Hubbry Logo
Wichita languageWichita languageMain
Open search
Wichita language
Community hub
Wichita language
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Wichita language
Wichita language
from Wikipedia

Wichita
Kirikirʔi:s
Native toUnited States
RegionWest-central Oklahoma
EthnicityWichita, Tawakoni
ExtinctAugust 30, 2016, with the death of Doris McLemore[1]
RevivalClasses available
Caddoan
  • Northern
    • Wichita
Dialects
  • Waco
  • Tawakoni
  • Kirikirʔi꞉s
Language codes
ISO 639-3wic
Glottologwich1260
ELPWichita
Linguasphere> 64-BAC-a 64-BAC > 64-BAC-a
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.

Wichita is a Caddoan language spoken in Anadarko, Oklahoma, by the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. The last fluent heritage speaker, Doris Lamar-McLemore, died in 2016,[2] although in 2007 there were three first-language speakers alive.[3] This has rendered Wichita functionally extinct; however, the tribe offers classes to revitalize the language[4] and works in partnership with the Wichita Documentation Project of the University of Colorado, Boulder.[5]

Dialects

[edit]

When the Europeans began to settle North America, Wichita separated into three dialects; Waco, Tawakoni, and Kirikirʔi꞉s (aka, Wichita Proper).[3] However, when the language was threatened and the number of speakers decreased, dialect differences largely disappeared.[6]

Status

[edit]

As late as 2007 there were three living native speakers,[7] but the last known fluent native speaker, Doris Lamar-McLemore, died on 30 August 2016. This is a sharp decline from the 500 speakers estimated by Paul L. Garvin in 1950.[8]

Classification

[edit]

Wichita is a member of the Caddoan language family, along with modern Caddo, Pawnee, Arikara, and Kitsai.[3]

Phonology

[edit]

The phonology of Wichita is unusual, with no pure labial consonants (though there are two labiovelars /kʷ/ and /w/). There is only one nasal (depending on conflicting theory one or more nasal sounds may appear, but all theories seem to agree that they are allophones of the same phoneme, at best), and possibly a three vowel system using only height for contrast.[7]

Consonants

[edit]

Wichita has 10 consonants. In the Americanist orthography generally used when describing Wichita, /t͡s/ is spelled ⟨c⟩, and /j/ is ⟨y⟩.

Alveolar Dorsal Glottal
plain labial.
Plosive t k ʔ
Affricate t͡s
Fricative s h
Sonorant ɾ ~ n
Semivowel j w

Though neither Rood nor Garvin include nasals in their respective consonant charts for Wichita, Rood's later inclusion of nasals in phonetic transcription for his 2008 paper ("Some Wichita Recollections: Aspects of Culture Reflected in Language") support the appearance of at least /n/.[3]

  • Labials are generally absent, occurring in only two roots: kammac to grind corn and camma:ci to hoe, to cultivate (⟨c⟩ = /t͡s/).
  • Apart from the /m/ in these two verbs, nasals are allophonic. The allophones [ɾ] and [n] are in complementary distribution: It is [n] before alveolars (/t, t͡s, s/ and in geminate [nn]) and initially before a vowel, and [ɾ] elsewhere. Thus its initial consonant clusters are [n] and [ɾ̥h], and its medial and final clusters are [nt͡s], [nt], [ns], [nn], [ɾʔ], [ɾh].
  • Final r and w are voiceless: [ɾ̥], [w̥]
  • Glottalized final consonants: One aspect of Wichita phonetics is the occurrence of glottalized final consonants. Taylor asserts that when a long vowel precedes a glottal stop, there is no change to the pronunciation. However, when the glottal stop is preceded by a short vowel, the vowel is eliminated. If the short vowel was preceded by a consonant, then the consonant is glottalized. Taylor hypothesizes that these glottalized final consonants show that the consonant was not originally a final consonant, that the proto form (an earlier language from which Wichita split off, that Taylor was aiming to reconstruct in his paper) ended in a glottal stop, and that a vowel has been lost between the consonant and glottal stop.[6]
Original word ending Change Result Wichita example
[Vːʔ#] No change [Vːʔ#]
[VːVʔ#] -[V] [Vːʔ#] [hijaːʔ] (snow)
[CVʔ#] -[V] [Cʔ#] [kiːsʔ] (bone)
- long vowel
V - short vowel
C - consonant
# - preceding sound ends word
  • Taylor also finds that previous phonetic transcriptions have recorded the phoneme /t͡s/ (written ⟨c⟩), as occurring after /i/, while /s/ is recorded when preceded by /a/.[6]
  • The *kʷ, *w, *p merger; or Why Wichita Has No /p/:
    • In Wichita the sounds /kʷ/ and /w/ are not differentiated when they begin a word, and word-initial *p has become /w/. This is unusual, in that the majority of Caddoan languages pronounce words that used to begin with *w with /p/. In Wichita, the three sounds were also merged when preceded by a consonant. Wichita shifted consonant initial *p to /kʷ/ with other medial occurrences of *p. /kʷ/ and /w/ remain distinct following a vowel. For example, the word for 'man' is /wiːt͡s/ in Wichita, but /piːta/ in South Band Pawnee and /pita/ in Skiri Pawnee.[6]

Phonological rules

[edit]
  • The coalescence of morpheme-final /ɾ/ and subsequent morpheme-initial /t/ or /s/ to /t͡s/:

ti-r-tar-s

IND-PL-cut-IMPERF

ticac

 

ti-r-tar-s

IND-PL-cut-IMPERF

'he cut them'

a:ra-r-tar

PERF-PL-cut

a:racar

 

a:ra-r-tar

PERF-PL-cut

'he has cut them'

a:ra-tar

PERF-cut

a:ratar

 

a:ra-tar

PERF-cut

'he has cut it'

  • /w/ changes to /kʷ/ whenever it follows a consonantal segment which is not /k/ or /kʷ/:

i-s-wa

IMP-you-go

iskwa

 

i-s-wa

IMP-you-go

'go!'

i-t-wa

IMP-I-go

ickwa

 

i-t-wa

IMP-I-go

'let me go!'

  • /ɾ/ changes to /h/ before /k/ or /kʷ/. The most numerous examples involve the collective-plural prefix r- before a morpheme beginning with /k/:

ti-r-kita-re:sʔi

IND-COL-top-lie.INAN

tihkitare:sʔi

 

ti-r-kita-re:sʔi

IND-COL-top-lie.INAN

'they are lying on top'

  • /t/ with a following /s/ or /ɾ/ to give /t͡s/:

keʔe-t-rika:s-ti:kwi

FUT-I-head-hit

keʔecika:sti:kwi

 

keʔe-t-rika:s-ti:kwi

FUT-I-head-hit

'I will hit him on the head'

  • /t/ changes to /t͡s/ before /i/ or any non-vowel:

ta-t-r-taʔas

IND-I-COL-bite

taccaʔas

 

ta-t-r-taʔas

IND-I-COL-bite

'I bit them'

  • /k/ changes to /s/ before /t/:

ti-ʔak-tariyar-ic

IND-PL-cut.randomly-repeatedly

taʔastariyaric

 

ti-ʔak-tariyar-ic

IND-PL-cut.randomly-repeatedly

'he butchered them'

  • /ɾ/, /j/, and /h/ change to /s/ after /s/ or /t͡s/:

ichiris-ye:ckeʔe:kʔa

bird-ember

ichirisse:ckeʔe:kʔa

 

ichiris-ye:ckeʔe:kʔa

bird-ember

'redbird'

[7]

Vowels

[edit]

Wichita has either three or four vowels, depending on analysis:[6][7][8]

Front Back
High ɪ ~ i ~ e
Mid ɛ ~ æ (o/u)
Low ɒ ~ a

These are transcribed as ⟨i, e, a, o/u⟩.

Word-final vowels are devoiced.

Though Rood employs the letter ⟨o⟩ in his transcriptions,[3] Garvin instead uses ⟨u⟩, and asserts that /u/ is a separate phoneme.[8] However, considering the imprecision in vowel sound articulation, what is likely important about these transcriptions is that they attest to a back vowel that is not low.

Taylor uses Garvin's transcription in his analysis, but theorizes a shift of *u to /i/ medially in Wichita, but does not have enough examples to fully analyze all the possible environments. He also discusses a potential shift from *a to /i/, but again, does not have enough examples to develop a definitive hypothesis. Taylor finds /ɛ/ only occurs with intervocalic glottal stops.[6][8]

Rood argues that [o] is not phonemic, as it is often equivalent to any vowel + /w/ + any vowel. For example, /awa/ is frequently contracted to [óː] (the high tone is an effect of the elided consonant). There are relatively few cases where speakers will not accept a substitution of vowel + /w/ + vowel for [o]; one of them is [kóːs] 'eagle'.[clarification needed]

Rood also proposes that, with three vowels that are arguably high, mid, and low, the front-back distinction is not phonemic, and that one may therefore speak of a 'vertical' vowel inventory (see below). This also has been claimed for relatively few languages, such as the Northwest Caucasian languages and the Ndu languages of Papua New Guinea.

There is clearly at least a two-way contrast in vowel length. Rood proposes that there is a three-way contrast, which is quite rare among the world's languages, although well attested for Mixe, and probably present in Estonian. However, in Wichita, for each of the three to four vowels qualities, one of the three lengths is rare, and in addition the extra-long vowels frequently involve either an extra morpheme, or suggest that prosody may be at work. For example,

nɪːt͡s.híːːʔɪh 'the strong one'
nɪːːt͡s.híːːʔɪh 'the strong ones'
hɛːhɪɾʔíːɾas 'let him find you'
hɛːːhɪɾʔíːɾas 'let him find it for you'
háɾah 'there'
háːɾɪh 'here it is' (said when handing something over)
háːːɾɪh 'that one'

(Note that it is common in many languages to use prosodic lengthening with demonstratives such as 'there' or 'that'.)[7]

This contrasts with Mixe, where it is easy to find a three-way length contrast without the addition of morphemes.[7]

Under Rood's analysis, then, Wichita has 9 phonemic vowels:[7]

Short Long Overlong
High ɪ ɪˑ ɪː
Mid ɛ ɛˑ ɛː
Low a

Tone

[edit]

There is also a contrastive high tone, indicated here by an acute accent.

Syllable and phonotactics

[edit]

While vowel sequences are uncommon (unless the extra-long vowels are considered sequences), consonant clusters are ubiquitous in Wichita. Words may begin with clusters such as [kskh] (kskhaːɾʔa) and [ɾ̥h] (ɾ̥hintsʔa). The longest cluster noted in Wichita is five consonants, counting [t͡s] as a single consonant: /nahiʔint͡skskih/ 'while sleeping'; however, Wichita syllables are more commonly CV or CVC.

Grammar and morphology

[edit]

Wichita is an agglutinative, polysynthetic language, meaning words have a root verb basis to which information is added; that is, morphemes (affixes) are added to verb roots. These words may contain subjects, objects, indirect objects, and possibly indicate possession. Thus, surprisingly complex ideas can be communicated with as little as one word. For example, /kijaʔaːt͡ssthirʔaːt͡s/ means "one makes himself a fire".[3]

Nouns do not distinguish between singular and plural, as this information is specified as part of the verb. Wichita also does not distinguish between genders, which can be problematic for English language translation.[3]

Sentence structure is much more fluid than in English, with words being organized according to importance or novelty. Often the subject[clarification needed] of the sentence is placed initially. Linguist David S. Rood, who has written many papers concerning the Wichita language, recorded this example, as spoken by Bertha Provost (a native speaker, now deceased) in the late 1960s.[3]

hiɾaːwisʔihaːs

Old.time.people

kijariːt͡seːhiɾeːweʔe

God

hikaʔat͡saːkikaʔakʔit͡saki

When.he.made.us.dwell

hiɾaːɾʔ

Earth

tiʔi

This

naːkiɾih

Where.it.is.located

hiɾaːwisʔihaːs kijariːt͡seːhiɾeːweʔe hikaʔat͡saːkikaʔakʔit͡saki hiɾaːɾʔ tiʔi naːkiɾih

Old.time.people God When.he.made.us.dwell Earth This Where.it.is.located

"When God put our ancestors on this earth."

The subject[clarification needed] of the sentence is ancestors, and thus the sentence begins with it, instead of God, or creation (when.he.made.us.dwell). This leads one to conclude Wichita has a largely free word-order, where parts of the sentence do not need to be located next to each other to be related.[3]

The perfective tense demonstrates that an act has been completed; on the other hand, the intentive tense indicates that a subject plans or planned to carry out a certain act. The habitual aspect indicates a habitual activity, for example: "he smokes" but not "he is smoking." Durative tense describes an activity, which is coextensive with something else.

Wichita has no indirect speech or passive voice. When using past tense, speakers must indicate if this knowledge of the past is based in hearsay or personal knowledge. Wichita has a clusivity distinction in the first person, i.e. separate ways of expressing "we" that explicitly includes or excludes the listener. Wichita also differentiates between singular, dual and plural number, instead of the simpler singular or plural designations commonly found.[3]

Affixes

[edit]

Some Wichita affixes are:[9]

Prefixes
aorist a ... ki-[clarification needed]
aorist quotative aːʔa ... ki-[clarification needed]
future keʔe-
future quotative eheː-
perfect aɾa-
perfect quotative aːɾa-
indicative ta/ti-
exclamatory iskiri-
durative a/i-
imperative hi/i-
future imperative kiʔi-
optative kaʔa-
debetative kaɾa-
Suffixes
perfective Ø
imperfective -s
intentive -staɾis
habitual -ːss
too late -iːhiːʔ
/ehèːʔáɾasis/
imperfective.future.quotative
'I heard she'll be cooking it.'

Instrumental suffixes

[edit]

[10] The suffix is Rá:hir, added to the base. Another means of expressing instrument, used only for body parts, is a characteristic position of incorporation in the verb complex.

  1. ha:rhiwi:cá:hir 'using a bowl' (ha:rhiwi:c 'bowl')
  2. ika:rá:hir 'with a rock' (ika:ʔa 'rock')
  3. kirikirʔi:sá:hir 'in Wichita (the language)' (kirikirʔi:s 'Wichita)
  4. iskiʔo:rʔeh 'hold me in your arms' (iskiʔ 'imperative 2nd subject, 1st object'; a 'reflexive possessor'; ʔawir 'arm'; ʔahi 'hold').
  5. keʔese:cʔíriyari 'you will shake your head' (keʔes 'future 2nd subject'; a 'reflexive possessor'; ic 'face'; ʔiriyari 'go around'. Literally: 'you will go around, using your face').

Tense and aspect

[edit]

One of these tense-aspect prefixes must occur in any complete verb form.[10]

durative; directive a / i
aorist (general past tense) a...ki
perfect; recent past ara
future quotative eheː
subjunctive ha...ki
exclamatory; immediate present iskiri
ought kara
optative kaʔa
future keʔe
future imperative kiʔi
participle na
interrogative indicative ra
indicative ta
negative indicative ʔa

Note: kara (ought), alone, always means 'subject should', but in complex constructions it is used for hypothetical action, as in 'what would you do if...')

The aspect-marking suffixes are:

perfective Ø
imperfective s
intentive staris
generic ːss

Other prefixes and suffixes are as follows:

  • The exclamatory inflection indicates excitement.
  • The imperative is used as the command form.
  • The directive inflection is used in giving directions in sequences, such as describing how one makes something.
    • This occurs only with 2nd or 3rd person subject pronouns and only in the singular.
  • The optative is usually translated 'I wish' or 'subject should'.
  • Although ought seems to imply that the action is the duty of the subject, it is frequently used for hypothetical statements in complex constructions.
  • The unit durative suggests that the beginning and ending of the event are unimportant, or that the event is coextensive with something else.
  • Indicative is the name of the most commonly used Wichita inflection translating English sentences out of context. It marks predication as a simple assertion. The time is always non-future, the event described is factual, and the situation is usually one of everyday conversation.
    • The prefix is ti- with 3rd persons and ta- otherwise
  • The aorist is used in narratives, stories, and in situations where something that happened or might have happened relatively far in the past is meant.
  • The future may be interpreted in the traditional way. It is obligatory for any event in the future, no matter how imminent, unless the event is stated to be part of someone's plans, in which case intentive is used instead.
  • The perfect implies recently completed.
    • It makes the fact of completion of activity definite, and specifies an event in the recent past.
  • The aorist intentive means 'I heard they were going to ... but they didn't.'
  • The indicative intentive means 'They are going to ... ' without implying anything about the evidence on which the statement is based, nor about the probability of completion.
  • The optional inflection quotative occurs with the aorist, future, or perfect tenses.
    • If it occurs, it specifies that the speaker's information is from some source other than personal observation or knowledge.
      • 'I heard that ... ' or 'I didn't know, but ... '
    • If it does not occur, the form unambiguously implies that evidence for the report is personal observation.

Examples: ʔarasi 'cook'

á:kaʔarásis quotative aorist imperfective I heard she was cooking it
kiyakaʔarásis quotative aorist imperfective I heard she was cooking it
á:kaʔarásiki quotative aorist perfective I heard she was cooking it
á:kaʔarásistaris quotative aorist intentive I heard she was planning on cooking it
kiyakaʔarásistaris quotative aorist intentive I heard she was planning on cooking it
á:kaʔarásiki:ss quotative aorist generic I heard she always cooked it
kiyakaʔarásiki:ss quotative aorist generic I heard she always cooked it
ákaʔárasis aorist imperfective I know myself she was cooking it
ákaʔárasiki aorist perfective I know myself she cooked it
ákaʔarásistaris aorist intentive I know myself she was going to cook it
ákaʔaraásiki:ss aorist generic I know myself she always cooked it
keʔárasiki future perfective She will cook it
keʔárasis future imperfective She will be cooking it
keʔárasiki:ss future generic She will always cook it
ehéʔárasiki quotative future perfective I heard she will cook it
ehéʔárasis quotative future imperfective I heard she will be cooking it
eheʔárasiki:ss quotative future generic I heard she will always be the one to cook it
taʔarásis indicative imperfective She is cooking it; She cooked it
taʔarásistaris indicative intentive She's planning to cook it
taʔarásiki::s indicative generic She always cooks it
ískirá:rásis exclamatory There she goes, cooking it!
aʔarásis directive imperfective Then you cook it
haʔarásiki imperative imperfective Let her cook it
ki:ʔárasiki future imperative perfective Let her cook it later
ki:ʔárasiki:ss future imperative generic You must always let her cook it
á:raʔarásiki quotative perfect perfective I heard she cooked it
á:raʔarásistaris quotative perfect intentive I heard she was going to cook it
áraʔárasiki perfect perfective I know she cooked it
keʔeʔárasis optative imperfective I wish she'd be cooking it
keʔeʔárasiki optative perfective I wish she'd cook it
keʔeʔárasistaris optative intentive I wish she would plan to cook it
keʔeʔárasiki:ss optative generic I wish she'd always cook it
keʔeʔárasiki:hi:ʔ optative too late I wish she had cooked it
karaʔárasis ought imperfective She ought to be cooking it
karaʔarásiki:ss ought generic She should always cook it
karaʔárasiski:hiʔ ought too late She ought to have cooked it

Modifiers

[edit]
assé:hah all
ta:wʔic few
tiʔih this
ha:rí:h that
hi:hánthirih tomorrow
tiʔikhánthirisʔih yesterday
chih á:kiʔí:rakhárisʔí:h suddenly
ti:ʔ at once
wah already
chah still
chih continues
tiʔrih here
harah there
hí:raka:h way off
hita edge
kata on the side
(i)wac outside
ha in water
ka in a topless enclosure
ka: in a completely enclosed space
kataska in an open area
ʔir in a direction
kataskeʔer through the yard
kataskeʔero:c out the other way from the yard

[11]

Case

[edit]

[10] In the Wichita language, there are only case markings for obliques. Here are some examples:

Instrumental case

[edit]
  • The suffix Rá:hir, added to the base
  • Another means of expressing instrument, used only for body parts, is a characteristic position of incorporation in the verb complex
    • ha:rhiwi:cá:hir 'using a bowl' (ha:rhiwi:c 'bowl')
    • ika:rá:hir 'with a rock' (ika:ʔa 'rock')

Locative case

[edit]

Most nouns take a locative suffix kiyah:

ika:kíyah

ika:ʔa

rock

-kiyah

LOC

ika:ʔa -kiyah

rock LOC

'where the rock is'

But a few take the verbal -hirih:

hánnhirh

hir-ahrʔa

ground

-hirih

LOC

hir-ahrʔa -hirih

ground LOC

'on the ground'

Any verbal participle (i.e. any sentence) can be converted to a locative clause by the suffix -hirih

  • tihe:ha 'it is a creek'
  • nahe:hárih 'where the creek is'

Predicates and arguments

[edit]

Wichita is a polysynthetic language. Almost all the information in any simple sentence is expressed by means of bound morphemes in the verb complex. The only exception to this are (1) noun stems, specifically those functioning as agents of transitive verbs but sometimes those in other functions as well, and (2) specific modifying particles. A typical sentence from a story is the following:[11]

wá:cʔarʔa kiya:kíriwa:cʔárasarikìtàʔahí:rikss niya:hkʷírih

wa:cʔarʔa

squirrel

 

 

kiya+

QUOT

a...ki+

AOR

a+

PVB

Riwa:c+

big (quantity)

ʔaras+

meat

Ra+

COL

ri+

PORT

kita+

top

ʔa+

come

hi:riks+

REP

s

IPFV

 

 

na+

PTCP

ya:k+

wood

r+

COL

wi+

be upright

hrih

LOC

wa:cʔarʔa {} kiya+ a...ki+ a+ Riwa:c+ ʔaras+ Ra+ ri+ kita+ ʔa+ hi:riks+ s {} na+ ya:k+ r+ wi+ hrih

squirrel {} QUOT AOR PVB {big (quantity)} meat COL PORT top come REP IPFV {} PTCP wood COL {be upright} LOC

'The squirrel, by making many trips, carried the large quantity of meat up into the top of the tree, they say.'

Note that squirrel is the agent and occurs by itself with no morphemes indicating number or anything else. The verb, in addition to the verbal units of quotative, aorist, repetitive, and imperfective, also contain morphemes that indicate the agent is singular, the patient is collective, the direction of the action is to the top, and all the lexical information about the whole patient noun phrase, "big quantity of meat."

Gender

[edit]

In the Wichita language, there is no gender distinction (WALS).

Person and possession

[edit]
Subjective Objective
1st person -t- -ki-
2nd person -s- -a:-
3rd person -i- Ø
inclusive -ciy- -ca:ki-

The verb 'have, possess' in Wichita is /uR ... ʔi/, a combination of the preverb 'possessive' and the root 'be'. Possession of a noun can be expressed by incorporating that noun in this verb and indicating the person of the possessor by the subject pronoun:[12][13]

natí:ʔakʔih

na-

PTCP

t-

1.SBJ

uR-

POSS

ʔak-

wife

ʔi-

be

h

SUBORD

na- t- uR- ʔak- ʔi- h

PTCP 1.SBJ POSS wife be SUBORD

'my wife'

niye:s natí:kih

niye:s

child

na-

PTCP

t-

1.SBJ-

uR-

POSS

ʔiki-

be.PL

h

SUBORD

niye:s na- t- uR- ʔiki- h

child PTCP 1.SBJ- POSS be.PL SUBORD

'my children'

Number marking

[edit]

Nouns can be divided into those that are countable and those that are not. In general, this correlates with the possibility for plural marking: Countable nouns can be marked for dual or plural; if not so marked, they are assumed to be singular. Uncountable nouns cannot be pluralized.

Those uncountable nouns that are also liquids are marked as such by a special morpheme, kir.

ta:tí:sa:skinnaʔas

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

a:

PVB

ti:sa:s

medicine

kir

liquid

ri

PORT

ʔa

come

s

IPFV

ta i a: ti:sa:s kir ri ʔa s

IND 3.SBJ PVB medicine liquid PORT come IPFV

'He is bringing (liquid) medicine'

Those incountable nouns that are not liquid are not otherwise marked in Wichita. This feature is labeled dry mass. Forms such as ye:c 'fire', kirʔi:c 'bread', and ka:hi:c 'salt' are included in this category.

tà:yè:csàʔas

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

a:

PVB

ya:c

fire

ri

PORT

ʔa

come

s

IPFV

ta i a: ya:c ri ʔa s

IND 3.SBJ PVB fire PORT come IPFV

'He is bringing fire.'

ta:ká:hi:csaʔas

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

a:

PVB

ka:hi:c

salt

ri

PORT

ʔa

come

s

IPFV

ta i a: ka:hi:c ri ʔa s

IND 3.SBJ PVB salt PORT come IPFV

'He is bringing salt.'

Wichita countable nouns are divided into those that are collective and those that are not. The collective category includes most materials, such as wood; anything that normally comes in pieces, such as meat, corn, or flour; and any containers such as pots, bowls, or sacks when they are filled with pieces of something.

ta:rássaraʔas

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

a:

PVB

aʔas

meat

ra

COL

ri

PORT

ʔa

come

s

IPFV

ta i a: aʔas ra ri ʔa s

IND 3.SBJ PVB meat COL PORT come IPFV

'He is bringing meat.'

ta:rássaʔas

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

a:

PVB

aʔas

meat

ri

PORT

ʔa

come

s

IPFV

ta i a: aʔas ri ʔa s

IND 3.SBJ PVB meat PORT come IPFV

'He is bringing (one piece of) meat.'

Some of the noncollective nominals are also marked for other selectional restrictions. In particular, with some verbs, animate nouns (including first and second person pronouns) require special treatment when they are patients in the sentence. Whenever there is an animate patient or object of certain verbs such as u...raʔa 'bring' or irasi 'find', the morpheme |hiʔri|(/hirʔ/, /hiʔr/, /hirʔi/) also occurs with the verb. The use of this morpheme is not predictable by rule and must be specified for each verb in the language that requires it.

tí:rass

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

irasi

find

s

IPFV

ta i irasi s

IND 3.SBJ find IPFV

'He found it (inanimate).'

tihirʔí:rass

ta

IND

i

3.SBJ

hirʔi

patient is animate

irasi

find

s

IPFV

ta i hirʔi irasi s

IND 3.SBJ {patient is animate} find IPFV

'He found it (animate).'

Like hiʔri 'patient is animate', the morpheme wakhahr, means 'patient is an activity'.

Countable nouns that are neither animate nor activities, such as chairs, apples, rocks, or body parts, do not require any semantic class agreement morphemes in the surface grammar of Wichita.

The morpheme |ra:k| marks any or all non-third persons in the sentence as plural.

The morpheme for 'collective' or 'patient is not singular'. The shape of this varies from verb to verb, but the collective is usually |ru|, |ra|, or |r|.

The noncollective plural is usually |ʔak|. Instead of a morpheme here, some roots change form to mark plural. Examples include:

Word Singular Plural
cook ʔarasi wa:rasʔi:rʔ
eat kaʔac ʔa
kill ki ʔessa

A surface structure object in the non-third-person category can be clearly marked as singular, dual, or plural. The morpheme ra:k marks plurality; a combination oh hi and ʔak marks dual. Singular is marked by zero.

If both agent and patient are third person, a few intransitive verbs permit the same distinctions for patients as are possible for non-third objects: singular, dual, and plural. These verbs (such as 'come' and 'sit') allow the morpheme wa to mark 'dual patient'. In all other cases the morphemes ru, ra, r, or ʔak means 'patient is plural'.

  • |hi| subject is nonsingular
  • |ʔak| third person patient is nonsingular
  • |ra:k| non-third-person is plural. If both the subject and object are non-third person, reference is to the object only.
  • |hi ... ʔak| non-third-person is dual
  • |ra:kʔak| combine meanings of ra:k and ʔak
  • zero singular[13]

Endangerment

[edit]

According to the Ethnologue Languages of the World website, the Wichita language is "dormant", meaning that no one has more than symbolic proficiency.[14] The last native speaker of the Wichita language, Doris Jean Lamar McLemore, died in 2016. The reason for the language's decline is because the speakers of the Wichita language switched to speaking English. Thus, children were not being taught Wichita and only the elders knew the language. "Extensive efforts to document and preserve the language" are in effect through the Wichita Documentation Project.

Revitalization efforts

[edit]

The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes offered language classes, taught by Doris McLemore and Shirley Davilla.[4] The tribe created an immersion class for children and a class for adults. Linguist David Rood has collaborated with Wichita speakers to create a dictionary and language CDs.[15] The tribe is collaborating with Rood of the University of Colorado, Boulder to document and teach the language through the Wichita Documentation Project.[5]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The Wichita language (kirikirʔi:s) is a critically endangered Native American language of the Caddoan family, historically spoken by the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (including the Waco, Keechi, and Tawakoni peoples) in the southern region of the . As a member of the northern branch of the Caddoan , it shares linguistic ties with Pawnee, , Kitsai (now extinct), and , featuring complex verb morphology and polysynthetic structure typical of the family. The language was originally spoken in areas of present-day , before the Wichita people's relocation to (now ) in the following U.S. government policies; today, the tribe is based near . No fluent speakers remain as of 2025, following the passing of the last fluent native speaker, Doris Jean Lamar-McLemore, in 2016, rendering Wichita dormant in terms of intergenerational transmission and classifying it as critically endangered by linguistic standards. Despite this, revitalization initiatives persist as of 2025, including community language classes and weekly language nights offered by the Wichita Tribe, alongside archival documentation projects that preserve audio recordings, texts, and grammatical analyses for potential future use. Key scholarly works, such as David S. Rood's Sketch of Wichita, a Caddoan Language (1996) and his earlier (1976), provide foundational descriptions of its (including glottalized consonants and tones), (verb-initial with extensive pronominal prefixes), and semantics, drawing from fieldwork with elders. These resources, housed in institutions like the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, support ongoing efforts to reclaim and teach the language within the tribe's cultural context.

Classification and Dialects

Classification

The Wichita language belongs to the Caddoan language family, a small group of Native American languages historically spoken across the region of the . Within this family, Wichita is classified in the Northern Caddoan branch, alongside Pawnee (including its dialects Skiri and South Band), , and the now-extinct Kitsai. This branch is distinguished from the Southern Caddoan branch, which consists primarily of and its dialects, with the two branches diverging approximately 3,500 years ago based on glottochronological estimates. The classification reflects a deep-time separation, rendering between Northern and Southern languages negligible. Historical comparisons place Wichita as an early offshoot from Proto-Northern-Caddoan, predating the splits that led to Kitsai and the Pawnee-Arikara subgroup. Impressionistic time depths suggest that Wichita and Pawnee diverged around 1,200–1,500 years ago, while Wichita and Kitsai share a similar divergence timeframe. Proposed reconstructions of Proto-Caddoan, developed collaboratively by linguists including Wallace Chafe, Douglas R. Parks, and David S. Rood, provide a framework for understanding these relations, positing a proto-sound with three qualities (/i, a, u/) and a range of consonants that evolved differently across branches. For instance, Wichita retains certain Proto-Caddoan features in its pitch accent , which it shares more closely with than with other Northern languages, though overall phonological innovations align it with Pawnee. Evidence supporting Wichita's classification draws from lexical, phonological, and grammatical correspondences. Lexically, Northern exhibit significant retention; for example, Pawnee and Kitsai share about 60% cognates in basic vocabulary, with Wichita showing comparable overlap in core terms reconstructed to Proto-Northern-Caddoan, such as those for body parts and numerals. Phonologically, shared innovations include complex consonantal clusters (up to three or four elements) in Wichita and Pawnee, alongside regular sound correspondences like the reduction of intervocalic clusters observed across the branch. Grammatically, all Northern are polysynthetic, featuring verb-complexes with extensive bound morphology for arguments, tense, and ; Wichita and Pawnee, in particular, share locative verb stem formations and instrumental prefixes traceable to Proto-Caddoan. These features contrast with Southern Caddoan's more conservative retention of certain proto-forms but divergent verb ordering and affixation patterns.

Dialects

The Wichita language historically encompassed three main dialects corresponding to specific bands within the tribe: Waco (Wakʔu), Tawakoni (Tawakʔu), and Kirikirʔi:s, the latter serving as the prestige variety also known as Wichita Proper. These dialects were mutually intelligible but displayed minor phonological and lexical variations, including differences in initial consonants and certain vocabulary items reflective of geographic separation among the bands. In the , extensive population movements—driven by conflicts, disease, and forced relocations—along with increased intermarriage among the bands, accelerated dialect leveling as the Wichita and affiliated groups consolidated on reservations in (present-day ) following their removal from and around 1859–1867. This convergence homogenized speech patterns, eliminating distinct dialectal features by the early 20th century. Linguistic evidence from early 20th-century tribal histories and mid-20th-century recordings, such as those collected by in the 1890s and linguist starting in the , confirms the disappearance of dialectal distinctions, with all remaining speakers employing a single, undifferentiated variety of Wichita by the .

Sociolinguistic Status

Speaker Population and Vitality

The Wichita language experienced a significant decline in speaker numbers throughout the , with only a handful of fluent and semi-speakers remaining by the early , reflecting the rapid loss of fluent transmission across generations. The death of Doris Lamar-McLemore, the last fluent speaker, on August 30, 2016, marked a critical turning point, leading to the language's official declaration as dormant by linguistic authorities. McLemore had collaborated extensively with linguists to document the language in her later years, but her passing ended active first-language use. As of 2025, the Wichita language has no fluent speakers, placing it in a dormant status with no L1 users reported. However, passive knowledge persists among some tribal elders, enabling limited comprehension and ceremonial application in cultural settings. The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, with an enrolled membership of 3,879 as of 2025, represent a modest community base that constrains broader revitalization and intergenerational transmission efforts.

Endangerment Factors

The decline of the Wichita language was profoundly influenced by 19th-century forced relocations that disrupted traditional community structures and language transmission. In 1863, Confederate forces compelled the to abandon their lands in (present-day ) and flee northward to , where they endured severe hardships including starvation, , and outbreaks, reducing their population from over 1,400 to 822 by 1867. This displacement severed ties to ancestral territories and communal practices essential for daily language use. Subsequently, in 1867, the U.S. government relocated the tribe back to a reservation in southwestern , further fragmenting social networks and exposing them to ongoing settler encroachment, which eroded the monolingual environments necessary for sustaining the language. Assimilation policies, particularly through federal boarding schools from the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, accelerated language loss by enforcing English-only environments and punishing use. Wichita children were compelled to attend institutions such as the , where they were isolated from family, stripped of cultural attire, and subjected to rigorous English immersion to "civilize" them, effectively halting intergenerational transmission within a generation. These schools, operational across the U.S. including in , aimed to eradicate Native languages as part of broader efforts to integrate tribes into Anglo-American society, resulting in widespread attrition of fluent speakers among the Wichita. Post-1950s economic and social pressures intensified the shift to English, breaking down intergenerational transmission as families prioritized integration for and opportunities. With the termination of federal restrictions on tribal mobility and the rise of urban job markets, many Wichita individuals adopted English as the primary language for socioeconomic advancement, leading to fewer opportunities for children to acquire Wichita fluently at home. By the late , this linguistic shift had rendered the language dormant, with no remaining first-language speakers. Urbanization and intermarriage further diminished monolingual Wichita-speaking communities by the 2000s, as tribal members migrated to cities like and Anadarko for work, diluting daily language practice within extended families. Intermarriage with non-Wichita speakers, common in reservation and urban settings, reduced the pool of native models for , exacerbating the decline in transmission and contributing to the absence of fluent elders by the early 21st century.

Phonology

Consonants

The Wichita language features a small consonant inventory of 9 phonemes, notable for the systematic absence of native labial consonants other than the glide /w/. The stops are voiceless and unaspirated (/t/, /k/), the affricate is alveolar (/ts/), and fricatives include /s/ and /h/; additionally, there is a glottal stop /ʔ/ and glides /w/ and /j/. A distinctive alveolar sonorant /r/ functions primarily as a flap [ɾ] or tap, exhibiting nasal allophones in specific environments, such as before alveolar consonants or in geminate form, and voiceless variants [ɾ̥] or [n̥] word-initially. Complex stops like glottalized /kʔ/ and labio-velar /kʷ/ occur in clusters.
PhonemeOrthography (Practical System)Articulatory DescriptionExample Word (with Gloss)
/t/tVoiceless alveolar stop/tá·ra·h/ 'close'
/k/kVoiceless velar stop/kha·ts/ 'white'
/ts/c/tsʰe:tsʔa/ 'dawn'
/s/s/sa·k/ 'foot'
/h/h/ha·kí·tʃ/ 'singing'
/ʔ//niʔ·ki/ 'child'
/w/wLabialized velar glide/wa·kʰ/ 'woman'
/j/yPalatal glide/ya·k/ 'to go'
/r/r (or n in some notations for nasal allophone)Alveolar flap/tap, with allophones [ɾ, n, ɾ̥, n̥]/niʔ·ki/ 'child'; intervocalic [ɾ] in /ta·r·a/ 'arrive'
This inventory reflects the practical orthography developed by linguist David S. Rood in collaboration with Wichita speakers, which employs Americanist conventions for clarity in documentation and revitalization efforts. The glides /w/ and /j/ devoice word-finally, contributing to surface variations without altering phonemic contrasts.

Vowels

The Wichita language features a small vowel inventory of three phonemic vowels, /i/, /e/, and /a/. These vowels form the core of the syllable nucleus, with phonetic realizations varying by context: /i/ typically [i ~ e], /e/ [ɛ ~ æ], and /a/ [ɑ ~ ʌ ~ ɒ], the latter sometimes rounding to or adjacent to labialized consonants like /w/. Vowel length is phonemically contrastive and distinguishes three degrees—short, long (or "half-long"), and overlong—independent of tone or stress. In the practical developed for Wichita, short vowels are written with single letters (e.g., i for /i/), long vowels with doubled letters (e.g., ii for /i:/), and overlong vowels with tripled letters (e.g., iii for /i::/), though overlong forms are rare and often result from morphological processes. This contrast is crucial for lexical distinctions, as demonstrated by near-minimal pairs like kí·tas 'he sees it' (/kí·tas/, with short /i/) versus ki·tás 'he saw it' (/ki·tás/, with long /i:/), where length interacts with tone but remains segmentally distinct. Acoustically, Wichita vowels exhibit formant values consistent with their height and backness. Nasalization of vowels is not phonemic but occurs allophonically due to proximity to the language's nasal allophones of /r/, resulting in coarticulatory nasal airflow on adjacent vowels without contrastive function. Representative examples include a·hí·ri 'wind' (/a.hí.ri/, oral vowels) and forms like ra·ri 'man' (/ra.ɾi/, with potential nasal spread from to flanking vowels in fluent speech).

Tone

The Wichita language features a two-level tone system consisting of high and low tones associated with every . High tone is phonemically distinct and often realized with a rising or level pitch, while low tone is the unmarked baseline pitch. In word-final position, high tone typically manifests as a falling contour, starting high and dropping to low at the vowel's end. This system is integral to the language's , where pitch functions as a segmental on par with consonants and . Orthographic conventions for tone vary, but high tone is commonly indicated by an (e.g., á), and low tone is either unmarked or marked with a (`) in some transcriptions. Tonal melodies occur across polysyllabic words, with sequences of high and low tones creating patterns that can include contours arising from historical phonological mergers within the Caddoan family. Tone bears a significant functional load in Wichita, distinguishing lexical and grammatical meanings, particularly in verb forms. For instance, the placement of high versus low tone on certain syllables can alter the interpretation of verbal morphemes, such as in constructions involving dative elements where pitch shifts signal semantic differences. This phonemic underscores tone's importance in the language's polysynthetic morphology, where it interacts with affixation to convey nuanced relationships.

Phonological Processes

Wichita exhibits consonant assimilation processes, particularly involving the alveolar flap /r/, which nasalizes to in specific phonetic environments. This occurs before alveolar consonants, as in clusters like /nc/ or /nt/, where /r/ assimilates in place of articulation to produce a nasal realization, effectively spreading nasality without underlying nasal phonemes in most of the inventory. Additionally, /r/ nasalizes when geminate or in word-initial position before vowels, contributing to long-distance nasal effects in verbal forms such as nakar realized as ja-ŋkur, where the nasal feature spreads regressively across the morpheme boundary. Vowel reduction is a key process affecting surface realizations, especially for the low vowel /a/, which raises and centralizes to [ə] in unstressed syllables, including those in suffixes. This reduction aligns the suffix vowel with the phonetic qualities of reduced forms in the root, preventing stark contrasts in polysynthetic words; for instance, non-initial /a/ in affixes often surfaces as schwa-like, maintaining prosodic harmony without full vowel harmony across the word. Short vowels in general may devoice word-finally after stops like /k/ or /ʔ/, further reducing contrast in suffix positions. Tone in Wichita is lexical, with high and low pitch on every vowel, but exhibits limited sandhi effects in compounds and derivations. High tone may spread rightward across low-tone syllables in compound words, or delete in favor of a single high tone per , simplifying the tonal contour; for example, in noun-verb compounds, adjacent high tones merge, avoiding tonal crowding. This process interacts with stress, where primary stress falls on the high-pitched syllable, and secondary stress alternates, influencing tone realization in suffixed forms. Historically, Wichita derives from Proto-Caddoan through systematic sound shifts, notably the loss of initial *p, which becomes /w/ (e.g., Proto-Caddoan *pá:re 'blood' > Wichita wá:re), while medial *p shifts to /kʷ/ (e.g., *kapá 'egg' > kʷá:). Other shifts include the development of fricatives and affricates from stops in certain clusters, contributing to the language's restricted consonant inventory without labials or nasals. These changes distinguish Wichita from sister languages like Pawnee, where *p remains or shifts differently.

Phonotactics

The phonotactics of the Wichita language permit relatively complex structures, following a general canon of (C)₁₋₄ V (C)₁₋₄, where onsets and codas can consist of up to four s. No clusters occur, as all s function as nuclei, and word-final s close with either a or a voiceless . Word-initial onsets allow zero to four consonants, with no vowel-initial words; attested initial clusters include /ks/, /th/, /k?/, /ch/, /kwh/, /kh/, /ckh/, and /kskh/. For example, /rhinc?a/ '' begins with the cluster /rhin-/, and /a-kw-thah/ 'above' features /kw-th/ as an initial sequence in the derived form. Medial onsets require at least one consonant, while codas can extend to four consonants, leading to maximal five-consonant clusters across syllable boundaries, such as [ncksk] in expressions meaning 'while sleeping'. Stress interacts with tone and vowel length in assigning primary and secondary prominence, typically favoring high-pitched syllables or those with long vowels over the last voiced vowel as the primary stress site. Secondary stress alternates from the primary, though conflicts may result in adjacent unstressed syllables or resolution by halting the pattern; for instance, in niye·skic?i·s 'he killed him', primary stresses fall on both long vowels [ni-ye·s-kic-?i·s]. Ill-formed sequences include any vowel adjacency, which is prohibited, contrasting with well-formed consonant-heavy forms like the medial [ncksk].

Morphology

Affixation and Word Formation

The Wichita language is characterized by its agglutinative and morphology, in which verbs frequently incorporate nouns and a series of affixes to encode complete propositions, including arguments, tense, aspect, and , often rendering independent nouns or pronouns unnecessary. This structure typifies and allows for highly compact expressions, with verbal words typically comprising 4 to over 12 morphemes arranged in rigidly ordered position classes that interact through complex morphophonemic processes. As described by , such formations enable the language to express nuanced semantic relationships within single words, distinguishing Wichita as a prototypical similar to certain Iroquoian tongues. Person marking occurs primarily through prefixes scattered across these position classes, referencing up to four arguments such as subjects, objects, recipients, or possessors. For instance, the first person singular prefix /ts-/ denotes the subject or possessor in verbal or nominal constructions, as in ts-ki-s 'I see it', where /ts-/ marks the first person subject. , in contrast, often serve derivational functions, such as nominalizers that transform verbal into nouns; an example is the -kic, which derives agentive or nouns from verbs, yielding forms like wa:kic 'one who lives (there)' from the root wa: 'to live'. These affixes attach to to build stems, with bound morphology expressing categories like number and case on nouns as well. Word formation also involves , where combine to create new lexical items, and , which conveys plurality, intensity, or distributive meanings. typically copies the initial syllable of the , as in ki-s-s from ki-s 'to see', indicating repeated or multiple seeing actions. is evident in incorporated noun-verb structures, such as those forming complex predicates like 'house-make' for 'to build a house'. These processes, combined with affixation, facilitate the derivation of elaborate stems from simple , underscoring the language's reliance on morphological over syntactic elaboration. Specific suffixes, like those for tools or locations, may attach to these stems but are detailed separately.

Instrumental and Locative Suffixes

In the Wichita language, the is expressed through the suffix /-rá:hir/, which denotes the tool, instrument, or means by which an action is performed. This attaches to to indicate usage, as in the example ta:ha:ʔa-rá:hir 'with (the) knife', where ta:ha:ʔa refers to 'knife'. The form integrates seamlessly into noun phrases, allowing speakers to specify the manner of action without separate postpositions. Locative functions are encoded by the suffix /-kiyah/, which marks general spatial relationships such as 'at, in, on, or upon' relative to nouns. For instance, akha:r? a-kiyah means 'at the '. This suffix primarily modifies nouns but can appear in phrases to describe in relation to s. More specific locative distinctions may exist in certain contexts, but -kiyah serves as the primary marker. These and locative suffixes exhibit postpositional-like behavior within verb complexes, where they may be incorporated or bound to verbal elements to compactly express spatial or instrumental nuances alongside the main predicate. This incorporation reflects the polysynthetic nature of Wichita, enabling complex relations within a single word. As noted in broader affixation patterns, such markers enhance verbal precision without requiring independent words. Spatial markers in show comparative evidence of shared ancestry, with related forms appearing in Pawnee and , though specific reconstructions require further comparative study.

Tense and Aspect

The Wichita language employs a system of verbal inflections to mark tense and aspect, primarily through suffixes attached to the root within a rigid structure. Tense distinctions are limited, with future time explicitly marked by the suffix /-ʔa:s/, as in ke·ʔa:s-iki "she will cook it," where the suffix indicates an event posterior to the speech time. Non-future tenses, encompassing past and present, are typically unmarked in the indicative mood, relying on contextual cues or aspect markers to convey temporal relations, such as in taʔa:tsis "she is cooking it" (imperfective) or a·ra·ʔa:tsiki "she cooked it" (perfective). Aspect markers provide finer distinctions regarding the internal structure of events, often positioned in slots 28–31 of the verb template. The completive aspect, indicating action completion, is realized by the suffix /-ʔ/, frequently appearing in perfective forms, as in wa·kʔi·tʔ "he finished eating it." The continuative aspect, denoting ongoing or repeated actions, uses /-hi:ts/, exemplified in hi·ts-ki·hi:ts "he keeps coming repeatedly." Other aspects include imperfective (unmarked or with /s/ in indicative), habitual (unmarked for repeated events), and intentive (for planned actions), allowing speakers to emphasize duration, repetition, or completion over strict temporal sequencing. Portmanteau morphemes often fuse tense, aspect, and , particularly in subordinate moods where evidential markers (quotative for vs. non-quotative for direct observation) are obligatory with certain combinations like or perfect aspects. For instance, the form a·ra-ʔ combines a evidential prefix with completive aspect to yield "it is said she cooked it (completed)." These fused elements streamline expression in polysynthetic verbs, integrating source of information with temporal and phasal details. In narrative contexts, aspect frequently takes precedence over tense marking, enabling a focus on event phases within a sequential chain rather than absolute time. Subordinate verbs in stories often employ perfective /-ʔ/ for completed past actions without future /-ʔa:s/, as in a tale sequence: wa·kʔi·tʔ "he ate it (done)" followed by ta·wa·hi:ts "he continued walking," where continuative aspect sustains the storyline's progression irrespective of unmarked non-future tense. This aspect-dominant approach facilitates vivid, event-centered recounting in traditional Wichita oral traditions.

Modifiers

In the Wichita language, adjectives are primarily expressed through s that inflect with subject agreement prefixes to indicate and number, functioning descriptively rather than as independent lexical items. For instance, the tac? i 'be big' takes prefixes such as ta- for first singular, yielding ta-tac? i 'I am big', while ki-tac? i means 'you (singular) are big'. These s belong to two classes: agentive (requiring an agent prefix) like tac? i and patientive (requiring a prefix) like ac 'be cold', allowing them to modify s attributively when incorporated into phrases. A smaller set of true adjectives, such as niwa·c 'big' or ɾiya·s 'old', exist as uninflected forms that directly follow the noun they describe, as in akha·r?a niwa·c 'big house'. Adverbs in Wichita often derive from subordinate clauses or independent particles, with manner adverbs typically expressed through specific lexical items or bound morphemes attached to verbs. Examples include isa? 'thus', ?i·r ?i·R 'quickly', and hi·riks 'repeatedly', which modify the action of the verb without altering its agreement morphology. Locative and temporal adverbs, such as ti?ɾih 'here' or ha·r·h 'there', may incorporate suffixes like -yah for spatial reference, integrating adverbial function into nominal or verbal complexes. Modifiers in Wichita phrases consistently follow their heads, with adjectival stative verbs or true adjectives postposed to nouns (e.g., wa·?as naka? i 'eating person', where naka? i 'eat' modifies as a stative) and adverbs trailing verbs to specify manner or extent. Verbs are commonly derived into modifiers through suffixes that nominalize or participialize them, enabling adjectival or roles. The -na forms participles, as in naka?ac-skih 'the one who is eating' (from naka?ac 'eat' with imperfective -skih), which can then attribute qualities to nouns; similarly, instrumental suffixes like -ɾa·r? derive manner expressions from verbs, such as kiɾikiɾ? i·sa·hiɾ? 'in Wichita' (manner of speaking). This derivational process underscores the language's polysynthetic nature, where verbal roots adapt flexibly to modificational functions via affixation.

Syntax

Case System

The Wichita language employs a split-ergative case system, evident primarily in third-person contexts through verbal person marking and noun incorporation, where the agent of a (ergative) is distinguished from the absolutive, which encompasses both the subject of an and the of a . This alignment reflects a head-marking strategy on the rather than dependent marking on core noun phrases, with no overt case suffixes for subjects or objects in full noun phrases. The core case categories—agent, , and dative—define nominal roles relative to the , with the dative marked by the suffix /-ʔas/ to indicate recipients or beneficiaries. Oblique cases, such as instrumental and locative, are expressed through suffixes on nouns rather than dedicated postpositions, aligning with the language's overall avoidance of adpositional phrases in favor of verbal prefixes for spatial relations. For instance, the instrumental suffix -rá:hir attaches to nouns to denote means or instruments. In verb incorporation, typically involving patients, the incorporated noun integrates directly into the verb stem, absorbing any potential case marking and rendering separate nominal case unnecessary, which reinforces the ergative pattern by treating the patient as part of the predicate. Compared to other , Wichita's system parallels the active-agentive case marking found across the family, including in Pawnee and (which show split-S alignment) and (with similar pronominal agent-patient distinctions), though Wichita uniquely combines ergative, accusative, and S-split elements in its mixed typology.

Predicates and Arguments

In the Wichita language, predicates are primarily verbs that exhibit varying valency and index their core arguments through a system of bound and number markers distributed across a template of up to 35 position classes. This polysynthetic allows verbs to incorporate about up to four arguments, including , objects, recipients, and possessors, often rendering independent noun phrases optional or absent. Intransitive predicates take a single core argument, the subject, which is indexed on the via prefixes indicating person and number. For third-person singular subjects, the prefix is typically null (Ø-), though other persons use overt forms like wi- for first-person singular. An example is Ø-kita-?ic-Ø 'he/she is sitting', where the root kita 'sit' is inflected for a third-person subject in the . Transitive predicates, in contrast, index both the agent (subject) and (object) arguments, with the agent often marked by prefixes in pre-root position and the patient via suffixes or incorporation into the stem. For instance, ti-?akha:r-?i:s glosses as 'he/she saw a ', with ti- indexing the third-person singular agent and the root ?akha:r 'see' incorporating the role, even when the object wa:khá:r '' appears overtly. Wichita transitive predicates distinguish direct and inverse forms to handle hierarchies involving obviative third persons, where the inverse marker signals a lower-ranked agent acting on a higher-ranked , often in discourse contexts favoring obviative referents. This system aligns with broader Caddoan patterns for managing argument prominence without relying on . Argument indexing is hierarchical, prioritizing speech-act participants over third persons, and the null third-person prefix (-) frequently appears in inverse constructions to avoid overt marking for obviatives. Applicative constructions in Wichita increase verbal valency by adding peripheral arguments, such as beneficiaries or recipients, through derivational morphology or noun incorporation, allowing them to be treated as core arguments indexed on the . For example, a base can be extended via patient incorporation to include a beneficiary, as in iská:s-inn-?i 'make s for me', where iská:s '' is incorporated as the , -inn- indexes the first-person beneficiary, and the root conveys creation, effectively forming a ditransitive structure. Ditransitive sentences similarly index three arguments (agent, theme, recipient) within the verb complex; a representative example is wi-hí:ts'-kʰa:s-in 'I gave him/her the ', with wi- for the first-person agent, hí:ts' 'give' as the root, -kʰa:s incorporating the theme '', and -in for the third-person recipient, demonstrating how multiple arguments are compacted into a single predicate without separate clausal elements.

Word Order and Sentence Structure

The Wichita language typically follows a subject-object-verb (SOV) word order in declarative clauses, though object-verb-subject (OVS) order is also common, reflecting a non-rigid structure that accommodates contextual needs. This flexibility allows for variations such as subject-verb-object (SVO), with verb-initial orders being rare, enabling speakers to prioritize flow over strict sequencing. A key feature of Wichita sentence structure is its reliance on topic-comment organization, where the topic—often an argument or focused element—is fronted to establish the frame for the comment, which contains the predicate and remaining arguments. For instance, in narratives, preposing a as topic highlights its role before the verb elaborates the action, contributing to the language's polysynthetic nature where verbs often incorporate argument information. This topic-comment approach supports concise chaining of ideas without heavy reliance on connectives. Clauses are frequently chained through coordination using conjunction suffixes like /kʔa/ (and) and /uŋkaŋ/ (or), which link successive actions or events in sequence, maintaining continuity without subordination. Such chaining treats clauses as independent yet interconnected, with each fully inflected for tense, aspect, and . Yes/no questions are formed morphologically by altering the verb's indicative suffix (e.g., changing /t/ to /r/ in certain paradigms) or dropping elements like the aorist vowel, often accompanied by rising intonation for clarification. Content questions employ particles or wh-words positioned flexibly within the . Embedded clauses are marked by switch-reference mechanisms, which indicate whether the subject of the is the same as (same-subject, SS) or different from (different-subject, DS) that of the main clause, facilitating integration without full embedding. This system appears in relative clauses and complements, using verbal suffixes to signal , as in constructions where a medial verb form links to the following independent verb (e.g., SS suffix /-tas/ for same continuity).

Nominal Categories

Gender

The Wichita language lacks grammatical gender, with no distinctions such as masculine/feminine categories affecting noun morphology, agreement, or pronominal forms. However, it distinguishes between animate and inanimate nouns; animate nouns can be inflected for person (first, second, inclusive, third), while inanimate nouns cannot. This distinction extends to the Caddoan family, though Pawnee similarly features no noun class or gender system beyond animacy influences on inflection. Animate nouns in Wichita are marked with pronominal prefixes for possession or reference, allowing person agreement, whereas inanimates rely on contextual or null marking. Natural gender in Wichita is conveyed lexically through distinct words for entities, rather than through inflectional endings or classifiers. For instance, the term for "man" is wiic, while "" is kaahiik'a, and similar pairs exist for animals or kin terms, such as male versus female relatives. Possession can further specify natural gender contextually, as in phrases denoting "" or "my mother," but these rely on inherent lexical differences without grammatical enforcement. This lack of has cultural implications in Wichita storytelling and oral traditions, where narratives often avoid explicit gender markers, leading to ambiguity that English translations must resolve by arbitrarily assigning "," or gender-neutral forms. Speakers historically treated such references casually, prioritizing action and context over biological sex, which reflects a emphasizing relational dynamics over rigid categorization in .

Person and Possession

The Wichita language employs a system of person marking that distinguishes first, second, and third persons across pronouns, nouns, and verbs, with notable features in plural forms and possessive constructions. Independent pronouns exhibit an inclusive/exclusive distinction in the first plural: the inclusive form refers to "we" including the addressee (e.g., speaker and listener), while the exclusive excludes the addressee (e.g., speaker and others). This contrast is regularly expressed in free pronouns but does not extend to verbal , where first plural marking is inclusive only. Possession in Wichita is primarily marked through pronominal prefixes attached directly to nouns, reflecting the language's head-marking typology. These prefixes indicate the possessor in first, second, and third persons, with forms such as /ki-/ for second person singular (e.g., ki-hí:s "," where hí:s means "name"). Third person possession often involves null marking or contextual inference, while alienable items may use additional relational markers. This prefixing system applies to a range of nouns, allowing compact expression of relations within noun phrases. Inalienable possession, particularly for body parts, is expressed through direct prefixation or noun incorporation into s, bypassing separate possessive constructions. Body parts like "hand" or "eye" are typically incorporated as stems within the verb complex when functioning as instruments or themes, as in expressions involving bodily actions (e.g., using one's hand to strike). Unlike some terms, which require obligatory possession in certain syntactic contexts, body parts do not mandate prefixing but favor integration into predicates for inalienable relations. This mechanism underscores the polysynthetic nature of Wichita, where possessed elements are morphologically fused with heads. Verb agreement in Wichita follows a person hierarchy of 1 > 2 > 3, where higher-ranked persons (first over second, both over third) determine prefix selection in transitive constructions, often employing portmanteau forms for non-third person arguments. For instance, when a first person acts on a second person, the verb takes a specific prefix like /tsa-/; the inverse (second on first) uses /tsi-/. This hierarchy governs how subjects and objects are indexed, prioritizing the local persons (1 and 2) over obviative third persons, and facilitates direct-inverse marking in complex predicates. Such patterns align with broader Caddoan traits but are distinctly realized in Wichita's verbal morphology.

Number Marking

In the Wichita language, nouns are not obligatorily marked for number, but count nouns can be inflected for dual or using suffixes such as -ta for dual and -al for . For example, the noun for "house" (wa:tsʔi) remains unmarked for singular but can take plural marking when referring to multiple houses. Number is often conveyed through contextual , agreement, or . Collective nouns, which denote groups or assemblages such as "" or "," are inherently in interpretation and do not require additional marking to express collectivity, though suffixes like those for definite reference may be added to specify the group as a unit. Verbs, however, feature optional agreement for number, primarily through dedicated markers that indicate whether subjects or objects are singular, dual, or . A key example is the distributive marker /-ki:s/, which attaches to verbs to denote multiple instances of an action performed by or on participants, often implying dispersion or repetition across individuals. For instance, a base form for "run" might incorporate /-ki:s/ to mean "they () run in different directions" or "each runs separately." Other verbal markers include prefixes or infixes for nonsingular subjects (e.g., /hi-/ for dual or agents in certain transitive constructions) and suffixes for patients (e.g., /ʔak-/ for third-person objects), though these are not obligatory and depend on the class and discourse focus. This optional nature allows flexibility, with number sometimes left unmarked if context suffices. Overall, Wichita's number system emphasizes verbal encoding over nominal morphology, reflecting a broader typological pattern in where predicates carry much of the referential detail. Collectivity in nouns contrasts with distributive plurality in verbs, providing nuanced ways to express without rigid singular-plural oppositions.

Revitalization

Historical Documentation

The historical of the Wichita language, a Northern Caddoan tongue, commenced in the early with preliminary wordlists and ethnographic notes collected by linguist John P. Harrington during his fieldwork among tribes. Harrington's efforts, part of his broader surveys of Indigenous languages, resulted in approximately 42 pages of notes on Wichita, including vocabulary items gathered from speakers in the Anadarko area in and , though much of his work remained unpublished during his lifetime. In 1932, anthropologist and linguist Gene Weltfish advanced early comparative studies through her collaboration with Alexander Lesser on Composition of the Caddoan Linguistic Stock, which featured Wichita vocabulary lists, phonetic descriptions, and subgrouping analyses within the Caddoan family, drawing on data from multiple dialects including Wichita bands. This publication marked one of the first systematic examinations of Wichita's phonological and lexical features in relation to Pawnee and other relatives. The bulk of systematic linguistic documentation occurred from the mid-20th century onward under David S. Rood, a linguist at the , who initiated fieldwork in 1966 with elderly fluent speakers and produced foundational resources over several decades. Rood's 1976 monograph Wichita Grammar, based on his 1969 dissertation, offered a generative semantic of the language's polysynthetic morphology, , and , including detailed paradigms and sentence structures elicited from native consultants. He followed this with a 1996 sketch in the Handbook of North American Indians, updating and expanding the grammatical overview with additional examples from texts. Through the Wichita Documentation Project, initiated in the and spanning into the in partnership with the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, and collaborators compiled dictionaries, transcribed oral texts, and created multimedia resources to preserve the language before its . This effort yielded a comprehensive with over 5,000 entries, narrative collections, and digitized audio recordings from semi-fluent and heritage speakers. Notable among these archives are recordings of (1927–2016), the last fully fluent speaker, including 1960s sessions of conversations and stories that were later enhanced and transcribed using tools like ELAN software during the early 2000s DoBeS-funded fieldwork, capturing nearly 200 hours of material.

Current Initiatives

The Wichita Language Revitalization Committee, operating under the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes' Department of Preservation, has conducted classes and workshops since 2017 to foster community engagement with the language. These initiatives include introductory sessions on , phrases, and cultural contexts, often held at the Wichita Community Building in . For instance, the committee hosted its first Kirikir’i:s Language Celebration in June 2019, featuring demonstrations of language skills by tribal members and prayers in Wichita. Ongoing programs encompass monthly language nights with interactive activities like crosswords, phrase practice, and themed discussions on topics such as food and daily life. As of 2025, these include community language and dinners titled "kirikiri:sa:hir hikeecak (We’re going to talk Wichita)." In collaboration with the , the tribe has advanced digital archiving and second-language (L2) teaching materials, leveraging decades of linguistic documentation. Linguist David S. Rood, a professor at the university, has contributed over 40 hours of audio recordings, including elicitation sessions, songs, and narratives from fluent and semi-speakers, which form the basis for searchable digital resources. The resulting Wichita Language Project Archive (WLPA), a tribal-managed repository launched around 2018, digitizes these materials—such as cassette tapes, notebooks, and analyses—into an online catalog accessible at the Wichita Tribal History Center, supporting both self-study and classroom instruction. Additional tools include a FLEX-based dictionary with audio pronunciations and children's picture books with embedded language elements, developed through this partnership to aid L2 learners. The utilizes platforms to disseminate lessons and content, including audio files of common words and phrases available via its official website, with activity continuing into 2025. Community immersion events in Anadarko, such as bi-weekly dinners combining meals with conversational practice, promote practical application and cultural reinforcement; examples include sessions on introductions and songs held through late 2024 and into 2025. The ' Living Languages Grant Program awarded $5.723 million in 2023 to 20 and organizations for immersion-based revitalization, including a $299,279 grant to the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes to create two full-time positions, host monthly community dinners, and develop resources such as a Level 1 Wichita Workbook, household item labels, posters, and flyers with QR codes linking to audio.

Challenges and Prospects

The Wichita language faces significant challenges in its revitalization due to the absence of fluent speakers, with the last known fluent speaker, , passing away in 2016, rendering the language dormant according to linguistic assessments. This scarcity necessitates second-language (L2) acquisition primarily through archived recordings and documentation, such as those compiled by linguists in the late , which limits natural transmission and conversational proficiency among learners. Funding constraints further impede progress, as tribal language programs compete for limited federal and state resources amid broader budgetary pressures on Native American communities, including recent government shutdowns affecting tribal services. Additionally, the dominance of English in formal systems creates for instructional time and resources, prioritizing English proficiency over indigenous languages in schools serving Wichita youth. By 2025, revitalization efforts have yielded modest success, with semi-speakers and basic L2 users emerging through community classes and online resources. However, experts indicate that full revival to a vibrant, intergenerational is unlikely without sustained immersion environments that facilitate daily use beyond classroom settings. Recent events, such as a November 2025 public presentation featuring Wichita songs, highlight continued community engagement. Prospects for the future include deeper integration of language programs with the Wichita Tribal History Center, which houses archives and supports cultural events, and expansion into tribal schools via initiatives like the Wichita Children's Language App and picture books project. Emerging AI-assisted learning tools, such as translation apps tailored to , offer potential for interactive practice and accessibility, potentially accelerating L2 acquisition if adapted for community use.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.