Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact and Change in Mesoamerica and Beyond
Edited by Karen Dakin, Claudia Parodi and Natalie Operstein
[Studies in Language Companion Series 185] 2017
► pp. 264–300

Chapter 13
Western and Central Nahua dialects

Possible influences from contact with Cora and Huichol

| Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
This contribution explores the possibilities in the terms of comparative and historical linguistics that detailed analyses of six isoglosses in Nahua dialectology can serve to determine the chronology of key changes identified. Other proposals that treat those same changes are evaluated, in particular two made by Campbell & Langacker (1978), one concerning the possible subgrouping of Nahua with Corachol, and another within Nahua regarding the status of Pochutec as related to Western and Eastern Nahua. Revisions in previous analyses are also proposed with regard to the changes undergone by proto-UA **p in initial position, the complicated part played by the correspondences for the proto-UA vowel **u in forming the isoglosses for the Uto-Aztecan system of short vowels, and lastly, considerations that yet need to be taken into account about the origins of and the role played by the isoglosses for the lateral affricate ƛ. Secondly, the paper deals with the role in triggering such changes played by contact and more importantly multilingualism in western Mexico, especially that involving Nahua with Cora and Huichol. And third, although only very tentatively, the importance of the later Western Nahua migrations into the central area of Mexico and how the historical conditions that surrounded these may relate to the linguistic results. The findings help to explain the situation that Canger (1988) proposed in which Central Nahuatl in her terms (2011), was an “Urban Nahuatl”, a PostClassic koine of sorts, created when later waves of Western Nahuas arrived in the high plateau, a region that must have already been settled in part by earlier waves of Eastern Nahuas whose arrival, very probably, had been during the Classic period.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Points of linguistic prehistory for Uto-Aztecan in western México
    • 1.1The Uto-Aztecan family
  • 2.Historical and geographical setting
  • 3.Dialectological evidence
    • 3.1Notes on pertinent Nahua and Corachol developments from proto-Uto-Aztecan vowels and consonants
      • 3.1.1Vowels
      • 3.1.2Consonant correspondences
    • 3.2A history of Nahua diversification based on shared innovations
    • 3.3Canger’s proposals about diversification and the special role of Central Nahua
    • 3.4Isoglosses that divide Eastern from Western Nahua
      • 3.4.1Isogloss 1: Remote/past preclitic proto-UA **wa/a=
      • 3.4.2Isogloss 2: Ti-to/ni-no- (cf. Dakin 1994: 67)
      • 3.4.3Isogloss 3: -tin plural (include pronouns)
      • 3.4.4Isogloss 4: **p > h/#_V in Corachol and Nahua
      • 3.4.5Isogloss 5: The dialect split reflecting the development of proto-Uto-Aztecan **u in Nahua
        • 3.4.5.1**u and its reflexes as i in Eastern Nahua and as e in Western and Central Nahuas
        • 3.4.5.2Contrasts in the distribution of proto-UA **u and proto-UA **ɨ reflexes in Corachol and Nahua
        • 3.4.5.3Is the Western Nahua change possibly related to contact with Corachol languages?
        • 3.4.5.4Campbell and Langacker’s Corachol-Nahua and “General Aztec” proposals as affected by contact proposal about proto-UA **u
        • 3.4.5.5The Corachol-Nahua subgrouping proposal
        • 3.4.5.6The “General Aztec” vs Pochutec subgrouping proposal
      • 3.4.6Isogloss 6: t/ƛ/l
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.185.13dak
References (86)
References
Bartholomew, Doris. 1980. Otomanguean influence on Pochutla Aztec. International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 106–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekman, Christopher S. 2012. El Grillo and epilogue. The reestablishment of community and identity in far western Mexico. Invited paper presented as part of a session organized for the 77th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis TN.
2015. Causes and consequences of migration in epiclassic northern Mesoamerica. In Migration and Disruptions: Toward a Unified Theory of Ancient and Contemporary Migrations, Brenda Baker & Takeyuki Tsuda (eds), 73–96. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekman, Christopher S. & Christensen, Alexander F. 2003. Controlling for doubt and uncertainty through multiple lines of evidence: A new look at the Mesoamerican Nahuat migrations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 111–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beller, Richard & Beller, Patricia. 1979. Huasteca Nahuatl. In Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar, Vol. 2: Modern Aztec Grammatical Sketches, Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), 200–236. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1917. El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca. International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 9–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Langacker, Ronald W. 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: Pt. I, 85–102; Pt. II, 197–210; Pt. III, 262–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canger, Una. 1980. Five Studies Inspired by Nahuatl Verbs in -oa [Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 19]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
. 1988. Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some suggestions. International Journal of American Linguistics 54: 28–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Mexicanero de la Sierra Madre Occidental. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
. 2011. El nahuatl urbano de Tlatelolco/Tenochtitlan, resultado de convergencia entre dialectos. Con un esbozo brevísimo de la historia de los dialectos. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 42: 243–258.Google Scholar
Canger, Una & Dakin, Karen. 1985. An inconspicuous basic split in Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 54: 258–261.Google Scholar
Carot, Patricia & Hers, Marie-Areti. 2006. La gesta de los toltecas chichimecas y de los purépechas en las tierras de los antiguos pueblo ancestrales. In Las vías del noroeste, I: Una macrorregión indígena americana, 47–82. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene H. 1984. Cora. In Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Studies, Vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Sketches, Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), 151–459. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Ciudad Real, Antonio. 1993. Tratado curioso y docto de las grandezas de la Nueva España: Relación breve y verdadera de algunas cosas de las muchas que sucedieron al padre fray Alonso Ponce en las provincias de la Nueva España, siendo comisario general de aquellas partes, 2 Vols, J. García Quintana & V. M. Castillo Farreras (eds). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Cortés y Zedeño, Gerónimo Thomás de Aquino. 1765. Arte, vocabulario, y confessionario en el idioma mexicano, como se usa en el Obispado de Guadalaxara. Puebla.Google Scholar
Cortina-Borja, Mario, & Leopoldo Valiñas C. 1989. Some remarks on Uto-Aztecan classification. International Journal of American Linguistics 55: 214–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dakin, Karen. 1970. Fieldnotes, North Morelos Nahuatl (Tepoztlán, Santa Catarina Zacatepec).Google Scholar
. 1980. Commentary on Wick Miller’s ‘The internal classification of Uto-Aztecan based on lexical evidence’, Symposium on Uto-Aztecan Historical Linguistics, Linguistic Institute, Albuquerque, June.Google Scholar
. 1982. La evolución fonológica del protonáhuatl. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
. 1983. Proto-Aztecan vowels and Pochutec: An alternative analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 196–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. El origen de la ƛ en náhuatl: reconsideraciones. Paper presented at the IIº Coloquio Swadesh, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, 2–9 October.
. 1991a. Possession in Nahuatl: A historical explanation for irregularities. International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 298–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991b. Raíces en ih- y ah-en el náhuatl y la **p protoyutoazteca. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 20: 261–280.Google Scholar
. 1994. Nahuatl in Southern Uto-Aztecan: Some grammatical and phonological isoglosses. In Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamerica, Carolyn Mackay & Verónica Vázquez (eds), 53–86. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas.Google Scholar
. 1996. Long vowels and morpheme boundaries in Nahuatl and Uto-Aztecan: Comments on historical developments. Amerindia 21: 55–76.Google Scholar
. 2000. Proto-Uto-Aztecan *p and the e-/ye- isogloss in Nahuatl dialectology. In Papers in Memory of Wick R. Miller by the Friends of Uto-Aztecan, Eugene H. Casad & Thomas L. Willett (eds), 213–220. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora, División de Humanidades y Bellas Artes, Editorial Unison.Google Scholar
. 2002. Isoglosas e innovaciones yutoaztecas. In Avances y balances de lenguas Yutoaztecas, Homenaje a Wick R. Miller, in Noroeste de México (Número especial), José Luis Moctezuma Zamarrón & Jane H. Hill (eds), 313–344. Mexico City: Centro INAH-Sonora, CONACULTA-INAH.Google Scholar
. 2007. Final features and proto-Uto-Aztecan: A contribution using morphological reconstruction. In Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the XVII International Congress on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 284], Joseph Salmons & Shannon Dubenion-Smith (eds), 295–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Del yutoazteca al *-hta- del náhuatl – y al itacate y el taco del español popular: Una contribución en homenaje a tres intereses lingüísticos de Yolanda Lastra. In Entre las lenguas indígenas, la sociolingüística y el español: Estudios en homenaje a Yolanda Lastra, Martha Ruth Islas (ed.), 342–365. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2013. Infants in cradles and other odd-shaped objects: Tracing the formation of semantic categories through phonological changes in some Uto-Aztecan languages. Paper presented at the Friends of Uto-Aztecan Conference, Boise, ID, 14–15 June.
. In preparation. A morphological conspiracy: New considerations on the origins of Aztec -tl- through the development of consonant clusters.
Dakin, Karen & Wichmann, Søren. 2000. Cacao and chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina. 1996. Pima Bajo. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
García, Ricardo. 2014. Where bilingualism mattered: Nahuatl on the western and northern frontiers of New Spain. Voices 2: 13–23. <[URL]>
Gerhard, Peter. 1982. The North Frontier of New Spain. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1973. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Papers of the Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Gran Diccionario Náhuatl [online] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico City. 2012. [ref del 14 November 2015] <[URL]>
Grimes, E. José, with de la Cruz Avila, Pedro, Carrillo Vicente, José, Díaz, Filiberto, Díaz, Román, de la Rosa, Antonio & Rentería, Toribio. 1981. El Huichol, Apuntes sobre el léxico. Ithaca NY: Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Guerra, Juan. 1692. Arte de la lengua mexicana según la acostumbran hablar los Indios en todo el obispado de Guadiana y del de Mechoacán. Reprinted by Alberto Santoscoy, Guadalajara: Ancira y Hns. 1900, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Harvey, H. R. 1972. The Relaciones Geográficas, 1579–1586: Native languages. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, Vol. 12, Part I, Robert Wauchope (gen. ed.), Howard F. Cline (vol. ed.). Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hasler, Juan A. 1975. Los dialectos de la lengua nahua. América Indígena 35: 179–188.Google Scholar
1976. La situación dialectológica del pochuteco. International Journal of American Linguistics 42: 268–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Estudios nahuas. Jalapa: Universidad Veracruzana.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1977. Uto-Aztecan morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 43: 27–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Uto-Aztecan *na-class verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: 211–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hers, Marie-Areti. 1989. Los toltecas en tierras chichimecas. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas.Google Scholar
Hilton, K. Simón. 1959. Diccionario tarahumara de Samachique, Chihuahua. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano & Tucson, AZ: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Revised edition 1993.Google Scholar
Hill, Kenneth C. 2010. Wick Miller’s Uto-Aztecan cognate sets. Electronic file.Google Scholar
Iannucci, David Edmund. 1973. Numic Historical Phonology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Iturrioz, José Luis & Gómez López, Paula. 2006. Gramática Wixarika I. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1981. Comparative Uto-Aztecan phonology. Ms.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1958. Linguistic prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 95–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1970. The vowels of Proto-Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 36: 169–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977. An Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar. Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar, Vol. 1. Arlington TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda. 1986. Las áreas dialectales del náhuatl moderno. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Walter. 1920. Zentral-Amerika. Erster Teil: Die Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas in ihren Beziehungen zueinander sowie zu Süd-Amerika und Mexiko, Teil I, Band II. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1993. On lenition in some Northern Uto-Aztecan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 59: 334–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. Alden. 1916. Tepecano, A Piman language of western Mexico. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 25: 309–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, Ambrosio & Aiton de McMahon, María. 1959. Cora y español. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano en cooperación con la Dirección General de Asuntos Indígenas de la Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
von Mentz, Brígida. 2015. Movimientos de población y topónimos en Europa central y en Mesoamérica: Un ejemplo de la complementariedad de la lingüística y la historia. Paper presented in the colloquium, Semana de la Historia, Comité Mexicano de Ciencias Históricas, 21–25 September 2015, Casa Chata, CIESAS.
Merrill, William L. 2013. The genetic unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 3: 68–104.Google Scholar
Miller, Wick R. 1967. Uto-Aztecan Cognate Sets. Berkeley CA: The University of California.Google Scholar
de Molina, fray Alonso. 1571. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana. Reprinted Leipzig, 1880; Puebla, 1910; facsimile edn, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1944; facsimile edn, Mexico City: Porrúa, S.A, 1970. 4™ edn, 1970.Google Scholar
de Ortega, José. 1732. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y cora. Mexico City. Reprinted in the Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, 1ª época, 8: 561–605, 1860; also reprinted in Tepic, 1888.Google Scholar
Parra Gutiérrez, Rodrigo. 2011. ¿Existe un sistema de clases nominales en cora mariteco? Un análisis de la posible motivación semántica de las clases. In Memorias de las Jornadas de Lenguas en contacto. Tepic: Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. <[URL]>
Pharao Hansen, Magnus. 2014. The east-west split in Nahuan dialectology: Reviewing the evidence and consolidating the grouping. 1. Paper presented at the Friends of Uto-Aztecan Workshop, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Tepic, Nayarit, 20 June.
Preuss, Karl Theodor. 1932. Grammatik der Cora-Sprache. International Journal of American Linguistics 7: 1–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1934. Wörterbuch deutsch – Cora. International Journal of American Linguistics 8: 81–102.Google Scholar
Ramírez Flores, José. 1980. Lenguas indígenas de Jalisco. Guadalajara: Unidad Editorial del Gobierno de Jalisco.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1915. Southern Paiute and Nahuatl, A Study in Uto-Aztecan, Part II. American Anthropologist 17: 98–120, 306–328. Also published 1914–1919, Journal de la Société des Americanistes de Paris, n. s. 11: 443–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steele, Susan M. 1976. A law of order: Word order change in Classical Aztec. International Journal of American Linguistics 42: 31–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Brian D. 2011. Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary. Flower Mound TX: Shumway Family History Services & Blanding UT: Rocky Mountain Books and Publications.Google Scholar
Valiñas Coalla, Leopoldo José Manuel. 1979. El náhuatl en Jalisco, Colima y Michoacán. Anales de Antropología 14: 325–344.Google Scholar
. 1981. El náhuatl de la periferia occidental y la costa del Pacifico. Licenciatura thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, INAH-SEP.Google Scholar
. 2009. Historia lingüística: Migraciones y asentamientos. Relaciones entre pueblos y lenguas, Versión corta con mapas, archivo digital. Mexico City.Google Scholar
. 2010. Historia lingüística: Migraciones y asentamientos. Relaciones entre pueblos y lenguas. In Historia Sociolingüística de México, Vol. 1, Rebeca BarrigaVillanueva & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds), 97–160. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Carl F. Voegelin, Florence M. & Hale, Kenneth L. 1962. Typological and Comparative Grammar of Uto-Aztecan, I: Phonology [Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 17]. International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar
Weigand, Phil C. 1985. Considerations on the archaeology and ethnohistory of the Mexicaneros, Tequales, Coras, Huicholes, and Caxcanes of Nayarit, Jalisco, and Zacatecas. In Contributions to the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Greater Mesoamerica, William J. Folan (ed.), 126–187. Carbondale TX: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
1992. Consideraciones sobre la arqueología y la etnohistoria de los mexicaneros, los tecuales, los coras, los huicholes y los caxcanes de Nayarit, Jalisco y Zacatecas. In Ensayos sobre el Gran Nayar entre coras, huicholes y tepehuanos, 175–214. Mexico City: CEMCA-INI-El Colegio de Michoacán, A.C.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1937. The origin of Aztec tl. American Anthropologist 39: 265–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas Leslie. 1991. A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Alexis. Online. Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl classique. <[URL]>
Yáñez Rosales, Rosa H. 1994. Dinámica del desplazamiento de las lenguas indígenas en el occidente de México: Época Colonial. In El Occidente de México en el Tiempo, P. R. Ávila (ed.), 59–75. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.Google Scholar
2013. Ypan altepet monotza san Antonio de padua tlaxomulco ‘En el pueblo que se llama San Antonio de Padua, Tlajomulco’, Textos en lengua náhuatl, siglos XVII y XVIII. Guadalajara: Instituto de Cultura, Recreación y Deportes, Gobierno Municipal de Tlajomulco de Zúñiga y Prometeo Editores.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Matthew, Laura
2023. Two Bigamists in Tehuantepec: Global(ized) Itineraries in Southern Mesoamerica, circa 1600. Hispanic American Historical Review 103:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Muysken, Pieter
2022. Reconstructing the Sociolinguistic History of Expansion Languages in the Americas: A Research Program. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 344 ff. DOI logo
GRANT, ANTHONY
2020. Intimate Linguistic Contact and Spanish: Western Nahua (Nawa) Varieties of San Pedro Jícora and San Agustín Buenaventura, Durango, Mexico. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 97:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Contact, Emergence, and Language Classification. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.