Sioux language

Sioux
Dakota, Lakota
Native to	United States, Canada
Region	Northern Nebraska, southern Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, northeastern Montana, Canada
Native speakers	26,505 total (including Dakota, Lakota and Assiniboine) in Canada and the United States.
Language family	Siouan-Catawban Siouan Mississippi Valley Dakotan Sioux
Language codes
ISO 639-2	dak — Dakota sio — Siouan (collective)
ISO 639-3	Either: dak – Dakota lkt – Lakota
ELP	Sioux

Sioux is a Siouan language spoken by over 26,000 Sioux, making it the fifth most spoken indigenous language in North America (excluding Mesoamerica), behind Navajo, Cree, Inuit and Ojibwe.

Regional variation

Sioux has 3 major regional varieties, with various sub-lects:

1. Santee (a.k.a. Dakota)
   • Santee
   • Sisseton
2. Yankton (a.k.a. Yankton-Yanktonai, Dakota)
   • Yankton
   • Yanktonai
3. Lakota (a.k.a. Lakhota, Teton, Teton Sioux)
   • Northern Lakota
   • Southern Lakota

Dakotan languages/varieties are often classified according to their reflexes of Proto-Siouan *R (some r-like sound, but distinct from Proto-Siouan *r). Santee and Yankton-Yanktonai are both d varieties (showing a reflex of d for *R, and thus pronouncing their autonym as dak^hóta), while Lakota is a l variety (pronouncing their autonym Lak^hóta).

History

"The name Dakota is derived from the word “koda,” of the Santees, and “kola,” of the Tetons, signifying ‘friend,” (Robinson, 1904, pg. 19). The Dakota language “is a member of the Mississippi Valley sub-family of (the larger) Siouan (family)” (Hankamer, 1980, pg. 2). The Siouan family is a large language family that, at its height, extended from as far east as Virginia and North and South Carolina, to the southern states of Mississippi and Florida, west to the Teton Range in Wyoming, and North to southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada (Palmer, 2008, pg. 11). The family most likely reached the United States with the first series of migrants that left Africa 140,000 years ago (Palmer, pg. 15). Traveling throughout Europe and Russia, the migrants finally crossed the Bearing Strait making their way through Canada and the United States. In her book, The Dakota Peoples, author Jennifer Dawn Palmer argues that the Siouan language family was one of the largest, encompassing “over two million square miles, more than fifty percent of the continental United States, or twenty-four of the forty-eight states” (pg. 13).

The Dakota language is just one of forty-five languages (amongst the afore mentioned Santee and Teton, or Lakota) that creates the Siouan family. It is believed that each of the forty-five languages began as one larger language that divided into subgroups over time. Palmer supports this argument with a table exemplifying the similarities between four Siouan languages. Lakota and Dakota belong to the same language family, while Biloxi is part of the Ohio Valley family, and Woccan the Catawban family.

Chart of English Terms
translated to 4 Siouan languages

Term	Lakota	Dakota	Biloxi	Woccan
One	Wanzi	Wanji	Sonsa	Tonne
Two	Nonpa	Nunpa	Nonpa	Numpere
Three	Yamni	Yamni	Dani	Nam-mee
Four	Topa	Topa	Topa	Punnun-punne
Five	Zaptan	Zaptan	Ksa	Webtau
Sun	Wi	Wi	Ina	Wittapare
Moon	Hanwi	Hanwi	Ina	Wittapare
Man	Wicca	Wica	Anya	Unknown
Woman	Winyan	Winyan	Anxti	Yicau (old woman)

Of the chart, Palmer writes,

[the] chart lists a few commonly used words, along with the numbers on through five, illustrating how closely allied the languages were and how divergent they could be. The bolded numbers “two” and “three” show similarities between the tribes of the west and east while numbers “one” and “five” reveal the contrast between the tongues. The Dakota/Lakota speaker could easily understand each other while the Biloxi of the south may have been able to guess with difficulty, but the Woccan of the east would have been mystified.

The chart shows the similarities between the languages of the Siouan family that exemplify how they are related. How the languages have changed over the course of a few thousand years is apparent as well.

Dakota dialects

Dakota has evolved into three dialects: Lakota, or Teton; Dakota, or Santee; and Nakota, or Yankton. Assiniboine and Stoney are related to Dakota as well. Their relationship to Dakota is not clarified; however, most often Assiniboine and Stoney are classified with the Nakota dialect.

The Dakota were originally “forest people who dwelt in the lake region around the head of the Mississippi River”. Then, in the 18th century, enemies of the Dakota, the Chippewas, began to encroach upon the Dakota’s land. The Chippewas, who had befriended French settlers, were equipped with firearms. Unable to defend themselves, the Dakota migrated. Throughout the process of migration the Dakota had divided into seven bands. James H. Howard defines the bands in his book, Reprints in Anthropology: The Dakota or Sioux Indians. They were:

1. Mdewakantonwan, “Spirit Lake People” (referring to Mille Lacs Lake in Minnesota)
2. Wahpekute, “Shooters Among the Leaves”
3. Sisitonwan, or Sisseton, “People of the Boggy Ground”
4. Wahpetonwan, or Wahpeton, “Dwellers Among the Leaves”
5. Ihanktonwan, or Yankton, “Dwellers at the End (Village)”
6. Ihanktonwana, or Yanktonai, “Little Dwellers at the End”
7. Titonwan, or Teton, “Dwellers of the Plains”

“With the movement of some of the groups south and west both cultural and dialectic differences grew up, and three great divisions of the tribe came to be recognized. The first four bands came to be known as the Santee [or Dakota] division...The fifth and sixth bands came to be known as the [Nakoda]… [and] the Teton [or Lakota], constituting only one of the original seven [bands]”

In many modern texts, the names Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota are used interchangeably. Although there is understandability between the speakers of each language, this assumption is incorrect. The most obvious difference between Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota is in spelling. The languages are characterized by their use of the letters /d/, /l/, and /n/, respectively.

Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Cognates
that exemplify basic l : d : n correspondence

Teton (Lakota)	Santee (Dakota)	Stoney (Nakota)	Gloss
lo	do	no	‘male speaker particle’
lowa	dowa	nowa	‘sing’
ile	ide	ine	‘fire’
wastelake	wastedake	wastenake	‘love’
glepa	hdepa	hnepa	‘vomit’

Most authors agree that d : l : n correspondence is not the only difference between the Dakota dialects, nor is it applicable in all situations; however, it is the simplest example and is relevant under most conditions.

Writing systems

Life for the Dakota changed significantly in the 1800s as the early years brought increased contact with white settlers, particularly missionaries. The goal of the missionaries was to introduce the Dakota to Christian beliefs. To achieve this, the missions began to transcribe the Dakota language. In 1836, brothers Samuel and Gideon Pond, Rev. Stephen Return Riggs, and Dr. Thomas Williamson set out to begin translating hymns and Bible stories into Dakota. By 1852, Riggs and Williamson had completed Dakota Grammar and Dictionary (Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Center). Eventually, the entire Bible had been translated.

Today, it is possible to find a variety of texts in Dakota. Traditional stories have been translated, children’s books, even games such as Pictionary and Scrabble. Despite such progress, written Dakota is not without its faults. The Pond brothers, Rev. Riggs, and Dr. Williamson were not the only missionaries documenting the Dakota language. Around the same time, missionaries in other Dakota bands were developing their own versions of the written language. Since the 1900s, professional linguists have been creating their own versions of the language. Even the Dakota have been making modifications. “Having so many different writing systems is causing confusion, conflict between our [the Dakota] people, causing inconstancy in what is being taught to students, and making the sharing of instructional and other materials very difficult” (SICC).

Prior to the white man’s way of writing, the Dakota did have a writing system of their own: one of representational pictographs. In pictographic writing, a drawing represents exactly what it means. For example, a drawing of a dog literally meant a dog. Palmer writes that,

“As a written language, it [pictographs] was practical enough that it allowed the Lakota to keep a record of years in their winter counts which can still be understood today, and it was in such common usage that pictographs were recognized and accepted by census officials in the 1880s, who would receive boards or hides adorned with the head of the household’s name depicted graphically” (pg. 34).

For the missionaries however, documenting the Bible through pictographs was impractical and presented significant challenges.

Comparative Table of Dakota and Lakota Orthographies

IPA	Buechel and Manhart spelling (pronunciation)	Ullrich	Brandon University	Deloria and Boas	Dakota Mission	Rood and Taylor	Riggs	Williamson	University of Minnesota	White Hat
ʔ	´	´	ʾ	´	none	ʔ	´	´	´	none
a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a
aː	a (á)	á	a	a	a	a	a	a	a	a
ã	an, an' (aη)	aŋ	an̄	ą	an	ą	aŋ	aŋ	aŋ	aη
p~b	b	b	b	b	b	b	b	b	b	b
tʃ	c	č	c	c	c	č	ć	c	c	c̄
tʃʰ	c (c, c̔)	čh	ć	cʽ	c	čh	ć̣	c̣	c	ċ ¹
tʃʼ	c’	č’	c̦	c’	c	čˀ	ć	c	c’	ċ’ ¹
t~d	none	none	d	d	d	d	d	d	d	d
e~ɛ	e	e	e	e	e	e	e	e	e	e
eː~ɛː	e (é)	é	e	e	e	e	e	e	e	e
k~ɡ	g	g	g	g	g	g	g	g	g	g
ʁ~ɣ	g (ġ)	ǧ	ǥ	ġ	g	ǧ	ġ	ġ	g	ġ
h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h	h
χ	h̔	ȟ	ħ	ḣ	r	ȟ	ḣ	ḣ	ḣ	ḣ
χʔ~χʼ	h’ (h̔’)	ȟ’	ħ̦	ḣ’	r	ȟˀ	ḣ	ḣ	ḣ’	ḣ’
i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i
iː	i (í)	í	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i
ĩ	in, in' (iη)	iŋ	in̄	į	in	į	iŋ	iŋ	iŋ	iη
k	k (k, k̇)	k	k	k	k	k	k	k	k	k
kʰ~kˣ	k	kh	k̔	k‘	k	kh	k	k	ḳ	k
qˣ~kˠ	k (k̔)	kȟ	k̔	k‘	k	kh	k	k	ḳ	k̇
kʼ	k’	k’	ķ	k’	q	kˀ	ḳ	ḳ	k’	k’
l	l	l	none	l	none	l	l	l	none	l
lː	l´	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none	none
m	m	m	m	m	m	m	m	m	m	m
n	n	n	n	n	n	n	n	n	n	n
ŋ	n	n	n	n	n	ň	n	n	n	n
o	o	o	o	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
oː	o (ó)	ó	o	o	o	o	o	o	o	o
õ~ũ	on, on' (oη)	uŋ	un̄	ų	on	ų	oŋ	oŋ	uŋ	uη
p	ṗ (p, ṗ)	p	p	p	p	p	p	p	p	p̄
pʰ	p	ph	p̔	p‘	p	ph	p	p	p̣	p
pˣ~pˠ	p (p̔)	pȟ	p̔	p‘	p	ph	p	p	p̣	ṗ
pʼ	p’	p’	p̦	p’	p	pˀ	p̣	p̣	p’	p’
s	s	s	s	s	s	s	s	s	s	s
sʼ	s’	s’	ș	s’	s	sˀ	s’	s’	s’	s’
ʃ	š	š	š	ṡ	x, ś	š	ś	ṡ	ṡ	ṡ ²
ʃʔ~ʃʼ	š’	š’	ș̌	ṡ’	x, ś	š	ś’	ṡ’	ṡ’	ṡ’ ²
t	t (t, ṫ)	t	t	t	t	t	t	t	t	t
tʰ	t	th	tʿ	tʽ	t	th	t	t	ṭ	t
tˣ~tˠ	t (t̔)	tȟ	tʿ	tʽ	t	th	t	t	ṭ	ṫ
tʼ	t’	t’	ţ	t’	t	tˀ	ṭ	ṭ	t’	t’
u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u
uː	u (ú)	ú	u	u	u	u	u	u	u	u
õ~ũ	un, un' (uη)	uŋ	un̄	ų	un	ų	uŋ	uŋ	uŋ	uη
w	w	w	w	w	w	w	w	w	w	w
j	y	y	y	y	y	y	y	y	y	y
z	z	z	z	z	z	z	z	z	z	z
ʒ	j	ž	ž	z	j	ž	ź	ż	ż	j

¹ Saskatchewan uses c̀ for White Hat's ċ

² Saskatchewan uses s̀ for White Hat's ṡ

Ecology

Today, Dakota is spoken in various parts of the United States and Canada; specifically, northern Nebraska, southern Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and northeastern Montana in the United States, and southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada. Most speakers of Dakota are Native American by birth and belong to older generations.

For many years, it seems as though the role of the Dakota language had diminished. When the missionaries arrived in the 1800s, they wrote down the Dakota language, but they did so as a means to wipe out the Indian, not promote him. As quoted from the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Center (SICC) web-page, Riggs once wrote,

"Let a well arranged severalty bill be enacted into law, and Indians be guaranteed civil rights as other men, and they will soon cease to be Indians. The Indian tribes of our continent may become extinct as such; but if this extinction is brought about by introducing them into civilization and Christianity and merging them into our great nation, which is receiving accretions from all others, who will deplore the result? Rather let us labor for it, realizing that if by our efforts they cease to be Indians and become fellow citizens it will be our glory and joy.”

From this state of mind sprung the idea of Indian Schools. Indian Schools were institutions where Native American children went to learn about farming and receive an education; they were a place where they could go to forget the ways of their culture.

Today, the effects of such a mindset are fully apparent in Dakota language and culture. The total Dakota population in the United States and Canada is 20,355. Of those, only thirty-one are monologists (Gordon, 2005). Putting this figure into perspective, it is estimated that the last fluent speaker of Dakota will die in 2025 (Bismark Tribune, 2006). In regards to multilingualism, it is difficult to find figures reflecting the number of Dakota speakers. Although there are some households that raise their children speaking Dakota, according to ethnologue.com many young speakers of the language either do not know the language, or prefer to speak in English.

The cause of the Dakota language’s struggle to spread is partially related to its age. In many ways, Dakota is outdated. Many words have more than one definition, which younger students find difficult when learning the language. For example, “to” refers to the colors blue and green; “wowaoi” means paper, book, notebook, letter, etc (SICC). The language simply does not have a large enough vocabulary to function efficiently in modern times.

Language shift is a second cause for Dakota’s low fluency rate. Originally, Dakota had a formal and informal form of speech.

“Formal speech was slower, the words were longer, and the sentences were wordier. This was the speech used in council, public speaking, and when interacting with visitors. Informal speech was faster, a lot of the words were contracted, and the sentences were cut short. This was the speech used in everyday conversation” (SICC).

Current speakers of Dakota tend to mix the two forms. Further complicating the matter, when the Dakota language is taught in schools, educators mix forms as well. The result is a variety of ways to speak Dakota, each one mixing the formal and informal forms of the language in differing ways.

Fortunately, it appears that in recent years the Dakota language has experienced resurgence. Many native Dakota speakers are in attempts to conform the many variations of the language. In Canada, SICC has developed a Dakota/Natkota/Lakota Retention Committee aimed at promoting Dakota language and culture. In 2006, The Bismarck Tribune ran an article about a Scrabble competition in which the game was played using the Dakota language. Since the competition, Hasbro (the company that produces Scrabble) gave permission for there to be 500 copies of the game produced (Bismark Tribune, 2006). And, there has even been a Dakota rap song recorded. If such grass-roots campaigns continue, Dakota will hopefully see a future that extends beyond 2025.

Structure

Phonology

Vowels

Oral Vowels

	Front		Central		Back
Close	i	iː			u	uː
Mid	e~ɛ	eː~ɛː			o	oː
Open			a	aː

Nasal Vowels

	Front	Central	back
Close	ĩ		õ~ũ
Mid
Open		ã

Consonants

	Bilabial		Alveolar		Postalveolar and palatal		Velar		Glottal
Plosive	p	p~b	t	t~d	tʃ		k	k~ɡ	ʔ
Aspirated and Velarized Plosive	pʰ	pˣ~pˠ	tʰ	tˣ~tˠ	tʃʰ		kʰ~kˣ	qˣ~kˠ	h	ʁ~ɣ
Ejective Plosive	pʼ		tʼ		tʃʼ		kʼ
Fricative			s	z	ʃ	ʒ			x
Ejective Fricative			sʔ~sʼ		ʃʔ~ʃʼ				xʔ~xʼ
Lateral			l
Nasal	m		n				ŋ
Approximant					j		w

Consonant Blends

• b: bd bl bj
• g: gl gm gn gw gj
• h: hb hd hm hn hw
• x: xb xtʃ xd xl xm xn xb xp xd xt xw
• m: md mn
• k: kb ktʃ kd km kn ks kd kt
• p: ps pʃ pd pt
• s: sd sl sk sm sn sp sw st
• ʃ: ʃl ʃk ʃm ʃn ʃp ʃt ʃw
• t: tk

Dakota Consonant Types (SICC).

Vowel inventory remains consistent throughout all dialects of Dakota. Consonant inventory however, as was seen before with the d:l:n relationship, may change slightly. Even so, understandability remains between remains strong.

Stress in Dakota is almost always placed on the second syllable of the word.

• 1. chi-kté ‘I kill you’ (I-you+kill)
• 2. ma-yá-kte ‘you kill me’ (me+you+kill)

This rule is called the Dakota Accent Rule and is valid in almost all examples except in a few rather complex situations (Shaw, pg. 30).

There are four boundaries in Dakota. Dakota scholar, Patricia A. Shaw, ranks them in order from weak to strong.

• 1. Morpheme Boundary
• 2. Lexical Derivation Boundary
• 3. Enclitic Boundary
• 4. Word Boundary

Dakota boundaries are somewhat controversial between scholars, with some arguing that up to eleven exist.

Morphology

Dakota is an agglutinating language. It features suffixes, prefixes, and infixes. Each affix has a specific rule in Dakota. For example, the suffix –pi is added to the verb to mark the plurality of an animate subject (Shaw, pg. 10). “With respect to number agreement for objects, only animate objects are marked, and these by the verbal prefix wicha-“(Shaw, pg. 11). Also, there is no gender agreement in Dakota.

Example of the use of –pi:

• 1. ma-khata ‘I am hot’ (I-hot)
• khata-pi ‘they are hot’ (0-hot-pl.)

Example of the use of wicha-

• 1. wa-kte ‘I kill him’ (0-I-kill)
• wicha-wa-kte ‘I kill them’ (them-I-kill)

(Shaw, pg. 12) Infixes are rare in Dakota, but do exist when a statement features predicates requiring two “patients.”

Example of infixing:

• 1. iye-checa ‘to resemble’
• iye-ni-ma-checa ‘I resemble you’
• ‘you resemble me’
• 2. iskola ‘be as small as’
• i-ni-ma-skola ‘I am as small as you’
• ‘you are as small as I’

Syntax

Dakota has subject/object/ verb (SOV) word order. Along the same line, the language also has postpositions. Examples of word order:

• 1. wichasta-g wax aksica-g kte
• (man-DET bear-DET kill)
• ‘the man killed the bear’
• 2. wax aksicas-g wichasta-g kte
• (bear-DET man-DET kill)
• ‘the bear killed the man’

(Shaw, pg. 10)

According to Shaw, word order exemplifies grammatical relations.

In Dakota, the verb is the most important part of the sentence. There are many verb forms in Dakota, although they are “dichotomized into a stative-active classification, with the active verbs being further subcategorized as transitive or intransitive” (Shaw, pg. 11). Some examples of this are:

• 1. stative:
• ma-khata ‘I am hot’ (I-hot)
• ni-khata ‘you are hot’ (you-hot)
• khata ‘he/she/it is hot’ (0-hot)
• u-khata ‘we (you and I) are hot’ (we-hot)
• u-khata-pi ‘we (excl. or pl) are hot’ (we-hot-pl.)
• ni-khata-pi ‘you (pl.) are hot’ (you-hot-pl.)
• khata-pi ‘they are hot’ (0-hot-pl.)

• 2. active intransitive
• wa-hi ‘I arrive (coming)’ (I-arrive)
• ya-hi ‘you arrive’ (you-arrive)
• hi ‘he arrives’
• u-hi ‘we (you and I) arrive’
• u-hi-pi ‘we (excl. or pl.) arrive’
• ya-hi-pi ‘you (pl.) arrive’
• hi-pi ‘they arrive’

• 3. active transitive
• wa-kte ‘I kill him’ (0-I-kill)
• wicha-wa-kte ‘I kill them’ (them-I-kill)
• chi-kte ‘I kill you’ (I-you (portmanteau)- kill)
• ya-kte ‘you kill him’ (0-you-kill)
• wicha-ya-kte ‘you kill them’ (them- you-kill)
• wicha-ya-kte-pi ‘you (pl.) kill them’
• ma-ya-kte ‘you kill me’ (me-you-kill)
• u-ya-kte-pi ‘you kill us’ (we-you-kill-pl.)
• ma-ktea ‘he kills me’ (0-you-kill-pl.)
• ni-kte-pi ‘they kill you’ (0-you-kill-pl.)
• u-ni-kte-pi ‘we kill you’ (we-you-kill-pl.)
• wicha-u-kte ‘we (you and I) kill them’ (them-we-kill)

(Shaw, pgs. 11-12)

The phonology, morphology, and syntax of Dakota are very complex. There are a number of broad rules that become more and more specific as they are more closely examined. The components of the language become somewhat confusing and more difficult to study as more sources are examined, as each scholar has a somewhat different opinion on the basic characteristics of the language.

External links

• Dakota/Lakota Sioux Language
• Our Languages: Dakota, Nakota, Lakota (Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre)

Bibliography

• DeMallie, Raymond J. (2001). Sioux until 1850. In R. J. DeMallie (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Vol. 13, Part 2, pp. 718–760). W. C. Sturtevant (Gen. Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-16-050400-7.
• Parks, Douglas R.; & Rankin, Robert L. (2001). The Siouan languages. In Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Vol. 13, Part 1, pp. 94–114). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
• de Reuse, Willem J. (1987). One hundred years of Lakota linguistics (1887-1987). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 13-42. (Online version: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/509).
• de Reuse, Willem J. (1990). A supplementary bibliography of Lakota languages and linguistics (1887-1990). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 15 (2), 146-165. (Studies in Native American languages 6). (Online version: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/handle/1808/441).

• Rood, David S.; & Taylor, Allan R. (1996). Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan language. In Handbook of North American Indians: Languages (Vol. 17, pp. 440–482). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

• Eastman, M. H. (1995). Dahcotah or, life and legends of the Sioux around Fort Snelling. Afton: Afton Historical Society Press.

• Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: [1]

• Howard, J. H. (1966). Anthropological papers number 2: the Dakota or Sioux Indians: a study in human ecology. Vermillion: Dakota Museum.

• Hunhoff, B. (2005, November 30). It’s safely recorded in a book at last. South Dakota Magazine: Editor’s Notebook. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from [2]

• McCrady, D.G. (2006). Living with strangers: the ninetheenth-century Sioux and the Canadian-American borderlands. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

• Palmer, J.D. (2008). The Dakota peoples: a history of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota through 1863. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.

• Riggs, S.R., & Dorsey, J.O. (Ed.). (1973). Dakota grammar, texts, and ethnography. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, Inc.

• Robinson, D. (1956). A history of the Dakota or Sioux Indians: from their earliest traditions and first contact with white men to the final settlement of the last of them upon reservations and the consequent abandonment of the old tribal life. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, Inc.

• Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Center. Our languages: Dakota Lakota Nakota. Retrieved November 30, 2008. Web site: [3]

• Shaw, P.A. (1980). Theoretical issues in Dakota phonology and morphology. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

• The Bismark Tribune. (2006, March 26). Scrabble helps keep Dakota language alive. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from [4]

• Utley, R.M. (1963). The last days of the Sioux nation. New Haven: Yale University Press.