SIL-Mexico Electronic Working Papers #28

The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec)

Stephen A. Marlett and Plácido Neri Remigio

Marlett, Stephen A. & Neri Remigio, Plácido. 2020. The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec). SIL-Mexico Electronic Working Papers #28. [http://mexico.sil.org/resources/archives/85942] © 2020 Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, A.C. Estos son documentos de trabajo actualizados, ampliados y corregidos periódicamente. 2 The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec)

Abstract

This paper presents the sounds of one major variety of the Tlapanec languages, that of Acatepec Meꞌpaa, in order to illustrate the general characteristics of this language family.

Resumen

Este trabajo presenta los sonidos de una variedad signifcativa de las lenguas tlapanecas, la del meꞌpaa de Acatepec, para ilustrar las características generales de esta familia lingüística.

Contents

Abstract ...... 2 Resumen ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Consonants ...... 4 2.1. Plosives ...... 4 2.2. Fricatives ...... 6 2.3. Approximants ...... 6 3. Vowels ...... 7 4. Nasalization ...... 8 5. Tones ...... 8 6. Prominence ...... 9 7. Transcription of recorded passage ...... 9 References ...... 10

1. Introduction

Meꞌphaa [mèʔpʰàà] (or Tlapanec, the more traditional name and the one that appears most often in the literature) is a group of closely related language varieties spoken by approximately 134,000 people (INEGI 2015) in the mountainous eastern part of the Mexican state of Guerrero. It is currently considered a branch of the Otomanguean family (L. Campbell 1997:324-325; Kaufman 2006:119; E. Campbell 2017:3). This description and analysis of the sounds of Tlapanec chooses one major variety, that of Acatepec, ISO 639-3 code [tpx] (Eberhard et al. 2019), to illustrate the general characteristics of the family. This variety goes by the name Meꞌpaa (without the “h” and with a diferent tone on the frst syllable) and is spoken in and around the municipality of Acatepec (see Figure 1); the autoglottonym is Ajngáa Me'pa̱a̱ (word meꞌpaa). The code [tpx] encompasses fve ofcially recognized variantes [variants] in INALI (2008); in that catalog, the variety described here is named Tlapaneco del suroeste. The data in this paper come from two speakers: one from Caxitepec, a town about twenty-four kilometers (as the crow fies) south of the Introduction 3 municipal center of Acatepec; and one from Barranca Dulce, a town about seven kilometers east-southeast of Acatepec. When necessary, the data are labeled with ad hoc four-letter extensions to the standard ISO code in order to clearly indicate the sources. If unlabeled, they are from Barranca Dulce.1

Figure 1: The municipality of Acatepec in the state of Guerrero, Mexico

Signifcant details about other varieties, including those with other ISO codes, among them the more well-known one of Malinaltepec [tcf], as well as the history of their study and present day sociolinguistic facts, are given in Cline et al. (2012), Marlett (2017) and Marlett & Weathers (2018). The latter also discusses some alternative analyses found in the literature, including Carrasco Zúñiga (2006a), Carrasco Zúñiga & Weathers (1988) and Suárez (1983), and argues for the ones presented here. Nasalization and tone fgure prominently in Tlapanecan languages; these are discussed in §§4-5. In this presentation, the distinctive feature of morpheme-level nasalization is indicated on phonemic transcriptions by a tilde over the nucleus of the fnal syllable of the morpheme instead of the superscript capital N (ᶰ) that is used in various other publications on this language, since the latter is not part of the IPA tradition (IPA 1999). Recordings of the words included in this paper may be downloaded from http://mexico.sil.org/resources/ archives/85942.

1The Barranca Dulce recordings are of co-author Plácido Neri Remigio, who lives and works in the region, having been born in Barranca Dulce (17.293056°, -98.857222°). The Caxitepec recordings are of Florentina Bernadino Sierra, who graciously permitted us to use them in this work. The present analysis is virtually the same as that published in Marlett & Neri Remigio (2012). We are grateful for comments on earlier drafts of this paper that Kevin Cline, Aaron Hemphill, Katie Tang and Mark Weathers kindly provided. Thanks to Kevin Cline and Hugh Paterson III for their help with the recordings. This work was supported in part by a Documenting Endangered Languages grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (FN-50079-10), gratefully acknowledged. Abbreviations used: 1pl = frst person plural, 1sg = frst person singular, 2pl = second person plural, 2sg = second person singular, 3pl = third person plural, 3sg = third person singular, a = person agreement set A, d = person agreement set D, incl = inclusive. 4 The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec)

2. Consonants

The consonants proposed as phonemes are given in Table 1. It is debatable whether the glottal plosive is best analyzed as a consonant, as shown here, or as a vocalic feature; see Marlett & Weathers (2018) for discussion of this issue more generally in Meꞌphaa. (The theme is recurrent in Otomanguean language studies.) The lateral approximant is highly restricted in distribution. Some other consonants also have a limited distribution. Labialized consonants are discussed in additional detail below due to their restricted distribution.

Table 1: The phonemes of Acatepec Meꞌpaa

Post- Labialized Bilabial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Velar Glottal

Plosive p b t d k ɡ kʷ ɡʷ ʔ Africate t͡ʃ d͡ʒ Prenasalized ᵐb ⁿd ⁿd͡ʒ ⁿɡ ⁿɡʷ Nasal m n Fricative s ʃ h hʷ Approximant j w Lateral l approximant

In Table 2, the consonants are presented in three positions, as possible: (1) in the onset of a penultimate syllable, (2) in the onset of a fnal syllable with a short vowel, (3) in the onset of a word-fnal syllable with a long vowel.

2.1 Plosives

Voiceless plosives in simple onsets may be slightly aspirated by some speakers, including in word-medial position, especially after a glottal plosive, as in /ɡáʔkù/[ɡáʔkʰù]‘adobe’. The labialized consonants occur primarily in cases where absolute vowel elision is normally expected, to avoid hiatus, as discussed in Marlett & Weathers (2018). In these cases, however, due to the presence of a back consonant, a round vowel leaves behind a feature of rounding that associates with that consonant. Compare /āɡú/‘palm.mat’, /āɡʷáāʔ/‘palm.mat:2sg.d’; /àhkù/‘four (inanimate)’, /àhkʷìì̃ /‘̃ four:3pl.a’. The word /kʷítí/‘potato’ in Table 2 is a loanword from a neighboring Mixtec language. The word /ɡʷàʔʃāʔ/ ‘girls’ in that table is evidently a compound based historically on /ɡùʔù/‘women’ followed by an unknown element.2 Glottal plosive occurs contrastively only in syllable-fnal position; examples, with syllable breaks shown according to this analysis: /ɡáʔ.kù/‘adobe’, /wìʔ.ì/‘sand’, /àʔ.ù̃/‘iguana’, /jà.hààʔ/‘louse’. For the con- trast between the absence and presence of glottal plosive, compare, in (supposed) intervocalic position: /dū̃ū̃/‘chili pepper’, /jùʔù̃/‘bird’; and in word-medial position, /mēkū/‘sky’, /ɡáʔkù/‘adobe’; and in word-fnal position: and /ādà/‘child’, /áwáʔ/‘an herb (Piper sp.)’.

2Thanks to Kevin Cline for his special help on these two points. Plosives 5 Table 2: Consonants contrasting in three positions p pàʔtā ‘open’ āpūū ‘neck:3sg.d’ b bìjú ‘hawk’ ʃàbù ‘person’ bóō (a geographical term) t tānā ‘medicine’ mātā ‘stream’ d dáɡá ‘white sapote’ ādà ‘child’ dāā̃ ̃ ‘pot’ (plant) k kúbá ‘mountain’ mēkū ‘sky’ ɡ ɡànùʔ ‘fresh corn’ àɡā ‘pig’ ɡàà ‘armadillo’ kʷ kʷítí ‘potato’ (loanword) ɡʷ ɡʷàʔʃāʔ ‘girls’ ʃùɡʷì ‘today’ ʔ (see below) t͡ʃ t͡ʃádā ‘sandal’ nāt͡ʃà ‘quickly’ d͡ʒ d͡ʒámá ‘boy’ kīd͡ʒūūʔ ‘behind:3sg.d’ ᵐb ᵐbīʔī ‘day’ dàᵐbù ‘tomato’ ᵐbàà ‘big’ ⁿd ⁿdìhjàʔ ‘guayaba’ nīⁿdāā ‘temporal rain’ ⁿdíí ‘cigarette’ ⁿd͡ʒ ⁿd͡ʒàà ‘party’ ⁿɡ hⁿɡāʔá ‘foam’ ⁿɡāⁿɡīʔ ‘junebug larva’ ⁿɡʷ ⁿɡʷátá ‘how many?’ nàⁿɡʷá ‘no’ m máɡá ‘onion’ āmāʔ ‘net bag’ n náská ‘dry vegetable ʃāná ‘uncultivated rubbish’ vegetation’ s síʔbū ‘grasshopper’ īsí ‘stone’ sááʔ ‘nectar’ ʃ ʃāʃì ‘forest’ māʃāʔ ‘green’ ʃòò ʃⁿdú ‘shell of egg’ h jāhā ‘bean’ hʷ àhʷā̃ ‘a type of ant’ w wàhī̃ ‘rabbit’ áwáʔ ‘an herb’(Piper sp.) j jāhā ‘bean’ ījāʔ ‘water’ jàà ‘ear of dry corn’ l lúʃú ‘Byrsonima crassifolia fruit’

3sg.d cross-references a third person singular possessor; the sufx is from set d. 6 The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec) Voiced plosives may be slightly lenited in weak (that is, non-fnal) syllables; see §6 for more discussion of this. For labials and velars, this process gives rise to fricative or approximant allophones. For alveolars, the result is a rhotic (a fap, sometimes freely varying to a trill): /dūtá/[ɾūtá]‘charcoal’, /dùhtù/[rùhtù]‘gourd container’, /dùdúʔ/[ɾùdúʔ]‘mother:1sg.d’. The rhotic also occurs in the frst part of reduced compounds, as in /dbéʃì/[ɾbéʃì]‘antlion larva’. In demonstratives and discourse function words, the rhotic is also generally used: /dá/[ɾá] (discourse particle), /dúʔkʷì/[rúʔkʷì] (inanimate medial demonstrative). An exception is the inanimate subordinator, in which [d] appears: /dí/[dí], as illustrated in the recorded text. (In various previous descriptions, a fap or trill was included in the phonemic inventory, despite lack of convincing evidence internal to Meꞌphaa. See the discussion in Marlett 2017 and Marlett & Weathers 2018.) An utterance-initial rhotic is commonly preceded by a short schwa-like vowel: /dáɡá/[ᵊɾáɡá]‘white sapote’. The nasalization of prenasalized plosives is phonetically prominent, especially in utterance-initial exam- ples. An utterance-initial voiced velar plosive, especially of a monosyllabic word, is sometimes pronounced with slight prenasalization, but less than what occurs with the true prenasalized consonants.

2.2 Fricatives

While /h/ may precede a fricative, as in /āhsú/[āhsú]‘three’ and /dàhʃà/[ràhʃà]‘grass’, for example, it is quite reduced or omitted entirely in the speech of some people in the area: [āsú]‘three’ and [ràʃà]‘grass’ [tpx­Caxi]. The labialized glottal fricative is occasionally pronounced as a voiceless labialized bilabial fricative: /èhʷìì/[èhʷìì] [tpx­BDul],[èɸʷìì] [tpx­Caxi] ‘cooking griddle’.

2.3 Approximants

The lateral approximant is fairly rare across Meꞌphaa. Apart from a few loanwords from Spanish and Mixtec, its primary occurrences are in the pronominal enclitics for frst person plural inclusive and second person plural, as in the words /dùdúlú/[ᵊɾùdúlú]‘mother:1pl.incl.d’ and /dùdálā/[ᵊɾùdálā]‘mother:2pl.d’. Nasalization spreads to vocalic phonemes, including approximants, as shown in §4 with more details. There is some additional variation in the pronunciation of a palatal approximant. In some subdialects, it is elided when it occurs between close front vowels, as illustrated by comparing the inanimate and animate forms for ‘eight’: /mīɡījīī̃ ʔ̃ /‘eight:3pl.a’ (derived from /mīɡījū̃ʔ/‘eight (inanimate)’ and the sufx /-īī̃ /),̃ [mīɡī̃ ̃ ̃īī̃ ʔ̃ ] [tpx­Caxi],[mīɡī̃ .ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ ] [tpx­BDul]. It may also be elided between open vowels in nasalized contexts: /àjàʔ̃ /‘deer’[à̃ ̃àʔ̃ ] [tpx­Caxi],[à.à̃ ʔ̃ ] [tpx­BDul];/mājāʔ̃ /‘red’[mā̃ ̃àʔ̃ ] [tpx­Caxi],[mā.ā̃ ʔ̃ ] [tpx­BDul]. The nasalized palatal approximant is pronounced as a palatal nasal by some speakers; in any situation, it is phonetically close to such. Vowels 7

3. Vowels

The qualities of the vowels are approximately those shown in Figure 2. The vowels are presented in three positions, as possible, in Table 3.

Figure 2: Vowel qualities

Table 3: Vowel contrast in three positions

Penultimate Final Monosyllabic a àɡā ‘pig’ mātā ‘stream’ jàà ‘ear of dry corn’ e èɡìʔ ‘fsh’ i ìɡì ‘fox’ īsí ‘stone’ ɡìì ‘here’ o ʃtòò ‘corn plant’ u dūtá ‘charcoal’ ʃàbù ‘person’ dū̃ū̃ ‘chili pepper’

Some cases of vowel length appear to be due to a minimal word constraint, as discussed in Marlett & Weathers (2018). They may be also long, often as the result of afxation, as the examination of un- possessed and possessed nouns reveals. See, for example, /sìnù/‘grinding stone’ [tpx] and /sìnùù/‘grind- ing.stone:3sg.d’. (The same is true of quantifers and adjectives that bear morphology, drawn from pronom- inal set A, when the antecedent or referent is animate.) An utterance-initial vowel may begin with a short voiceless version of the vowel: /àɡā/[ḁàɡā]‘pig’, /āmāʔ/[ḁāmā̃ ʔ̃ ]‘net bag’. Vowels may be distinctively nasalized; see §4. Vowels are also slightly nasalized when adjacent to a nasal consonant. The vowel /u/ is sometimes slightly more open in some nasalized syllables, as in /mùhmùʔ/[mù̞̃hmù̞̃ʔ] ‘yellow’. One may also detect a slight lengthening of a vowel when it is in the penultimate syllable, despite this being considered a weak position (see §6). This lengthening is taken to be allophonic. Long vowels are tautosyllabic because words such as /dīī̃ /‘̃ sugar cane’, /dāā̃ /‘̃ pot’ and /dū̃ū̃/‘chili pepper’ have the allophone [d] as expected in root-fnal (strong) syllables and not the rhotic expected in non-fnal (weak) syllables (see §2.1). 8 The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec)

4. Nasalization

Nasalization of non-consonantal phonemes is primarily due to a feature of the morpheme, as in Mixtec languages (Marlett 1992). Some roots that are contrastively nasalized include: /dāā̃ /‘̃ pot’, /dū̃ū̃/‘chili pepper’ and /àʔù̃/‘iguana’. The third person plural sufx from set A mentioned in §§2-3 is one afx that has this feature. The nasal feature links to the right edge of the morpheme and spreads both leftward and rightward in the word until it is stopped by a true consonant (that is, not a central approximant, glottal plosive, or glottal fricative) within the same infected word. Examples of it spreading leftwards: /jù̃ù̃/[ ̃ù̃ù̃]‘worm,’ /jùhù̃/[ ̃ù̃hù̃] ‘mosquito’, /jùʔù̃/[ ̃ù̃ʔù̃]‘bird’, /ìjàʔ̃ //ì̃ ̃àʔ̃ /‘coyote’. See Marlett & Weathers (2018) for more discussion.

5. Tones

Tlapanecan languages have been analyzed as having three tones: High, Mid, and Low (Carrasco Zúñiga 2006a, Cline 2013, Wichmann 1996, Uchihara & Tiburcio Cano 2019; see Cline 2013 for important details about morpheme-based melodies). The presentation in Table 4 assumes the presence of tone melodies (or patterns) on roots (Snider 2018), regardless of the number of syllables in the roots. Most of the possible combinations of one and two tone melodies seem to be well attested on two syllable roots. The High-Low pattern is not broadly distributed, however; the choice of a word with a glottal stop for this pattern in Table 4 is intentional. As Cline (2013:69-72) points out, CVCV words with a high pitch on both syllables actually come from two underlying patterns; /kúbá/‘mountain’ is a High-Low melody root that regularly loses its Low tone under certain conditions The High-Low pattern in a word such as /dbéʃì/‘antlion larva’ is highly unusual if it is a monomorphemic root.

Table 4: Tone melodies

Low ʃàbù ‘person’ Mid mātā ‘stream’ High ɡúmá ‘string’ Low-Mid àɡā ‘pig’ Low-High bìjú ‘hawk’ Mid-Low īʃì ‘tree’ Mid-High īsí ‘stone’ High-Low ɡáʔkù ‘adobe’ High-Mid síʔbū ‘grasshopper’ Transcription of recorded passage 9

6. Prominence

Various phonetic details require reference to a weak syllable of the root; see §2. In a disyllabic root, the fnal syllable is strong and the frst is weak. Weak syllables display slight phonetic diferences (always lenition) that are not observed as frequently in strong syllables. Monosyllabic minor class words (discourse markers, subordinators) typically have the properties of weak syllables; nevertheless, this is not an invariant fact. The addition of an afx does not afect the basic prosodic structure; the root in the word continues to have a weak syllable followed by a strong one; none of the phonetic facts referred to in §2 changes when an afx is added.

7. Transcription of recorded passage

The following short text, written by Plácido Neri Remigio and recorded by him, was published in Neri Remigio & Marlett (2012). An orthographic transcription is also included here, as it was used in the publication just mentioned and generally following the guidelines laid out in Carrasco Zúñiga (2006b).

Broad transcription: náā kúwíì̃ ̃ ʃàbù mēʔpàà | díɡá ᵐbāʔā ēnīī ījīī̃ ʔ̃ | díɡá ījīī̃ ʔ̃ mùhmùʔ | díɡá ījīī̃ ʔ̃ mīʔʃá | díɡá ījīī̃ ʔ̃ mīʔjū̃ū̃ | ʃúʔkʷì má díɡá ījīī̃ ʔ̃ īʃì māⁿɡāā ǁ dí ījīī̃ ʔ̃ īʃì | ᵐbdūtū ʃóō dí ìʔwáʔ ījīī̃ ʔ̃ | ījīī̃ ʔ̃ díɡì | ʃóō ɡúhkúʔ kāʔnīī īkāā ǁ māⁿɡāā má | díɡá ījū̃ū̃ʔ dùbú ǁ ᵐbá ʃúɡʷííʔ ījīī̃ ʔ̃ díɡì | nāhmàà náā hᵐbājú̃ú̃ʔ ʃàbù mēʔpàà ǁ ʃúʔkʷì má īkāā ījīī̃ ʔ̃ díɡì | nāɡú̀ú̀ dáɡùhʷà ʃwáá | māⁿɡāā má nāʔpù | māⁿɡīī̃ ̃ mú dí séɡùhʷà ǁ

Narrow transcription: náā̃ ̃ kú̃w̃íì̃ ̃ ʃàbù mēʔpàà̃ | ɾíɡá ᵐbāʔā ēnīī̃ ̃ ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ | ɾíɡá ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ mù̃hmù̃ʔ | ɾíɡá ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ mīʔʃá̃ | ɾíɡá ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ mīʔ̃ ̃ū̃ū̃ | ʃúʔkʷì má̃ ɾíɡá ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ īʃì māⁿɡāā̃ ǁ dí ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ īʃì | ᵐbɾūtū ʃóō dí ìʔwáʔ ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ | ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ ɾíɡì | ʃóō ɡúhkúʔ kāʔnīī̃ ̃ īkāā ǁ māⁿɡāā̃ má̃ | ɾíɡá ī̃ ̃ū̃ū̃ʔ ɾùbú ǁ ᵐbá ʃúɡʷííʔ ī.ī̃ ī̃ ʔ̃ ɾíɡì | nāhmà̃ à̃ ̃ náā̃ ̃ hᵐbā̃ ̃ú̃ú̃ʔ ʃàbù mēʔpàà̃ ǁ ʃúʔkʷì má̃ īkāā ī̃ ̃īī̃ ʔ̃ ɾíɡì | nāɡú̃ ̃ú̃ ɾáɡùhʷà ʃwáá | māⁿɡāā̃ má̃ nāʔpù̃ | māⁿɡī̃ ī̃ ̃ mú̃ dí séɡùhʷà ǁ

Orthographic transcription: Náa kúwíi̱n xa̱bu̱ meꞌpa̱a̱ rígá mbaꞌa enii iñiiꞌ: rígá iñiiꞌ mu̱jmu̱ꞌ, rígá iñiiꞌ miꞌxá, rígá iñiiꞌ miꞌñuu, xúꞌkui-̱má rígá iñiiꞌ ixi̱ mangaa. Dí iñiiꞌ īxi̱ mbrutu xóo dí i̱ꞌwáꞌ iñiiꞌ; iñiiꞌ rígi̱ | xóo gújkúꞌ kaꞌnii ikaa. Mangaamá rígá iñuuꞌ ru̱bú. Mbá xúguííꞌ iñiiꞌ rígi̱ | najma̱a̱ náa jmbañúúꞌ xa̱bu̱ meꞌpa̱a̱. Xúꞌkui̱-má ikaa iñiiꞌ rígi̱ | nagúún rágu̱jua̱ xuáá, mangaa-má naꞌpu̱ | mangiin mú dí ségu̱jua̱.

10 The sounds of Acatepec Meꞌpaa (Tlapanec) Translation: Where the Meꞌpaa people live, there are diferent kinds of cultivated tubers: there is the yellow yucca, there is the white yucca, there is the purple yucca, and there is the “woody” yucca. The woody yucca is diferent from the other yuccas; this yucca is a bit hard. There are also the chayote tubers. All of these cultivated tubers are found in the region of the Meꞌpaa people. They take these tubers to market to sell or they themselves eat them if they do not sell them.

References

Campbell, Eric W. 2017. Otomanguean historical linguistics: Past, present, and prospects for the future. Lang Linguist Compass 11:e12240. 1-22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ lnc3.12240 Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carrasco Zúñiga, Abad. 2006a. Los procesos morfofonológicos de la lengua me̱ꞌpha̱a̱. M.A. thesis. Mexico City. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Carrasco Zúñiga, Abad (coordinator). 2006b. Xtángoo xú mi’tháán ajngáá me̱’pha̱a̱: Normas para la escritura de la lengua me̱ꞌpha̱a̱. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas de México. Carrasco Zúñiga, Abad & Mark Weathers. 1988. Xó- nitháán me̱’pha̱a̱: Cómo se escribe el tlapaneco. Malinaltepec, Guerrero: Asociación para la Promoción de Lecto-Escritura Tlapaneca. http://mexico. sil.org/resources/archives/35294 Cline, Kevin. 2013. The tone system of Acatepec Me’paa. M.A. thesis. Grand Forks. University of North Dakota. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1410/ Cline, Kevin L. & Stephen A. Marlett & Hugh Paterson III & Mark L. Weathers. 2012. Las conexiones externas e internas. In Marlett (ed.). http://www.mexico.sil.org/sites/mexico/fles/ mephaaconexiones.pdf Eberhard, David M. & Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 22nd edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com INALI (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas). 2008. Catálogo de las lenguas indígenas nacionales: Variantes lingüísticas de México con sus autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas. Diario Ofcial 14 enero. First Section: 31-78, Second Section: 1-96, Third Section: 1-112. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). 2015. Lenguas indígenas en México y hablantes (de 3 años y más) al 2015. http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/hipertexto/todas_lenguas.htm IPA (International Phonetic Association). 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, Terrence. 2006. Oto-Manguean languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. vol. 9:118-124. Boston: Elsevier. Marlett, Stephen A. 1992. Nasalization in Mixtec languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 58. 425-435. Marlett, Stephen A. (ed.). 2011-2012. Los archivos lingüísticos me’phaa. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. http://mexico.sil.org/publications/i-wpindex/work_papers_-_mephaa_grammar_fles Marlett, Stephen A. 2017. The efect of external factors on the perception of sounds in Me’phaa. In Karen Dakin & Claudia Parodi & Natalie Operstein (eds.), Language contact and change in Mesoamerica and beyond, 82-104. (Studies in Language Companion Series 185.) Dordrecht: John Benjamins. Marlett, Stephen A. & Plácido Neri Remigio. 2012. Me’paa de Acatepec. In Stephen A. Marlett (ed.), Ilustraciones fonéticas de lenguas amerindias, 1-11. Lima: SIL International & Universidad Ricardo Palma. http://www.lengamer.org/publicaciones/trabajos/mepaa_acatepec_af.pdf Marlett, Stephen A. & Mark L. Weathers. 2018. The sounds of Meꞌphaa (Tlapanec): A new assessment. SIL-Mexico Electronic Working Papers 25. 1-44. http://www.mexico.sil.org/resources/archives/76311 Neri Remigio, Plácido & Stephen A. Marlett. 2012. Presentación analítica del texto “Los camotesˮ. In Marlett (ed.). http://www.mexico.sil.org/sites/mexico/fles/camotes_introduccion.pdf References 11 Snider, Keith L. 2018. Tone analysis for feld linguists. Dallas: SIL International. Suárez, Jorge A. 1983. La lengua tlapaneca de Malinaltepec. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Uchihara, Hiroto & Tiburcio Cano, Gregorio. 2019. A phonological account of Tlapanec (Mè’phàà) tonal alternation. Journal of Linguistics 1-57. Wichmann, Søren. 1996. Description and typology of some grammatical categories in Azoyú Tlapanec. Ph.D. dissertation. Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen.