíbi ‘dwelling’ (N) + wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS) ‘devil’ wak®sija ‘evil spirit’ (N) > ‘Christian devil’ lexical compound: wak® ‘to be holy, mysterious’ (VS, N) + síja ‘to be bad, wrong, evil’ (VI) ‘god’ wak®t¾ga ‘Great Mystery, spirit’ (N) > ‘God, Creator’ lexical compound: wak¾ ‘power, mystery, sacredness’ (N) + t®ga ‘to be big, great’ (VS) (lit., ‘the great mystery, power’) A reviewer suggested that some nouns (e.g., ‘devil’, ‘battery’, ‘God’) that are made up of two stative verbs–a combination that is uncommon, if possible, in Dakota dialects–were coined by bilingual missionaries or Nakota/Dakota catechists. The monotheistic notion of a benevolent Father, Grandfather, or Creator controlling a pantheon of minor deities may have been suggested by missionaries in the colonial period and is alien to traditional shamanistic spirituality. To this effect, DeMallie states that “The modern concept of Wakan Tanka as “Father” and “Grandfather” leans toward anthropomorphic spiritual beings, humans relating to the spirits like children to benevolent parents” (1988:14; see also Hallowell [1940] for a discussion of similar patterns of religious acculturation in Saulteaux). Even if stative-stative compounds are not permitted in Dakotan dialects, it is important to keep in mind that wak® can function 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 145 both as a stative verb (waník¾ ‘you are holy’) and as a noun, as seen in the lexical compound wak®k’¿ ‘battery’, although as a simple noun it has not been documented (compare Lakota wakhá× (1) ‘to be endowed with spiritual power’; (2) ‘sacred spiritual power’; (3) ‘sacredly’). ‘Jesus Christ’ hokší togàpa ‘first male child’ (N) > ‘Jesus Christ’ syntactic compound: hokší ‘boy’ (N) + togápa ‘first born child’ (N); Fourstar (1978) also provides wak®t¾ga cihì‰ tku (lit., ‘God’s son’) ‘radio’ wahíkiyabi ‘Yuwipi Ceremony, Tie Up Ceremony’ (N) > ‘radio’ wahíkiya ‘to attach oneself’ (VR) + ¤bi ‘NOM’ Similar extensions reflecting the idea of long-distance communication is also present in Algonquian languages: Gros Ventre ceeciwooo ‘spirit, ghost’ > ‘radio’; South East Cree kusâpahcikan ‘shaking tent’ (used for conjuring) > ‘computer’ (idiolectal) (my fieldwork). ‘whale’ waw®ga ‘water monster’ (N) > ‘whale’ ‘white man’ wašíju ‘powerful being’ (N) > ‘white man’ In all Dakotan dialects this noun is a traditional concept with the meaning ‘a familiar spirit; some mysterious forces or beings which are supposed to communicate with men’ (Riggs 1890), ‘powerful being’ (DeMallie 1988: 9), as can be seen in Nakota wašíju w¾Šì ‘One Spirit’ (personal name) and mayáwašiju ‘little person, dwarf, caveman’. Europeans, initially Frenchmen (áUaschidjuñ in Prince Maximilian’s word list [1906:215]), were regarded with awe because of their unfamiliar appearance and their superior technology. The novel objects they brought with them were thought to be mystical (White 1994), as in the case of guns. The association between traditional tricksters and white man is also common in Algonquian plains languages: Cheyenne vé’ho’e ‘trickster; white man’ (from ProtoAlgonquian *wîsahkêcyâhkwa ‘culture hero’ (Hewson 1993)); Gros Ventre ý nih ootoh ‘spider, trickster, culture hero > white man’. The term wašíju was extended to Englishmen, and ‘Frenchman’ is expressed as ‘common Waš¿ju’, or ‘real Waš¿ju’ in Dakota. Other syntactic compounds include wašíju sàba ‘black man, African’ (‘white man’ + ‘to be black’) and wašíju sàba wì‰ y¾ ‘black woman, African’ (‘white man’ + ‘to be black’ + ‘woman’) (see also Roth 1975). This word underwent folk reanalysis as waš¯ ‘fat’ + ju ‘to gather’, in other words ‘the fat gatherers’. New occupations, activities or processes introduced in the late 1700s and 1800s, such as riding horses, earning money, buy on credit, and counting time on a clock, are expressed with simple extensions of traditional meanings, as in the following examples. ‘to earn’ gamná ‘to cut meat thin for drying’ (VI) > ‘to earn money, a wage’ ‘to electrocute’ nat’éya ‘to kill pain’ (VT) > ‘to electrocute someone (with an electric chair)’ 146 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 na¤ ‘by inner force, foot, body’ + t’á ‘to be dead’ (VI) + ablaut of a to e + ¤ya ‘causative’ (lit., ‘to cause death by internal force’) ‘to put credit on’ wa’ókma ‘to draw it’ (VT) > ‘to put credit on’ wa¤ ‘indefinite object’ + okmá ‘to draw’ (VT) ‘to ride a horse’ ag®n y¾gà ‘to sit on top of it’ (VS) > ‘to ride a horse’ syntactic compound: ag®n ‘on, upon’ (POST) + y¾gá ‘to sit on it’ (VI) This verbal compound seems to be a truncated version of šIga tà‰ga’ag¾n y¾gà ‘to sit on a horse’. ‘to tell time’ eh®’i ‘to reach or arrive at a point (place or time)’ (VI) > ‘it is X o’clock’ 4.2. Secondary polysemy. Secondary polysemy develops from processes of overt marking, double overt marking, and marking reversal, and implies a shift in the cultural salience of an introduced item (Witkowski and Brown 1983). Overt marking occurs when a word for a native referent serves as a constituent in a more complex construction that designates a similar, but introduced, item (Brown 1999:28). For example, in Dakota omníca ‘beans’ is also used in the syntactic compound omníca gmì‰ y¾ ‘peas’ (gm¿y¾ ‘to be round’) (lit., ‘round bean’); omníca is the base and gmì‰ y¾ the overt mark. There is a similarly clear case of overt marking in Nakota: the word for the imported apple, tasp®, occurs in more complex constructions that designate other imported fruits. The noun pté ‘buffalo, female buffalo’ also shifted to ‘cattle, bovid’ (genderless) in the mid-nineteenth century and unsurprisingly the expression of salient gender and age distinctions were recreated by lexical compounding (overt marking). ‘apple’ tasp® ‘hawthorn berry’ > ‘apple’ This case of primary extension may be due to the fact that imported apples have higher cultural saliency than hawthorn berries nowadays (see Sage [2015:161, 172] for similar data in Lakota). A similar case is found in Kutenai where the noun ágtÏw.ñ ‘hips of the wild rose’ was extended to designate apple, peach, pear, and tomato (Chamberlain1894:190). The word tasp® also occurs in other syntactic compounds that designate imported fruits: tasp® õì ‘orange’ (‘apple’ and ‘to be orange/brown’ (VS)) tasp® (õì) h¿šmà‰ ‘peach’ (‘apple’ and ‘to be orange/brown’ (VS) and ‘to be thick haired’ (VS)) tasp® pestòstona ‘pear’ (‘apple’ + ‘to be pointed’ (VS)) ‘domestic bull’ ptemnóga neologism, lexical compound: pté ‘buffalo, female buffalo’ > ‘cattle’ (N) + mnogá ‘male animal’ (N) (cf. tat®ga ‘male buffalo’) ‘domestic cow’ ptew¯yena ‘buffalo cow’ (N) > ‘domestic cow, heifer’ polysemy, lexical compound: pté ‘buffalo, female buffalo’ > ‘cattle’ (N) + w¯yena ‘female animal’ (N) 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 147 ‘calf’ ptec¯jana ‘buffalo calf’ (N) > ‘calf of domestic cow’ polysemy, lexical compound: pté ‘buffalo, female buffalo’ > ‘cattle’ (N) + c¿jána ‘young, pup’ (N) Marking reversal is another type of secondary polysemy that involves an increase in the cultural saliency of a term denoting an imported item. Brown (1999:158—59) showed that among North American languages, marking reversal involved almost exclusively natural kinds. A clear example of this sort appears in Tzeltal (cf. Witkowski and Brown 1983:571). At the beginning of the Spanish conquest, deer were labeled as ýih and the imported sheep was labeled as tunim ýih–literally, ‘cotton deer’ (overt mark + base). However, because of the development of sheep herding and the concomitant decrease in deer population, nowadays the base ýih means ‘sheep’, while ‘deer’ is labeled with an overtly ý marked expression, te tikil ýih (lit., ‘wild sheep’). Although there are no examples of marking reversal in my database, the extensions of the word for ‘dog, canine’ > ‘horse, equine’ set the stage for marking reversal, but without reaching it. As with many other languages of the North American Plains, horses are referred to as ‘dogs’ (primary polysemy) or ‘big dogs’ (overt marking). In Nakota, we find the syntactic compound šIga tà‰ga ‘horse’, which is built of šIga ‘dog, canine’ + t®ga ‘to be big, great’ (VS) (cf. Prince Maximilian’s form áschón-atangañ [1906:217]). The noun šIga also has a short variant šÇk¤ that appears in lexical compounds to designate similar animals, such as šÇkcúk’ana ‘coyote’ and šÇktógeja ‘wolf’ (šÇk¤ ‘canine’ + tó ‘to be blue’ (VS) + ¤geja ‘sort of’), and could be glossed as ‘canine’ (Cumberland 2005:237).6 Since horses became economically and culturally more salient than dogs in the second half of the eighteenth century, the short form šÇk¤ also came to be used in words that designated types of horses and equines and not types of dogs: šÇkšóšo(na) ‘donkey, mule’,7 šÇgána ‘old horse’, šÇksába ‘black horse’, šÇkskósko ‘mangy horse’, šÇkš¯deksa ‘bobtail horse’, šÇktúske ‘stunted horse’, šÇkwág¿c’¿ ‘pack horse’, and šÇktí ‘barn’. Thus, the meaning of the short variant šÇk¤ underwent referential extension, shifting from ‘dog, canine’ to the more salient ‘horse, equine’. Later, with the advent of stock herding, šÇkhéyuke ‘mountain goat’ was extended to ‘sheep’ (lit., ‘horned canine, quadruped’). The ý same extension appears in Navajo, where Ï¿Â ‘dog’ was extended to ‘horse’ and later to ‘sheep’, due to the latter’s increased economic importance (Rosenthal 1985:46, citing Young and Morgan 1980:519). A crucial piece of data to understand the mechanism of marking reversal is that the simple noun šIga means ‘dog’ when not possessed, but ‘horse’ when inalienably possessed, as in mitášÇga ‘my horse’ (with mi ‘my’ and ¤ta¤ inalienable possession); thus, marking reversal would be complete if šIga came to indicate ‘horse’ only and the old meaning ‘dog’ was expressed with an overt marker, perhaps a lexical compound or a endearing derivative like ‘small horse’ (cf. šóšobina ‘small equine(s) > puppies’). 148 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 5. Loans. 5.1. Loanwords. Loanwords are words that are copied from a foreign language. Nakota, like some other Siouan languages, is known to be particularly resistive to borrowing (Parks and Rankin 2001:109; Cumberland 2005:116), and the few loanwords found are nouns that refer exclusively to kinds of humans or animals. As with many ethnolinguistic groups who were colonized by the English or French, the percentage of loanwords is very low, as opposed to groups colonized by the Spanish (Brown 1994:102—3). Moreover, very few loanwords were borrowed directly from European languages (English and French); most of them entered Nakota from Algonquian languages, such as Plains Cree and Saulteaux (also known as Plains Ojibwe), which were spoken by historical allies of the Nakota, and from Siouan languages, such as Ho-Chunk and Lakota. ‘baby’ bébina (N) From French bébé or English baby, to which is added the diminutive suffix ¤na. This word and búzana ‘kitten’ (see below) are examples of loan blending (foreign root with native derivational morphemes) (see Brown 1999: 24). ‘cat’ búza (N) From the way of summoning a cat, puss-puss in English. Derivatives (loan blending) include búzana ‘kitten’ (buza + ¤na ‘diminutive’) (see Landar [1959] for the diffusion of Spanish micho, micha ‘cat’ in the languages of Southwestern United States). ‘Métis’ sakná (N) This word is a back-formation from the diminutive or pejorative Ojibwe noun ending in ¤sh, as in Zhaaganaash ‘Englishman’, which is itself an adaptation of the French noun phrase (le)s Anglais ‘the (pl.) English’. ‘pig’ gugúša (N) From dialectal French cocoche or coucouche ‘pig’. Taylor (1990:197) notes that while this old world species was introduced to the southeastern United States by Spanish colonists in the sixteenth century, the French loanword diffused into the Plains languages through a chain of contiguous and mutually intelligible Siouan languages of the Dhegiha branch, such as Kanza, Osage, and Ho-Chunk, in the late 1700s. ‘Spaniard’ špeyóna (N) From French Espagnol ‘Spaniard’, probably via Lakota spayóla ‘Mexican’. As can be seen from the few examples known, there are very few loanwords in Nakota, and those that can be found agree with the tendency observed by Brown (1999) whereby American languages are more likely to use European loans for kinds of humans or animals than for artifacts. Some of them, such as ‘Spaniard’, also show resyllabification and phonological adaptation, indicating 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 149 that speakers who borrowed these words did so before the reservation period and were probably not fully bilingual (Casagrande 1955:23). In sum, since loanwords are few and relate to kinds of humans and animals that were introduced early on, I suggest they are more akin to primary accommodation than to secondary accommodation. Like cases of primary polysemy, these few loanwords belong to an earlier stratum of lexical acculturation than loan shifts based on English. 5.2. Loan shifts and semantic loans. Loan shifting is the process of translating the meaning of the elements of a foreign compound or phrase with native material. Brown (1999:25) identified two types of loan shifts. In loan translations the meaning of a composite expression in the donor language is translated in the receiving language, as in iced tea (English, early 1900s) which was loan translated as thé glacé in French, or as wah©pé acàõa in Nakota. Semantic loans are similar to loan translations except that they involve only one word; for example, the extended meaning of English star ‘celestial body; famous entertainer’ was semantically translated as sao in Vietnamese, or étoile in French, as in étoile du cinema ‘movie star’. I gathered a few loan translations from English, some of which are idiolectal (i.e., created on the spot for the pleasure of coining). Loan translations involve, for the most part, noun phrases or syntactic compounds. ‘caterpillar tractor’ wamnúška h¿šm®šm¾ (N) NP: wamnúška ‘insect’ (N) + h¿šm¾šm¾ ‘to be thick haired’ (VS) (reduplicated) This is a calque of the English label Caterpillar tractor through ellipsis of tractor. ‘hot dog’ šIga kàda (N) syntactic compound: šIga ‘dog’ (N) + káda ‘to be hot’ (VS) ‘have a good day’ ®ba wašté yuhá (greeting formula) ®ba ‘day’ (N) and wašté ‘to be good’ (VS) + yuhá ‘to have it’ (VT) (lit., ‘Have a good day!’) ‘iced tea’ wah©pé acàõa (N) syntactic compound: wah©pé ‘tea’ (N) + acáõa ‘to be frozen’ (VS) ‘ladybug’ wamnúška wì‰ y¾ (N) syntactic compound: wamnúška ‘insect, bug’ (N) + w¿y® ‘woman’ (N) This nonnative species was introduced in the early twentieth century to control the proliferation of aphids. None of the old or the recent lexicographic sources for the Dakotan languages contain a word for this insect. ‘moonshine’ h¾wíwiyakpa (N) lexical compound: h¾wí ‘moon’ (N) + wiyákpa ‘to be shiny’ (VS) ‘Mother Mary’ iná m¾kà (N, vocative) neologism, syntactic compound: iná ‘Mother!’ (vocative form) + m¾ká ‘earth, ground, soil’ (N) 150 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Another ceremonial term, Çjí m¾kà– which one of my informants claims to be a borrowing from Dakota–is built on the vocative form for grandmother Çji and m¾ka ‘earth’ (lit., ‘grandmother earth’). ‘sweetheart’ c¾dé skùya (N) syntactic compound: c¾dé ‘heart’ (N) + skúya ‘to be sweet’ (VS) Compare the native noun kišné ‘sweetheart’ (N). ‘Thanksgiving day’ pigína wódabi ®ba (N) NP: pigína ‘to give thanks for it’ (VT) + wódabi ‘they eat’ (VI) + ®ba ‘day (N) ‘white man’ haská(na) (N) lexical compound: há ‘skin’ (N) + ská ‘to be white’ (VS) (+ ¤na ‘NOM’) ‘wood tick’ c® wamnùška (N) syntactic compound: c¾ ‘wood’ (N) + wamnúška ‘bug, insect’ (N) This term is an idiolectal creation that exists beside the native word tamnáska. There is also a semantic loan where the meaning of an English verb is applied to its Nakota equivalent. ‘to make money’ gáõa ‘to make it’ (VT) > ‘to earn money’ Loan translations and semantic loans belong to secondary accommodation and imply a certain level of bilingualism since a minimal knowledge of the morphemic make-up of the foreign word is required. Casagrande (1955:22) states that loan translations entail not only the copying of words, but the subtle integration of the “mode of thought” of the donor language. My data include other cases of secondary accommodation stemming from contact with speakers of neighboring Algonquian languages. Nakota á’ana ‘crow’ is probably a loan translation which implies the reanalysis of âhâsiw into âh⤠+ ¤siw; the Plains Cree noun final ¤siw, which appears on names for birds and is phonetically similar to the diminutive ¤s ~ ¤sis, seems to have been replaced by the Nakota diminutive ¤na. As stated above, Nakota sakná ‘Métis’ is a back formation from a Saulteaux loan Zhaaganaash, although one should not overlook the fact that nouns ending in a fricative consonant are prohibited in Nakota. Plains Cree examples of secondary accommodation (loan blending and loan translation) include sôsôwisis ‘mule, donkey’ (sôsôw¤ + ¤sis ‘diminutive’), which is a loan blend based on Nakota šóšona ‘mule, donkey’ (šošo + ¤na ‘diminutive’), while sôsôwatimwa (sôsôw¤ ‘donkey, mule’ + ¤atimwa ‘dog’) is based on Nakota šu‰kšóšona ‘donkey’ (šÇk¤ ‘canine, equine’ + ¤šošona ‘donkey, mule’). Since the root sôsôw¤ is meaningless in Plains Cree, and confined to this dialect, we can assume that the diffusion went from Nakota to Plains Cree. Plains Cree mistatimwa ‘dog’ (lit., ‘big dog’) probably is a loan translation of Nakota šIga tà‰ga ‘horse’ (lit., ‘big dog’). Moreover, Plains Cree is the source for Ojibwe mishtatim ‘horse’ and sosowatim ‘mule’ (Baraga 1992), Saulteaux šônšohâtim ‘donkey’ (Scott and Kinistin First Nation 1995) since atim ‘dog’ is not the 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 151 expected Ojibwean reflex (animosh) of Proto-Algonquian *a¶emwa. Finally, even though I cannot delve into the topic, it should be noted that two Nakota kinship terms, inána ‘my mother’s sister’ and adéna ‘my father’s brother’, both of which are formed with the diminutive ¤na, have exact equivalents in Plains Cree: nikâwiy ‘my mother’, nikâwis ‘my maternal aunt’ (with diminutive ¤s); nôhtâwiy ‘my father’, nôhcâwîs ‘my paternal uncle’ (with diminutive suffix ¤s and diminutive palatalization of t to c) (see Taylor 1983:34). 6. Conclusion. Table 4 shows the distribution of Nakota lexical expansion– loanwords, semantic loans, loan shifts; primary and secondary polysemy; and coining (compounding, noun phrase, derivation)–as used in three general lexical domains: objects (tools, modes of transportation, clothing, food and drinks buildings); kinds (persons, ethnic groups, professions, plants and fruits, animals); and concepts, which I have divided into mental entities (Christian deities, border, Jesus Christ, sweetheart, Mother Earth, months, weekdays, holidays, miles), and processes or activities (diseases, making money, riding a horse, electrocuting someone, etc.). Note that all Algonquian loanwords as well as variants for a single word are all counted in the statistical table. Noun phrases where a derivational suffix, such as ¤bi ‘NOM’, is added are counted as derived nouns. Table 4. Means of Lexical Expansion across Lexical Domains loan shifts, semantic loans 1 3 polysemy 16 12 lexical compounds 23 6 syntactic compounds 16 noun phrases TOTAL N. 219 PROCESSES ENTITIES 3 FRUITS 3 CONCEPTS PLANTS ANIMALS loanwords PERSON KINDS CLOTHING FOOD OBJECTS OBJECTS WORD TYPES 6 3 3 2 12 3 7 4 7 5 54 1 1 1 5 1 41 4 3 2 5 10 1 41 5 1 1 1 1 9 derivatives (affixation) 15 5 7 2 42 derivatives (ablaut, zero nom.) 10 3 1 4 3 3 1 5 14 152 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Nakota lexical acculturation shows several tendencies, described in the following paragraphs. Nakota has expanded its lexicon almost exclusively with neologisms (67.1 percent) and cases of polysemy (24.6 percent). The few loanwords found in Nakota (2.7 percent) only designate foreign kinds, namely, persons and animals, a tendency observed by Brown (1999:158—59) for North American Native languages. Some of these loanwords (e.g., ‘pig’, ‘Métis’) have diffused indirectly from neighboring Siouan and Algonquian languages, and belong to an older layer of lexical expansion. Loan shifts and semantic loans (5.5 percent) are for the most part syntactic compounds that express concepts alien to traditional Nakota culture (e.g., ‘Thanksgiving Day’, ‘to earn money’). Coining through compounding is the most important means of lexical expansion (82/219). Almost half of the compounds are labels describing objects (39/91), while syntactic compounds, besides being labels for objects and kinds, also refer to concepts (11/41). Noun phrases (9/219) often designate referents linked to an increased sedentary lifestyle (e.g., ‘clock’, ‘medical doctor’, ‘to vote’). Semantic and phonological differences between lexical and syntactic compounding suggest that the former belongs to an earlier stage of lexicalization, although this requires further research. Unlike Inuktitut (see section 2.3), Nakota lexical expansion does not show a strong correlation between lexical domains and word types. Although different types of words are involved in the expression of a single lexical domain, the following tendencies have been discovered. • Food products: Consumption items that can be linked through appearance or shape, taste, or texture to traditional products, e.g., ‘potato’ (extension of ‘Jerusalem artichoke’) and ‘sugar’ (extension of ‘maple sugar’), were named through semantic extension of an opaque and nondescriptive noun, while those items that cannot be equated to any traditional food item were named via new descriptive compounds (e.g., ‘bacon’, ‘butter’, ‘cheese’, ‘wine’), or derived nouns (e.g., ‘bread, flour’)’. • Plants, roots, and domesticated animals: Many edible plants and roots of early introduction in the northern Plains are labeled through semantic extension (e.g., ‘pepper’, ‘grapes’, ‘potato’, ‘rice’, ‘tea’, ‘tomato’), while other exotic plants of recent introduction are labeled with words that describe the morphology (e.g., ‘banana’, lit., ‘the oblong-shaped one’; ‘cabbage’, lit., ‘long leaves’; ‘pumpkin’, lit., ‘the man with many holes’), or some property related to human consumption (e.g., ‘watermelon’, lit., ‘that which is eaten raw’; ‘peanut’, lit., ‘that which one crushes with the mouth’). In some cases, the word refers to the nonnutritive properties of a given grain (e.g. ‘oats’, lit., ‘that which one chokes on’). As stated by Berlin (1992:256—58), plants with which a given population is more familiar will tend to be named with semantically opaque words, while those of recent introduction, which are not 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 153 culturally salient, will be labeled with rather complex and descriptive words or circumlocutions. The same tendency is observed for domesticated animals: labels that refer to species introduced early (before the 1900s) may be borrowed (e.g., ‘cat’, ‘pig’), display semantic extension (e.g., ‘honeybee’), semantic opacity (e.g., ‘donkey’), and marking reversal (e.g. šÇk¤ ‘canine > ‘equine’ > ‘domesticated animal’ and pté ‘buffalo’ > ‘cow, cattle’), while those introduced later are labeled with descriptive and semantically transparent neologisms only (e.g., ‘monkey’, ‘elephant’). Lastly, nouns for people show a parallel sequencing: use of semantic extension in the early contact period, the 1600s and 1700s (e.g., ‘white man’; the extension of ‘Dakota’ [lit., ‘bad speaker’] to ‘German’ and ‘Russian’ is probably a late semantic extension); borrowing of Algonquian or Lakota words in the prereservation period, 1780—1890 (e.g., ‘Métis’, ‘Spanish’); and neologisms in the reservation period 1890—now (e.g., ‘Asian’ (derivation), ‘Mormon’ (ablaut), ‘African’ (syntactic compound)). • Means of transportation: Almost all the means of transportation introduced in the nineteenth century are labeled with semantically transparent compounds that put an emphasis on the shape or appearance or on the combustion mechanism of the referent (e.g., ‘horse’, lit., ‘big dog’; ‘train’, lit., ‘iron canoe’; ‘steamboat’, lit., ‘fire boat’), while labels expressing those means of transportation introduced in the twentieth century are more complex morphologically and conceptually, and focus on the function (e.g., ‘truck’, lit., ‘the thing one hauls things with’), the shape or appearance (e.g., ‘airplane’, lit., ‘flying canoe, flying iron’), or on the inner force of the referent (e.g., ‘car’, lit., ‘it wants to go by itself’). In terms of Casagrande’s notion of accommodation, the study reveals that Nakota did not reach, and probably never will, the stage of secondary accommodation (use of loanwords and loan translation), although a few idiomatic loan shifts based on English are reported (e.g., ‘iced tea’, ‘hot dog’, ‘sweetheart’, etc.). This indicates an important aspect of Nakota linguistic acculturation. Although the Nakota have been bilingual in English since at least the 1930s, if not before (as reported by Rodnick [1938]), and were gradually swamped with modern Euro-American items, kinds, and concepts, they nevertheless remain culturally resistive towards English loans and Western values. This is probably facilitated by the highly productive patterns for the coinage of neologisms available in Nakota. Resistance to English intrusion also indicates that bilingualism does not automatically trigger secondary accommodation, and is not incompatible with primary polysemy either, as noted by Casagrande (1955:22). In fact, the analysis shows chronologically ordered stages of lexical expansion within primary polysemy. The comparison of Nakota’s mechanisms of lexical expansion and the relative date of introduction of foreign objects, kinds, and concepts indicate an iconic 154 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 relation between word complexity and extralinguistic world complexity. A survey of early nineteenth-century word lists indicates that referential extension was commonly used to refer to objects and kinds (and more rarely to concepts), that were, for the most part, introduced early in the contact period: the late 1600s and 1700s (e.g., ‘bullet’, ‘donkey; mule’, ‘gunpowder’, ‘trigger of gun’, ‘house’, ‘stove’, ‘powder horn’, ‘tea’, ‘to ride a horse’, ‘wheel’, ‘white man’; deities and objects related to Christianity), or the 1800s (e.g., ‘brand’, ‘bull’, ‘calf’, ‘cow’, ‘Indian agent’, ‘President’, ‘smallpox’, ‘to put credit on’, ‘to tell time’). Primary polysemy, whether involving basic unanalyzable nouns, morphologically derived nouns, or lexical compounds, was handy when the influx of new experiences was relatively low, as was the case in the prereservation period (before 1890). Conceptually, these trade objects and kinds of person or animal were equated with a traditional analog on the basis of shape or appearance (e.g., ‘calf’, ‘horse’, ‘house’, ‘rice’), symbolic meaning (e.g., ‘whiskey’, ‘white man’, ‘devil’, ‘God’), and, less commonly, function or utility. In the twentieth century, referential extension became more difficult to manipulate due to the increasing influx and complexity of manufactured objects, exotic kinds, and strange cultural concepts, and was replaced by coining of highly descriptive nouns (and especially those involving nominalizing ablaut and syntactic compounding), which focused on shape or appearance, on utility or function, and even on the behavior of the referent, and less on its symbolic or cultural meaning (exceptions to this would be ‘radio’ and ‘microwave oven’). My claim is that while the mechanisms involved in lexical expansion have always been omnipresent in Nakota, the linguistic habit of forming morphologically complex, highly transparent, and descriptive words (derived nouns, noun phrases, compounds) intensified at a later stage of linguistic acculturation, when new experiences became more difficult to conceptualize and integrate into the Nakota worldview. This tendency was also observed by Brown (1999:160). As shown in table 5, the comparison between pairs of words expressing a single concept also correlates with the historical growth of Western acculturative forces in the economic domain (e.g., ‘Friday’), the sociocultural domain (e.g., ‘pumpkin’), and religious domain (e.g., ‘December’). Table 5. Stages of Lexical Expansion GLOSS ‘car’ ‘December’ ‘donkey, mule’ STAGES OF LEXICAL EXPANSION EARLIER LATER amóg ¿y¾ (obscure semantics, DerN) w¿cóg ¾du h¾wí (‘midwinter moon’; NP) iyéc ¿gayena (DerN) ®bawak¾ h¾wí (‘Christmas moon’; NP) šóšona (opaque meaning, ‘puppy’ (?); DerN, suffixation) š Çkšóšona (equine + šošona; LexCmp) 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 155 ‘electricity’ wak®knikiyabi (‘power returning home’; DerN, suffixation) ow®h¿kne (‘sudden light’; DerN, ablaut) ‘Friday’ Aba ¿zàpt¾ (‘fifth day’; SynCmp, polysemy) tanó yùdabiši (‘they don’t eat meat day’; SynCmp) tacúba à‰ba (‘ruminant (bone) marrow day’; SynCmp) ‘oat(meal)’ wayáhoda (‘something to choke on’; DerN, prefixation) h¾yákena yúdabi (‘morning food’; NP, suffixation) ‘priest’ šinásaba (‘black robe’; LexCmp, polysemy, semi-transparent) wócegiya w¿càšta (‘prayer person’; SynCmp) ‘pumpkin’ wagmú (‘gourd, squash, pumpkin’ in Lakota; Nakota cognates include wakmúha ‘gourd rattle’; N) w¿cáh©nuh©nugena (‘man full of holes’, in reference to Halloween; LexCmp) ‘radio’ wah¯kiyabi (‘Yuwipi Ceremony’; DerN, suffixation, polysemy) i’ékiyabi (‘it makes it speak’; DerN, suffixation) ‘trigger of gun’ ceŠí (‘tongue’; N, polysemy) ¿yúkp¾he (‘that which fires a gun’; DerN, ablaut) NOTE: DerN =derived noun; LexCmp = lexical compound; SynCmp = syntactic compound. In table 5, the simple and derived nouns in the left-hand column are more opaque semantically (e.g., ‘donkey’), may involve polysemy (e.g., ‘trigger of gun’), and are often integrated culturally (e.g., ‘December’, ‘electricity’, ‘Friday’, ‘radio’). In the right-hand column, on the other hand, the highly descriptive derived nouns obtained through nominalizing ablaut (e.g., ‘trigger of gun’, ‘electricity’), as well as compounding, are semantically transparent, never involve polysemy, and may indicate a certain level of acculturation to Western concepts and values (e.g., ‘December’, ‘Friday’, ‘oatmeal’, ‘pumpkin’). To conclude, although there are probably more doublets of this type to be discovered, the few examples provided here point to the chronological and conceptual priority of referential extension over coining in the stage of primary accommodation. Notes Acknowledgments. My research on Nakota was made possible by funding from the New Path Development program at First Nations University of Canada to document and teach Nakota at the university level. I wish to thank Armand McArthur and Pete Bigstone, who were more than willing to teach me their language and answer my questions on words for modern things. An early version of this article was presented at the Fourth Prairies Workshop on Language and Linguistics, held in Saskatoon, Canada. Abbreviations. The following grammatical abbreviations are used: 3 = third person; ADV = adverb; C = consonant; DIM = diminutive; ENCL = enclitic; N = noun; NOM = nominalizer; NP = noun phrase; PL = plural; POST = postposition; V = vowel; VI = intransitive verb; VIMP = impersonal verb; VR = reflexive verb; VS = stative verb; VT = transitive verb. 156 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Language Resources. The following online language resources were used: Nakota, Dakota, Lakota: http://zia.aisri.indiana.edu (accessed May 2017); Plains Cree: http://www.creedictionary.com (accessed May 2017); Ojibwe: 2015 Ojibwe People’s Dictionary, http://ojibwe.lib.umn.edu (accessed May 2017); Kanza: http://www. kawnation.com (accessed April 2017); Crow: http://crowlanguage.org (accessed April 2017); Cheyenne: http://www.cdkc.edu/cheyennedictionary/index.html (accessed April 2017). 1. Rodnick (1938:9, 12, 87) has documented the introduction of many modern items in Fort Belknap in the late 1800s. Tools or implements include automobiles, beds, bedding, benches, blankets, chairs, hardware, mattresses, sewing machines, soap, stoves, and tables; food products include baking powder, beef, coffee, fried eggs, flour, lettuce, oatmeal, prunes, spinach, sugar, and toast. Many of these new culinary habits (fried egg, toast, oatmeal) were introduced via the day-schooling system. Tea is an old vestige from the trading days of 1700—1800. 2. Epenthetic consonants are often inserted between a prefix or the initial member of a lexical compound and the initial vowel of a following stem. Typically the epenthetic consonant is the glottal stop ’, as in (1a) (where h¾wí + agíde bcomes h¾wí’agide), but it may be y when the first element ends in i or ¿; an example is wah¯yokn¾ga ‘bottle, glass’, from wah¯ + okn® + ¤ga (see section 3.3.4). 3. For ‘Friday’, Plains Cree has equivalent forms, nîyânano kîsikâw (lit., ‘fifth day’) and pahkwêsikani¤kîsikâw (lit., ‘flour (distribution) day’), while South East Cree has nameš cîšîkâw ‘it is Friday’ (lit., ‘fish day’) (my own fieldwork). Ojibwe has naano¤ giizhigad (lit., ‘fifth day’). 4. Denig reports for the Nakota of the early 1800s, “They know nothing of the division of hours and minutes”; however, “they will say it wants so many fives to strike 9, etc.” (2000:23; my emphasis). 5. Dakota wakh®gdi ‘electricity’, Lakota wakhá×gle ‘lightning, electricity’ (wakha× ‘holy, mysterious’ + gli ‘to come back home’ + nominalizing ablaut). Extension of ‘to be lightning, thundering’ to ‘electricity’ is common in the dialects of Cree (e.g., Plains Cree wâsaskotepayiw ‘lightning, electricity’ (noun); South East Cree nimischîuškutew ‘electricity’ (noun) (lit., ‘thunder + fire’) (Neeposh et al. 2004). 6. Hunn and Brown (2011:323) have shown that covert categories like dog, coyote, and wolf are often grouped together in languages of America; for example, Tarahumara ¤ýi¤ appears on the words for ‘coyote’ and ‘wolf’ (Rosenthal 1985:46). 7. In many indigenous languages of North America, the word for ‘donkey, mule’ has a literal meaning ‘big ears’: Kanza (Siouan) naÖtá tàÖga; Crow (Siouan) ahpisáa (ahp ‘outer ear’ + isáa ‘big’); Kutenai (isolate) ágŒŒwitlkÂŒŒ.tñ (ágŒŒwitlñ ‘big’ + ákÂŒŒ.tñ ‘ear’) ý ý (Chamberlain 1894:188); Makah (Wakashan) i iÂwabiÏ (Jacobsen 1980:173); Karok tivxárahsas ‘mule’ (tíÂv¤ ‘ear’ + ¤xárahsas ‘long’) (Bright 1952:57); Tewa (Tanoan) òð© èÓsóyóÓ ‘mule’ (òð© èÓ¤ ‘ear’ + ¤sóyóÓ) (Dozier 1956:152); Blackfoot (Algonquian) omahksstooki (Frantz and Russel 1995:160). However, while missionary grammarians of Dakotan dialects list cognates for ‘donkey, mule’ (e.g., Riggs has šoךo×na “adj. longeared hanging down, as the ears of many dogs do, hence šukt¾ga šoךo×na ‘mule’” [1992:447] and Buechel has šonšonla “long-eared, drooping ear or a mule” [2002:290]), this etymology, based on a metonymic relationship between this short and highly valued equine and its ears, remains obscure, since it does not appear in modern dictionaries of the Dakotan dialects. For instance, Ingham (2001b) has šúךu×la ‘mule (perhaps also donkey)’ and šúךu×ikpisa×, šúךu×ikpiska ‘donkey’ (lit., ‘white-bellied mule’) for Lakota, but no modern verb šuךu×la referring to the appearance of ears. One possible explanation is that the specific stative verb šoךo×(na), šonšon(la) ‘to have long ears hanging down’ is now obsolete as an independent form in all modern Dakotan languages, retained only in the Dakotan words for ‘donkey, mule’. The principal difficulty for this 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 157 explanation is the existence of the dog-related noun šóšobina ‘puppies’ (Nakota)–an older formation historically, since donkeys and mules diffused with horses in the 1740s, the 1750s, and later (see Ewers 1955:341—42). The careful study of cognates for ‘donkey, mule’ in Dakotan languages is particularly revealing. First, Nakota šÇkšóšo(na) ‘donkey, mule’ contains a formative ¤šošo¤ that seems to be cognate with Dakota and Lakota šúךuפ seen above. The vowel difference is not problematic here, since o ~ u× variation has been reported for Lakota, as in u×má ~ omá ‘other’ (Bruce Ingham p.c. 2017), and exists also in Nakota. My hypothesis is that ¤šošo¤ ~ šúךuפ is a reduplicated form of the short variant šÇk¤ ‘dog, horse, sheep’ seen above. The reduplication may have expressed either the smaller size of donkeys when compared to horses, or endearment, since it has been shown by Ewers (1955:342) that mules had greater trade value than packhorses. Clues to the original form and meaning occur in the Lakota variant shú×shu×kla ‘mule’, which retains the original stop k of šu×k¤ in its form (Scott 2000; Scott uses the spelling sh for š), and also in the meaning of the Nakota word šóšobina ‘puppies’. I suggest that the dropping of k and the variation between o and u× contributed greatly to the opacity of the word for ‘donkey, mule’ in Dakotan dialects. While in Lakota both the k-truncated and the nontruncated forms of šu×k¤ are found in modern speech (i.e., šúךu×la ‘mule’ and shu×shu×kla ‘mule’), in Nakota the short form šÇk¤ was added on šošona, which had became opaque (compare Denig’s short form ásho-shonahñ ‘mule’ (2000:189)), thus yielding overtly marked nouns like šÇkšóšo(na) ‘donkey, mule’, šÇkšóšo ‘donkey, mule’, and the reduplicated attributive šÇkšóšot¾kt¾gabi ‘mules’. As shown in section 4.2, Plains Cree created a loan blend, sôsôwatimwa ‘donkey, mule’, based on one of those late lexical compounds. References Baraga, Frederic 1992 A Dictionary of the Ojibway Language. St. Paul, Minn.: Historical Society Press. Basso, H. Keith 1967 Semantic Aspects of Linguistic Acculturation. American Anthropologist 69(5):471—77. Berge, Anna, and Lawrence Kaplan 2005 Contact-Induced Lexical Development in Yupik and Inuit Languages. Études/Inuit/Studies 29(1—2):285—305. Blake, William L. 1981 Early Acceptance of Watermelon by Indians of the United States. Journal of Ethnobiology 1(2):193—99. Boas, Franz, and Ella Deloria 1941 Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 23. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Bright, William 1952 Linguistic Innovations in Karok. International Journal of American Linguistics 18(2):53—62. Brown, H. Cecil 1989 Naming the Days of the Week: A Cross-Language Study of Lexical Acculturation. Current Anthropology 30(4):536—50. 1994 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Current Anthropology 35(2):95—108. 1999 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 158 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Buechel, Eugene, and Paul Manhart, eds. 2002 Lakota Dictionary: Lakota-English/English-Lakota. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Campbell, L., and Verónica Grondona 2012 Linguistic Acculturation in Nivaclé and Chorote. International Journal of American Linguistics 78(3):335—67. Casagrande, B. Joseph 1954a Comanche Linguistic Acculturation I. International Journal of American Linguistics 20(2):140—51. 1954b Comanche Linguistic Acculturation II. International Journal of American Linguistics 20(3):217—37. 1955 Comanche Linguistic Acculturation III. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(1):8—25. Chamberlain, Alexander Francis 1894 New Words in the Kootenay Language. American Anthropologist 7(2):186— 92. Chambers, Jack K. 1978 Dakota Accent. In Linguistic Studies of Native Canada, edited by Eung-Do Cook and Jonathan Kaye, 3—18. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Chambers, John K., and Patricia A. Shaw 1980 Systematic Obfuscation of Morphology in Dakota. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 325—36. Champion Huot, Martha 1948 Some Mohawk Words of Acculturation. International Journal of American Linguistics 14(3):150—54. Cumberland, Linda A. 2005 A Grammar of Assiniboine: A Siouan Language of the Northern Plains. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. DeMallie, Raymond J. 1988 Lakota Traditionalism: History and Symbol. In Native North American Interaction Patterns, edited by Regna Darnell and Michael Foster, 2—21. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization, National Museum of Canada. DeMallie, Raymond J., and David Reed Miller 2001 Assiniboine. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 13: Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie and William Sturtevant, 572—95. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Denig, T. Edwin 1854 Assiniboine Vocabulary. In Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States: Collected and prepared under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs per act of Congress of March 3rd 1847, edited by Henry R. Schoolcraft, Part 4, 416—31. Washington: Historical American Indian Press. 2000 The Assiniboine. Edited by J. N. B. Hewitt; introduction by David R. Miller. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. de Reuse, Willem J. 1994 Noun Incorporation in Lakota (Siouan). International Journal of American Linguistics 60(3):199—260. Dorais, Louis-Jacques 1970 L’acculturation lexicale chez les Esquimaux du Labrador. Langages 18:65— 77. 2017 1977 VINCENT COLLETTE 159 La structure du vocabulaire moderne de la langue inuit du QuébecLabrador. L’Homme 17(4):35—63. Dozier, Edward P. 1956 Two Examples of Linguistic Acculturation: The Yaqui of Sonora and Arizona and the Tewa of New Mexico. Language 32(1):146—57. Drummond, Valerie E. 1976 Carry-The-Kettle Assiniboine Texts. M.A. thesis, University of Toronto. Ewers, John C. 1955 The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture: With Comparative Material From Other Western Tribes. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Fourstar, Jerome 1978 Assiniboine Dictionary. MS, Wolf Point, Montana. Frantz, Donald G., and Norma Russell 1995 Blackfoot Dictionary of Stems, Roots, and Affixes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Garvin, Paul L. 1948 Kutenai Lexical Innovations. Word 4(2):120—26. Hallowell, Irving A. 1940 The Spirits of the Dead in Saulteaux Life and Thought. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 70(1):29—51. Hewson, John 1993 A Computer-Generated Dictionary of Proto-Algonquian. Canadian Ethnology Service. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization Hollow, Robert C., Jr. 1970 A Note on Assiniboine Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 36(4):296—98. Hunn, Eugene S., and Cecil H. Brown 2011 Linguistic Ethnobiology. In Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, Deborah M. Pearsall, Eugene S. Hunn, and Nancy J. Turner, 319—33. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Ingham, Bruce 2001a Nominal and Verbal Status in Lakhota: A Lexicographical Study. International Journal of American Linguistics 67(2):167—92. 2001b English-Lakota Dictionary. Surrey: Curzon. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1980 Metaphors in Makah Neologisms. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:166—79. Kays, Thomas A. 2001 When Cross Pistareens Cut Their Way Through the Tobacco Colonies. The Colonial Newsletter 41:2169—2199. Scott, Mary Ellen, and Kinistin First Nation 1995 The Saulteaux Language Dictionary. Edmonton: Duval House Pub. Landar, Herbert J. 1959 The Diffusion of Some Southwestern Words for Cat. International Journal of American Linguistics 25(4):273—74. Levin, Norman B. 1964 The Assiniboine Language. Bloomington: Indiana University. Lowie, Robert H. 1909 The Assiniboine. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History 4. New York: The Trustees. 1960 A Few Assiniboine Texts. Anthropological Linguistics 2(8):1—30. 160 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Maximilian, Prince of Wied 1906 Travels in the Interior of North America. Translated from the German by H. Evans Lloyd. Reprinted as Early Western Travels, 1748—1846. Vols. 22—25, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark. McLeod, Neal 2000 Plains Cree Identity: Borderlands, Ambiguous Genealogies and Narrative Irony. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 20(2):437—54. Miller, David Reed 1987 Montana Assiniboine Identity: A Cultural Account of an American Indian Ethnicity. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Neeposh, Ella, Daisy Moar, Ruth Salt, Marguerite MacKenzie, and Bill Jancewicz, eds. 2004 Eastern James Bay Cree Dictionary (Southern Dialect). Chisasibi, Quebec: Cree School Board. Parks, Douglas R. 2002 English-Nakoda, Nakoda-English Student Dictionary. Bloomington: Hoteja Project and Indiana University. Parks, Douglas R., and Raymond J. DeMallie 1992 Sioux, Assiniboine, and Stoney Dialects: A Classification. Anthropological Linguistics 34:233—55. Parks, Douglas R., and Robert L. Rankin 2001 Siouan Languages. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 13: Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie and William Sturtevant, 94—11. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Patterson, Trudi Alice 1990 Theoretical Aspects of Dakota Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rankin, Robert L., John Boyle, and Randolph Graczyk 2002 Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective on “Word” in Siouan. In Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, 180—204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ray, Arthur J. 1974 Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660—1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Riggs, Stephen Return 1890 A Dakota-English Dictionary. Edited by James Owen Dorsey. Washington: Government Printing Office. Rodnick, Dennis 1938 The Fort Belknap Assiniboine of Montana: A Dissertation in Anthropology. A Study for the Applied Anthropology Unit of the United States Indian Service. Philadelphia. Rosenthal, Jane M. 1985 Dogs, Pets, Horses, and Demons: Some American Indian Words and Concepts. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4):563—66. Roth, David D. 1975 Lakota Sioux Terms for White and Negro. Plains Anthropologist 20(68): 117—20. Sage, Clark T. 2015 Makh©á’s Adornments: Historical Ethnoecology of Lakh©óta Plant Knowledge. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. 2017 VINCENT COLLETTE 161 Salzmann, Zden<k 1954 The Problem of Lexical Acculturation. International Journal of American Linguistics 20(2):137—39. Sapir, Edward 1916 Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture: A Study in Method. Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Memoir 90, Anthropological Series No. 13. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau. Schilz, Thomas F. 1990 Robes, Rum, and Rifles: Indian Middlemen in the Northern Plains Fur Trade. Montana: The Magazine of Western History 40(1):2—13. Schudel, Emily K. 1997 Elicitation and Analysis of Nakoda Texts from Southern Saskatchewan. Ph.D. diss., University of Regina. Scott, Gerald R. 2000 A Traditional Lakota Zoological Folk Taxonomy: An In Depth Study of Biological and Cosmological Views of Animal Classification and Nomenclature among the Lakota. Senior honors thesis, Northern Illinois University. Sharrock, Susan R. 1974 Crees, Cree-Assiniboines, and Assiniboines: Interethnic Social Organization on the Far Northern Plains. Ethnohistory 21(2):95—122. Shaw, Patricia A. 1976 Dakota Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto. 1985 Modularisation and Substantive Constraints in Dakota Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2(1):173—202. Taylor, Allan R. 1981 Variations in Canadian Assiniboine. Siouan and Caddoan Linguistics Newsletter, July 1981:9—16. 1983 Old Vocabularies and Linguistic Research: The Case of Assiniboine. Napao: A Saskatchewan Anthropology Journal 13:31—44. 1990 A European Loanword of Early Date in Eastern North America. Anthropological Linguistics 32(3-4):187—210. Thwaites, Reuben Gold 1898 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610—1791; the Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes. Vol. 18: Hurons and Québec, 1640. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. 1899 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610—1791; the Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes. Vol. 66: Illinois, Louisiana, Iroquois, Lower Canada, 1667—1669. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. Voegelin, Charles F., and Dell H. Hymes 1954 A Sample of North American Indian Dictionaries with Reference to Acculturation. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 97(5):634—44. Whelan, Mary K. 1993 Dakota Indian Economics and the Nineteenth-Century Fur Trade. Ethnohistory 40(2):246—76. White, Bruce M. 1994 Encounters with Spirits: Ojibwa and Dakota Theories about the French and Their Merchandise. Ethnohistory 41(3):369—405. 162 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 59 NO. 2 Witkowski, Stanley R., and Cecil H. Brown 1983 Marking-Reversals and Cultural Importance. Language 59(3):569—82. Young, Robert, and William Morgan 1980 The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.