Indigenous North American languages

Indigenous North American languages, those languages that are indigenous to the United States and Canada, and that are spoken north of the Mexican border. A number of language groups within this area, however, extend into Mexico, some as far south as Central America. The present article focuses on the Indigenous languages of Canada, Greenland, and the United States. (For further information on the Indigenous languages of Mexico and Central America, see Indigenous Mesoamerican languages. See also Eskimo-Aleut languages.)

The Indigenous North American languages are both numerous and diverse. At the time of first European contact, there were more than 300. In the early 21st century 197 Indigenous languages were still spoken in the U.S. and 81 in Canada (with some languages having speakers in both Canada and the U.S.). All but Hawaiian, Atikamekw, and two variants of Cree are considered endangered to one degree or another. The rich diversity of these languages provides a valuable laboratory for linguistics; certainly, the discipline of linguistics could not have developed as it has, especially in the United States, without the contributions that have come from the study of Native American languages. In this article the present tense will be used in referring to both extinct and surviving languages.

Britannica Quiz

Languages & Alphabets

Indigenous North American languages are so diverse that there is no feature or complex of features shared by all. Indigenous North American languages have been grouped into 57 language families, including 14 larger language families, 18 smaller language families, and 25 language isolates (languages with no known relatives, thus language families with but a single member language). Geographically, too, the diversity of some areas is notable. There are 37 families west of the Rocky Mountains, and 20 of those exist solely in California; California alone thus shows more linguistic variety than all of Europe.

These language families are independent of one another, and as of the second decade of the 21st century none can be shown to be related to any other. Numerous proposals have attempted to join some of them into larger groupings made up of families claimed to be remotely related to one another. Some of those proposals are plausible enough to merit further investigation, although several border on sheer speculation. It is possible that some, perhaps most, Indigenous American languages are related to one another but that they separated from one another so long ago and changed so much in the intervening time that available evidence is insufficient ever to demonstrate any relationship. A major problem has to do with the difficulty in distinguishing, at the deeper historical levels, between resemblances shared because of inheritance from a common ancestor and those from linguistic borrowing.

In any case, no theory of common origin for the Indigenous North American languages has any serious following. Most anthropologists and linguists believe that North America was populated originally by people who migrated from Asia across the Bering Strait. There have been attempts to relate North American languages to Asian languages, but none has gained general acceptance. The linguistic diversity of Indigenous North Americans suggests, indeed, that the area was populated as a result of at least three, possibly several, separate waves of migration from Asia. The languages they brought with them, however, have no discernible relatives in Asia.

Classification

The first comprehensive classification into families of the Indigenous North American languages was made in 1891 by the American John Wesley Powell, who based his study on impressionistic resemblances in vocabulary. Powell had identified 58 language families (called “stocks”). The principle of nomenclature adopted by Powell has been widely used ever since: families are named by adding -an to the name of one prominent member; e.g., Caddoan is the name of the family that includes Caddo and other related languages. Powell’s classification still holds for the more obvious families that he identified, though numerous discoveries and advances have been made in the classification since his time so that some of Powell’s groupings are now combined with others and new ones have been added.

Various scholars have attempted to group the families into larger units that reflect deeper levels of historical relationship. Of those efforts, one of the most ambitious and best known is that of Edward Sapir, which was published in the Encyclopædia Britannica in 1929. In Sapir’s classification, all the languages are grouped into six phyla—Eskimo-Aleut, Algonquian- (Algonkian-) Wakashan, Na-Dené, Penutian, Hokan-Siouan, and Aztec-Tanoan—based on very general grammatical resemblances.

Numerous other attempts were made to reduce the great diversity among Indigenous American languages to more manageable schemes composed of fewer independent language families, but most of them have not proved successful. Perhaps the most famous among those attempts is the 1987 hypothesis proposed by American anthropologist and linguist Joseph H. Greenberg that tried to lump nearly all the roughly 180 independent language families (including isolates) of the Americas into one large superfamily he called “Amerind”—which grouped together all American language families except Eskimo-Aleut (sometimes called Eskaleut) and Na-Dené. The method upon which this proposal is based has proven inadequate, and the data adduced as evidence in its favor are highly flawed. The hypothesis is now abandoned among linguists.

In the early 21st century, American linguist Edward Vajda’s proposal of a remote kinship between Na-Dené (Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit) of North America and the Yeniseian language family of central Siberia received considerable attention. Though initially attractive, neither the lexical evidence with putative sound correspondences nor the grammatical (morphological) evidence adduced in its favor is sufficient to support this proposed relationship.

Language contact

As elsewhere in the world, there has been language contact among many of the Indigenous languages of North America. These languages show varying degrees of influence from other languages; i.e., there may be borrowing between languages not only of vocabulary items but also of phonological, grammatical, and other features. There are a number of well-defined linguistic areas in which languages of diverse families came to share numerous structural characteristics through the process of borrowing. The best known in North America is the Northwest Coast linguistic area, though there are also several others. In a few cases, situations of language contact have given rise to pidgins or trade languages. The best known of these in North America are Chinook Jargon (Chinook Wawa), widely used among Indigenous groups of the Northwest, and Mobilian Jargon, spoken widely among tribes of the lower Mississippi valley and the Gulf Coast. In a very few special circumstances, mixed languages developed, correlated with how new ethnic groups identified themselves. Speakers of Michif, a French and Cree trade language of Canada, identify themselves ethnically as Métis, descendants of French-speaking fur traders and Cree women. Michif is mixed where most nouns and adjectives (and their pronunciation and grammar) are French but the verbs are Plains Cree (including their pronunciation and grammar). Mednyj Aleut (Copper Island Aleut) has its origin in the mixed population of Unangan (Aleuts) and Russian seal hunters who settled on Copper Island. Most of the vocabulary of Mednyj Aleut is Aleut but the grammar of verbs is mostly Russian.

Plains sign language was used for intertribal communication. The Kiowa were renowned as excellent sign talkers. Plains Apsáalooke are credited with disseminating sign language to others. The sign language became the lingua franca of the Plains, spreading as far as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Contacts between Indigenous American groups and Europeans resulted in borrowed vocabulary, some groups borrowing very little from Europeans and others more; European languages also borrowed terms from Indigenous languages. The type and degree of linguistic adaptation to European culture has varied greatly among American groups, depending on sociocultural factors. For example, among the Karuk of northwestern California, a tribe that suffered harsh treatment at the hands of Euro-Americans, there are only a few loanwords from English, such as ápus ‘apple(s),’ and a few calques (loan translations), such as the ‘pear’ being called vírusur ‘bear’ because in Karuk the p and b sounds, as in English pear and bear, are not distinguished. A large number of words for new items of acculturation were produced based on native words—e.g., a hotel being called amnaam ‘eating place.’ Native American languages have borrowed words from Dutch, English, French, Russian, Spanish (called hispanisms), and Swedish.

Indigenous American languages have contributed numerous words to European languages, especially names for plants, animals, and Indigenous cultural items. From Algonquian languages English has the words caribou, chipmunk, hickory, hominy, moccasin, moose, mugwump, opossum, papoose, pemmican, persimmon, powwow, raccoon, sachem, skunk, squash, squaw, toboggan, tomahawk, totem, wickiup, and others; from Cahuilla, chuckawalla (lizard); from Chinook Jargon, cayuse (ultimately European), muck-a-muck, potlatch, and others; from Costanoan, abalone; from Dakota, tipi (tepee); from Eskimoan, igloo, kayak, mukluk; from Navajo, hogan; from Salishan, coho (salmon), sasquatch, sockeye (salmon); and others.

Many place-names also owe their origins to Indigenous North American languages. A few examples are: Mississippi (Ojibwe ’big’ + ’river’); Alaska (Aleut ‘place the sea crashes against’); Connecticut (Mohegan ’long river’); Minnesota (Dakota mnisota ’cloudy water’); Nebraska (Omaha for Platte River, nibdhathka ’flat river’); and Tennessee (Cherokee tanasi, name for Little Tennessee River). Oklahoma was coined as a substitute for ‘Indian Territory’ by Choctaw chief Allen Wright, from Choctaw okla ’people, tribe, nation’ + homa ’red’.

Grammar

The term grammatical structure as used here refers to both the traditional categories of morphology (the grammatical pieces that make up words) and syntax (how words are combined into sentences).

In the examples following, the symbols that are not found in the Latin alphabet have been adopted from phonetic alphabets. The Indigenous North American languages display great diversity in grammar, so that there is no grammatical property whose presence or absence characterizes them as a group. At the same time, there are some characteristics that, though not unknown elsewhere in the world and not found in all American Indian languages, are sufficiently widespread to be associated with languages in the Americas. Polysynthesis, found in a considerable number of Indigenous North American language families, is one such trait. Polysynthesis is often thought to mean that these languages have very long words, but actually it refers to words that combine various meaningful pieces (from affixation and compounding), where what is a single word translates as a whole sentence in European languages. An illustration from Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut family) is the single word kaipiallrulliniuk, made up of the pieces kaig-piar-llru-llini-u-k [be.hungry-really-past.tense-apparently-indicative-they.two], meaning ‘the two of them were apparently really hungry’—a single Yupik word that translates as a whole sentence in English. Incorporation of a noun inside of a verb is not a productive grammatical feature of English (though it can be seen in such frozen compounds as to babysit, to backstab) but is common and productive in a number of Indigenous North American languages—e.g., Southern Tiwa (Kiowa-Tanoan family) tiseuanmũban, made up of ti-seuan-mũ-ban [I.him-man-see-past.tense] ‘I saw a man.’

Other traits found in a number of Indigenous North American languages include the following:

• In verbs, the person and number of the subject are commonly marked by prefixes or suffixes—e.g., Karuk ni-’áhoo ‘I walk,’ nu-’áhoo ‘he walks.’ In some languages, an affix (prefix or suffix) can simultaneously indicate the subject and the object that it acts on—e.g., Karuk ni-mmah ‘I see him’ (ni-‘I.him’), ná-mmah ‘he sees me’ (ná-‘he.me’).
• In nouns, possession is widely expressed by prefixes or suffixes indicating the person of the possessor. Thus, Karuk has nani-ávaha ‘my food,’ mu-ávaha ‘his food,’ and so on. (compare ávaha ‘food’). When the possessor is a noun, as in ‘man’s food,’ a construction like ávansa mu-ávaha ‘man his-food’ is used. Many languages have inalienably possessed nouns, which cannot occur except in such possessed forms. These inalienably possessed nouns typically refer to kinship terms or body parts; for example, Luiseño (Uto-Aztecan family), a language in Southern California, has no-yó’ ‘my mother’ and o-yó’ ‘your mother’ but no word for ‘mother’ in isolation.

The following grammatical features are less typically North American but are nevertheless distinctive of several areas:

• Most American Indian languages do not have cases as in noun declensions in Latin and Greek, but case systems do occur in some languages of California and the U.S. Southwest. For example, Luiseño has the nominative kíi:a ‘house,’ accusative kíiš, dative kíi-k ‘to the house,’ ablative kíi-ŋay ‘from the house,’ locative kíi-ŋa ’in the house,’ instrumental kíi-tal ‘by means of the house.’
• First person plural pronouns (forms of ‘we,’ ‘us,’ ‘our’) in many languages show a distinction between a form inclusive of the addressee, ‘we’ denoting ‘you and I,’ and an exclusive form, ‘we’ meaning ‘I and someone else but not you.’ An example from Mohawk (Iroquoian family) is the inclusive plural tewa-hía:tons ‘we are writing’ (‘you all and I’) contrasted with the exclusive plural iakwa-hía:tons ‘we are writing’ (‘they and I but not you’). Some languages also have a distinction in number between singular, dual, and plural nouns or pronouns—e.g., Yupik (Aleut-Eskimoan) qayaq ‘kayak’ (one, singular), qayak ‘kayaks’ (two, dual), and qayat ‘kayaks’ (plural, three or more). Reduplication, the repetition of all or part of a stem, is widely used to indicate distributed or repeated action of verbs; e.g., in Karuk, imyáhyah ‘pant’ is a reduplicated form of imyah ‘breathe.’ In Uto-Aztecan languages, reduplication can also signal plurals of nouns, as in Pima gogs ‘dog,’ go-gogs ‘dogs.’ In many languages, verb stems are distinguished on the basis of the shape or other physical characteristics of the associated noun; thus in Navajo, in referring to motion, ‘áⁿ is used for round objects, táⁿ for long objects, tíⁿ for living things, lá for ropelike objects, and so on.
• Verb forms also frequently specify the direction or location of an action by the use of prefixes or suffixes. Karuk, for example, has, based on paθ ‘throw,’ the verbs páaθ-roov ‘throw upriver,’ páaθ-raa ‘throw uphill,’ paaθ-rípaa ‘throw across-stream,’ and as many as 38 other similar forms. Several languages, especially in the West, have instrumental prefixes on verbs that indicate the instrument involved in performing the action. For example, Kashaya (Pomoan family) has some 20 of these, illustrated by forms of the root hc̆^ha ‘knock over’ (when unprefixed, ‘fall over’): ba-hc̆^ha- ‘knock over with snout,’ da-hc̆^ha- ‘push over with the hand,’ du-hc̆^ha- ‘push over with the finger,’ and so on.
• Lastly, many languages have evidential forms of verbs that indicate the source or validity of the information reported. Thus, Hopi distinguishes wari ‘he ran, runs, is running,’ as a reported event, from warikŋwe ‘he runs (e.g., on the track team),’ which is a statement of general truth, and from warikni ‘he will run,’ which is an anticipated but as yet uncertain event. In several other languages verb forms consistently discriminate hearsay from eyewitness reports.

Phonology

The languages of North America are as diverse in their systems of pronunciation as they are in other ways. For example, the languages of the Northwest Coast linguistic area are unusually rich in terms of the number of contrasting sounds (phonemes). Tlingit has more than 50 phonemes (47 consonants and 8 vowels); by contrast, Karuk has only 23. English, in comparison, has about 35 (of which about 24 are consonants).

The consonants that are found in many Indigenous North American languages involve several phonetic contrasts generally not found in European languages. The Native American languages use the same phonetic mechanisms as other languages, but many of the languages also employ other phonetic traits as well. The glottal stop, an interruption of breath produced by closing the vocal cords (such as the sound in the middle of English oh-oh!), is a common consonant. Glottalized consonants are fairly common in western North America, produced not by air from the lungs as are all English speech sounds but rather produced when the glottis is closed and raised so that the air trapped above the vocal cords is ejected when the closure in the mouth for that consonant is released. This is represented with an apostrophe; it differentiates, for example, Hupa (Athabaskan) teew ‘underwater’ from t’eew ‘raw.’

The number of consonantal contrasts is also often distinguished by a larger number of tongue positions (places of articulation) than is found in most European languages. For example, many of the languages distinguish two types of sounds made with the back of the tongue—a velar k, much like an English k, and a uvular q, produced farther back in the mouth. Labialized sounds, sounds with simultaneous lip-rounding, are also common. Thus, for example, Tlingit has 21 back phonemes (velar or uvular) alone: velar k, g, uvular q, G, glottalized velar and uvular k’, q’, labialized velars and uvulars g^w, k^w, k^w’, G^w, q^w, q^w’, and corresponding fricatives (made by impeded airflow at some point in the mouth), such as s, z, f, v, and so on, with velar x and ɣ, with uvular χ, glottalized x’, χ’, and labialized x^w, χ^w, x^w’, χ^w’. In comparison, English has only two sounds, k and g, made in this same general area of the mouth.

Indigenous North American languages, especially in the West, often have different kinds of lateral (l-like) sounds (where the airstream escapes around the sides of the tongue). Alongside the common lateral l, such as the l in English, many of these languages also have a voiceless counterpart (like a whispered l or like blowing air around the sides of the tongue). Some have lateral affricates, like t and a voiceless l pronounced together, and some also add a glottalized lateral affricate. Navajo, for example, has a total of five lateral sounds that are distinguished from one another.

In some Indigenous American languages, contrastive stress is significant in distinguishing words with different meanings (as in the case of English a convert versus to convert). In many others the stress is fixed on a particular syllable of the word; e.g., in Tubatulabal (Uto-Aztecan family) the final syllable of words bears the stress. In others, tone (pitch differences) distinguishes words, as it does in Chinese; for example, in Navajo, bíní’ means ‘his nostril,’ bìnì’ ‘his face,’ and bìní’ ‘his waist’. (High and low pitches are indicated with the acute and grave accents, respectively.)

A peculiarity of some Northwest Coast languages is their use of complex consonant clusters, as in Nuxalk (also called Bella Coola; Salishan family) tlk’^wix^w ‘don’t swallow it.’ Some words even lack vowels entirely—e.g., nmnmk’ ‘animal.’

Vocabulary

The word stock of Indigenous American languages, like that of other languages, is composed both of simple stems and of derived constructions; the derivational processes commonly include affixation (prefixes, suffixes) in addition to compounding. A few languages use internal sound alternations to derive other words, similar to the case of English song from sing—e.g., Yurok pontet ‘ashes,’ prncrc ‘dust,’ prncrh ‘to be gray.’ New vocabulary items are also acquired through borrowing, as mentioned above.

It should be noted that, in languages generally, the meaning of a vocabulary item cannot necessarily be inferred from its historical origin or from the meaning of its parts. For example, the name of an early 19th-century trapper, McKay, entered Karuk as mákkay but with the meaning of ‘white man.’ A new word was created when it was compounded with a native noun váas ‘deerskin blanket’ to give the neologism makáy-vaas ‘cloth,’ which in turn was compounded with yukúkku ‘moccasin’ to give makayvas-yukúkku ‘tennis shoes.’ At each stage of vocabulary formation, meaning is determined not simply from the etymological source but also by arbitrary extensions or limitations of semantic value.

Vocabularies vary in terms of the number and type of things they designate. One language may make many specific discriminations in a particular semantic area, while another may just have a few general terms; the difference is correlated with the importance of the semantic area for the particular society. Thus, English is very specific in its vocabulary for bovine animals (bull, cow, calf, heifer, steer, ox), even to the point of lacking a general cover term in the singular (what is the singular of cattle?), but for other species it has only general cover terms. For example, before borrowing names for species of salmon, English had only the generic term salmon, whereas some Salishan languages had distinct names for six different species of salmon. Indigenous North American vocabularies, as would be expected, embody semantic classifications that reflect Native American environmental conditions and cultural traditions. The number of terms relevant to salmon in languages of the Pacific Northwest reflect the salience of salmon in those cultures. In short, in some semantic domains, English may make more distinctions than some Native American languages do and in others fewer distinctions than made in those languages. Thus, English discriminates ‘airplane,’ ‘aviator,’ and ‘flying insect’ while Hopi has a single, more general term masa’ytaka, roughly ‘flier,’ and, whereas English has the single general term ‘water,’ Hopi differentiates paahu ‘water in nature’ from kuuyi ‘water (contained)’ and has no single ‘water’ term.

Language and culture

The seemingly exotic character of Indigenous American languages, as manifested in vocabulary, grammar, and semantics, led scholars of the 20th century to speculate about the relationships between language, culture, and thought or “worldview” (cognitive orientation to the world). It was hypothesized that a unique organization of the universe is embodied in each language and that it governs the individual’s habits of perception and of thought, determining aspects of the associated nonlinguistic culture. As Edward Sapir put it in 1929,

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone…but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society.…The fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group.…We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.

This idea was further developed, largely on the basis of work with Indigenous American languages, by Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf and is now often known as the Whorfian (or Sapir-Whorf) hypothesis. Whorf’s initial arguments focused on the striking differences between English and Native American ways of saying “the same thing.” From such linguistic differences, Whorf inferred underlying differences in habits of thought and tried to show how these thought patterns are reflected in nonlinguistic cultural behavior; Whorf claimed in his popular writings that language determines thought. His best known examples involve the treatment of time in Hopi. Whorf claimed that Hopi was better suited for physics than SAE (Standard Average European languages), saying that Hopi centers on events and processes, English on things and relations. That is, Hopi grammar emphasizes aspect (how an action is performed) over tense (when an action is performed). The Whorfian hypothesis is notoriously challenging to test, since it is so difficult to design experiments to separate what is due to language from what is due to thought; nevertheless, the diversity of Indigenous American languages and cultures has continued to provide a rich laboratory for its investigation.

A popular but very distorted claim is that there is a large number of words for ‘snow’ in Inuit. This has come to be called (frustratingly, as it uses a word for the Inuit now considered pejorative) “the great Eskimo vocabulary hoax.” The claim has been repeated over and over, ever increasing the number of different ‘snow’ words in Inuit sometimes claiming there are hundreds or thousands. It is somehow thought to illustrate a Whorfian point of radically different worldviews, sometimes linked with notions of environmental determinism affecting language. The truth is that a dictionary of one Eskimoan language claims there are only three roots for ‘snow’; for another Eskimoan language, linguists count about a dozen. But then, even basic English has a good number of ‘snow’ terms: snow, blizzard, sleet, flurry, drift, slush, powder, flake, and so on.

The misconception began in 1911 with an example from Franz Boas, founder of American anthropology and American linguistics, where his goal was to caution against superficial linguistic comparisons. As an example of superficial cross-linguistic difference, Boas cited four Inuit roots for snow—aput ‘snow on the ground,’ qana ‘falling snow,’ piqsirpoq ‘drifting snow,’ and qimusqsuq ‘a snow drift’—and compared this with English river, lake, rain, and brook, where a different word is used for different forms of ‘water,’ similar to the Inuit use of different words for different forms of ‘snow.’ His point was that Inuit with its different ‘snow’ roots is like English with its different ‘water’ roots, a superficial fact of language variation. He claimed nothing about the number of words for ‘snow’ in Inuit and nothing about deterministic relations between language and culture or language and environment.

One kind of relationship between language and culture is of interest to students of North American prehistory—namely, the fact that language retains traces of historical changes in culture and so aids in reconstructing the past. Edward Sapir discussed techniques for determining the location of the original homeland from which the related languages of a language family dispersed. One was that the homeland is more likely to be found in the area of greatest linguistic diversity; e.g., there are greater differences in the English dialects of the British Isles than those of more recently settled areas such as North America. To take an Indigenous American example, the Athabaskan languages are now found in the Southwest (Navajo, Apache), on the Pacific Coast (Tolowa, Hupa), and in the Western Subarctic. The greater diversity among the Subarctic languages leads to the hypothesis that the original center from which Athabaskan languages dispersed was that area. This northern origin of the Athabaskans was further confirmed in a classic study by Sapir in 1936 in which he reconstructed parts of prehistoric Athabaskan vocabulary, showing, for example, how a word for ‘horn’ had come to mean ‘spoon’ as the ancestors of the Navajo migrated from the far north (where they made spoons of deer horns) into the Southwest (where they made spoons out of gourds, which were not available in their northern homeland). The correlation of such linguistic findings with the data of archaeology holds great promise for the study of Indigenous American prehistory.

Writing and texts

No native writing system was known among Indigenous North American at the time of first European contact, unlike the Maya, Aztecs, Mixtecs, and Zapotecs of Mesoamerica who had native writing systems. Nevertheless, a number of writing systems for different Indigenous North American languages were developed as a result of the stimulus from European writing, some invented and introduced by European and Euro-American missionaries, teachers, and linguists. The most famous system is that invented by Sequoyah for Cherokee, his native language. It is not an alphabet but a syllabary, in which each symbol stands for a consonant-vowel sequence. The forms of characters were derived in part from the English alphabet but without regard to their English pronunciation. Well suited to the language, the syllabary fostered widespread literacy among the Cherokee until their society was disrupted by government action; its use, however, never completely ceased, and attempts are being made to revive it.

Other writing systems include “Cree syllabics” (developed in the 1830s by Methodist missionary James Evans, used for Cree and Ojibwa), Chipewayan syllabary (based on the Cree syllabary), the Eskimo syllabary of the central and eastern Canadian Arctic (also based on the Cree syllabary), and the Fox syllabary (also called the Great Lakes syllabary), used by Potawatomi, Fox, Sauk, Kickapoo, and some Ojibwa. The Ho-chunk and Mi’kmaq borrowed a version of the Cree syllabary, though Mi’kmaq also developed a form of hieroglyphic writing. The Cree syllabary was adapted for Inuktitut (Eskimo-Aleut) by Anglican missionary E.J. Peck. Elsewhere, alphabetic scripts have been used, adapted from the Roman alphabet often with the use of additional letters and diacritics. U.S. and Canadian educational policy, however, has generally not encouraged literacy in Indigenous languages. A rich oral literature of Indigenous American myths, tales, and song texts has been in part published by linguists, anthropologists, and members of the communities that speak the languages, and there is now emphasis on recording, transcribing, and translating and thus conserving the oral traditions and other genres of texts representing the indigenous languages of the Americas and elsewhere.