Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:1 (2023) ► pp.190–241

Language simplification in endangered languages?

Inflectional categories of nouns and verbs in Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl and Wymysorys

ORCID logo | Stellenbosch University
| University of Warsaw
| University of Warsaw
The present paper examines a hypothetical correlation between language endangerment and the simplification of nominal and verbal inflections. After contrasting the complexities exhibited by two endangered languages (Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl and Wymysorys) with the complexities of their non-endangered predecessors (Older Nahuatl and Middle High German, respectively), the authors conclude that the endangerment-simplification entanglement cannot be demonstrated. First, although Wymysorys (a more endangered code) is slightly more simplified than Nahuatl (a less endangered code) as far as the nominal domain is concerned, this relationship is reversed in the verbal domain. Second, simplifying tendencies are not radical, with a number of innovative complexifying processes being also present. Third, when attested, simplification constitutes part of a “natural” language evolution rather than a process resulting from the endangerment.
Keywords: language endangerment, complexity, simplification, Nahuatl, Wymysorys
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Evidence
    • 3.1Nominal domain
      • 3.1.1Gender
      • 3.1.2Number
      • 3.1.3Case
    • 3.2Verbal domain
      • 3.2.1Person and number inflections
      • 3.2.2Tense-Aspect-Mood-Voice
        • 3.2.2.1Tense
        • 3.2.2.2Mood
        • 3.2.2.3Aspect
        • 3.2.2.4Voice
      • 3.2.3Non-finite categories
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 11 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20082.and
References (123)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2007. Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic typology, 1–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Arthur J., Frances Berdan & James Lockhart (eds.). 1976. Beyond the codices. The Nahua view of colonial Mexico. Los Angeles: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrason, Alexander. 2010. Expressions of futurity in the Vilamovicean language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 401. 1–11.Google Scholar
. 2011. The Vilamovicean passive. Linguistica Copernicana 51. 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014a. The Polish component in the Vilamovicean language. GLOSSOS 121. 1–38.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Morphological case systems of the Vilamovicean noun – from the 20th to the 21st century. Studies in Polish Linguistics 9(1). 1–19Google Scholar
. 2016a. A complex system of complex predicates: Tense, taxis, aspect and mood in Basse Mandinka from a grammaticalization and cognitive perspective. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University PhD Dissertation.
. 2016b. Modern Vilamovicean – complex decay of a case system. Oxford German Studies 45(2). 212–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Polish borrowings in Wymysorys: A formal linguistic analysis of Germano-Slavonic language contact in Wilamowice. Reykjavík: University of Iceland PhD dissertation.
. Forthcoming. Complexity of severely endangered minority languages – the case of Wymysorys. In Matt Coler & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Contemporary research in minority and diaspora languages of Europe. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Andrason, Alexander & Tymoteusz Król. 2014a. A fuzzy model of the Vilamovicean language. Sorbian Revue 481. 265–292.Google Scholar
. 2014b. A contribution to the documentation of a nearly extinct language – Present Tense morphology in Modern Vilamovicean. Studia Linguistica (University of Wrocław) 331. 7–22.Google Scholar
. 2014c. Pronominal system of Modern Vilamovicean. Brünner Beiträge zur Germanistik und Nordistik 281. 93–122.Google Scholar
. 2016a. A note on the morphology of the Vilamovicean verb – principal parts. Language Documentation and Description 131. 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2016b. A grammar of Wymysorys. Durham: Duke University, SEELRC.Google Scholar
Andrews, J. Richard. 2003. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Revised edition. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1986. Structural change in language obsolescence: Some eastern Australian examples. Australian Journal of Linguistics 61. 201–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter & Julia Sallabank. 2011. Introduction. In Peter Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, 1–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auyang, Sunny. 1998. Foundations of complex-system theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastardas-Boada, Albert. 2014. Cap a la ‘complèxica’ com a transdisciplina. In Antònia Martí & Mariona Taulé (eds.), Homenatge a Sebastià Serrano, 63–77. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
. 2019. From language shift to language revitalization and sustainability. A complexity approach to linguistic ecology. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Benecke, Georg, Wilhelm Müller & Friedrich Zarncke. 1990 [1854–1866]. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Stuttgard: Hirzel VerlagGoogle Scholar
Bickhard, Mark. 2011. Systems and process metaphysics. In Cliff Hooker (ed.), Philosophy of complex systems, 91–104. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boor, Helmut de & Roswitha Wisniewski. 1973. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman & Thomas Smith-Stark. 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62(3). 530–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. Joe & Frances Karttunen. 1989. Foundation course in Nahuatl grammar. 21 Vols. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Canger, Una. 1988. Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some suggestions. International Journal of American Linguistics 541. 28–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carochi, S. J. Horacio. 2001 (1645). Grammar of the Mexican language with an explanation of its adverbs. Translated and edited with commentary by James Lockhart. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chicontepec. 2014. Audio recording. Interview conducted by Eduardo de la Cruz Cruz in the municipality of Chicontepec, Veracruz, September 2014.Google Scholar
Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Don Domingo de San Antón Muñón. 2006 (1608–1615). Annals of his time. Edited and translated by James Lockhart, Susan Schroeder, and Doris Namala. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chromik, Bartłomiej. 2019. Mikro- i makroideologie językowe. Przykład języka wilamowskiego. Warsaw: University of Warsaw dissertation.
Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cilliers, Paul, Harry Biggs, Sonja Blignaut, Aiden Choles, Jan-Hendrik Hofmeyer, Graham Jewitt & Dirk Roux. 2013. Complexity, modeling, and natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18(3). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: the case of Elfdalian and Swedish. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 50–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dakin, Karen. 1996. El náhuatl de las Memorias: los rasgos de una lingua franca indígena. In Karen Dakin & Cristopher H. Lutz (eds.), Nuestro pesar, nuestra aflicción, tunetuliniliz, tucucuca, 167–189. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Mexico.Google Scholar
. 2010. Lenguas francas y lenguas locales en la época prehispánica. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Pedro Martin Butragueño (eds.), Historia sociolingüística de México. Vol. 11, 161–183. Mexico: Colegio de Mexico.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2009. Overall complexity – a wild goose chase? In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 243–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorian, Nancy. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from East Gaelic. Language 54(3). 590–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Language shift in community and individual: The phenomenon of the laggard semi-speaker. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 251. 85–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 2011. Early linguistic indicators of language decay. In Emanuele Miola & Paolo Ramat, (eds.), Language contact and language decay: Socio-political and linguistic perspectives, 89–108. Pavia: IUSS Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, Bruce. 1999. Syntactic measures of complexity. Manchester: University of Manchester PhD dissertation.
Filipović, Luna & Martin Pütz. 2016. Introduction. Endangered languages and languages in danger. In Luna Filipović & Martin Pütz (eds.), Endangered languages and languages in danger: Issues of documentation, policy, and language rights, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 1999. Cuatreros somos y Toindioma hablamos. Contactos y conflictos entre el náhuatl y el español en el sur de México. Tlalpan, D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.Google Scholar
Flores Farfán, José Antonio & Justyna Olko. 2020. Types of communities and speakers. In Justyna Olko & Julia Sallabank (eds.), Revitalizing endangered languages. A practical guide, 75–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gärtner et al. 2006–2019 = Gärtner, Kurt, Klaus Grubmüller, Jens Haustein & Karl Stackmann. 2006–2019. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Stuttgard: Hirzel Verlag.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray. 1995. What is complexity? Complexity 1(1). 16–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray & Seth Lloyd. 2004. Effective complexity. In Murray Gell-Mann & Constantino Tsallis (eds.), Nonextensive entropy – Interdisciplinary applications, 387–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinevald Craig, Colette. 1998. Language contact and language degeneration. In: Floriam Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolingusitics, 257–270. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette & Michel Bert. 2011. Speakers and communities. In Peter K. Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, 45–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald. 2008. Complexity in numeral systems with an investigation into pidgins and creoles. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 287–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1972. Telling tongues: Language policy in Mexico, colony to nation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hennings, Thordis. 2012. Einführung in das Mittelhochdeutsche. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane & Kenneth C. Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, Cliff. 2011. Introduction to philosophy of complex systems: A. In Cliff Hooker (ed.), Philosophy of complex systems, 3–90. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ixhuatlán de Madero 1985. Audio recording. Chicomexochitl, story 107. From Sandstrom and Sandstrom (1985–98). “Nahuatl Collection of Alan and Pamela Sandstrom” [myths, stories, chants, and other narratives recorded in northern Veracruz, Mexico]. The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America, LLILAS Benson Latin American Studies and Collections, University of Texas at Austin. Available after free registration at [URL].
Jones, Howard & Martin Jones. 2019. The Oxford guide to Middle High German. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Frances. 1992. An analytical dictionary of Nahuatl. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Key, Harold & Mary Ritchie de Key. 1953. Vocabulario Mejicano de la Sierra de Zacapoaxtla, Puebla. México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2014. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. [URL] (last access 16 February 2022).
Król, T. 2018. Powojenne wywózki i wysiedlenia: Przypadek Wilamowic. Warsaw: University of Warsaw MA thesis.
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Launey, Michel. 2011. An introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Translated and adapted by Christopher Mackey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2015. The construction ‘sein’ (‘be’) + infinitive from Old High German to New High German. In Michail L. Kotin & Richard Whitt (eds.), To be or not to be? The verbum substantivum from synchronic, diachronic and typological perspectives, 123–141. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1980. Mittelhochdeutsch. In Hans P. Althaus, Helmut Henne & Herbert E. Wiegand (eds.), Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Vol. III1, 580–584. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lindström, Eva. 2008. Language complexity and interlinguistic difficulty. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas after the conquest. A social and cultural history of the Indians of Central Mexico, sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lockhart, James, Frances Berdan & Arthur J. O. Anderson (eds.). 1986. The Tlaxcalan actas. A compendium of the records of the Cabildo of Tlaxcala (1545–1627). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2005. Defining creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Oh nɔɔ!: a bewilderingly multifunctional Saramaccan word teaches us how a creole language develops complexity. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 141–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity, Xia Hua, Cassandra Algy & Lindell Bromham. 2019. Birth of a contact language did not favor simplification. Language 95(2). 294–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert & Williams L. Leap. 2009. Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In Krista Kerge & Maria-Maren Sepper (eds.), Finest linguistics: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, May 6–7, 2004, 11–26. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 23–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 80–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molina, P. Fr. Alonso de. 1880 (1555–1571). Vocabulario de la lengua mexicana. Edición facsimilaria publicada por Julio Platzmann. Leipsig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher. 2010. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Neels, Rinaldo. 2016. Language and identity in Wilamowice: A complex history of language choices and language attitudes. In Justyna Olko, Tomasz Wicherkiewicz & Robert Borges (eds.), Integral Strategies for Language Revitalization, 111–130. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
Ness, Silke van. 1990. Changes in an obsolescing language: Pennsylvania German in West Virginia. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. & Laurel B. Preston. 2014. Introduction. In Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds.). Measuring grammatical complexity, 1–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nutini, Hugo H. & Barry L. Isaac. 2009. Social stratification in Central Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ocotepec 1638. Conjunto de testamentos en lengua náhuatl. Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia (México). Tercera serie, papeles sueltos, registro número 9 caja 7, legajo 28, f.35r-v.Google Scholar
Olko, Justyna. 2018. Unbalanced language contact and the struggle for survival: Bridging diachronic and synchronic perspectives on Nahuatl. European Review 26(1). 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Language attitudes and educational opportunities: Challenging a history of oppression and assimilation among Indigenous communities in Mexico. Dutkansearvvi dieđalaš áigečála / Journal of the Sámi Language and Culture Research Association 11. 1–37.Google Scholar
Olko, Justyna & Agnieszka Brylak. 2018. Defending local autonomy and facing cultural trauma: A Nahua order against idolotry, Tlaxcala 1543. Hispanic American Historical Review 98(4). 573–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olko, Justyna & John Sullivan. 2014. Toward a comprehensive model for Nahuatl research and revitalization. Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 7–9, 2014, 369–397. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Bridging gaps and empowering native speakers: An inclusive, partnership-based approach to Nahuatl research and revitalization. In Justyna Olko, Tomasz Wicherkiewicz & Robert Borges (eds.), Integral strategies for language revitalization, 347–385. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Olko, Justyna, John Sullivan & Jan Szemińsk (eds.). 2018. Dialogue with Europe, dialogue with the past. Colonial Nahua and Quechua elites in their own words. Louisville: University of Colorado Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palosaari, Noami & Lyle Campbell. 2011. Structural aspects of language endangerment. In Peter Austin & Julia Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages, 100–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pharao Hansen, Magnus. 2014. The East-West split in Nahuan dialectology: Reviewing the evidence and consolidating the grouping. Conference paper presented at Friends of Uto-Aztecan Annual Meeting , Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico .
Pizzigoni, Caterina, ed. 2007. Testaments of Toluca. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Reyes García, Luis. 2001. ¿Cómo te confundes? ¿Acaso somos conquistados? Anales de Juan Bautista. México: CIESAS.Google Scholar
Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de. 1982. Florentine Codex. Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. Translated from the Aztec, with notes and illustrations by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. O. Anderson. Santa Fe: The School of American Research and the University of Utah.Google Scholar
Sallabank, Julia. 2012. Diversity and language policy for endangered languages. In Bernard Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 100–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Attitudes to endangered languages: Identities and policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Hans U. 2017. Einführung in die deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwaller, John. 2012. The expansion of Nahuatl as a Lingua Franca among priests in sixteenth-century Mexico. Ethnohistory 59(4). 675–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sell, Barry D., Louise M. Burkhart & Elizabeth R. Wright. 2008. Nahuatl theater. Volume 31: Spanish Golden Age drama in Mexican translation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Shalizi, Cosma R. 2006. Methods and techniques of complex science: An overview. arXiv:nlin/0307015v4 [nlin.AO]. In Thomas S. Deisboeck & J. Yasha Kresh (eds.), Complex systems science in biomedicine, 33–114. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2008. Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 67–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 126–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Language universals and linguistic complexity: Three case studies in core argument marking. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.
Sonderegger, Stefan. 1979. Grundzüge deutscher Sprachgeschichte: Einführung, Genealogie, Konstanten. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, John, Eduardo de la Cruz Cruz, Abelardo de la Cruz de la Cruz, Delfina de la Cruz de la Cruz, Victoriano de la Cruz Cruz, Sabina Cruz de la Cruz, Ofelia Cruz Morales, Catalina Cruz de la Cruz & Manuel de la Cruz Cruz. 2016. Tlahtolxitlauhcayotl: Chicontepec, Veracruz (Totlahtol Series). Warsaw: IDIEZ/University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 2007. Two key concepts of language endangerment: Language obsolescence and language death. Linguistica 47(1). 21–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tepoztlan. c. 1540. Biblioteka Jagellońska in Kraków, Ms. Amer. 3.Google Scholar
Townsend, Camilla (ed.). 2010. Here in this year. Seventeenth-century Nahuatl annals of the Tlaxcala-Puebla valley. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
UNESCO 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. UNESCO ad hoc expert group on endangered languages document adopted by the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages Paris, 10–12 March 2003, [URL] (last access 16 February 2022).
Villavicencio Zarza, Frida. 2010. Entre una realidad plurilingüe y un anhelo de nación. Apuntespara un estudio sociolingüístico del siglo XIX. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds.), Historia sociolingüística de México. Vol. 21, 713–793. Mexico: Colegio de Mexico.Google Scholar
Vocabulario Trilingüe c. 1540. Newberry Library (Chicago), Ayer Collection, MS 1478.Google Scholar
Wicherkiewicz, Tomasz, Tymoteusz Król & Justyna Olko. 2018. Awakening the language and speakers’ community of Wymysiöeryś. European Review 26(1). 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wicherkiewicz, Tomasz & Justyna Olko. 2016. Researching, documenting and reviving Wymysiöeryś: A historical outline. In Justyna Olko, Tomasz Wicherkiewicz & Robert Borges (eds.), Integral strategies for language revitalization, 17–53. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
Wicherkiewicz, Tomasz. 2003. The making of a language. The case of the idiom of Wilamowice (Southern Poland). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1917. Middle High German primer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Zapata y Mendoza, Juan Buenaventura. 1995 (1662–1692). História cronológica de la Noble Ciudad de Tlaxcala. Transcripción paleográfica, traducción, presentación y notas de Luis Reyes García y Andrea Martínez Baracs. Tlaxcala: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, CIESAS.Google Scholar