Mexican Indigenous Languages at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century 9783110197679, 9783110185973

Citation preview

Mexican Indigenous Languages at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century

≥

Contributions to the Sociology of Language 91

Editor

Joshua A. Fishman

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mexican Indigenous Languages at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century

edited by

Margarita Hidalgo

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mexican indigenous languages at the dawn of the twenty-first century / edited by Margarita Hidalgo. p. cm. ⫺ (Contributions to the sociology of language ; 91) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018597-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 3-11-018597-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Indians of Mexico ⫺ Languages. 2. Language and culture ⫺ Mexico. 3. Language policy ⫺ Mexico. I. Hidalgo, Margarita G. (Margarita Guadalupe) II. Series. PM3008.M48 2006 497.0972⫺dc22 2005030052

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018597-3 ISBN-10: 3-11-018597-0 ISSN 1861-0676 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at ⬍http://dnb.ddb.de⬎. ” Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany.

Contents

Prologue

At the dawn of the twenty-first century

vii

Part I. History and theory Chapter 1

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century Margarita Hidalgo

3

Chapter 2

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain Claudia Parodi

29

Chapter 3

The multiple dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico Margarita Hidalgo

53

Chapter 4

Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages Margarita Hidalgo

87

Part II. Language policy Chapter 5

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

127

Chapter 6

Centralization vs. local initiatives. Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages F. Daniel Althoff

167

vi Contents

Chapter 7

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

191

Part III. Bilingualism and bilingual education Chapter 8

Local language promoters and new discursive spaces: Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

249

Chapter 9

Bilingual education: Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

281

Chapter 10

Intervention in indigenous education. Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers José Antonio Flores Farfán

301

Chapter 11

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas Dora Pellicer

325

IV. Conclusions Chapter 12

Language policy. Past, present, and future Margarita Hidalgo

357

Index

377

Prologue At the dawn of the twenty-first century Margarita Hidalgo This book is about the past, the present, and the future of Mexican indigenous languages. It is thus apposite to make a reflection on the motivations that incline us to write about them. It is certain that the history of Mexico is linked to the history of the indigenous languages and the superimposed language, Spanish. This is more conspicuous when we come across the early encounter of Mesoamerican peoples and European uninvited guests. Conversely, we hardly think that the recent history of Mexico is connected with the external history of language(s). This book contributes to knowledge of Mexican history and knowledge about the languages of Mexico. Because Mexico is the world’s largest Spanish-speaking nation, there is no trepidation about the fate of Spanish in Mexico–except among those who see the English language making strong inroads in some domains. In contrast, the agitation over indigenous languages is ever present, for they are the genuine representatives of ancient cultures and even greater civilizations. This book is also about the significant events that brought the indigenous languages of Mexico to where they are today at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We are tempted to believe that the Chiapas uprising of 1994 was the only and isolated catalyst of recent changes in Mexican history. However, the Chiapas uprising did not originate in isolation. While it is not the direct result of previous pro-democratic movements, it is the culmination of twenty-century pursuits of democratic options. Earlier mass movements are not tangential; for this reason, their understanding helps elucidate the whole and the parts. Whereas it is true that some of the transformations appear to be merely local or localized, others have gained momentum at particular instances of worldwide changes. Thus, what makes Mexico worthy of study is the amalgam of the local with the universal; the provincial with the cosmopolitan; the national with the international. The search for democracy in Mexico is of no small magnitude. My view of pro-democratic changes that will orient the country in the twenty-first century is based on three key periods which have contributed to the shaping of self-governing institutions. They can be traced to [a] the student movement of 1968; [b] the electoral reform movement of the late 1980’s; and [c] the Chiapas insurrection

viii Prologue

of 1994. I did not think that I would see these changes in my lifetime, or that I would have the opportunity to write about them. There is a common thread that connects them. [a] The Student Movement of 1968, vaguely known as ‘el movimiento anarco-estudiantil’ began with a student scuffle and ended with a massacre on October 2, known as ‘la masacre de Tlatelolco’. The hot summer of 1968 would have passed unnoticed had it not been for the determination of hundreds of thousands of tireless university students who were extremely agitated over the use of undue force displayed by the government to settle disputes among the youth. As repression escalated after each colossal demonstration, leaders petitioned for justifiable resolutions to their grievances. On the eve of the Olympic Games, the authorities decided to (ex)terminate the movement with the final blow of wrath in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas or Plaza de Tlatelolco. Many innocent lives could have been saved had there been wireless communications at the time. The short-lived struggle against repression motivated, however, enduring changes in the political climate and the structures built during the twentieth century. Poorly understood even after almost four decades, the Student Movement of 1968 stands out among the breaches of the past century that are still bringing into light a process of democratization. In spite of the fact that the leaders and the followers were indeed grubbing for seeds of democracy and for many national quandaries that are germane to the gradual process of democratization, it is no secret that the definition of democracy of the Student Moment was diffuse. The actors did not have illconceived notions of modern democracy, but there was a spur-of-themoment proposal contained in the grievances of the Student Movement. We know today that the movement was an attempt to tackle the limited alternatives offered by the Mexican Establishment in order to open up channels of communication in the political process, which had been dominated for five decades by one single party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI. The hegemony of the PRI was based on the notion of State nationalism, centralization, and authoritarianism, although the authoritarian system instituted by the hegemonic Party had gaps open for negotiation with smaller parties, especially those to the left of the PRI. [b] The resulting consequences that followed the Student Movement of 1968 are manifold. In the political scenario, the country had to deal with the timid aperture of the single party system, political repression, and the brain drain of highly qualified professionals. In the economic scenario, Mexicans faced the unexpected ups and downs of a mixed economy tackling head-on its own crises of devaluation, inflation, nationalization of the

Prologue ix

banking system, the drop of the oil prices in the international markets, and the resistance of the Party-government to resort to the sale of the oil reserves to solve the crises. By the early 1980’s, the PRI began to lose small municipalities to the only large registered party known as Partido Acción Nacional or PAN, which has been to the right of the PRI since its inception in 1939. However, the most important Mayoral elections lost by the PRI occurred simultaneously in 1983 in Ciudad Juárez and in Chihuahua City, in the State of Chihuahua, which had been the leader of national opposition. It is not a coincidence that the 1986 election for governor in the State of Chihuahua initiated a meaningful reform of the electoral system. For the first time in the history of the country, the large registered parties were dangerously confronted in a State election. The hot summer of 1986 was not tedious; on the contrary, major local episodes not only exceeded the expectations and suspicions of political observers and voters, but also exacerbated the tensions between political contenders. The landslide victories of the PRI in Chihuahua were prearranged, and consequently, gave rise to pervasive allegations of fraud by the representatives of the PAN, which presumably had lost in its own stronghold. Evidence of major irregularities was first collected in the rich neighborhood of Ciudad Juárez, where voters were loyal to the traditions of the PAN. Representatives of the PAN complained about the lack of (literal) transparency of the ballot boxes; to make things worse, the ballot boxes belonging in the affluent precinct had been (literally) trashed by representatives of the PRI. Evidence of fraud grew by the day in different municipalities of the State and provoked public protests and massive demonstrations denouncing official tallies. The strategy of the demonstrators was passive resistance à la Gandhi, civic nationalism, and alliances with the Catholic Church and the left. Demonstrators showed their command of the situation when they blocked the three international bridges that connect the border city with El Paso, Texas. Since then, in Ciudad Juárez, local control alternates between parties and the number of parties represented in local elections increase every three years. The issue of local autonomy and independent decision-making is alive and well in this municipality. The late 1980’s are truly interesting in national politics, inasmuch as the highly centralized and monolithic PRI split in two major groups: (a) those who were loyal to the center-wing of the PRI, and (b) those who defected in order to establish a new party, the Partido de la Revolución Democrática or PRD, the new moderate left to the left of the original PRI. Founded in 1988, the PRD contended in the national election of the same year and

x Prologue

won, but the PRI claimed the presidential victory by a narrow margin. It was expected that the PRI would resort to fraud in order to secure the Presidency. In 1989, the Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE) was founded. In addition, in 1989, the PRI conceded its first governorship to the PAN in the State of Baja California Norte; the second governorship was conceded to the PAN in 1992 in the State of Chihuahua. From then on, a few more States were legitimately won by either the PAN or the PRD. [c] Two major events changed the history of Mexico forever: the Chiapas insurrection of 1994 and the assassination of the official candidate of the PRI for the presidential election of the same year. With many similarities that remind us of the John F. Kennedy assassination, the political murder took place in Tijuana (Baja California Norte), which was at the time governed by the PAN. The early months of 1994 determined to a large extent the course of events between 1994 and 2000. Finally, at the end of the century, the “official Party” was no longer official, since it had to contend with at least two large parties in national elections and with many more small parties in State and Municipal elections. Supervised by the independent IFE, elections run smoothly in most places. The IFE is a public, autonomous, and independent agency bestowed by the State with the authority for organizing federal elections. With its headquarters in the Federal District, it exerts its authority by means of decentralized bodies located at the capital cities and the correspondent electoral districts. The process of democratization has advanced considerably in Mexico since 1968, even though the Student Movement of 1968 is little understood at present. A reflection on the past has not helped to heal the wounds; some of those who participated in it believe that the movement only brought to the surface the tribulations affecting a diverse nation which had not come to terms with its own diversity. Those who kept a safe distance from it failed to see the contribution of the outlandish youth, which consisted in shaking up the already wobbly basis of an exclusive system. This is the contribution of the traditional left. In like manner, the contribution of the Mexican right and the “movement” of the PAN as the loyal opposition are also poorly understood, as though a-Party-to-the right did not have the right to advance proposals for its constituents. The “movement” of the PAN gained momentum in Chihuahua and many more sympathizers than the Student Movement of 1968, because it made alliances with diverse groups. Nonetheless, the fact that the national leadership of the PAN had conspicuous executives coming from the North made the right-wing party suspicious. None of the two movements galvanized the country in the direction of an inclusive national agenda.

Prologue xi

The short-lived insurrection in Chiapas, however, moved the country in the direction of modernity and post-modernity. It did bring to the surface the Mesoamerican roots and put in bold relief the historical inequalities that led to a major conflict, and the issues and concerns that had been contained since the early 1960’s. The participation of women in the process of democratization, the positive reception of divergent opinion, and in general, the appreciation of cultural and ideological pluralism were debated intensely at the end of the twentieth century. The participation of additional parties in local and State elections grew significantly between 1988 and 1994, the crucial years during which Mexicans expressed their desire to recognize diversity; this recognition is the exponential gain of a nationstate that consummated the soul searching process at the end of the twentieth century. By the time the Chiapas insurrection took place, Mexicans were more mature to express their divergent and independent opinions. Two years after the Chiapas insurrection, the focus of the debate was the issue of autonomy and the Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar drafted in 1996. Finally, in 2000, voters went to the polls to cast their vote for the conservative, though ground-breaking PAN. In the twenty-first century, we can expect inclusions rather than exclusions and a political praxis that is more in consonance with postmodernism. Mexico remains the Roman Catholic frontier of Latin America, the world’s largest Spanish-speaking country, the only one sharing a border with an economic and military superpower, the largest Spanish-speaking trade partner of the United States, one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse, and one that is constantly re-inventing itself in terms of democratic alternatives. Democratization is still, however, an ongoing process, which may be viewed as the exclusive legacy of Western or Westernized societies. A global patrimony and a cultural practice, democracy should be more versatile and eclectic in those societies in which linguistic and ethnic diversity is the norm rather than the exception. The recent legislation on linguistic rights of the indigenous peoples is indeed the most pro-democratic advancement of the twenty-first century; this innovation protects and promotes power-sharing practices and plural interaction, and for this very reason, it should be placed above party lines and outcomes of national elections. The consolidation of the recognition of diversity is more promising than ever. It is in this landscape that the indigenous languages of Mexico still shine under the sun. They are shining bright and coming increasingly into sight.

Part I. History and theory

Chapter 1 Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century Margarita Hidalgo Abstract This volume explores the reversing language shift framework from different viewpoints. First, the socio-historical perspective explores the processes of external and internal Indianization of the Spanish-speaking protagonists of the Mexican colonial period; it also addresses the various factors intervening in language maintenance and shift and in the strategies of survival of the Mesoamerican peoples from the early colonial times to the present. Language policy is discussed in reference to the new General Law on Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (2003), which is examined in light of political changes in both the national and international arenas. The complete English version of the new Law complements the thorough discussion of the trajectory of recent legislation. Additionally, a preliminary classification of the Mexican indigenous languages – based on quantitative criteria – is offered with a detailed overview of their geographic distribution, trends of macro-societal bilingualism, use in the home domain, and permanence in the original Mesoamerican settlements. Also, several innovative models of bilingual education are presented along with relevant data on the location of the communities and the philosophies and methodologies justifying the programs. Finally, a model of language use and bilingualism examined in a small Mazahua community sheds light on the sociolinguistic patterns along the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale.

1. Introduction This volume approaches the study of Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL) utilizing the perspective of reversing language shift (henceforth RLS) as proposed and developed by Joshua A. Fishman (1991 and 2001). It is divided into three major sections: History and Theory; Language Policy; and Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. RLS is a model formulated with seemingly opposing concepts: language maintenance and

4

Margarita Hidalgo

language shift, each of which has its own interacting dynamics in bilingual communities, except when one of the languages is severely threatened by another more powerful and more prestigious. When the damages to the threatened language are catastrophic, the losses are more apparent and more easily quantified. RLS is an alternative model to the paradigm of ethnolinguistic vitality, but in essence it serves the same purpose, i.e., it assesses the different degrees of erosion caused to languages debilitated by social contact. The theory of RLS is expounded in Reversing Language Shift (Fishman 1991: 1–121) and Can threatened languages be saved? (Fishman 2001: 1–22). These two sources have been summarized in Spanish along with an accessible nomenclature that will hopefully encourage scholars to utilize the RLS model in the Spanish-speaking world (cf. Hidalgo 2004). The first four chapters of Reversing Language Shift introduce the reader to the principal operational definitions and guidelines which aid in recovering the threatened language according to the degree of damage inflicted and the circumstances of contact. Reversing Language Shift uses as a point of departure the analogy of an earthquake whose harm can be measured by the Richter scale. In like manner, the social dislocations and disruptions caused by contact with another group can be gauged through a quasi-implicational scale of a model known as the Graded Intergenerational Disrupted Scale (henceforth GIDS), which places the threatened language at one discrete point on a scale (ranging from 8 to 1), 8 being in the most vulnerable position and 1 meaning the most recouped or stable condition. Recovery of the threatened language, which in this typology is codified as language X or Xish, is not accidental. On the contrary, RLS is closely associated with the endeavors of sympathetic agents (i.e., groups and individuals) who intervene opportunely in order to deter major and more serious damages to Xish. In both theory and practice, language X is the opponent of language Y or Yish, normally used by speakers whose accorded status is more undisturbed by contact. The first four stages are associated with recovery and reconditioning brought about by active agents committed to reversing the damages inflicted to the weaker language; they normally propose and implement the remedies needed at every stage of the scale. Stages 8 through 5 are the result of the endeavors conducive to recondition the threatened language in the home, community, and informal educational practices. On the other hand, Stages 4ab through Stage 1 represent the attainment of high language functions in mostly public and/or prestigious domains. Stage 1 embodies

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century

5

the paragon of the ultimate goal of RLS: cultural democracy. A summary of the stages of RLS can be found in Fishman’s studies (1991 and 2001). Stages of reversing language shift Severity of intergenerational dislocation (read from the bottom up) 1. Education, work sphere, mass media and government operations at higher and nation-wide levels. 2. Local/regional mass media and governmental services. 3. The local/regional (i.e., non-neighborhood) work sphere, both among Xmen and among Ymen. 4b. Public schools for Xish children, offering some instruction via Xish, but substantially under Yish curricular and staffing control. 4a. Schools in lieu of compulsory education and substantially under Xish curricular and staffing control. II. RLS to transcend diglossia, subsequent to its attainment 5. Schools for literacy acquisition, for the old and for the young, and not in lieu of compulsory education. 6. The intergenerational and demographically concentrated home-family-neighborhood: the basis for mother tongue transmission. 7. Cultural interaction in Xish primarily involving the community-based older generation. 8. Reconstructing Xish and adult acquisition of X second language. I. RLS to attain diglossia (assuming prior ideological clarification) Source: Fishman (1991: 395 and 2001: 466)

The applicability of the RLS model can be extended to Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL), given that all of them have been adversely affected to varying degrees by the major catastrophe that occurred in Mexico in the early decades of the sixteenth century, i.e., the fall of the Aztec Empire and the subsequent disruption of the entire Meso-

6

Margarita Hidalgo

american ecosystem (cf. Aguirre Beltrán 1983). The engrossing cases of Mexican indigenous cultures and languages – transformed by contact with the Western culture – are explained in the lower sub-stages of the GIDS. In spite of the massive losses of speakers, many MIL have been preserved mostly under the disadvantageous conditions imposed during three centuries of colonization and the subsequent two centuries of independent nationalism. In this volume, I claim the privilege of applying this model to a historical scenario which begins with a catastrophe of major proportions. Regressing to the past is just a way of dealing with the present, as the study of the past prompts a series of questions that continue to be significant. Resistance to the spread of the Western influence and control is perhaps inevitable, especially among populations that have been compelled to relinquish ancestral practices that still have a resonance in their present ways-of-life. A full understanding of such issues is difficult to achieve but ultimately does reside in the common attitudes of rejection and devaluation of non-Western cultures.

2. History and theory 2.1. Indianization or mestizaje In this volume, Claudia Parodi applies the RLS model to a historical period covering the years immediately after the destruction of Great Tenochtitlan to the mid-seventeenth century. This application is warranted because the Mesoamerican cataclysm brought together two civilizations that were previously unacquainted with one another. Most studies dealing with language and culture contact tend to focus on the unidirectional assimilation of traits of language and culture Y by individuals or populations espousing language and culture X. However, Claudia Parodi proposes that Europeans or descendants of Europeans residing in New Spain (i.e., children of Spaniards born in Spain) assumed ethnolinguistic attributes that were once exclusive to the indigenous populations. In this realm, the lives and works of some of the most prominent scholars of the Mexican colonial period (e.g., Bernardino de Sahagún, Alonso de Molina, Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Jerónimo de Mendieta, Juan de Palafox, Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz) elucidate innovative processes of culture and language mixing that may have retarded language shift. To this effect, she advances the notion of Indianization, that is, the opposite of Westerni-

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century

7

zation. This notion is also warranted, given that some Europeans immediately assumed new positions of responsibility, power, and prestige. While the hierarchies in New Spain might have appeared to be merely decorative, the burdens and obligations were onerous. In fact, a common survival strategy utilized by Europeans living in New Spain was the swift adaptation to the new environment. Everyday subsistence was accompanied by the acquisition of new habits ranging from diet and attire to the use of paraphernalia needed to furnishing or building a house. If adjustment to the environment was superficial, it was deemed only external Indianization; but if it was more involved in the non-material trappings of culture, it was internal Indianization. The processes explored by Parodi are better known as mestizaje, a term that refers to racial and cultural blending, or intermixing. Most definitions of mestizaje focus on a process that begins with subjugation, whereas mestizaje is redefined in this volume as a process of cultural reversal or reversed assimilation. Spaniards living in the ruins of the Mesoamerican civilization found inspiration in the everyday experiences associated with the surviving culture(s), which provided sufficient resources that allowed them to introduce linguistic innovations. A model of cultural semantics explains both borrowing and semantic extension, two creative processes that exemplify external Indianization. This model is indeed convenient to re-capture both cultural and linguistic meaning; while the latter appears in the surface structure, the former belongs in the deep cultural structure, which is re-interpreted by speakers of languages in contact. In contrast, the zealous commitment to write works of philology, history, literature, and religion represent internal Indianization or a more profound empathy with the surviving indigenous culture. The sixteenth century was the age of the Iberian expansion, a worldwide phenomenon that brought about the mixing of the world’s cultures, subsequent multiculturalism and unfolding of new identities. According to Gruzinski (1999: 40), the phenomena of mestizajes or renunciations that are currently observed everywhere are not as innovative as they seem. Ever since the advent of the Renaissance, the Western expansion has not ceased to engender mestizajes in all of the corners of the world. The initial mestizajes of global projection emerged then and were linked to the premises of economic globalization promoted in the mid-sixteenth century, a century that viewed from Europe, the New World or Asia, was par excellence the century of Iberian expansion. The colonial Mexican period also sheds light on socio-historical factors that intervened in the immediate process of language and culture mixing: myth, social stratification, scholarship in and

8

Margarita Hidalgo

about indigenous languages, socio-religious movements, and the direct intervention of the Catholic Church in matters of language policy.

2.2. Language maintenance and language shift My contribution entitled “The multiple dimensions of language maintenance and language shift in colonial Mexico” explores the various phases of attrition and recovery of MIL in the multilingual and multicultural scenario of the New World society. The periodization of the two trends is not free of contradictions in that the Spanish Crown was not consistent in its language policy at all times. This article re-considers the endeavors of the mendicant orders as a symptom of RLS because the intentions and attitudes of cultural promoters were oriented towards conscious revitalization of Nahuatl, the language normally associated with the Aztec civilization. The recovery of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Nahuatl-speaking people was not symbolic but real. It was supported by the institutions that assumed the responsibilities of guiding and educating the subjects of the new dominions in the Christian faith. Nowhere in the American continent was the conquest so earnestly mitigated by the spiritual and scholarly endeavors, but only lasting approximately fifty years. The opportune and timely intervention of the Mexican mission was forceful and productive, but it was undermined before the end of the sixteenth century. I thus proceed to interpret the undertakings of one of the major forerunners introduced in the preceding contribution: Bernardino de Sahagún, the author of the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España, the encyclopedic accomplishment of the Seraphic Order. The enigmatic circumstances surrounding the confiscation of the works by Bernardino de Sahagún makes this case worthy of renewed examination. I therefore propose to consider the end of the recovery mission era ca. 1580. After this year, there are no more zealous individuals committed to reversing language shift, and consequently, the prospects of maintenance of MIL turn bleak. The inconveniences and hurdles laid out against the preservation of MIL had the net effect of enhancing the power and prestige of the Spanish language. Indeed, the seventeenth century ushers in the Golden Age of the Spanish Empire during which dozens of writers excelled in the diverse genres, thus gaining international recognition and fame. The Mexican colony was exceptionally benefited by the advancement of cultural activities in spite of the fact that many texts from Spain were prohibited in New

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century

9

Spain. By the seventeenth century, Spanish speakers residing in Mexico represented a miniscule minority who enjoyed all the privileges of the elites. This is the era that places the Spanish language on the world map, an attendant state of affairs which worsens the already debilitated position of the MIL. My first contribution highlights, too, the work of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, for she is the foremost representative of Spanish letters. According to the authorized opinion of her biographer, Nobel Prize winner Octavio Paz, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz perfected the art of writing that she had learned from the Spanish Golden Age poets and playwrights. The privileges she had were not granted gratuitously; on the contrary, she earned them because she mastered the Spanish language like a professional. Two powerful institutions, the Church and the Court, recompensed her for her literary services. In fact, the Mexican colony encouraged and promoted the use of the Spanish language in all influential domains; others less talented than Sor Juana were also remunerated for their accomplishments. If we apply the contemporary operational definitions that help us understand language attitudes, we could assert that the Mexican colony stimulated and propagated instrumental, integrative, and personal/developmental attitudes towards Spanish. In turn, individuals responded positively and sought the various opportunities afforded to climb the social hierarchy of Spanish speakers who were either Spaniards (born in Spain), or criollos (offspring of Spaniards) born and raised in New Spain. It seems that in the seventeenth century, the latter consolidated their position not only by exploiting the manifold functions of the Spanish language but also by searching for their own roots in the glories of the indigenous antiquities. The eccentricities of the criollos are justified on the grounds that their artistic orientation and splendid creativity derive from universally accepted aesthetic principles; for these reasons, the literary performances of the Mexican colony were unsurpassed in the New World. This is not merely fortuitous. It is instead the direct consequence of the abundant resources allotted to the richest colony of the Spanish Empire, a circumstance that exacerbated the gaps between the functions of Spanish and those of the MIL. Under these conditions, reversing language shift was not only neglected but undesirable. Other Spanish colonies could not afford the luxury of literary creation and contemplation, but the Mexican colony accommodated Sor Juana’s creative endeavors in Nahuatl, socio-ethnic varieties of Spanish, and even a feminist trend that stands out as an additional peculiarity.

10 Margarita Hidalgo

3. Survival of Mexican indigenous languages My next contribution entitled “Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” aims to examine the various factors that have impinged on the survival of MIL after the major catastrophe that disrupted and unsettled the lives, cultures, and languages of the Mesoamerican peoples. I follow herein two notions: adherence to the cultura propia and the ‘clash of civilizations’. The former stems from the attitude of preservation of language and culture in an adverse contact situation; the latter applies mostly to the contentious encounter of the Western civilization with any other civilization. History has taught us that such confrontations normally eventuate destruction and contempt, but can engender, too, syncretic resolutions and creative venues. The fate of languages weakened by these confrontations appears to be predictable, for almost always they deteriorate to the point of extinction. The opposite of extinction is survival, which can be measured in amplitude and intensity, since not all the languages are equally threatened or deteriorated. In retrospective, survival could be approximately measured through socio-demographic indicators, restoration of Xish language(s), reactions of Xish speakers to imposition(s) perpetrated by Yish speakers, or all of these in combination. For all these reasons, I strive to explain survival according to basic demographic trends dating back to pre-Hispanic times. A high-pressure system of high fertility and high mortality has been suggested for ancient Mesoamerican peoples, who experienced significant losses even before the advent of contact with the Western civilization. This cataclysm is directly responsible for initiating the trend of indigenous language shift, whereas the members of mendicant orders straightforwardly intervened in the recovery mission of MIL. The methods of recovery of MIL based primarily on the written tradition were, however, diametrically opposed to the styles of language use characteristic of the Mesoamerican civilization. Other intervening factors that helped speakers of MIL survive were rebellion and confrontation inspired by religious beliefs. Socio-religious movements appeared in the Mexican landscape since the mid-sixteenth century; they are easily and clearly explained by the hypothesis of ‘multiple deprivation’ and the ideal of a reversion to ancestral conditions. The survival of MIL can be studied, too, in connection with the general demographic trends prevailing in the country in recent times. In this realm, all sources clearly indicate that the Mexican population has dramatically increased between 1921 and 1970 due primarily to advances in medicine,

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 11

medical technology, and public health services. It is also clear that the nonindigenous population grows at a faster rate than the indigenous population, giving the impression that the latter has been shrinking throughout the decades, when in fact such population has been growing, too, in absolute terms. The future of the indigenous population is thus less clear than that of the non-indigenous population. Nonetheless, I propose that maintenance with bilingualism is in itself a trend that signals survival with stabilization. My observation on survival does not derive from biosocial Darwinism; it derives from my belief that the differences among groups come not from physical disposition but from the system of attitudes and values expressed by language and other forms of behavior. The objects of material and nonmaterial culture shaped by the human mind and the human experience are in my view more tangible or discernable than the genetic makeup. In sum, if speakers of MIL have sufficient motivation to express adherence to the cultura propia, they will find efficacious strategies to reverse language and culture shift. Finally, I look into the Chiapas uprising of 1994 and highlight the language issues that I consider more significant in the survival setting. After a brief historical survey of the region, I proceed to compare the maintenance and shift trends of the languages of Chiapas with the largest groups representing MIL (e.g., Nahuatl, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi). An analysis of the varying degrees of maintenance and bilingualism shows that the rates of language shift of major groups elsewhere in Mexico are greater than those of the Chiapas language groups. I impute the differential degrees of bilingualism to an attitude of stronger adherence to the cultura propia and an attitude of stronger resistance among the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, who were politically marginalized until January 1, 1994, when they pronounced themselves against the central authorities through the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (henceforth EZLN). In 1996, the neozapatistas drafted a document known as Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar, known in English sources as the San Andrés Larráinzar Accords (henceforth SALA). In theory, this document endorses the agreement between the Federal Government and the EZLN on indigenous rights. The SALA are the result of a negotiation between the national movement on behalf of the indigenous peoples and the central authorities. The most important section of this document expresses a commitment to initiate a “new relationship” with the State on the basis of the Constitutional acknowledgment of indigenous rights. A potential reform to Article the Fourth of the Mexican Constitution would establish the right to free deter-

12 Margarita Hidalgo

mination under an autonomous regime. Autonomy was indeed the cornerstone by which all indigenous demands were founded. The issue of autonomy clearly lies at the root of disagreements that were presented to the EZLN on February 2, 1998. Dissension ensued after the representatives of the major Parties had signed the terms of the SALA. One decade after the Chiapas insurrection, it is clear that this short-lived uprising was not an immaterial event. On the contrary, Chiapas represents the periphery that broke into the mainstream only to make the waves, the tides, and the drifts that the country and the world needed at the time that the North American Free Trade Agreement was being enacted (January 1, 1994). The Chiapas revolt brought to the surface not only the dilemmas of the powerful center versus the powerless periphery, the city versus the countryside, capitalism versus pre-capitalism, but also the quandaries that imperial languages, national languages and marginal autochthonous languages have to confront and resolve in the new world order (Hidalgo 1994c). The Chiapas uprising was useful in making serious considerations on the effects of globalization, which appears to have triumphed over previous schemes. While the nation-states were solid in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in the present century they appear to be weakened or fragmented by the global system. “Many formerly prototypic nation-states (e.g., Germany, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, etc.) are now well along on the path to becoming state-nations...” (Fishman 2001: 20). In addition, the re-affirmation of the ethnic, religious or regional identities promoted by the movements of ethnicity and re-identification affecting indigenous populations, minoritized or immigrant contribute to debilitate centralized systems that pretend to be homogeneous. As a case in point, the link between local crisis and globalization is recovered expressly, as in Mexico, where the neo-zapatistas from Chiapas continue to declare their rejection of economic globalization. Again, according to Gruzinski (1999), mestizaje, uniformization and globalization are associated with a striking increase in trade and the broadly indiscriminate transformation of any object into merchandise. The scenario is, however, more complex, as not all of the recoveries of identities are means of rejection of the new world order. To this imposition, an imaginary plurality appears confrontational, only to enhance the impression that the clash of civilizations has ended by means of globalization. I have herein advanced the notion that small languages and small language communities, such as those still living in Chiapas, can serve as catalysts for major societal changes. Conceiving autonomy in the face of national centralization, conceiving major roles for their languages and

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 13

cultures, and attaining a definition of self – free of definitions from the dominant groups – are all to the credit of the indigenous peoples who are not merely survivors of sorts but survivors of history. The neo-zapatistas have contributed in redefining national identity, which is no longer equivalent to cultural identity. They have reinforced the notion that the reflection on a multicultural society is more than a strategy to strengthen the foothold of democracy. Finally, the neo-zapatistas have taught us that the concept of diversity is neither new nor innovative, but that what is new is the challenge to define it, to approach it, and to confront it along with the issues that are tantamount to its endurance.

4.

Language policy

4.1. Legislating diversity In a meticulous tour de force, Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera explain the trajectory of the most recent legislation pertaining to MIL. They examine the philosophy behind the law that protects linguistic rights and the activities of the actors that intervened in the drafting of the General Law on Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, in effect since March 2003. One factor that persuaded different official entities to embark on this project was the constant pressure from various non-governmental associations concerned with the status of indigenous peoples. The tensions surrounding the activities associated with it are simultaneous to the evolution of the incidents that followed the Chiapas uprising of 1994, but derive specifically from the SALA (1996) signed by the EZLN and the representatives of the Mexican government. The General Law appears to be exactly the antithesis of the decrees, proclamations and laws of the past, all of which could be invoked to hinder the development of MIL. This is the very first time in the recent history of Mexican language policy that legislation is issued with the aim of protecting the dozens of languages still spoken in the country. It is the direct opposite of the Leyes de Burgos (1512), the decree promulgated by Ferdinand the Catholic for the recently discovered territories of the New World, even before representatives of the Old World reached the Mexican coasts. The authors of “Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico” employed all the primary sources available at the time they prepared this significant contribution. This article in turn

14 Margarita Hidalgo

becomes a major source and resource for interested scholars. Its relevance cannot be overemphasized. In this study, Pellicer, Cifuentes and Herrera discuss the details of the new legislation in the context of linguistic diversity because in Mexico there are more than 60 indigenous languages that co-exist with Spanish, the transplanted language prevailing in all public and private domains as the Big Brother. In quantitative terms, the speakers of MIL are at clear disadvantage, for they represent less than 10% of the total population of the country. In addition, each of the Mesoamerican communities is not only distinguished by its own ethnocultural and linguistic specificities but also by the lack of political autonomy, peoples that are scattered throughout the country, and a precarious economy. The imbalance of power, functions, domains, and prestige between major and minor languages is not exclusive to Mexico; it is instead a defining characteristic of Western colonial expansion and the consolidation of modern national states which have supported the spread of one major, often the so-called, national language. This unifying and centralist trend has had to confront the persistence of linguistic diversity. The solution to the problem of ‘linguistic diversity’ is sought via three approaches: diversity that is banned; diversity that is ignored; and diversity that is accepted. During the past thirty years the demands over linguistic rights became part of the declarations in favor of the indigenous peoples and against nation-states that foster assimilation. In the 1990’s, the issue of linguistic rights began to appear in international forums and declarations. In Mexico, however, the general point of reference in the discussion over linguistic rights was the Declaración Universal de los Derechos Lingüísticos de Barcelona (1996). The General Law on Linguistic Rights of the Mexican Indigenous Peoples belongs to a series of constitutional reforms put forward by indigenous movements in the past decade. The detonators were the EZLN, the long-term demands of other indigenous groups, and the promises that the Mexican Government made before international organizations in order to promote a more favorable and equitable legislation for indigenous populations. The above-mentioned SALA (1996) proposed to renew the conditions for a relationship between the indigenous peoples, the Mexican government, and the Mexican society on the basis of respect for their differences, identity, and forms of social organization; promotion and development of their natural resources; consultation and agreement of the indigenous peoples over the conception and evaluation of their political actions; decentralization of the federal functions with respect to the municipalities and

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 15

indigenous communities. Once the SALA were signed, they were delivered to the neo-zapatistas and to the different ministries. Representatives of the major parties (Partido Revolucionario Institucional [PRI], Partido Acción Nacional [PAN], and Partido de la Revolución Democrática [PRD]) belonging to the Commission of Concord and Pacification (COCOPA) were in charge of elaborating the Bill of Indigenous Rights and Cultures. The President took the initiative to modify it in reference to rights over territory and autonomy, but the modifications were not accepted by the PRI. The presidential proposal was turned over to the legislators, although the intermediary, the COCOPA, failed to renew the dialog with the neozapatistas. The failure of the formerly invincible PRI to resolve the conflict in Chiapas was, among other issues, one powerful intervening factor that led to its defeat in the 2000 national election. The PRI (better known as the ‘official Party’ or the ‘Party-in-power’) lost the national election to the right-wing Party known as PAN, whose candidate campaigned fiercely against the ‘official Party’. President Vicente Fox made repeated promises to resolve the issues brought up to the national agenda by the neozapatistas. The new President was inaugurated in December 2000. Two months later, in February 2001, the EZLN led a gigantic march from Chiapas to Mexico City. At this point various indigenous organizations and members of the civil society at large supported the neo-zapatistas. On March 29, 2001, in a nationally televised and unprecedented meeting, representatives of the EZLN appeared before the Cámara de Diputados (Lower House of Representatives). This in turn led the new President to urge the legislators to approve the Bill of Rights of Indigenous Cultures. However, the Senate modified this initiative and applied the changes to Articles 1, 2, 4, 18 and 114 of the Mexican Constitution. At this juncture the resolution of the problem was turned to the Supreme Court. The opinions and reactions towards the different initiatives were diverse. In this polemic scenario, the indigenous groups supported by governmental institutions capitalized on their connections and redirected their demands to less polemic issues (such as linguistic rights and bilingual education). By May 2001, the Commission for Indian Affairs of the Cámara de Diputados assumed the responsibility of preparing the proposal on linguistic rights. The project stemmed from two other motions: the Federal Law of Linguistic Rights and the Declaration on Ethnolinguistic and Cultural Diversity, which follows to an extent the guidelines of the SALA (1996).

16 Margarita Hidalgo

Legislators from different parties, leaders of indigenous associations, and other representatives intervened in the debate over the legislation for linguistic rights. In the midst of controversy, the Commission for Indian Affairs, the Commission on Public Education, and Educational Services organized a series of “platforms of consultation” that gathered the authoritative opinions of scholars, teachers and legislators. By December 2002, the General Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples had been approved; its text was published in the Diario Oficial in March 13, 2003. This decree is significant in the context of constitutions that protect the linguistic diversity of nation-states. It has two main sections: the first one originates the Law of Linguistic Rights, while the second mandates the reform to section IV of Article 7 of the General Law of Education. It contains eight Transitorios that stipulate the future deadlines of the proclaimed actions. Finally, it has four chapters with varied articles. The first eight articles of Chapter I present the general notions about MIL at the same time declaring that they are national languages similar to Spanish. The Second Chapter (Articles 9 to 12) stipulates the specific rights proclaimed by the Law. The Third Chapter (Article 13) delineates the responsibilities of the federal, state, and municipal governments in order to achieve the goals stated by the law. Finally, the Fourth Article proclaims the creation of the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI), which is linked to the Secretaría de Educación Pública. The addendum to the second article stipulates that education should promote the knowledge and respect toward plurality and for speakers of MIL and that education should be bilingualintercultural. “National indigenous languages” is the most striking phraseexpression that appears throughout the text of the decree. The emphasis on the ranking of the many indigenous languages as “national” languages seems to be in direct reaction to the demands for indigenous autonomy. Some of the chapters of the Law, however, clearly stipulate that the new legislation promotes respect for diversity and linguistic rights (Chapter II, Article 11). In addition, Chapter III states that every effort should be made in order to include plans and programs that protect, preserve, promote, and develop the diverse “national” languages with the active participation of indigenous peoples and communities (Chapter III, Article 13). This notion is reiterated in Chapter IV (Article 14b), which asserts that the Law promotes programs, projects, and actions to invigorate knowledge of the “national indigenous languages” and cultures. Finally, another goal of this piece of legislation is to broaden the social space for the use of the “national indigenous languages” and promote access to their knowledge,

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 17

while stimulating their preservation and appreciation in public and private spaces and the media. It need not be said that the approach to legislation regarding MIL has created an additional bureaucratic apparatus that makes ethnolinguistic groups dependent upon initiatives of the federal government. In sum, the context of the Mexican case is similar to others in which discourses of language rights and survival have become prominent and interact with local practices, assumptions, and language ideologies (Freeland and Patrick 2004: 4). It is also similar to other cases in that “the concept of language rights is embedded in a legal discourse that starts from a politics of the state (…) even the international legal instruments by which rights are recognized depend on agreement among states, and therefore only embody what states are prepared to concede” (Freeland and Patrick 2004: 5).

5. Contrastive approaches In the next article by Daniel Althoff, the reader can find the complete English version of the Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas (2003). The translation of what the author simply calls the General Law is impeccable. His comparative study highlights the different approaches of two nations that have indigenous populations with ancestral traditions which stand out vis-à-vis the Western or Westernized traditions of speakers of transplanted languages: Spanish and English. Daniel Althoff emphasizes the opposite (re)solutions given to the administration of indigenous affairs: while the Mexican system exerts control over the indigenous languages from the center, the US system acknowledges the sovereignty of each indigenous group in matters of local decision-making policy. The US approach is however not radically different from the Mexican approach, given that in neither country do the indigenous groups enjoy rights to autonomous government, though the US system might be seen as quasiautonomous. For instance, the routine transactions and activities in the State of Oklahoma exemplify the latitude that indigenous groups are given to promote and preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage. The case of Oklahoma leads us to pose relevant questions such as the relationship between legislation and language maintenance. Which approach fosters language loyalty? Do local initiatives promote attitudes and behaviors of

18 Margarita Hidalgo

assimilation? Does autonomy guarantee language maintenance? Is protective legislation effective in the endeavors of reversing language shift?

6. The national censuses: 1970–2000 In “The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970– 2000”, Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma advance an overview of the language data derived from official census registers intending to offer a more realistic survey of linguistic diversity than the preceding sources. According to official language policy, monolingualism in the MIL was the indicator of adherence to the indigenous cultures. Consequently, census data served to identify the process of acculturation and the advances of educational programs in the process of Hispanization. The design of the official surveys highlighted the items referring to competence in Spanish because trends of increasing bilingualism were considered favorable for a nation-state which optimized its legitimization. In the new dichotomy the language of the State was meant for progress while the indigenous language belonged in the home domain. The official language policy was directed towards the process of “bilingualization” by means of programs of Spanish, which used mostly the direct method. Before 1970, the government agencies were charged with underreporting the estimates of speakers of MIL in order to promote programs of castellanización. As of 1970, census figures are given for monolinguals and bilinguals of as many languages as possible. This article is a mini-catalog of the names and numbers of MIL and their patterns of geographic distribution; in addition, it offers a preliminary classification based on the quantitative criteria: 17 Large Indigenous Languages, 19 Medium Indigenous Languages, and 29 Small Indigenous Languages make up a total of 65 MIL that are classified according to typological criteria. In addition, the authors opportunely identify the indicators that are associated with patterns of language maintenance and shift associated with 27 languages for which they found reliable data (1970–2000). The most symptomatic factor associated with language shift is the incidence of bilingualism, which is in effect an ascending trend in the vast majority of language groups. Nonetheless, bilingualism is counterbalanced by the following factors: (1) use of the indigenous language in the home domain; (2) the increasing rate of growth of speakers of indigenous languages (henceforth SIL) in the past three decades; and (3) permanence of SIL in their

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 19

own original settlements, that is, Mesoamerica. It is likely that all these factors are closely interrelated, although each language group has its own dynamic pattern. When the rate of bilingualism is independently examined, three new language classifications emerge and a new degree of maintenance or vitality can be approximately determined for each language. As a case in point, eight languages with lower rates of bilingualism (ranging from 52% to 69%) can be considered of high vitality. Amuzgo, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tlapanec, Cora, Tojolabal, Chatino and Chol belong to Group 1. It is pertinent to underscore that the four largest languages of Chiapas, i.e., Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chol and Tojolabal, surface in this group. The second group is comprised of 12 languages of medium vitality (Mazatec, Mixe, Mixtec, Tarahumar, Huave, Nahuatl, Perhepecha, Chinantec, Totonac, Zapotec, Zoque, Huastec) whose rates of bilingualism vary between 73.3% an 88.7%). It is interesting to note that four of the so-called major MIL which have been utilized to put in bold relief the symbols of national identity, i.e., Mixtec, Zapotec, Nahuatl and Purhepecha, belong in this group. Finally, the ranking of the third group of seven languages of low vitality is as follows: Cuicatec, Maya, Otomi, Yaqui, Tepehua, Mazahua and Mayo (with rates of bilingualism ranging from 90.8% to 97%). These three groups make up a total of 27 languages When the indicator of language maintenance is examined, i.e., Use [of the indigenous languages] in the home domain as claimed by SIL, the results show that there is an inverse correlation between the rate of bilingualism and Use in the home domain. The correspondence between these two indicators is not perfect but the data show the consistency of the trends. For the first group of languages, the Use in the home domain varies from 79% to 87%. For the second group, the same rate ranges from 65% to 80%; and for the third group, the rates of Use in the home domain are as low as 38% and as high as 66%. Qualitative assessments and direct observation of the language groups in question may corroborate the prevailing macrosocietal trends of the MIL. Another factor that could be associated to patterns of language maintenance is the indicator identified as Permanence of SIL in their original settlements. For example, from the data collected by the authors, it can be gleaned that the SIL belonging to the Maya family exhibit high rates of permanence; this is also true for SIL of the Yucatan Peninsula and for those of the State of Chiapas, who do not experience out-migration. In contrast, other groups are dispersed and their struggle for language maintenance is the most difficult. As a case in point, Mixtecs and Zapotecs from Oaxaca show the opposite trend, as they leave

20 Margarita Hidalgo

their original settlements following the route along the Pacific Rim. Their journey takes them the northern states of Sonora, Sinaloa and Baja California Norte; in the northernmost state, they work in agriculture, landscaping, itinerant commerce, and the like. For many of them the final destination is California, primarily San Diego and Los Angeles, but they can go beyond California and may end up working in Oregon, Washington, New York, and even Canada and Alaska. Finally, this article offers valuable information on the geographic distribution of SIL by language family, State, rates of permanence in their original settlements, and distribution according to bilingualism, in addition to rates of growth during the last three decades of the twentieth century. This appraisal of language maintenance and language shift is not based on subjective indicators, but on the quantitative data published by governmental and non-governmental sources. This analysis can serve as a basis for more advanced qualitative and quantitative studies (e.g., those that are being prepared by the new INALI). The indicators presented herein can turn into active variables that may shed light into the sociolinguistic dynamics of the many communities of speakers of MIL. Under the new Law on Linguistic Rights, all the groups of speakers or communities of speakers, or ethnolinguistic groups are in theory entitled to an equal and/or proportional distribution of resources.

7. Bilingual education and bilingualism An integral part of reversing language shift is the approach to programs of bilingual education, a topic I had explored one decade ago, when models promoting the teaching and learning of maintenance bilingual-bicultural education were virtually inexistent. The only programs described in the literature were based on the model of castellanización and alfabetización in Spanish (cf. Hidalgo 1994a and b). The scenario and the advances in bilingual-bicultural education after 1994 have moved from the traditions of Hispanization to the innovations of direct and indirect intervention. This section presents three models: (1) the “revivalist official approach” of the Malinche Volcano area, which is derived from the official programs of the Dirección General de Educación Indígena (DGEI); (2) the Yucatan model implemented by the Comisión Nacional de Fomento Educativo (CONAFE), which is identified as the “community education model”; and (3) the “intervention model”, advanced by the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS). The main purpose of

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 21

this section is to assess the goals and accomplishments of the models described by the contributors.

7.1. Tlaxcalan Nahuatl “Local language promoters and new discursive spaces: Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala” by Jacqueline Messing and Elsie Rockwell describes the approach in the area of the Malinche Volcano (State of Tlaxcala), where the exclusive use of Spanish in official documents was imposed as of the eighteenth century. When compared to other areas of indigenous Mexico, both the sociolinguistic dynamics of this community of Mexicano (i.e., Nahuatl) speakers and its history of bilingual education are better known today. Although this region had been neglected by the educational authorities, it is interesting to note that here the DGEI began to act as the official educational agency since 1970. The language policy of this area was widely known for prohibiting the use of Nahuatl in public domains. However, as of the 1980’s, the discourse on cultural pluralism circulating in international forums became in theory the philosophy advanced by the centralized national agency. In this scenario, the authors distinguish multiple language attitudes that emerge in everyday discourse: they can be either positive or negative (i.e., forging ahead, promoting a positive attitude toward or denigrating the indigenous identity). Mexicano was used in both formal and informal domains in this area until the early 1900’s. However, during the twentieth century, the programs administered by various official agencies consistently imposed the teaching of Spanish in elementary schools in every town of the area but Mexicano was used in private domains. The turning point in the approach to indigenous education was the advancement to transitional programs, which required the use of Nahuatl in public domains, particularly the school. By the 1980’s the rejection of education in Mexicano still prevailed in some schools of the region, although some speakers would use it occasionally in certain public spheres. The notion of bilingual-bicultural education became popular in the last decade of the twentieth century. This may explain why the use of Mexicano finally surfaced spontaneously in local schools, where at least some teachers are committed to develop instructional materials for a bilingual-biliterate curriculum. These teachers also use the resources that students bring to the classroom, involve the students’ families in assign-

22 Margarita Hidalgo

ments, and allot time and space for the use of Mexicano in classroom activities. In spite of the opposing forces prevailing in this area, there are local language promoters who work within the centralized system with the goal of re-evaluating and rescuing the heritage of the Mexicano speakers. In sum, this article shows that the attitudes are changing in a positive direction to such extent that they have opened a new discursive space for Nahuatl with or without institutional support. The ideological reorganization of the local leaders is indeed the key in the planning and design of activities conducive to revitalization. 7.2. Yucatec Maya The “community education” model reported by Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová in “Bilingual education. Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya?” focuses on the short and long-term objectives and methodological strategies of community education consisting of multi-level instruction. This model is based on the notion that the pupil brings knowledge from the community and from himself/herself in order to produce new knowledge; that is, the young students are both sources and resources of information. Instruction is progressive because the students begin with the development of oral expression and comprehension in the mother tongue and gradually build abilities in Spanish. The structure and organization of the learning tasks are exemplified in one day of teaching in the region of Valladolid (State of Yucatán), where pilot programs follow either the methodological strategies of the CONAFE (exemplified in a slower implicational transition to Spanish) or the alphabetization approach which resorts indiscriminately to the use of all-Spanish instructional materials. The CONAFE program is selective; it caters to small groups and fewer students per teacher than the “official” program sponsored by the DGEI. The former program serves the varied needs of the students, whose schedules are made to accommodate the activities of their parents. All instructors have earned Bachelor’s degrees and receive training and support in issues of methodology, particularly through workshops on language and culture. There are more instructors involved in the outside community and more of them know Mayan. The long-term objective is to guide the students to a style of bilingualism that is characterized as “conscious bilingualism”. The final outcome is the rationalization of the language input provided in the

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 23

classroom, which eventually will make the use of Mayan a normal activity in the daily life of the local community(ies). 7.3. Balsas Nahuatl Finally, the “intervention approach” is presented by José Antonio Flores Farfán, who discusses the case of the Nahuatl-speaking areas of the Balsas River in the State of Guerrero. In his “Intevention in indigenous education. Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers”, the author looks into prevailing research trends that point to linguistic diversification and fragmentation of indigenous communities. Against the Babel ideology and the research that rejects or overlooks language contact phenomena, Flores Farfán explains the justification supporting the proposed solution known as “intervention”. This approach intends to recover the local narratives via different media and through a series of audio-visual materials. For example, the production of bilingual books illustrated in painted bark-wood paper by native artists of the local community results in the appropriation and dissemination of culturally-sensitive materials. The pictorial art known as “amates de historias” pertains to the most ancient pre-Hispanic traditions, as stories narrated in the amates are retrieved from sixteenth-century sources. When a researcher intervenes in the local community, s/he serves as an agent or promoter of its members’ legacy. As a case in point, the Balsas River Nahuas have studied the taste and inclinations of the tourists who consume the local crafts with the express purpose of transferring, recreating, and adapting their own skills to the current conditions of commercial trends. In this way, instead of destroying their cultural and linguistic integrity, these activities tend to reinforce them. At times their craftsmanship has even been conceived as a vehicle that expresses political dissent. Another project based on this model is the development of multi-media corpus via co-participatory methodology. The presentation of the tridimensional videos leads speakers into the process of re-acquisition of the indigenous language and the elevation of its rank. Finally, the intervention model also uses riddles in order to recreate the Mesoamerican legacy. Riddles are language games that both capture and trigger cultural and linguistic reflexivity in a stimulating manner. They are intended to recover local models, which simultaneously promote entertainment and re-acquisition. Two of the riddles selected for this volume are in Classical Nahuatl. The materials utilized in the intervention approach can be located in the oppo-

24 Margarita Hidalgo

site pole of traditional bilingual education, whose goal was to teach Spanish as a second language via methods used to teach foreign languages. This intervention model approximates more closely the cultural and language paradigm of the speakers, inasmuch as it stays at an arm’s length from the conventional materials used in the national curricula.

7.4. The GIDS in the Mazahua communities The Mazahua language belongs to the Otopamean family and is closely related to Otomi. With only 133,413 speakers, it is ranked twelfth after the largest MIL (e.g., Nahuatl, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Tzotzil, Otomi, Tzeltal, Totonac, Mazatec, Chol, and Huastec). Its cumulative growth rate between 1970 and 2000 was merely 27%, truly insignificant when compared with Tzotzil or Tlapanec whose rate of growth reached astronomical proportions in the latest census. Mazahua’s rate of bilingualism is the second highest (94.5%) of the 27 languages introduced in the article by Cifuentes and Moctezuma; by the same token, the use of Mazahua in the home domain is the second lowest at 45%. The rate of Mazahua permanence is average. The data on Mazahua appear so disturbing that some scholars would be tempted to consider it nearly extinct. While the demographic findings on Mazahua point to its showing the weakest signs of vitality, the research on the stages of bilingualism in San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas (State of Mexico), describes the various uses of Mazahua and Spanish across generational lines and along the proposed GIDS model. In this volume, Dora Pellicer skillfully integrates ethnographic and sociolinguistic approaches in order to examine the diversity of situations that may surface in each Stage of the GIDS. Mazahua speakers are located by age group (older to younger) and by location (in the local intimate community or the larger impersonal society). When all the variables are mapped onto a single scenario, which is in essence, the universe of the speakers, the proportion of Mazahua to Spanish emerges in the different domains of interaction. Older Mazahuas are still Mazahua-dominant and use their language for intra-group communication within the intimate community, but also in their independent work domain, which is culturallybound. In contrast, the shift to Spanish is glaring when they migrate to Mexico City and the metropolitan area. In the urban milieu, the use of Mazahua alternates with Spanish among the old folks interacting around the immigrant networks. In order to complement the examination of the

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 25

Mazahua-speaking communities, Pellicer includes the local conversational practices among Mazahua women, who spontaneously express their views on the evolution of language maintenance and shift. Despite the fact that it is gradually declining, Mazahuas do not disparage their language. They are aware that Mazahua competes with Spanish; that Mazahua is still used with the elders; that Mazahua can be taught; and that Mazahua can be learned “just like English is learned”. The awareness of language contact stems from the fact that Mazahuas are among the groups that do migrate to other regions of Mexico and to the mostly Anglophone North-American countries in search of work and better wages.

8. Conclusions This volume explores the RLS theory in the Mexican scenario from various viewpoints: the socio-historical perspective delves into the dynamics of power that emerged in the Mexican colony as a result of the presence of Spanish, which is today the dominant language in all public domains. After almost five hundred years, the imbalance of power-sharing functions created the need for structural changes that resulted in the new legislation of 2003. The need to quantify speakers of indigenous languages by language or by ethnolinguistic group with relative precision is glaring, as is the need to examine bilingual communities utilizing the notion of reversal. Finally, my conclusion summarizes the language policy trends from 1521 to 2003. This reconstruction is based on reliable secondary sources that frame language policy within the conventional Mexican chronology: Colony, Independence, and Revolution. However, I have pointed out that one major contribution of this volume is the (re)consideration of early colonial research within the RLS framework. Without the works of philology, history, religion, and literature of the Mexican mission, knowledge about ancient Mexico would be extremely limited. This interpretation modifies the chronology of language policy in order to return to this period of time to find the inspiration that can move us forward. In addition, if we admit that towards the end of the twentieth century, the indigenous peoples were the agents of their own transformation, we can celebrate the new legislation on indigenous language rights as though it were the beginning of RLS in the twenty-first century. A significant task for those concerned with the survival of indigenous languages is the promotion and development of indigenous literacies, given that their status “is linked to larger political,

26 Margarita Hidalgo

economic, and attitudinal forces” (Hornberger 1997: 358). Throughout the American continent, these forces can be addressed from the bottom up (Hornberger 1997: 358). In the multilingual Mexican scenario, language maintenance and reversal program(s) are not impossible. The highly “bilingualized” populations of indigenous descent can claim their right to maintain their rich linguistic capital using their own bilingualism as a point of departure. Ideally, as befits RLS programs, they should transcend diglossia. In reality, maintenance programs can be designed, now that the law is on their side. RLS in twenty-first century Mexico is not spurious. The roots of a pro-indigenous rights movement were planted early in the Mexican colony with the work of Bartolomé de las Casas, the first Bishop of Chiapas, who stands out at present as the pioneer of human rights and linguistic rights in the civilized world.

References Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo 1983 Lenguas vernáculas. Su uso y desuso en la enseñanza. La experiencia de México. Mexico: La Casa Chata. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2001 Why is it so hard to save a threatened language? In Can Threatened Languages be saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), 257–282. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Freeland, Jane and Donna Patrick (eds.). 2004 Language rights and language survival. Sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives. In Language Rights and Language Survival. Sociolinguistic and Sociocultural Perspectives, Jane Freeland and Donna Patrick (eds.), 1–34. Manchester, UK and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing. Gruzinski, Serge 1999 Entender el mestizaje. Letras Libres 1 (6): 38–40. Hidalgo, Margarita 1994a Mexico’s language policy and diversity. Language Problems and Language Planning 18(3).

Mexican indigenous languages in the twenty-first century 27 1994b

Nationalism, ethnicity and bilingual education in Mexico: From theory to praxis. Language Problems and Language Planning 18 (3): 185–207. 1994c A redefinition of sociolinguistic roles and identities: After NAFTA. Third Annual University of New Mexico Conference on IberoAmerican Culture and Society. Hispanic Language and Social Identity. February 10–12, Albuquerque. 2004 La promoción de la reversión del desplazamiento lingüístico. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica. Forthcoming in vol. 19. Hornberger, Nancy H. 1997 Language planning from the bottom up. In Indigenous literacies in the Americas. Language planning from the bottom up, Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.), 356–366. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chapter 2 The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain Claudia Parodi Abstract After the catastrophic losses of Mesoamerican peoples resulting from the war in the surroundings of the Great Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, Europeans were in charge of building or re-building institutions, social organizations, and social networks in an area of the New World unknown to Western civilization. The need to survive in the New World motivated the Spanish-speaking pioneers to name, describe, and frequently use the material and non-material objects they gradually encountered in Mesoamerica, where the rich and diverse Aztec civilization was located. Spaniards approached the Aztec civilization with differing attitudes. Some of them expressed their empathy by assuming various roles and responsibilities within the Indian communities. Others brought Amerindian cultural items to the new Spanish society they were building. In order to show how Spaniards absorbed and assimilated some of the traits of the Mesoamerican civilization, I have excerpted relevant passages from the primary sources using at all times the same stylistic devices that the actors/authors utilized in colonial texts: narration, description, and exemplification. The passages show the degree of knowledge, appreciation, or adaptation to the realities of the New World. This process, which may be referred to as Indianization, was mostly unconscious. It epitomizes the endeavors of Spaniards to survive in the New World by rescuing and maintaining some of the partially destroyed objects of the non-Western civilization. I distinguish between external and internal Indianization and apply the reversing language shift framework in order to explain the changes of status of Nahuatl along the proposed Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) model. Over time, this situation gave rise to a strong Indian substratum in Mexican society, which I propose to incorporate as a new Stage 9 of the GIDS. 1. Introduction The purpose of my article is to show that prominent Spanish-speaking protagonists of the Mexican colonial period had sufficient exposure to the

30 Claudia Parodi

Mesoamerican languages and cultures to the extent that they modified the habits of their daily lives. Spaniards went through relevant processes of adaptation, accommodation and identity change, which I have subsumed in one: Indianization. At the same time, Mesoamerican peoples experienced significant changes due to their contact with Spaniards, although the adverse conditions in which the natives of the area were forced to live fostered processes of survival that can be identified as segregation, Westernization, and resistance. The focus of this article is, however, Indianization, which I define herein as the adoption or appropriation of Mesoamerican languages, cultural traits, and practices belonging to Indian cultures among Spaniards living in the New World in different periods of the Mexican colony. This process is indeed fruitful and its effect is tangible in cultural outcomes such as bilingualism, linguistic borrowings, incorporation of preHispanic foods, and the corresponding words in the Spanish diet, in addition to decorative items, attire, healing practices, art, architecture, and so forth. Since the early years in the New World, the Spaniards used their various Peninsular dialects and made them converge into a new speech form known as the New World Spanish koine (see Parodi 1995, 2001; also Hidalgo 2001a). One of the significant strategies of accommodation of the resulting koine was the incorporation of lexical borrowings pertaining to Amerindian languages in general but mainly those belonging to Taino (now extinct), Nahuatl or Quechua. Borrowing words for the newly discovered realities (e.g., food, plants, animals, and other objects of material culture absent in the European culture) was a common practice and a noticeable mode of Indianization. These Amerindian objects were either adapted to the New World with their original indigenous terminology or disguised with Spanish names. In order to show the different processes of Indianization of Europeans and criollos (children of Europeans born in New Spain), I use the following primary sources: Bernal Díaz del Castillo ([1632] 1982 2000); Alonso de Molina ([1571] 1972 1992) and Alonso de Molina ([1555] 2001); Jerónimo de Mendieta ([1604] 1870 1973); Juan de Palafox y Mendoza ([1762] 1994); Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz ([1689] 1948 1982); Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora ([1680] 1928). These prominent chroniclers and scholars wrote in New Spain between the beginning of the sixteenth century and the end of the seventeenth century, reflecting different key moments of Indianization, which was a generalized phenomenon among Spaniards living in the New World. First, the Old-Castillian Bernal Díaz del Castillo, one of the first

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 31

settlers in the New World, was also a soldier who stood by Hernán Cortés during the conquest of New Spain. He was in charge of the Captaincy of Guatemala and was about eighty years old when he composed the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España (The True History of the Conquest of New Spain), whose first version was written between 1555 and 1574. The ‘true history’ vividly narrates his adventures and his life in the New World. His narration is sprinkled with many loanwords from Amerindian languages, primarily Nahuatl. Second, the Franciscan Friar Alonso de Molina was a proficient speaker of Nahuatl, as he learned it in his early childhood. He published a Nahuatl grammar in 1571 and an extraordinary Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary in 1555 and its corresponding Nahuatl-Spanish part in 1571; both are known as Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Third, the Basque Friar Jerónimo de Mendieta moved to New Spain in 1554. He finished his Historia eclesiástica indiana in 1604, wherein he narrates with unique details the history, beliefs, and adventures of the Franciscan congregation in the New World. He learned Nahuatl for preaching purposes in five years. Next, the Navarrese-Aragonese Bishop of Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, lived in New Spain from 1640 to 1649, where he wrote several of his works. His essay De la naturaleza del indio was composed during this period. It demonstrates his interest and somewhat paternalistic love for the Nahuas, whose language he learned as well. The New Spanish criolla Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz knew the Nahuatl language and culture in depth and used Nahuatl in some of her plays written between 1680 and 1691; additionally, in her baroque poems she made insightful references to Nahuatl culture. Finally, the criollo Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora also had in-depth knowledge of Nahuatl language and culture and referred to the latter in an innovative manner in his baroque arch Teatro de virtudes políticas (1680). The process of Indianization began from the moment in which Spaniards came to the New World and its continuity can be traced to modern times. For example, as early as 1492, Columbus in his letter to the Queen of Spain introduced the Caribbean words canoa ‘canoe’ and cacique ‘chief’; this is the first time that Amerindian words appeared in a Spanish text. In 1575, the nephew of the conqueror Hernán Cortés and the firstgeneration criollo, Juan Suárez de Peralta (born in 1537 in New Spain), documented that the Indians trusted the criollos and were friendly with the latter because they were ‘children of the land’ and knew Nahuatl: a los que nacemos allá [en la Nueva España], que [los indios] nos tienen por hijos de la tierra y naturales, nos comunican muchas cosas y más como

32 Claudia Parodi sauemos la lengua es gran conformidad para ellos y amistad. (Libro de albeitería, in Perissinotto 1990: 25). [we, the people who are born there [in New Spain], are considered children of the land and native [by the Indians]; they tell us many things and, since we know the language, it is of great contentment and friendship for them]).

In 1604, Jerónimo de Mendieta described the situation of the Spanish language in the Caribbean and in Mexico by stating that: la tenemos medio corrupta con vocablos que a los nuestros se les pegaron en las islas cuando se conquistaron y otros que acá se han tomado de la lengua mexicana. Y así podemos decir que de lenguas y costumbres y personas de diversas naciones se ha hecho en esta tierra una mixtura o quimera (Mendieta [1870]1973 ii:120). [our language is sort of corrupt with words that our ancestors learned in the islands when they were conquered and with other words that they took from the Mexican language [Nahuatl]. Thus, we may say that in this land there is a mixture or chimera made from the languages, habits, and people from different nations].

For Jerónimo de Mendieta, New World Spanish was an aberration because it was mixed with Amerindian words. He disliked the traits that distinguished it from Peninsular Spanish, but New World Spanish language and culture were already well Indianized when he wrote those words. The examination of the texts of the above-mentioned authors lends support to my proposal on two types of Indianization during colonial times: external Indianization and internal Indianization. In addition, towards the end of the colony, and as a result of the increasingly wider distance assumed from the authentic indigenous cultures by nationalist criollos and mestizos, a third process of Indianization came into play. The appropriation of significant residuals of the Aztec culture led to another type of mestizaje: Indian substratum. While external Indianization is characterized by the incorporation of loanwords from Amerindian languages, mainly from Nahuatl, to the New World Spanish koine, internal Indianization consists of the acquisition and profound knowledge of an indigenous language and its culture, such as Nahuatl, within a criollo and mestizo Spanish-speaking speech community. In New Spain, it began when the Spaniards, criollos, and mestizos became Spanish-Nahuatl bilinguals in the early decades of the sixteenth century. It reached its peak at the end of the seventeenth century, when highly educated criollos, such as Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora wrote their exceptional works of literature,

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 33

which transpire the knowledge of Nahuatl language and culture. External and internal Indianization overlapped during the sixteenth century, when the New World Spanish koine was in its formative stages (see Parodi 1995 and Hidalgo 2001b). Finally, what I have called Indian substratum appears in the situation in which the residues of a language, such as Nahuatl, remain after its usage is discontinued completely in a speech community, such as the criollo and mestizo speech communities in New Spain. The loss of Nahuatl among the criollo and mestizo speakers began by the mideighteenth century, after Charles III prohibited the use of Amerindian languages as a means of Christianization in the New World. However, the loss of Nahuatl within this particular speech community was a long process. Its decline coincides with the beginning of a nationalist movement among the members of the new criollo and mestizo society. At this point, Nahuatl was restricted, with different degrees of proficiency, to the informal register. Thus, mestizo homes and Spanish criollo households that had Indian servants used it in an informal setting (see Alberro 2002), together with Spanish. Nahuatl was not taught in schools any longer, while criollos and mestizos abandoned it slowly. It went from GIDS 2 to GIDS 6 and beyond in their speech community. Nahuatl, however, continued to be spoken in the Nahua speech communities, which were ethnically Amerindian during colonial times. At present, there are still active Nahuatl speech communities in Mexico, but Nahuatl is not spoken in mainstream Mexican society.

2. External Indianization in New Spain External Indianization was a very active process during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in New Spain. Chronicles and other testimonial texts attest to the contact of Spaniards with indigenous people. From the experiential base of Spanish speakers living in the New World, a new process of incorporation of material and non-material Amerindian objects and their names into the earliest New World Spanish culture can be reconstructed. Valuable data appear in the famous chronicle Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, written between 1555 and 1584 by the OldCastilian conqueror Bernal Díaz del Castillo (1496–1584), wherein the author narrates how he and his Spanish companions adapted a considerable number of Indian items into their new life in the recently discovered land. Having begun since the very early contact with the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean, their Indianization was both linguistic and cultural. As one

34 Claudia Parodi

of the survival strategies, the Spanish conquerors adapted to the new environment by modifying their culture, their language, and their habits on a continuous basis. This is why, when they arrived in Mesoamerica, they had already borrowed many lexical items from the Caribbean languages, mainly Taino, such as canoa ‘canoe’, cacique ‘chief’, and maiz ‘corn’ into their lexicon and, in addition, had created semantic extensions of Spanish words to designate the newly discovered native items. For example, the Spanish word perro, among other semantic extensions that I will show below, was used to refer to the American ‘escuintle’, an eatable animal similar to a dog that does not bark. Since the borrowings were not random, they can be examined in light of a model of cultural semantics, which explains the processes of definition and redefinition of those who experienced the earliest stages of contact. The model of cultural semantics that I hereby propose aids in the analysis of this linguistic and cultural exchange which derives from perception of linguistic and cultural referents in a language contact situation. Speakers create new lexical items based on the forms and meanings of the two languages in contact. This allows us to reconstruct the perception of the Other as opposed to the Self and to grasp the deep meaning of the cultural referent. Distance from or proximity to the other culture is reflected in the ways in which new terms are introduced: borrowing and semantic extension (see Bhabha 1994: 171). In the specific case of the Spaniards, they had to deal with two opposite cultures: the well-known European and the unknown New World. Using strategies of linguistic innovation, Spaniards partially incorporated the Indian world into their own and vice versa. In this manner, New World Spanish began to distinguish itself from European Spanish in many ways (see examples of internal phonological evolution in Parodi 1995). Several changes, most of them lexical and semantic, occurred in New World Spanish due to the contact of Spaniards with indigenous speakers. As a case in point, Nahuatl and other Amerindian lexical borrowings were first adopted and later adapted to Spanish by way of two productive morphological processes: inflection and derivation. The first type of process is exemplified as follows: (1) A Nahuatl word such as kakawa-tl, which was borrowed by many Mesoamerican languages before the Spanish conquest without the absolutive suffix -tl (cf. Dakin and Wichmann 2000: 66) is a loanword from Mayan Yucatec kakaw, which in the Spanish language rendered cacao ‘cocoa seed’ (Santamaría [1959] 1992). In Spanish, this item took the masculine singular ending. (2) The original word quetzalli rendered

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 35

quetzal (‘brilliantly colored bird of the Trogon family, found in Central America’) in singular and quetzales in plural. (3) Chalchihuitl turned into Spanish chalchiuite(s) ‘jade, green stone’; (4) and amatl > amate(s) ‘barkwood paper’, the last two words with the absolutive suffix -tl transformed into -te. Finally, through a more complex process of derivation, the Spanish causative suffix ‘er’ was added to the Nahuatl compound ‘kakaw’ + atl ‘coca beverage’, which derives from kakaw ‘cocoa seed’ and atl ‘liquid’, rendering the Spanish word cacahuateras¹ ‘women who make cacao beverages’ (Molina [1571] 1972 1992). These indigenous loanwords appear in Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s chronicle, wherein he describes the Antilles or the Aztec world (e.g., Emperor Moctezuma’s lifestyle or the Tlatelolco Market, to which he refers as early as 1520 or 1521). Even if Bernal Díaz del Castillo, the most celebrated and realistic eyewitness of the facts, admired the Mexican emperor and truly enjoyed the Tlatelolco Market, he distanced himself from the Indian world, i.e., the Other and unfamiliar, through the Hispanization of Nahuatl etymologies. Loanwords referring to the new realities were occasionally followed by a redundant clarification in the language of the Other: “calabazas que llaman ayotes”, that is, “squash, that they call ayotes” (Díaz del Castillo [1632] 1982 2000 cxxviii: 475). There were, however, some exceptions such as the Caribbean words maiz ‘corn’ and caçabe ‘cassava’, which were used by the Spaniards to designate items used in both the Indian and Spanish New World contexts. Thus, they did not need clarification. Moreover, when the Spaniards arrived to Mexico, the word maiz (< Taino) had significant vitality, while the Nahuatl term centli was rejected. The word caçabe (< Taino) was, too, abandoned in Colonial Mexico. Other loanwords and the object they refer to, such as chile, (ji)tomate or tamal were slowly incorporated from the Indian world into the Spanish-speaking New World culture. However, other potential loanwords were rejected, even if the items they referred to were widely accepted. Such is the case of tlaxcalli ‘tortilla’, which will be examined below, and etl ‘bean’ which was replaced with the Spanish ‘frijol’. The second strategy, semantic extension, was used to expand the original meaning of Spanish words. Semantic extension is defined as the use of an old word to refer to a new reality perceived or experienced by the speaker. It is based on the implicit comparison of two referents with similar though not identical characteristics. Each referent belongs in each of the cultures that are in rather intense contact at specific junctures of time and space. The resulting lexical items modified the Spanish language in a subtle, almost invisible, way. For this reason, they are an important linguistic

36 Claudia Parodi

component of cultural semantics, a model which has been virtually unexplored. Some examples illustrate this relevant process: (1) tortilla, which originally was an egg crepe or omelet, later became a corn crepe in Mexico because the original Nahuatl word tlaxcalli was never used in New World Spanish; (2) pan ‘bread’ competed with tortilla for a while, but later returned to its original, exclusive European meaning; (3) gallina ‘hen’ meant ‘turkey’ before the loanword guajolote (< uexolotl) was borrowed; (4) piedra ‘stone’ was an ‘instrument to grind corn to make the dough used to manufacture ‘tortillas’. The word piedra was used before the Nahuatl word metate was borrowed. The following quote contains most of the semantic extensions I have mentioned: había mandado el Montezuma a sus mayordomos que a nuestro modo y usanza estuviésemos proveídos, que es maíz, e piedras, e indias para hacer pan e gallinas y fruta y mucha yerba para los caballos (Díaz del Castillo [1632] 1982 2000 lxxxix: 317). [Montezuma had ordered his servants to provide us with supply, the way we are used to, such as corn, stones, Indian women to make bread, hens, fruit and a sufficient amount of grass for the horses]. (Emphasis mine).

This text can be paraphrased as ‘for us to be provided with corn, metates, and Indian cooks to make tortillas, and turkeys and fruit…’ The quote illustrates the Spaniards’ life in the New World known at the time (Mexico and the Caribbean). In this first stage of contact there is only Indianization of the meaning, but over time Indianization would generalize into other areas of the Spanish culture in the New World. This is the difference between “external Indianization” and “internal Indianization”. Bernal Díaz prefers to use the subtle strategy of semantic extensions when he addresses the way in which Spaniards begin to acquire, almost imperceptibly, the Indian culture in order to survive in the New World. This is an aspect of external or superficial Indianization. Another common strategy was the extension of meaning of a Spanish word by adding the phrase de la tierra ‘of the land’, which stressed the reference to an item that was originally from the New World, but analogous to another European item. This strategy, which contrasts Europe vis-à-vis the New World, is used mainly to describe objectively, either the Amerindian or the Spanish experience and environment. For example, Bernal Díaz del Castillo refers to the pecarí ‘peccary’, which is a small swine that has a pouch on its back, as “pigs of the land” and the turkey as “hen of the land”. Some of these phrases were lexicalized, such as gallina de la tierra ‘hen of the land’, which is still used in New Mexico

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 37

instead of pavo or guajolote ‘turkey’. The method of innovative lexicalization is revealed in the following quotes. mataron dos puercos de la tierra, que tienen el ombligo en el espinazo” (Díaz del Castillo [1632] 1982 2000 ix: 423). [they killed two pigs of the land, which have the navel in the backbone area]; [tenían muchas gallinas de la tierra y pan de maíz de lo que ellos suelen comer e frutas que eran pifias e zapotes [they hay hens of the land (turkeys) and corn bread, the kind they usually eat, and fruits such as bruised fruit and zapote (Díaz del Castillo [1632] 1982 2000 xiii: 94).

3. External Hispanization in Nahuatl The linguistic innovations of Nahuatl speakers in contact with Spanish during the early stage of colonization, i.e., sixteenth century, illustrate similar processes of borrowing and semantic extension which were used with the same purpose: to adapt and adopt Spanish ways and culture. It is interesting, however, that during the first fifty years, there are few Spanish loanwords in Nahuatl written sources. Lockhart (1992: 263) suggests this was the result of minimal contact. I would like to propose that in addition to minimal contact, there was a sort of purism caused by resistance (cf. Lastra 1992: 204). The conquest of the Spaniards was too recent and the Nahuas refused to Hispanicize their language in the first stage of contact. The main source of Nahuatl lexicon is found in Molina’s Vocabulario ([1555] 2001, which captures the earliest contact between Spaniards and Nahuas. The second edition of [1571] 1972 1992 contains more loanwords, mainly hybrid compounds or loan-blends. The loanwords of the first edition refer to new objects or concepts brought by the Europeans (e.g., bota ‘boot’; botón ‘button’; cristiano ‘Christian’). However, whenever possible, Nahuas resort, too, to semantic extensions to designate the innovations, such as uexolotl ‘turkey’, which actually designated the European ‘rooster’ and the ‘Amerindian turkey’. In the second edition, the two words are separated, but a new entry, castilla[n] uexolotl, ‘Castile turkey’, is added for the European rooster. In this stage, the contact between Nahuas and Spaniards generated many Nahuatl semantic extensions. In this period we find words such as (1) maçatl ‘deer’ used for the Spanish ‘horse’; (2) coyametl, ‘peccary’, for the Spanish ‘pig’; and (3) ixcatl ‘cotton’ for sheep, just to name a few (cf. Lockhart 1992: 282). Later on, the equivalent Spanish loan-words

38 Claudia Parodi

caballo, cerdo and oveja would be used by Nahuatl speakers. The preference for semantic extensions has the same separating effect in both Nahuatl and Spanish. It is a strategy that makes the Spanish influence difficult to identify in the Nahuatl world. This is an aspect of resistance combined with external or superficial Hispanization. Moreover, in the same manner that Spaniards over-emphasized some semantic extensions of Spanish words with the clarifying phrase de la tierra, ‘of the land’, the Nahuas employed the toponym Caxtilla[n], which means ‘at the place of Caxtil’ (cf. Lockhart 1992: 277). Thus, (1) Caxtilla[n] tlaxcalli = ‘Castile tortilla’ was Spanish wheat bread; (2) Caxtilla[n] centli = ‘Castile corn’ referred to wheat; and (3) Caxtilla[n] chilli = ‘Castile chile’ meant pepper. The introduction of Caxtilla[n] had the function of highlighting the difference between Indian and European items. This is external Hispanization among the Nahuas. Even if external Indianization among Peninsular Spaniards in the New World is superficial, it modified the culture and personality of the early conquerors to the point that European Spaniards did not empathize with New World conquistadors when they returned temporarily to Spain. Bernal Díaz del Castillo reports that the Spaniards from Europe ridiculed him, ridiculed Cortés, and ridiculed other conquerors by using the derogatory term: indianos peruleros, ‘Indianized Peruvians’ (Díaz del Castillo [1632] 1982 2000 cci: 405). Peruleros (< Perú) is itself another semantic extension referring to any rich Spaniard transformed by the experience in the New World. Furthermore, the Peninsular literature of the time makes many references to the “odd” behavior of the indianos, that is, Spaniards who lived in the New World. In fact, since the early times of the conquest and colonization, Peninsular Spaniards living in the New World changed their habits, their customs, their art, and their lifestyle. From the European perspective they were very Indianized, though they still kept a safe distance from the Amerindian world. For this reason, they were externally Indianized. The ambiguities that emerged in contexts of cultural transformation makes the process of cultural translation a complex form of signification (Bhabha 1994: 172).

4. Internal Indianization in New Spain In addition to the incorporation of Amerindian lexical items into Spanish vocabulary, internal Indianization entails a thorough knowledge of an Indian language and its culture by Spaniards, criollos and mestizos. Thus,

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 39

internal Indianization usually coexists with external Indianization within an ethnically mixed speech community. Nahuatl was the Amerindian language widely spoken in New Spain by Indians, criollos, mestizos and Peninsular Spaniards that emigrated during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, because it was the Mesoamerican lingua franca since pre-Hispanic times. Once the Spaniards realized that Nahuatl was well spread in the region, they learned it and promoted its usage among themselves. As a result, Nahuatl was spoken in New Spain with different degrees of proficiency by the Spanish-speaking mestizos, criollos and some Europeans. Among them, there were two outstanding groups of proficient Spanish-Nahuatl bilingual speakers. One group was composed of Spanish friars and priests who learned Nahuatl to convert the Indians to Catholicism. The other group was made up by criollo and mestizo scholars who used Nahuatl to take cultural and identity stances. The former group includes several grammarians and ethnographers who flourished mainly during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see references in Hernández de León-Portilla 1988). Two of them, the Leonese ethnographer Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1590) and the Estremenian lexicographer and grammarian Alonso de Molina (1513– 1579) attained the highest degree of oral and written proficiency in Nahuatl. They were true promoters of reversing language shift, as they both recovered the original sources of Nahuatl language and culture in the midst of catastrophe, and consequently, elevated Nahuatl to Stage 2 of the GIDS. It need not be said that Molina and Sahagún deserve a substantial study from this perspective, which goes beyond the scope of this paper. However, I will give herein an overview of their work on preserving Nahuatl. I will address Sahagun’s role in founding the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, and then I will discuss Molina’s philological work.

4.1. Bernardino de Sahagún Bernardino de Sahagún moved to Mexico as an adult in 1529 and became a key figure in the foundation of the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlaltelolco (between 1533 and 1536). The Colegio de Tlatelolco was modeled after the pre-Hispanic school for the sons of the Aztec nobility – known as the Calmecac – and the medieval Spanish Escuela de Traductores de Toledo. It was established with the goal of teaching the Aztec aristocracy the trivium and quadrivium in Latin, as well as the writing of Spanish and Nahuatl Latin characters. In this unique academy, many friars – in

40 Claudia Parodi

conjunction with their Indian students and informants – composed the most important grammars and books on Indian culture. At the Colegio de Tlaltelolco Sahagún wrote in Spanish and Nahuatl arguably the most complete colonial ethnographic and cultural work on the Nahuas, the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España [General History of the Things of New Spain] also known as the Florentine Codex. In Tlatelolco, Alonso de Molina was assisted by Sahagún and the trilingual Colegio de Tlatelolco’s Indian student Hernando de Ribas in writing the 1555 version of his Spanish-Nahuatl Vocabulary. The role of the Colegio de Tlatelolco was crucial in the dissemination and preservation of Nahuatl, Spanish, and Latin languages and cultures among the Indians, who became highly educated and proficient in the three languages. The Indian students frequently competed and surpassed in knowledge of Latin the most educated Spanish friars. Thus, at the end of the sixteenth century, resentment towards the Colegio de Tlatelolco was common among friars (see Mendieta [1870] 1973 ii: 40– 42). As a result, the Colegio was closed during the first half of the seventeenth century, ending the possibility for Nahuatl to reach Stage 1 of GIDS in New Spain. From the moment of its closure, the long process of language shift and subordination with respect to Spanish became inevitable.

4.2. Alonso de Molina When he was a child, Alonso de Molina moved from Spain to the New World during the first quarter of the sixteenth century, around 1524. In New Spain, he learned Nahuatl from his Nahuatl-speaking playmates. When the Franciscan friars heard of his outstanding competence in Nahuatl, they requested his family and the governor, Hernán Cortés, to allow young Alonso to live with them. In this way he became a Spanish interpreter for Nahuatl–speaking Indians and a Nahuatl instructor for the Spaniards: haciendo desde niño vida de viejo…fue maestro de los predicadores del Evangelio porque él les enseñó la lengua [náhuatl]…Cuando tuvo edad tomó el hábito de la orden (Mendieta [1870] 1973 i: xx). [growing up before his time… he was the instructor of the Catholic preachers because he taught them the [Nahuatl] language… When he was old enough, he became a friar of the order].

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 41

Alonso de Molina became linguistically Indianized to the point that he was a balanced bilingual with a positive attitude towards Nahuatl. In fact, in the prologue of his Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary, Molina claims that Nahuatl was the most beautiful and elegant language ever spoken. Despite the fact that he used his linguistic skills to partially assimilate to the Mesoamerican environment, he utilized his knowledge of Nahuatl mainly to integrate the Indians into his culture, particularly to religion. He devoted his life to convert the Indians to Catholicism. In order to facilitate conversion, he wrote a catechism, a confessionary, a grammar, and a Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary, which was published as early as 1555. However, in 1571 this dictionary was revised and published again along with the new first edition of the Nahuatl-Spanish part. Since that time, his work has been highly valued. Modern scholars still use it because “Molina went far beyond utilitarian basics to include a vast range of vocabulary, making many subtle semantic and grammatical distinctions” (Lockhart 1992: 6). The dictionary includes semantic extensions and loanwords, which resulted from the contact of Nahuatl and Spanish cultures. Many neologisms are semantic extensions of old terms from Nahuatl and Spanish, proving Molina’s deep knowledge of both languages and their respective culture. For example, he documents terms such as the Nahuatl word for cotton, ichcatl, extending its meaning to designate the European ‘sheep’. Moreover, he includes sixteenth century neologisms, such as the words teyoia, teyolitla, that designate the Christian soul, which originally signified ‘energizer’ (León Portilla [1970] 1992: liv). Also, he uses the Spanish word “cereza” ‘cherry’ to allude to a Mexican small round black fruit known as capulin. In the Nahuatl part of his dictionary, he paraphrases the meaning of the Nahuatl word tamalli ‘tamale’ as “pan de maíz embuelto en hojas y cozido en olla” [corn bread wrapped with leaves and cooked in a pot]. Finally, he uses the loanword tamales, but he gives no further explanation when he clarifies the Aztec numerical system in the Spanish part: Para contar gallinas, huevos, cacao, tunas, tamales, panes de Castilla, cerezas [capulines]…xicamas, melones, libros o cosas redondas y rollizas, [los nahuas] dizen de la manera siguiente: uno o una, cempantli (Molina [1555] 1571 1972 1992: 119). [to count hens, eggs, cacao, prickly pears, tamales, Castilian bread, cherries [capulines]… xicamas, cantaloupes, books or round and cylindrical things, [the Nahuas] say it the following way: one, cempantli].

42 Claudia Parodi

This means that the Nahuatl loanword tamal was already incorporated into the Spanish vocabulary of New Spain. The same is true for the Aztec loanwords cacao and xicama “jícama”, a ‘sweet potato-like root’, and the Taino loanword tuna mentioned in the same quote. Molina is aware of cacao as an established loanword of Spanish, since he includes it in the Castilian part of his dictionary: “cacao, almendra y moneda; beuida cacauatl” (Molina [1571] 1972 1992: 23). Molina’s analysis gives continuity to several Caribbean loanwords of New World Spanish such as maíz ‘corn’, canoa ‘canoe’, maguey ‘agave’, and the aforementioned tuna ‘prickly pear’, which were previously incorporated into the sixteenth century New World Spanish koine. He uses Caribbean loanwords in order to explain synonymous terms in Nahuatl. For example, his definition of metl is maguey, centli is maiz and nochtli is tuna, as shown in the following definitions: “maguey, metl” [“maguey” ‘agave’, metl] (Molina [1571] 1972 1992: 80), “Maiz seco en maçorcas, centli” [Ear of dry corn, centli] (Molina [1571] 1972 1992: 80). “Tuna, nochtli, cierta fruta conocida [Tuna, nochtli, well-known fruit] (Molina [1571] 1972 1992: 115). Finally, he describes the Nahuatl term chile, which is the word that remained in Mexican Spanish for ‘hot pepper’, as the Caribbean ají, ‘hot pepper’: “Chilli, axi o pimienta de las Indias” [Chilli, axi or pepper from the Indies] (Molina [1571] 1972 1992: 21). Other borrowings from Nahuatl into Mexican Spanish such as tomate ‘tomato’, pinolli ‘corn and sage flour’, the aforementioned xicama “jícama”, a “sweet potato like root”, cacles ‘sandals’, and several more are included in his dictionary, not only as entries, but as elements in the definitions. This means that they were part of Molina’s everyday speech. Molina was a bilingual Spanish-Nahuatl speaker who assimilated Nahuatl language and its culture mostly to convert Indians. However, his knowledge of Nahuatl and his usage of New World Spanish show that he was internally Indianized to a very high degree, as were many other friars. Thus, he typifies the perfect New Spanish sixteenth-century scholar. At the time, most Spaniards living in the New World were externally Indianized and knew some Nahuatl, perhaps only at the level of understanding and basic communication. In contrast, Molina was a true promoter of reversing language shift that brought Nahuatl to Stage 2 of the GIDS. In fact, he was the Nahuatl instructor for the majority of the mestizos, criollos and Spanish friars who served after him and who became bilingual and bicultural by studying Nahuatl language and culture for specific purposes. If the Spanish Crown had envisioned a different language policy for New Spain, such as ordering all Spaniards to learn Nahuatl, Molina’s books

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 43

would have been the main sources that could have aided in the process of Nahuatlization of the Spanish-speaking New Spanish society, thus making it bilingual and bicultural.

4.3. Criollo scholars The second group of outstanding and internally Indianized SpanishNahuatl-Latin trilingual speakers consisted of criollo scholars. They used the Nahuatl language and Aztec culture to take a stand with respect to their identity, political viewpoints, or cultural situation. These criollo scholars were born in New Spain in the seventeenth century. The most prominent individuals of this group are Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1648–1695) and her colleague Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora (1645–1700). In contrast to their sixteenth century peers, they were not active promoters of reversing language shift, since their production did not have didactic goals, such as Sahagun’s or Molina’s. However, some of their works could have elevated Nahuatl to Stage 2 of the GIDS as well. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, the outstanding erudite criolla, wrote in Latin, Spanish, and Nahuatl. Some of her literary works (loas, carols, sonnets) explore the theme of the Indian and reflect her knowledge of preColumbian Aztec history and culture, as well as the contemporary situation of the Indians. Occasionally, she uses Nahuatl or Nahuatl-Spanish codeswitching in her poems although most of her works are in Spanish. Moreover, her writings reveal that she did not use Peninsular Spanish variants, but preferred New World Spanish. I will discuss the manner in which preColombian Aztecs are depicted in her work and how she represents her Indian contemporaries. In general, she chose to address topics related to the Indians that she had contact with, rather than those of the ancestral civilization. Nonetheless, her poems allude to the belief that the Aztecs originated from the sun. Moreover, she associates outstanding figures of her time with historical and mythological characters of the Nahuas. In this way, she portrays the viceroy of New Spain as Moctezuma and refers to the Portuguese Duchess of Aveiro as Chicomecoatl, or the goddess of the earth. Sor Juana introduces the newborn son of the viceroy, Tomás de la Cerda, Marquis de la Laguna, as a criollo successor of the great Moctezuma: “donde yace la grandeza / de gentiles Moctezumas, / nacen Católicos Cerdas” (Cruz [1689 1948: 250 [vv: 43–44]). (I use vv: for verses of a poem) [where there is grandeur of gentile Moctezumas, there are born Catholic Cerdas]. In her

44 Claudia Parodi

poem to the Duchess of Aveiro, Sor Juana claims that “Que en ninguna parte más / se ostenta la tierra madre” (Cruz [1689] 1948: 344, vv: 86–87). [in no other place does mother earth flaunts herself] alluding to the “tierra madre”, Chicomecoatl, as Lafaye maintains (Lafaye 1976: 71). Furthermore, Sor Juana introduced customary habits of her contemporary Aztecs, who sang and danced to compositions known as tocotines, whose lyrics were organized “with rhyming lines containing a prescribed number of syllables and stanzas” (Lockhart 1992: 399–400). According to Lockhart, the tocotín may be a mixed genre that combines Aztec and Spanish traditions. El Divino Narciso contains tocotines that were performed “con plumas y sonajas en las manos” [with feathers and rattles in their hands] (Cruz [1689] 1955: 3). One of her tocotines is part of a long carol offered to San Pedro Nolasco, where mixed ethnic groups or castas appear honoring the saint while speaking Spanish, African Spanish, Latin, and Nahuatl. An Indian, using a Spanish guitar, sings a tocotín in Nahuatl / Spanish code-switching. The lyrics reflect the abusive treatment the Indians were receiving from the Spaniards: “También un topil / del gobernador / ca ipampa tributo / prenderme mandó” (Cruz [1689] 1982: 342, vv: 111–114). [Also an officer of the governor ordered my arrest because of the tribute]. The other tocotín that Sor Juana wrote is part of a long carol devoted to the Virgin’s Assumption, and consequently shows the devotion of the Indians to the Virgin. The carol mixes several social registers and dialects of Spanish spoken in New Spain, but this tocotín is written entirely in Nahuatl. It starts with the following verses: “Tla ya timohuica/ to tlazo ziuapilli/ maca amno tonantzin,/ totechmoilcahuiz” (Cruz [1689] 1982: 358, vv: 49–50). [Now that you are leaving, oh our princess, we hope, our adored mother, you will not forget us]. The African speaker uses the already widespread mergers typical of New World Spanish koine: the /r/ and /l/ fusion, and the /y / and /Ȝ/ leveling; the latter renders a common trait known as yeísmo: “¿pala qué yola, si eya sa contenta” (Cruz 1689 [1982]: 356, vv: 18–19). [¿para qué llorar si ella está contenta? Why should we cry if she [the Virgin] is happy?]. A completely different poetic style emerges in the plays, El Divino Narciso and El cetro de José. In the former, the ancestral Aztecs appear as descendants of the sun: “Nobles mexicanos, / cuya estirpe antigua / de las claras luces / del sol se origina” (Cruz [1689] 1955: 3 vv: 1–3). [Noble Mexicans, whose ancient lineage originates from the light of the sun…]. Moreover, in both plays, she analyzes in detail the role of cannibalism in the Aztec world, which she compares with the Catholic communion. The

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 45

rite of giving human blood to the Aztec deity Huitzilopochtli, the god of the seeds, is transformed within the Aztec culture after the Spanish conquest. As a result of Christianization, the personified New World (las Indias) understands the Eucharist’s mystery, and Christ takes the place of Huitzilopochtli: “ya / conocen las Indias / al que es verdadero / Dios de las Semillas” (Cruz [1689] 1955: 321 vv: 489–492) [the Indies know already who is the real God of the Seeds]. Sor Juana Inés takes a step farther than the critics, such as Juan de Palafox and Jerónimo de Mendieta (see Parodi 2002), in her condemnation of the Spaniards’ greed and religious policy in the New World’s conquest and Christianization. In fact, in the two above-mentioned plays, she reveals the viewpoint of the conquered Indians by portraying the Spaniards as brutal invaders who used violence to impose their religion on the Mexican indigenous people. In El Divino Narciso she depicts the Spaniards as violent people in passages such as: “¿Qué Centauros monstrüosos / contra mis gentes militan?” (Cruz [1689] 1955: 10 vv: 198–199) [What monstrous Centaurs fight against my people?]. In El Cetro de José she refers to the Europeans’ lack of understanding of the Indian religion as “no intentes con violencia / inmutar la Antigua usanza / que en sus sacrificios tienen” (Cruz [1689] 1955: 193, vv: 277–279) [do not try to alter with violence the ancient practices they have in their sacrifices]. Furthermore, in her poem to the Portuguese Duchess of Aveiro, Spaniards are portrayed as greedy Europeans who bleed the Amerinidian land: “En la America abundante… Europa…insaciable / de sus abundantes venas / desangra los minerales (Cruz [1689] 1948: 344 vv: 92–94). [In opulent America, an insatiable Europe bleeds the minerals of its rich veins]. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz represents the quintessential New World Indianized criolla, an artist and intellectual who not only understood Mexico and its culture, but also the European civilization of her time. She is proud that the New World allowed Columbus to show that the world was bigger than previously thought: “¡que hay más mundos!, ¡que hay Plus ultra!” (Cruz [1689] 1955: 107 v: 274) [that there are more worlds, that there is Plus ultra!]. Her active knowledge of Nahuatl language and culture was very deep, since she was well-informed about the Aztecs’ ancient history, the Spanish conquest, and the contemporary situation of the Indians. She mastered Nahuatl to the point that she was able to integrate it into her poetry. Usually, literature is written in a language that belongs in Stage 1 or 2 of the GIDS. However, during Sor Juana’s era, many bilingual Spaniards and criollos used Nahuatl in the domestic domain most of the time, which,

46 Claudia Parodi

by the eighteenth century, had descended to Stage 6 of GIDS (cf. Rivers 1983). Thus, during the seventeenth century, with Sor Juana, as with Molina and Sahagún in the sixteenth century, Nahuatl went to its highest stage of the GIDS. The principal divergence between the criolla Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and the two Peninsular friars is that their works were different in scope. While the friars had a religious goal in mind, Sor Juana utilized Nahuatl to create art, and she used her art to take a stand with respect to her own identity as a Mexican criolla. In addition, she used Nahuatl to assess the situation of the Indians in New Spain. Sor Juana’s internal Indianization enabled her to reach her goal and to become a leader and a founding figure of a uniquely Indianized New World civilization. She was and still is a role model who exceeded all the expectations of her society. By the mid-seventeenth century, the children of Spaniards born in New Spain had created a new mainstream society that displayed ambivalent attitudes towards the Indians. On the one hand, the Aztec imperial history and their outstanding pre-Columbian civilization were always present in the mind of the educated criollos and mestizos, most of whom knew Nahuatl quite well (cf. Alberro 2002). They were so proud of the Aztec past that they felt they were prolonging its grandiosity as though they themselves were the Aztec successors. This was the attitude of Carlos de Sigüenza in his Arco triunfal. In his well-known Teatro de virtudes políticas (cf. Obras [1680] 1928), he even proposes that the Viceroy Marquis de La Laguna govern Mexico in keeping with the highest political virtues of the Aztec emperors. Ironically, the new dominant society did not grant the Indians the respect they deserved. As a case in point, the aforementioned Juan de Palafox in De la naturaleza del indio, depicts his contemporary Aztec Indians as ideal, almost perfect, human beings, due to their humble and stoic manner of being (cf. Parodi 2002). This paradoxical attitude towards the Indians was maintained throughout the eighteenth century by the Jesuits who were expelled from New Spain (e.g., Francisco Javier Clavijero). In this century, the effects of bilingualism and language contact in New Spanish colonial society shifted the position of Nahuatl to something close to Stage 6 of the GIDS in the new mainstream society. This stage entails an intergenerational informal oralcy and demographic concentration. According to Fishman (1991: 94), it can be contemplated as “a crucial stage, the stage of daily intergenerational, informal oral interaction which requires full appreciation and extra-careful attention”. This circumstance, however, necessitates further interpretation in the context of the Mexican colony.

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 47

During this stage, there was a diglossic situation between Nahuatl and Spanish in the criollo and mestizo population. Spanish was not only spreading rapidly, but was very well protected by the Spanish Crown; in contrast, Nahuatl was spoken at home – together with Spanish – among different female members of the extended family. Women were clearly contributing to Nahuatl language maintenance. “…las sirvientas, las mancebas o las esposas indias acogidas en los hogares criollos y mestizos introducían insensiblemente sus idiomas autóctonos” (Zavala 1977: 38). [… the Indian maids, the lovers or the wives welcomed in the criollo or mestizo homes subtly introduced their native languages]. Moreover, the other domain in which Nahuatl was maintained was the university, where the most educated members of the elite learned to read it and write it in conjunction with Latin. This enabled them to Indianize themselves and to Christianize the Indian population at the same time. Thus, Nahuatl was not only a language spoken at home, but also a language of colonization which the Catholic Church used in order to appropriate the Indian culture, especially during periods in which Christianization took place in the Indian languages, as opposed to Spanish. From that point on, Nahuatl switched from Stage 2 to Stage 6 of the GIDS, back and forth; the ups and downs of Nahuatl depended, of course, on the whimsical language policy of the Spanish Crown.

5. Indian substratum or Stage 9 One of the consequences of pronounced language shift results in the creation of a substratum, a phenomenon surfacing when speakers abandon the language commonly spoken in a speech community. This process occurred in New Spain after the use of Nahuatl was relinquished among the mestizo and criollo members of upper level mainstream, urban Mexican society, and in several mestizo and criollo suburban and rural speech communities. It was the outcome of a change in the language policy of the Spanish Crown triggered by economic and political hardships. During the second half of the eighteenth century, King Charles III consistently attempted to eradicate the Amerindian languages by imposing Spanish (Bravo Ahuja 1977: 34). This situation explains why the expert on Nahuatl, the Jesuit Francisco Javier Clavijero, found that Nahuatl had “deteriorated” during the eighteenth century, given that the Indians had incorporated many Spanish elements (Cifuentes 1998: 189). In addition, poverty, poor teaching, and

48 Claudia Parodi

a meager organization in schools for Indians and mestizos caused them to abandon their native language, gradually shifting to Spanish. In spite of the adverse conditions, their culture resisted, that is, it remained mostly Indian. Diet, attire, agriculture, crafts, and religious charges continued to be Indian in the countryside, whether the indigenous spoke an Indian language or not. In the cities, Indian ceremonies resisted change; and today they are integrated into contemporary rituals and traditions such as the Day of the Dead, pilgrimages to sanctuaries, the conchero dancers, food, curative herbs, and amulets to prevent evil doings (see Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1994: 78, 84). The Indians and mestizos, in addition, adopted some European practices such as Catholicism, which re-emerges in a syncretic and sui generis Indian style along with plows, foods, plants, medicines, and certain aspects of social organization. Finally, at present, the Mexican indigenous peoples innovatively use components of the Western culture; for example, tire treads to manufacture the soles of huaraches (sandals), cans for flower pots, bicycle wheels as knife sharpeners, and so forth. A generalized Indian-Spanish syncretism emerged in Westernized Mexican society with different degrees of strength in its various communities. Nahuatl, however, was abandoned among the late colonial mestizo and criollo Spanishspeaking populations, leaving traces in the form of loanwords and occasional pronunciation of Nahuatl toponyms that appear in modern Mexican Spanish (cf. Hidalgo 2001b). The presence of isolated lexical Nahuatl items among monolingual Spanish speakers in modern Mexico has demoted the language to a Stage above Stage 8, which I introduce herein as Stage 9 of the GIDS. In Stage 9, language X is abandoned among speakers of the ancestral language, but its cultural traits and some linguistic borrowings are present among the speakers of language Y, the majority language. Speakers of Stage 9 are monolingual speakers of language Y, but their language, and to an extent, their culture have been relatively influenced by language and culture X. Language Y speakers are less aware of the vestiges they preserve from language and culture X than speakers belonging in Stage 8. The most deteriorated Stage 9 implies that both Xish and Yish have been in contact at a certain point in time. Sometimes the contact could have been remote and the members of a group in Stage 9 have been exposed for generations to only language Y. However, language X may be alive, spoken in geographically adjacent speech communities, although it may not be spoken any longer in speech community Y. As a case in point, Nahuatl is spoken by almost one-and-a-half million people in modern Mexico, whereas more

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 49

than 90 million people who might or might not have a Nahuatl ethnicity speak Spanish only. Two hundred years ago Nahuatl was still spoken with different degrees of proficiency by mainstream Spanish speakers, or members of community Y. In order to make a change, reversing language shifters would have to act according to a plan anticipated by policy makers of language Y, the majority language, with the goal of recovering the lost identity and its language. It is important to recognize Stage 9, because the threatened language and the corresponding culture may have an impact on speakers of Yish. More examples of this situation in Mexico are described, using another framework by Bonfil Batalla ([1987] 1994), who contends that there are many traits of the Mesoamerican culture, a “deep Mexico”, among different groups of individuals who may or may not speak a Mesoamerican language. In fact, most of them are Spanish speakers who have lost the Indian collective identity at a conscious level but who still acknowledge and preserve it at the level of substratum. They live either in the cities or in the countryside and often migrate to the United States.

6. Conclusion I have examined Mexican key periods and prominent literary figures of the Mexican colonial period in order to show the different processes that take place when there is linguistic and cultural contact in a colonized situation. I have shown that a threatened language such as Nahuatl may have an impact on a non-threatened language such as Spanish. Survival necessities in the New World motivated the Spanish conquerors to name, describe, and most frequently use the material and non-material objects they encountered in the New World, when they were in contact with Nahuatl speakers. These processes derived from the contact that brought a wide array of Amerindian cultural items to the Spanish mainstream society under formation, including the Nahuatl language. In order to show how Europeans absorbed and assimilated some of the traits of the Mesoamerican civilization thus changing their identity, I have interpreted pertinent passages from primary sources, which exemplify and illustrate the knowledge, appreciation, and adaptation of the Spaniards to the realities of the New World. This process, which I called Indianization, was mostly subconscious. External and internal Indianization was a survival strategy utilized by Europeans who adopted objects and the words that named them in Mesoamerican languages; as a part of their survival strategies, they also appropriated cus-

50 Claudia Parodi

toms, healing practices, and even the language(s) of the non-Western civilization. Over generations, this situation created a linguistic and a cultural strong Indian substratum in Mexican society, which I propose to add as a new Stage 9 of the GIDS or substratum Stage. In this stage, there are only speakers of language Y, but their language and especially their culture is affected by language and culture X, in this case Nahuatl. In sum, Indianization is a process of reversal leading to the creation of a new syncretic culture. The precise degree of cultural influence requires further research. At this point, the best way to recover language X in speech communities that have reached Stage 9 of GIDS is to have language Y speakers promote the teaching of language X, the ethnic language, as a second language to native speakers of language Y.

Note 1. During the sixteenth century the words coco, cacao and cacaguate were used as synonyms of ‘cacao seed’ according to Fernandez de Oviedo, cited by Corominas and Pascual 1980. The word cacaguate or cacahuate with the meaning ‘peanut’ is documented later, in 1653 (Corominas and Pascual 1980), since the Antillean word maní was commonly used for ‘peanut’. Cacahuate ‘peanut’ derives from the Nahuatl compound tlalcacahuatl (< tlalli ‘land’ + cacahuatl ‘cacao seed’) by aphaeresis or loss of tlal-. In Náhuatl, this word meant ‘cacao seed of the land’. This etymology refers to the fact that the peanut grows inside the ground while the cacao seeds grow on short stems close to the trunk of the cacao tree (see Dakin and Wichmann 2000 for discussion of the origin of the word cacao).

References Alberro, Solange [1992] 2002 Del gachupín al criollo. O de cómo los españoles de México dejaron de serlo. Mexico: El Colegio de México. Bhabha, Homi 1994 The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo [1987] 1994 México profundo. Una civilización negada. Mexico: Grijalbo. Bravo Ahuja, Gloria 1977 Los materiales didácticos para la enseñaza del español a los indígenas mexicanos. Mexico: El Colegio de México.

The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain 51 Cifuentes, Bárbara 1998 Letras sobre voces. Multilingüismo a través de la historia. Mexico: Comisión Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes and Centro de Investigaciones y de Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Corominas, Joan and José Antonio Pascual 1980 Diccionario Crítico-Etimológico Hispánico. Madrid: Gredos. Cruz, Juana Inés de la [1689] 1982 Inundación castálida. Madrid: Castalia. [1689] 1948 Poesías completas. Mexico: Ediciones Botas. [1689] 1955 Obras completas. v. 3. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Dakin, Karen and Søren Wichmann Cacao and chocolate. A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 55–75. Díaz del Castillo, Bernal [1632] 2000 Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. Madrid: DASTIN. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hernández de León-Portilla, Ascensión 1988 Tepuztlahcuilolli. Impresos en náhuatl. Historia y bibliografía. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Hidalgo, Margarita 2001a One century of study in New World Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 9–32. 2001b Sociolinguistic stratification in New Spain. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 55–78. Lafaye, Jaques 1976 Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe. Chicago: Chicago University Press. León Portilla, Miguel [1970] 1992 Estudio preliminar. Fray Alonso de Molina: Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Mexico: Porrúa. Lastra, Yolanda 1992 Sociolingüistica para hispanoamericanos. Una introducción. Mexico: El Colegio de México. Lockhart, James 1992 The Nahuas After the Conquest. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mendieta, Fray Jerónimo [1870] 1973 Historia eclesiástica indiana. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles.

52 Claudia Parodi Molina, Fray Alonso de [1555] 2001 Aquí comienza vn vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana. Malaga: Universidad de Málaga. [1571] 1992 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Mexico: Porrúa. Palafox y Mendoza, Juan de [1762] 1994 De la naturaleza del indio. In his Ideas políticas, (57–132). Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Parodi, Claudia 1995 Orígenes del español americano. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2001 Contacto de lenguas y dialectos en el Nuevo Mundo: La vernaculización del español en América. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 33–53. 2002 Palafox y Mendieta: Su indianización. In Juan de Palafox y Mendoza. Imagen y discurso de la cultura novohispana, Jose Pascual Buxó (ed.), 57–70. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Perissinotto, Giorgio 1990 Estudio preliminar. Juan Suárez de Peralta: Tratado del descubrimiento de las Yndias y su conquista. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Rivers, Elías 1983 Diglossia in New Spain. University of Dayton Review 16: 9–12. Santamaría, Francisco J. [1959] 1992 Diccionario de Mejicanismos. Mexico: Porrúa. Sigüenza y Góngora, Carlos [1680] 1928 Obras. Mexico: Sociedad de Bibliófilos Mexicanos. Zavala, Silvio 1977 ¿Castellano, lengua obligatoria? Mexico: Condumex.

Chapter 3 The multiple dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico Margarita Hidalgo Abstract This article explores the many dimensions of language maintenance and shift in the socio-historical contexts of the Mexican colony. In retrospective, the case of Mexico is useful to delve into language contact, language shift, and language maintenance from the time in which the Western civilization came into contact with the Mesoamerican peoples. In this area of the world, the necessary conditions are present to study the impact of the presence of Western civilization. This unprecedented encounter is known to have begun with a demographic catastrophe of major proportions. Language shift commences about the same time that the efforts to reverse it began. The recovery mission of the Mexican indigenous languages (MIL) was indeed remarkable because its promoters fostered maintenance and reversal with the aim of converting the indigenous populations to Christianity. Reversing language shift ended after fifty years of abundant productivity in indigenous languages, particularly Nahuatl, a language in which major works of history, religion, and philology were written. From the time in which the publications in vernacular languages were prohibited, MIL experienced continual shift, descending from a relatively vigorous position to different phases of decline. This deterioration is not only due to the decimation of the indigenous population in the mid-sixteenth century, but to the aggressive encroachment of Spanish in a significant number of domains of colonial life: religion, education, government, literature, and journalism, to name the most influential. In contrast, the functions of MIL were restricted to functions of the religious domain and within it, two specific sub-domains were allocated: representation of autos sacramentales (religious plays) and confession. 1. The “clash of civilizations” The discovery of the American continent represents the take-off of the world’s Westernization, that is, the spread of lifestyles and ways of think-

54 Margarita Hidalgo

ing that appeared in Western Europe. According to Bernard and Gruzinski (1991: 3), modern Europe was not born in the American continent, but the American experience – seen under the three-way filter of the Discovery, the Conquest, and the colonization of the New World – is indeed the foundational stage. When the history of the New World is told or interpreted through Eurocentric eyes, the American continent is still an enigma. Nowhere in the New World was the “clash of civilizations” as appalling as in the region known as Mesoamerica, where other civilizations – the Aztec and the Maya – had flourished before 1492. By the time Europeans reached the Yucatan Peninsula or the Maya Lowlands, the Maya civilization had collapsed as a result of economic hardship, invasion, depopulation, ecological disaster, or all of them in combination (cf. Culbert 1977). However, the Aztec civilization was at its zenith while its writing system was neither phonetic nor alphabetic. Instead, the pictorial and hieroglyphic systems of Mesoamerican peoples were utilized to record and communicate forms of knowledge which were inseparable from ideologies they were developed to serve (Boone and Mignolo 1994). When confronted with the writing system of Spanish, the Mesoamerican writing system not only began to transform itself and adopt features of Spanish, but its former astounding productivity also began to decline (Gruzinski [1988] 1991). All the Mesoamerican peoples were affected to different degrees by the encounter with Europeans; this fact may explain why the reverberations of the Aztec imperial experience are still fascinating. The tumultuous encounter of ruling Aztec warriors with Spanish soldiers has been documented in innumerable sources. In comparison, the documentation of language losses and/or gains as of 1492 is limited to inferential calculations and qualitative appraisals based on colonial demography. (See my next article “Sociohistorical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” in this volume). It is certain, however, that Mesoamerica was shattered by a quake of major proportions, so much so that the catastrophic consequences are still considered one of the major ecological disasters in the history of mankind. This scenario is thus ideal to examine both diachronically and synchronically the ethno-cultural and language contact which resulted from this unsuspected ordeal. The graded typology of threatened statuses or GIDS serves as an instrument to assess the extent of the damages inflicted into pre-Hispanic populations of the area. We thus resort to the operational definitions and methodologies that are effective in interpreting the Mexican

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 55

experience and the contact of Mexican indigenous languages (MIL) with the superimposed European language, Spanish. RLS theory, which derives from inquiries into language maintenance and shift, stands out as a model of damage repair and remedies to the injuries perpetrated by the all-encompassing cataclysm of the sixteenth century. In retrospective, the Mexican experience proffers abundant data that helps reconstruct and expound – albeit partially – the series of occurrences that followed the catastrophe of the early 1500’s. The metaphor of the earthquake proposed in RLS theory – and the Richter scale as the attendant measure of stronger-to-weaker intensity(ies) – associated to major and minor disruptions of ethno-cultural life (Fishman 1991: 87) is applicable to the Mesoamerican scenario, if we depart from the assumption that the damages can be qualified and quantified in the highest end of the scale, which points to severe deterioration. Assigning the highest number to the initial situation allows us to consider the (re)arrangement of the new pieces of the ecosystem and the resulting hierarchies, including the new sociolinguistic profile that emerged almost immediately after the destruction of the Great Tenochtitlan. Nahuatl, the language of the Aztec Empire and the lingua franca of the Mesoamerican region became, in just a few years, a threatened or endangered language. Despite the fact that Nahuatl is today the largest MIL spoken in the country, from the viewpoint of language maintenance and shift, it is still a threatened language which became an Xish language vis-à-vis the transplanted European language, Spanish, which in turn can be considered the Yish language. The many forms of dislocation (physical, demographic, social and cultural) discussed in RLS theory (Fishman 1991: 55–67) occurred in Mesoamerica and contributed to drastic language shift or shifts, since millions of speakers of many languages were decimated in just a few decades. When the “clash of civilizations” approach is applied to contact situations, both scholars and non-scholars anticipate displacement rather than integration, survival, or revival. Displacement is envisioned as a solution to the diminished options of survivors who have to live with the stress(es) of post-traumatic conditions or disorders. The patterns of social re-organization, religious adaptation, or political empowerment are better understood than the forms of expression that depend on the use of natural languages. The “clash of civilizations” approach is wellknown through the work of Ricard (1933), whereas the most recent but opposite view introduced in Mexico by Bonfil Batalla (1987), highlights the pivotal role that the attitude of loyalty to the indigenous culture(s) had in the preservation of the same. Between these two positions, scholars have

56 Margarita Hidalgo

found it difficult to test complex hypotheses as whole entities that might explain one of the resulting consequences of the “clash of civilizations”, i.e., mestizaje, the trend that characterizes and defines Latin American life and culture in the era of colonization. Particular traits of ethno-cultures may overlap with one another to the extent that over time, the distinguishing features of one are intermeshed with the other. The opposite is true when individuals do detect and differentiate ways of speaking or behaviors belonging to diverse ethnic or national groups. Mestizaje à la Latinoaméricaine may help explain many of the transitional expressions of language and culture that later became a permanent defining component of the modern Mexican mainstream. This article thus explores the different dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico: these dimensions are not only linguistic and sociolinguistic per se, but belong too in the realm of religion, politics, history, education, and socio-cultural practices.

2. The initial stages of the recovery mission The magnitude of the disaster caused the recently established New Spanish authorities to engage in thoughtful rescue missions as early as 1523 or 1524. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many members of the mendicant orders were devoted to describing, using, promoting, and translating the indigenous languages they gradually encountered in the field. Understanding the indigenous population of Mexico and recording their languages was an unparalleled endeavor undertaken by the Franciscans and their aides, who produced one work of philology after another. Between the late 1540’s and the late 1570’s, the Franciscans wrote two grammars, one Spanish-Nahuatl and Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary, and “an encyclopedic corpus covering every aspect of pre-conquest Nahua life in Nahuatl texts written down by the indigenous aides and only later translated into Spanish” (Lockhart 1992: 6). The scientific studies conducted by those engaged in missionary linguistics emphasized the exhaustive description of Nahuatl language, history, cosmogony, and all aspects related to Nahua culture. During the sixteenth century, Nahuatl was the language most frequently and widely spoken in the Mesoamerican area. In spite of the calamitous experiences of the conquest, Nahuatl speakers were still the quantitative majority while the functions of their language were being re-allocated to different functional

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 57

domains, primarily to the arena of Christianization. This was no small task, for the missionaries in charge of the new colony confronted the resistance of indigenous peoples and the different strategies they utilized to feign that they were indeed accepting the values of the new ethno-culture. Influenced by the auspicious reports of officials and priests to the Crown, wherein they painted the revolutionary strides they were making in indigenous life, scholars have been predisposed to see the quick replacements of indigenous elements or structures by European equivalents (Lockhart 1992: 5–6). Official documentations, voluminous correspondence, and chronicles written by Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians tell how they converted millions of Indians to Christianity and how they taught them the components of European culture. Their accounts served as a model for construing cultural interaction in Mexico and the rest of the New World. The opposing view was held by institutional historians who introduced the notion of separate societies, one for the Indians living in the towns and villages, and another for Spaniards residing in the newly created Spanish cities. This approach was congruous with that of twentieth century ethnographers who found plenty of evidence of survival in religious beliefs, kinship, medicinal practices, and material culture. More recently, other scholars have shown that indigenous states in the valley of Mexico survived into the post-conquest period with their territories and many of their internal mechanisms essentially intact; this permanence provided the basis for all the organizational structures the Spaniards implanted throughout the countryside (Lockhart 1992: 2–4). The original view about the swift Hispanization and Christianization resulting from the “clash of civilizations” was questioned, inasmuch as the success of the mendicant orders depended upon the acceptance and retention of indigenous elements and patterns that were strikingly close to those of Europe. According to Lockhart (1992: 4), Mesoamerican peoples were able to assimilate aspects of the Spanish heritage because few innovations were completely “new” to them: crafts and temples, calendars of religious festivities, processions, etc. The degree of contact between the populations helped shape processes of transformation that appeared entirely coherent. Scholars assume that Europeans and indigenous peoples of the central areas had more in common than either did with the other peoples of the hemisphere. In the early stages, what one typically finds is the preliminary identification of indigenous elements, which allow an indigenous concept or practice to operate in a familiar manner under a Spanish-Christian overlay. By the late eighteenth century, almost nothing in the entire indigenous cultural ensemble was left un-

58 Margarita Hidalgo

touched, yet at the same time almost everything reverted in some form or another to a pre-conquest antecedent (Lockhart 1992: 5). The recovery mission undertaken by the mendicant orders is well documented in numerous secondary sources (cf., e.g., Ricard 1933; Brice Heath 1972; Cifuentes 1998; and my “Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” in this volume), but interpretations vary according to the scholar who probes the history of the Mexican mission. One innovation of this volume consists in examining the past under the light of current RLS theory, which assumes a position of reversal to the original ethno-culture. This proposal appears to be most expedient and accommodating to speakers of Xish, but it does not necessarily exclude speakers of Yish who are sympathetic to the language and culture of Xish. Such process of reversal is uncommon but not impossible. As a case in point, the Mexican scenario is useful to test the hypothesis of “Indianization” advanced by Claudia Parodi (in this volume), who sees two major procedures by which distinguished Spanish-speaking members of the New Spanish society converted themselves to the culture of the Nahuas: external Indianization and internal Indianization. The latter is of major significance, because it implies a radical change of values and language choices that inevitably compromise the individual’s native language and culture. While it is certain that the ascendance of Spanish in what soon became the wealthiest colony of Spain was amazing and overpowering, it is also true that in the central area of the former Aztec Empire, Nahuatl retained many functions that it had before the arrival of the Spaniards. It was not only the most spoken language of the new colony by native and non-native speakers, but was taught in the new schools friars established for the children of the nobility. Once Nahuatl was learned by the missionaries in charge of evangelization, it was used in the pulpit, in the confessionary, and in the many administrative affairs needed to document daily transactions and deals (e.g., the execution of wills, sales of property, and the like). These everyday activities are better documented in recent times by scholars who have closely examined primary and secondary sources (cf. Cifuentes 1998; Lockhart 1992 and 1991). The recovery mission was however initiated early in the Mexican colony by almost all friars who had training in the study of languages and humanities. The endeavors of two friars who served as philologists and linguists have been appraised by historians, anthropologists and linguists, but not by sociolinguists. Introducing the sociolinguistic dimension is not inconsequential, given that this perspective allows us to see the position of MIL in the new colonial society.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 59

Through the lives and works of Alonso de Molina and Bernardino de Sahagún, for instance, we can reconstruct some of the scholarly endeavors that prevented an even greater deterioration of Nahuatl and an even more precipitous language shift. The transliteration of Nahuatl and other languages into Romanized writing was not the result of frivolous undertakings but the outcome of meticulous scholarship. Although Christian orthodoxy prescribed the use of Latin, which was part of the linguistic repertoire of the friars, the innovations of the European Renaissance were indeed instrumental in conceiving a different role for what was known as vernacular languages (i.e., all but Latin). The movement for the restoration of the lingua materna was triumphant in emerging nations in which users and students of Latin had declined long before the Discovery of the New World. Writing in the vernaculars turned first into a fad and later into a legacy. Italian and Spanish made inroads into this new tradition. Spanish was the native language of every member of the mendicant orders arriving in New Spain. It is difficult to imagine that they did not appreciate their own mother tongue, but it is not impossible to understand that Christian dogma was held above the love for it. Their primary assignment took precedence over all the other considerations. With this purpose in mind and using their own intellectual resources, they wrote the grammars, dictionaries, and the books that rescued the history of the Nahuas and some other Mesoamerican groups for posterity. Needless to say, their meager material resources contrast sharply with their accomplishments. Because of the enthusiasm and zeal with which they conducted their work, they can be considered as the reverse language shifters (par excellence) of the early colonial period. In this context, I want to examine the multiple dimensions of language maintenance and shift. The beginning of the Mesoamerican catastrophe is better explained in my following article, while this study aims to explore the approximate duration of reversing language shift and the definitive commencement of language shift.

2.1. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún Friar Bernardino de Sahagún was born in Palencia (near the border with Galicia) in 1499 or 1500. He was still a child when he professed in the convent of Salamanca and later attended the University of the northern city, where he received the degree of ‘bachiller’. At age 29 or 30, he was recruited by Friar Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo as a member of the clergy that

60 Margarita Hidalgo

would convert the infidels of the New World to Christianity. From this point on, Bernardino Ribeira de Sahagún was simply known as Bernardino de Sahagún. He was assigned to the convent of Tlalmananco next to Amecameca. In 1536, the first Viceroy of New Spain, Antonio de Mendoza, founded the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, where Sahagún began to work as an instructor for the children of the Aztec nobility. The college for noble children was a center of acculturation, where works of scholarship were written and later became the sources for studies of acculturation, syncretism, and pre-Hispanic institutions. Between 1545 and 1557, he was working in Puebla, Xochimilco and Michoacan. In 1557, Friar Francisco del Toral asked him to write in Nahuatl a summa indiana on the life and culture of the Nahuas with the purpose of assisting other priests in the mission of conversion. Sahagún’s research was conducted with the goal of creating an appropriate instrument for preaching the Christian doctrine. This would prevent the return of idolatry while the extensive Nahuatl vocabulary would aid in preaching the Word. In his view, a preacher was like a doctor of the soul who administers medicine to the ill; thus, preachers should be experienced in the medicines and illnesses for the spirit. Sahagún’s goal was more far-reaching, for he wanted to establish the Republic of Christ where young Indians could be re-taught the cultured version of their own language (López Austin 1974: 115). Before developing a structured questionnaire, Sahagún prepared an outline describing his initial plan and then proceeded to request the services of people knowledgeable about the history of the Aztecs. In order to carry out this part of the project, he relocated to the village of Tepepulco, where he interviewed ten or twelve knowledgeable elders willing to serve as informants and four youths willing to act as intermediary interpreters in the process of data collection. Between 1558 and 1560, Sahagún administered a pilot instrument in Tepepulco, where native Nahuatl speakers told him without reservations everything they knew about their own people. His disciples responded to the questions of his extensive survey by means of paintings: the interpreters were saying them in their language while they were writing the explanations to the statement beneath the painting. The materials collected at this stage are known as Primeros Memoriales (also known as books IV, V and VII of the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España). In the words of Sahagún, the Nahuas: ...had no letters or any characters, nor did they know how to read or write; they communicated by means of images and paintings, and all their antiquities and the books they had about them were painted with figures and im-

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 61 ages in such a way that they knew and had memory of the things their ancestors had done and had left in their annals, more than a thousand years before the arrival of the Spanish in this land (Sahagún 1956: 105–106 in López Austin 1974: 116).

In 1560, Sahagún returned to Tlatelolco to revise his manuscripts from beginning to end. Working closely with a few students who had previously served as his indigenous informants, he prepared the second part of his work which is known as Códices Matritenses. Between 1565 and 1569, he completed the encyclopedic corpus, the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España, also known since the nineteenth century as Códice Florentino (Florentine Codex). From 1574, he remained permanently in Tlatelolco, where he was the administrator and survivor of the early group of missionaries that arrived in New Spain. In 1577, his obra magna was completed in both Nahuatl and Spanish. On February 5 or October 23, 1590, he died of a severe cold at the age of 90. Sahagún obtained information directly from the pictorial codices and used it to interview the Nahua elders. The work of Tepepulco laid the foundation to amass a large body of data. He stayed in Tlatelolco three more years working with college-trained grammarians who were fluent in Latin, Nahuatl, and Spanish. There he revised all his manuscripts and divided them into 12 books (López Austin 1974: 117–118). His masterpiece was completed between 1565 and 1567. Sahagún’s work is normally divided into three major reconstructed parts: (a) the Tlatelolco drafts (1547–1562); (b) the Madrid Codices (1562–1575); and (c) The Florentine Codex (1575–1585). The collection of materials on the Nahuas is an encyclopedia of the Nahua people, which was developed with the information from the material supplied by native elders who lived fully within the world preceding the conquest (López Austin 1974: 119). In spite of the variations in the Franciscan’s plan of action, they followed a scholastic and medieval hierarchy, which was accommodated to the religion and customs of the ancient inhabitants of New Spain. Sahagún began with the gods, continued with Heaven and Hell, went on to the lordships, and concluded with earthly things (López Austin 1974: 120). His three overriding purposes – to gain knowledge of the ancient religion, to create or elicit texts from which a rich vocabulary could be obtained, and to record the Nahua’s great cultural possessions – determined, to a great extent, the method he followed. In spite of the succinctness of the data he retrieved in Tepepulco, Sahagún developed a method which allowed him to formulate an interview once he reached Mexico-Tlatelolco (López Austin 1974: 122–123). The

62 Margarita Hidalgo

organization of his twelve books is based on the survey he devised. Sahagún’s prolific work began with the description of the gods and continued with a wide range of subjects on religion, law, astrology, philosophy, social organization, natural resources, sicknesses and medicines, flora, and fauna, and the Nahuas version of the conquest of Mexico (López Austin 1974: 122–148). The method used by Sahagún cannot be regarded as the transplantation of a Western mode of inquiry nor as the byproduct of the millennial tradition of the Nahuas. It is instead the result of a new reality, a source of knowledge about the Nahuatl man and about all men at the same time (López Austin 1974: 149). It is accepted that Sahagún stands out among his contemporaries because he was both a humanist and a scientist. (Bibliographic indices to his works are found in Edmonson 1974: 257–273 and Quiñones Keber 1988: 341–345. For references to the many editions in several languages and the whereabouts of the Sahaguntian manuscripts, see León-Portilla 1999: 221–247).

2.2. The end of the recovery mission Was Bernardino de Sahagún beset by his own endeavors, his faith, his doubts, or his ardent desire to record the history of a civilization? The answers to these queries are open to interpretations. While some modern scholars with little experience in fieldwork may question his method of data collection – because it is strikingly similar to confessional practices – it is known that his rigorous procedures have not been replicated, notwithstanding modern resources. However, in 1577, the year in which the Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España was completed, the Council of the Indies definitively intervened and confiscated his manuscripts, which were considered threatening due to the detailed descriptions of ancient indigenous practices. Sahagún complained about fellow Franciscans who curtailed his work on the grounds that its cost was supposedly a contradiction in terms with the Franciscan vows of poverty. A few years earlier, in 1570, the Provincial Friar Alonso de Escalona had scattered his manuscripts of the Historia general in the convents of the Franciscan province, but Sahagún recovered them in 1574 thanks to the intervention of Friar Miguel Navarro and Jerónimo de Mendieta (Baudot 1988: 127); however, the governing members of the Seraphic Order left the illustrious author without monies to pay for scribes (Browne 2000: 97).

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 63

Friar Rodrigo de Sequera, a colleague and general commissary of the Seraphic Order in New Spain, had taken certain precautions and salvaged one copy and took it to Spain; this happened before the Edict of April 22, 1577 was made known in Mexico. In fact, the Historia General must have been rescued three times by Friar Rodrigo de Sequera. First, when he facilitated its complete redaction in 1575; second, when he withdrew the text from the prohibition measures which he knew to be imminent (in 1577); and third, when he kept it discreetly, without giving further news of it to its author, because Sahagún had ingeniously turned them in to Sequera (…). This was Bernardino de Sahagún’s most elaborate text, the text he had translated, even re-written, and that he had copied from 1575 to 1577, placing it in two columns that corresponded to Nahuatl and Spanish (...) the ultimate version of the Historia General (Baudot 1988: 130).

Despite the fact that Sahagún struggled against indifference and internal and external factions in the Franciscan Order, which laid out all kinds of hurdles, his work is the single most important source of what was known then and is known today about pre-Hispanic Nahuas. The King’s edict also declared that any document about the life of the indigenous peoples was prohibited in any language. Virtually every biographical statement written on Sahagún takes up the problem of why the government of Philip II confiscated Sahagún’s major work (...). On April 22, 1577, Philip II ordered Martín Enríquez, the viceroy of New Spain, to confiscate Sahagún’s magnum opus, the Florentine Codex. In the same royal warrant, Philip II went on to order that no further ethnographic work similar to Sahagún’s be written down. (Browne 2000: 26).

One line of reasoning suggests that the confiscation of the Historia General coincided with a deliberate change in governmental policy advanced by metropolitan rulers. It seems that Bernardino de Sahagún willingly and happily revised and handed over his manuscript to Friar Rodrigo de Sequera. Sahagún was presumably unaware of the pernicious intent behind the royal Edict and did not perceive the confiscation as a political maneuver (Browne 2000: 29). At the same time, the Council of the Indies was enacting important bureaucratic reforms that took the Spanish government one step closer to its positivization. The Spanish government sent to New World officials various guidelines that would improve the decision-making process. The guidelines issued in 1573 consisted of 135 item-instructions

64 Margarita Hidalgo

ordering verifications, descriptions, and accounts of the complete state of affairs in the Indies and of each existing entity and all its parts. The instrument asked for information on pre-Hispanic indigenous customs. Coincidentally, this was exactly the kind of data that Sahagún was collecting for his masterful work. In 1577, another set of guidelines consisting of just 50 succinct requests asked for brief and clear responses. As a result, the requests were pared down and were more specific. The latter questionnaire produced a large corpus of information on the New World, which is better known as the Relaciones geográficas (Browne 2000: 32). Sahagún’s manuscript was confiscated because after having received notice of its existence, the government of Philip II wished to incorporate it into its new project of centralizing the production and processing of information about the new continent. In this context, Sahagún can be perceived as being the victim of an increasingly bureaucratic government that was relying on categoricaldecision making schemes, and Sahagún was apparently oblivious to the potential consequences. Philip II ordered a laborious copy of Sahagún’s work (known as the Tolosa Manuscript) in an attempt to preserve the nonpictorial information it contained (Browne 2000: 34). Another view of the motives for the confiscation situates Sahagún at the center of an ideological controversy stemming, in my opinion, from the “clash of civilizations”. The Franciscans were accused of wanting to consider Mexico as an autonomous entity in both political and religious matters, and of desiring to make the viceroy its head (Baudot 1974: 169). Furthermore, like many of his contemporaries “Sahagún dreamed of an autonomous native Mexico under the strong authority of a substantially independent viceroy, structured and ruled by friars desirous of founding a New Church based on the pre-Constantine model–all of this probably with millenarian and apocalyptic ambitions” (Baudot 1974: 178). The seizure of all translations of sacred texts in indigenous languages was strongly reissued and reinforced. “Toward the end of 1578, the probable date when the decisions of the Inquisition were known in New Spain, the seizure of the works of Sahagún was executed and reached its full effect” (Baudot 1988: 125). The translation of the Gospel and of the Epistles into indigenous languages was the principal point of contention. However, various versions of the Gospel and the Epistles were left for the missionaries to use in the tasks of Evangelization (Baudot 1988: 126). Fray Gerónimo de Mendieta, author of the Historia Eclesiástica Indiana ([1596] 1870), knew the details of the brutal change in New World policy begun by the Council of the Indies in 1575. But the policy of the metropolis was far-reaching, and Sahagún had

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 65

been its most visible victim. Known for his tenacity and persistence, Sahagún returned to the writings remaining after the confiscation, to rescue those he believed to be most fundamental. After 1584, he began the partial reconstruction of his work with notes and transcripts he had left and with the help of several loyal copyists, such as Martín Jacobita or Agustín de la Fuente. The content of the partially rescued manuscripts was controversial, for Sahagún had made modifications to the Gregorian calendar in order to identify the pre-Hispanic Mexican holy days in the course of the year. The subject matter chosen by him at this stage focused exclusively on the rescue and re-elaboration of research on the most notable and spectacular aspects of the pre-Hispanic religion. These selections may be related to his interest in the conversion of the natives based on their own ethnographic and linguistic reality. For all these reasons, he urged for a profound undertaking of enormous scope based on the utilization of Mexican cultural patterns in order to change the indigenous’ own reality and originality (Baudot 1974: 184–185). There is no doubt that Sahagún was seriously concerned “because the pre-Hispanic religious beliefs had remained alive even to the time and because time pressed if one hoped to build a new Kingdom with the possibility of success. (...) The extirpation of the pre-Hispanic religion was a sine qua non for the construction of a millenarian, non-Hispanicized autonomous Mexico” (Baudot 1974: 185). It need not be said that he was faced with the hostility of the colonial administrative machine of the Spanish settlers, whose influence was growing rapidly. To make things even more complicated, he was an eye witness to the epidemics that decimated the Mexican population and could not ignore its consequences. Sahagún insisted so vehemently on the persistence of indigenous beliefs and rites because he was attempting to prove that missionaries intimately associated with the authentic native reality of Mexico were still needed in the Christianization of the indigenous people (Baudot 1974: 186). Two main issues loomed heavily in the early episodes of the recovery mission: language and religion. We learn from the Mexican experience that these culturally-bound traits appear to be non-negotiable at least in the initial stage of the cultural clash. Sahagún was faced with a vast array of indigenous cultural information that did not easily fit into a pre-existing Western schema. Once Sahagún noticed what lay beneath the superficial compatibility of a few Christian and indigenous practices, everything was subject to reinterpretation. Hence, Sahagún called his history “universal” in order to highlight his desire to com-

66 Margarita Hidalgo prehend the entirety of Nahua culture. In short, the crisis that drives all of this work is his realization that the easy fit between Christian and Nahua customs (...) was nothing more than a dream. (Browne 2000: 109–110).

The discrepancies between the new religion and the indigenous beliefs partially illustrate the proportions of the “clash of civilizations”. For instance, a ritual of the new Christian practices required confession of sins. Nahuas used confession as a way to exonerate themselves from offenses, and frequently asked the priests for a note proving they had confessed. Afterwards, they would repeat the offense without any remorse. Nahuas assessed the seriousness (or lack thereof) of sinning in a manner that was quite alien to them when they were asked how many times they had committed a particular sin (Browne 2000: 107). But confession could be seen, too, as an experiment in fieldwork that imposed European categories while permitting the extraction of detailed autochthonous information and ethnographic writing, which in turn made possible realistic narratives penned by natives in their own tongue. This fieldwork, however, made the native voice important again in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Based on systematic fieldwork and objective descriptions, these experiments gave birth in the sixteenth century to the first modern account of native culture, genuinely earning for Sahagún the title of the “father of modern ethnography” (Klor de Alva 1988: 52). In the educational realm, Sahagún tells how the Franciscans who founded the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco took advantage of pre-existing indigenous institutions (the Calmecac or school for noble Indian children) to found their own college. The perception of similarities between the two yielded to the opposing notion that Europeans and indigenous students were educationally incompatible because of different physiological make-ups. Sahagún’s analysis reveals his growing awareness that superficially similar concepts and institutions can mean entirely different things in different cultures. Today it is taken for granted that each culture will respond to and interpret novel concepts and situations according to the boundaries and contours of its own preexisting structure (Browne 2000: 109). The experiment in RLS lasted more than five decades. By 1595, the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco had become merely an elementary school which was in total ruins (Mendieta [1596] 1870 in Brice Heath 1972: 31). Writing the Historia General required the cooperation of paid scribes and expensive writing materials. The end of the recovery mission in New Spain clearly marked the beginning of a new process: language shift.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 67

3. Language shift Language shift was facilitated by the new stipulations of the Council of Trent (1543–1565), the ecumenical assembly of the Roman Catholic Church, known for its comprehensive reforms and dogmatic purports given to the canons. The Council prohibited the publication of the Bible in the Romance languages and the free circulation of religious books in languages other than Latin; this prohibition marked a breakthrough in European culture and served as the transition from the Renaissance to the Modern Age (Carrera de la Red 1988: 130, 149). To make things worse, the General Council of the Inquisition ensured that this decision included the Amerindian languages. In a letter dated May 10, 1576, the General Council had asked the Holy Office of Mexico to proscribe the use of the handbook known as Eclesiastés en lengua de los indios and any other sacred scripture in said indigenous language or any another secular or vernacular. Interestingly enough, Fray Bernardino de Sahagún and Alonso de Molina recommended banning the harsh procedure and proposed instead the exclusive use of these manuscripts in the indigenous languages only for missionary duties. The inquisitors accepted their reasoning, but after several communiqués between the General Council and representatives of the Mexican mission, seizure of all translations of sacred texts in indigenous languages was fervently renewed, as Indians could be taught the Christian doctrine by any other means (Baudot 1988: 124–125). The reactions of Spanish authorities were justified on the grounds that interpretation(s) of the Bible by Protestant precursors and religious leaders of the New World did not adhere to the precepts of the Catholic Church. These considerations were, however, insufficient to provoke a radical change in the policy of the Catholic Church to thwart a secular movement of significant proportions, which ultimately elevated Castilian to the rank of Latin. Indeed, the prevailing considerations and linguistic prestige and unification would aid in the cultural and political consolidation of the Spanish territories (Carrera de la Red 1988: 75). This Renaissance attitude played a significant role in the empowerment of the Romance languages, although an anti-humanist trend represented in Ginés de Sepúlveda was influential in the prevailing judgments towards the languages discovered in the New World.¹ As a result of its restoration as a language of culture, Latin was prescribed in university courses. Those who knew it well were able to use it naturally and spontaneously. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the colloquial use of Latin was conducive to expanding the latíni-

68 Margarita Hidalgo

tas, which assumed its own process of maturation. The ‘doble latinidad’ envisioned by Elio Antonio de Nebrija, was no longer a predicament but a well-defined attitude of the same historical moment. Spanish gained more space in more spheres of interaction, while classical Latin supplanted Medieval Latin in the endeavors of the humanists. In doing so, the antagonism between Latin and Romance, i.e., between the users of the two languages came to an end (Carrera de la Red 1988: 107–108). The elevation of Castilian to a vehicle of general communication in administration, preaching, and poetry – domains in which Spanish, an offshoot of Castilian Romance, had grown considerably – occurred at the beginning of the sixteenth century, whereas the spheres of international relations, education, sciences, philosophy, and theology were designated to Latin. If Latin had been the official language of the Roman Empire, Spanish would become the new language of the Spanish Empire. The term Spanish had appeared in opposition to such terms as Castilian or Romance, and was more widespread than Castilian. For this reason, Spanish became a mother tongue, a speech, a vehicle of general communication, the koine that everyone knew and used. Along with the mother tongue, the humanists were promoting artistically elaborated and cultivated variants because they were not the exclusive patrimony of any language (Carrera de la Red 1988: 159). The spread of Spanish beyond the Iberian Peninsula and its use in more and more prestigious domains may be perceived as being a distant factor in the decline of Amerindian languages, but it cannot be underestimated. In the seventeenth century, the Spanish language itself is the focus of an ideological debate involving indirectly moriscos (i.e., Muslims in the South who were forcibly baptized after the Reconquest). The central point of seventeenth-century ideologists concerns the linguistic consequences of political conquest whose outcome may be either language maintenance or shift. This debate extends to the New World Amerindian populations (cf. Woolard 2002: 464–468).

4. The power of the transplanted language In “Why is it so hard to save a threatened language?” Fishman (2001: 1– 22) introduces another metaphor that illustrates the competition between strong and weak languages and the varying degrees of severity of changes in the number and kinds of societal functions for which particular languages are utilized at specific historical junctures. The societal functions of

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 69

languages are endangered due to competition with another more powerful language. The case of MIL is ideal to test a component of RLS theory, that is, the omnipresence of the Big Brother which acts as an empowered bully (Fishman 2001: 12) which, in turn, is viewed both as a constructive and destructive force that unifies and divides speakers of adjacent communities. This model helps understand that when members of the mendicant orders were robbed of or lost the enthusiasm for reversing language shift, all MIL and the reverse language shifters themselves ended up in disadvantageous positions. They were so disaffected that they could not even strive to propose a project oriented towards language maintenance or to save the space for the now threatened languages, all competing with Spanish. Additionally, although they were quantitatively a minority, Spanish speakers had become, in a matter of decades, representatives of a mainstream movement promoting the new language of power and prestige. RLS theory points to the societal functions of language, which can be divided into powerful and non-powerful; ideally, powerful and nonpowerful languages could share some of the powerful functions (e.g., employment, higher education, mass media, education). The elevation of the threatened language from un-empowered to empowered functions may not succeed if its transmission is restricted to informal, spontaneous, intimate, un-empowered functions (Fishman 2001: 21–22). This model can be applied to the Mexican colonial scenario, given that, as of the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century, Spanish became the non-threatened language which detached itself from functional compartmentalization and spread rapidly into higher domains and functions in both rural and urban areas. At the time, the population of indigenous origin or the agents acting on their behalf were no longer vigilant of the continual and successful inroads that Spanish was making. In fact, resources available to Spanish speakers of the colony were not meager; on the contrary, they were significantly abundant. In contrast, MIL could not regain the functions they lost because they did not have an equivalent plan of action to compete in compartmentalized functions with the written language that was gradually becoming standardized and disseminated throughout the vast dominions of the Spanish Empire. The vitality of Spanish in the Mexican colony was not demographic. It was qualitative. Spanish gained vitality by means of a system of social stratification which established functions and favored domains that were almost universal (cf. Hidalgo 2001b). Spanish went well beyond the oral functions. The existence of a rich colonial literature and the thousands of colonial manuscripts scat-

70 Margarita Hidalgo

tered at present throughout the country attest to the extension of Spanish in differentiated domains. The lives and works of major seventeenth century scholars discussed by Claudia Parodi (in this volume) explain the transient nature of indigenous languages in the colonial scenario. According to her interpretation, Nahuatl was going from Stage 6 to Stage 2 of the GIDS and back again.

4.1. Spanish in colonial domains The life and society of one poet is sufficient to illustrate the functional diversification that the Spanish language attained in the seventeenth century. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1648–1695) was a precocious criolla (the child of Spaniards born and raised in New Spain) from the Nahuatlspeaking area of Chimalhuacán, who lived and enjoyed the vitality and excitement of a productive society in the realm of literature and the arts. Her generation is known for the curiosity and desire for learning. Situated between two worlds, it represents a new society distinguished by syncretism and by the awakening of the criollo spirit. Criollos expressed their identity and philosophical and religious speculations by which the image of New Spain emerges, to a certain extent, as the Other Spain, for they felt they were the heirs of both the Aztec and Spanish Empires. Their dreams and aspirations expressed their need to immerse themselves in the New World while maintaining loyalty to the Spanish Crown, their Catholic faith, and their vehemence to legitimize their presence in the most lavish Spanish colony. Their ambitions would have never been formulated or materialized without the intervention of the Society of Jesus. The members of this congregation awakened the criollo spirit and served as their spokespersons and their conscience. Due to the close association with this emergent class, the Jesuits became the most influential order in New Spain (Paz 1982: 55–58). Jesuit syncretism melded with emerging criollo patriotism, which not only modified traditional attitudes about indigenous civilization but also motivated a kind of resurrection of the Aztec world. These two trends had a common denominator: they were embracing of all societies and all cultures. This explains why Jesuit syncretism was capable of engendering and inspiring both national and separatist tendencies simultaneously. The apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe authenticated the uniqueness of New Spain, and although devotion to the Virgin was common before the seven-

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 71

teenth century, it was in this century that became a national cult and a point of union among criollos, mestizos, and Indians (Paz 1982: 56–57, 64). The literary endeavors of seventeenth century Spanish speakers were equally synergistic. It is interesting to note that the literary works were written mostly in Spanish by men to be read by other men, but the most illustrious and influential writer was a woman. Though neither the university nor any other school of higher learning permitted entrance to women, men and women could engage in intellectual and aesthetic communication in the convent and the palace. In spite of the orthodoxy, New Spain was receptive to new ideas; in fact, many books forbidden by the Inquisition were widely read (Paz 1982: 69–70). In this intellectual climate, the baroque style became the most fertile manifestation of extreme and diverse emotional states and perceptions of the infinite. Originating in the Western culture, the baroque gives continuity to the adoration of antiquity. In the Mexican colony, baroque was conspicuously original and assimilated native elements–out of devotion to the aesthetic of the unique and the exotic. Finally, Baroque was the preferred form of expression that glorified the nationalist tendencies of the criollos (Paz 1982: 85–86). Baroque poetry was transplanted in New Spain with literary models of the great Spanish writers of the Golden Age: Luis de Góngora y Argote, Calderón de la Barca, and Lope de Vega. Still other brilliant and captivating thinkers inspired Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. As a case in point, the German Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) represented the fusion between hermeticism and Egyptianism. Kircher believed that in the Egyptian civilization he had found the universal key for deciphering all enigmas of history. His book Oedipus Aegytiacus (1652) contains a chapter on the parallelism between Egyptian and Amerindian religions. Jesuit syncretism thus represents the archetype that embraces all times and all places. Catholic Rome was the center toward which all religions gravitated while the predecessor of that center – a true bridge between Christianity and other religions – was ancient Egypt (Paz 1982: 225). Sor Juana knew of these ideas indirectly through syncretic treatises on mythology, Kircher’s books, and other works influenced to a lesser or greater extent by the speculations of Neo-platonism and hermeticism. In this cultural atmosphere, Egyptomania was one of the intellectual diseases of her age (Paz 1982: 236). Works of Kircherian inspiration associate Sor Juana to a universal tradition that has stimulated the poets of the Western civilization from the Renaissance to contemporary times.

72 Margarita Hidalgo

4.2. A necessary digression. How far can a transplanted language go? In Mexico, this universal tradition can be traced to one of the most complex, rigorous, and intellectually rich texts of Spanish-language poetry, First Dream (Primero Sueño), also known as El Sueño, which was published for the first time in 1692. It is a silva of 975 verses in seven- and eleven-syllable lines with no fixed rhyme, i.e., a forceful discourse on an conceptual theme (Paz 1982: 483). Sor Juana’s predecessor, Luis de Góngora y Argote (1561–1627) and Sor Juana herself made use of extraordinary configurations such as topicalization, emphasis, or disambiguation. By doing so, these poets placed special demands on the readers’ ability to process the text. The reader of Primero Sueño may be challenged by the socalled Latinate syntax. Due to a complex system of stylistic resources, which serve as communicative devices, such as anastrophe (or simple inversion) and hyperbaton (transgressio or overstepping of boundaries), the reader is obliged to restructure the ordering of grammatical units (Hensey 1992: 390–395). Sor Juana’s twentieth century biographer, Octavio Paz, explains and reinterprets the meaning(s) of First Dream (Fifth Part, chapter 6: 469–510). The poet tells a single story with several episodes, each of which is a spiritual experience of celestial spaces: sea, mountain, river, trees and beasts, which are transformed into geometric figures: pyramids, towers, obelisks. Suspended on the heights of her pyramid of vanities, the soul finds a bottomless abyss. The space revealed by the poet is an abstraction that can be seized. The soul is alone–not before God but before a nameless and limitless space. She recounts her flight through the superlunary spheres while her body slept. The belief of the soul as a reality separate from the body was an additional component in the vast production of Greek culture (Paz 1982: 472–473). This is the tradition to which First Dream belongs. Because her treatment of the theme differs considerably from that of her predecessors, it has been asserted that her First Dream both gives continuity and alters the tradition. There may be a precedent in Kircher’s astronomical voyage, Iter Exstaticum (Paz 1982: 475). First Dream is impersonal because the protagonist has no name, age, or gender; it is simply the human soul. In First Dream, the author relates that her soul ascended to the upper sphere, where the soul had a vision so intense and incandescent that she became sightless. Once recovered, she paused only to ascend again, gradually, although she was unable to; and as she was vacillating about other paths she might take, the sun rose and the author’s body awakened.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 73

There are three parts of the soul’s voyage: the ascent of the soul and its visions; its fall and its attempt to climb the pyramid of knowledge in strides; its doubts and the unsuccessful efforts to get close to God, exemplified in the story of the hero Phaethon. First Dream is the elevation of the human soul liberated from its bodily chains (Paz 1982: 482–485). In a passage of First Dream, Sor Juana refers to a pyramid of light representing the soul’s ascent, which stands in opposition to the pyramid of shadow. God’s first creation in Genesis was Lux, the light of the sensible soul depicting images in the light of the rational soul. Intellect, in the wings of the soul’s “immaterial being sees in itself a spark of the Supreme Being– a prime cause, and an author of the world which does not speak of God, the Savior or Jesus.” Suspended at its zenith, the soul gazes at the movement of the stars and the celestial sphere. Sor Juana compares the soul with the two pyramids of Memphis or perhaps the pyramids of Teotihuacan, although she does not refer to the latter intently. The Egyptian pyramids appear as allegories of the soul while rising toward the light (Paz 1982: 489–491). Like concrete expressions of the human mind, the pyramids rise towards their apex and the mind yearns for the Prime Cause, an image representing one of the axes of Sor Juana’s thought when the soul has reached a position higher than the pyramid and the tower of Babel (Paz 1982: 491–492). The peak of its own soaring is on the apex of its “mental pyramid”, which has “left its self behind” and entered the region of the Supreme Being. Sor Juana seeks contemplation of the Supreme Being through knowledge of the universe. Contemplating the essence of the Supreme Being is like seeing the stars in their movement, while she casts her gaze of beauty, and Intellect embraces all creation and dizziness brings the vision to an end. Overwhelmed by the immensity of the universe and by the diversity of its components, Reason has been defeated. Incapable of finding a path, the soul stumbles in the sea of mystification. Then cautiously, it emerges from the sea and clings to the mental shore. Literally reanimated, the soul sets out to climb, in steps, from the mineral realm to the vegetal, and from the vegetal to the animal (Paz 1982: 492–493). For the duration of the ideal night, in a consciously abstract manner, Sor Juana recounts her intellectual life. The abrupt awakening brings the dream to an end, but not to the intellectual escapade of the soul. The failure of her desire to learn epitomizes the collapse of the human condition, a reflection on the limitations of reason (Paz 1982: 496–497).

74 Margarita Hidalgo

4.3. The meaning of writing in Spanish 4.3.1. Power, prestige, and money Sor Juana Inés used all the genres available at the time including the liturgical villancicos that were sung on holy days in the cathedral of Mexico City and the other great churches of New Spain. Villancicos derived from Galician-Portuguese cantigas de estribillo, whose origins can be traced to the Mozarabic zéjel, a poem in short lines, which can be secular amatory or religious, popular, and erudite. While the court paid her for her loas (brief theatrical pieces performed as introduction to a principal play, often in praise of newly arrived notables), bailes (dances), and other spectacles, the Church compensated her for the villancicos and sacred lyrics. The jácara is an derisive ballad written in the socio-ethnic varieties of the braggers and rogues, and the ensalada was a mixture of meters and, especially, of ethnic varieties speech (blacks, Moors, Basques, Galicians, and Portuguese). Sor Juana also composed tocotines, which contained lyrics written in Nahuatl (see “The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain” by Claudia Parodi in this volume). All these works, in addition to sonnets and secular plays were written upon request. Writing for the Church was not gratuitous; it was paid with genuine money and provided, in addition, power and prestige. Official poetry was the result of a system of rewards and punishments: on the one hand, writers could count on the protection of the palace and the Church; on the other, they could be reprised by the Inquisition (Paz 1982: 414). In her autobiography in prose, Sor Juana admitted that she was generously recompensed for her work. All her compositions were commissioned, except First Dream. Moreover, her essay known as Respuesta a Sor Filotea reveals that First Dream was voluntarily written March 1, 1691. The former is a letter of reply to the Bishop of Puebla, Antonio Núñez de Miranda, wherein she accounts of the everyday labors of the mind; told in direct and familiar prose, it is also a defense of secular letters. The parallel between First Dream and the Response is unequivocal. In the letter, written years after the poem, Sor Juana states that she will continue to write (Paz 1982: 534–537), in spite of the hostile reactions that she confronted in her mature years. The Respuesta a Sor Filotea addressed the need to establish universal education for women, a major responsibility of educated women. She even argued that women should also be taught the sciences and secular letters (...) because direct knowledge of the Scriptures was unfeasible without the study of history, law, arithmetic, logic, rhetoric, and music. She

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 75

disdains the notion that women are intellectually inferior and puts forward the following argument: “as stupidity is not limited to women, neither is intelligence an attribute only for men” (Paz 1982: 546–548). Moreover, she contends with the prelates arguing that their opinions are not articles of faith and complains that one of her critics has considered her letter rash and heretical. Because writing poetry was not at odds with religious obligations, she re-asserted that her verses were never written by her own will, but under the requests of others. Furthermore, the only piece she remembers having written for her own pleasure was a little “thing” they call El Sueño or Primero Sueño, that is, her spiritual autobiography (Paz 1982: 549–550).

4.3.2. Appropriating the transplanted language Because Sor Juana’s poetry is abundant, versatile, and outstanding, she is placed alongside Luis de Góngora and Lope de Vega. She cultivated every genre of her era and carried them to ultimate perfection. Her contemporaries praised her for having followed Góngora’s influence, which was deep and broad. On the one hand, she appropriated many of Góngora’s techniques: syntactic inversion, arcane terminology, periphrasis, antithesis, and metaphors. From Calderón, she learned the method, the manner, and the mechanisms of poetry. According to her biographer, however, the best works are those that are her own, the ones only she could have written (Paz 1982: 481). Only in the richest colony of Spain could a woman have afforded the luxury of learning and writing secular works. Only in the wealthiest colony of Spain, an exceptional and gifted woman was able to transform her own convent cell into the intellectual center of her times, where she amassed a personal fortune in books and musical and scientific instruments. Only in the wealthiest colony of Spain, the human talent rejoiced in the exquisite and the rare: while First Dream represents the gratification of the mind, the Response to Sor Filotea entails a contestation of major proportions and consequences. The latter piece still is a quasifeminist manifesto. The life and works of Sor Juana illustrate the significance given to speaking and writing in Spanish in the Mexican colonial period. Throughout the seventeenth century, many others attempted to attain prestige and power and to gain material riches through their Spanish writings. The abundance of criollos participating in literary tournaments is impressive;

76 Margarita Hidalgo

this is partially due to the fact this group made up the student body in colleges and seminaries, and the poetic practice was a requirement. It is thus possible to affirm that any educated person was able to express him/herself in both verse and prose. There was, however, an additional incentive to participate in the verbal competitions: the victorious poets could achieve distinction in their community and could also climb the hierarchy of the State or the Church and obtain important positions (Von der Walde 1990: 124). The literary endeavors of professional writers commenced early in the colonial period (ca.1543) and turned out to be amazingly fertile because all the favorable conditions were present at the time. The stability of the Spanish Empire was conducive to support the abundance of writers in the new national language to the extent that the resulting productivity in the history of Spanish is known as the Golden Age. For all these reasons, the criollo intellectuals of the Spanish colonies and the common individuals could count on superior models. The privileged criollos not only took full advantage of the linguistic resources coming from the metropolis and from those emerging in the new adopted nation, but also created sufficient materials in the transplanted language, a code quantitatively inferior vis-à-vis the numerous indigenous languages of the Mesoamerican area. Spanish gained native speakers very slowly, but its prestige as the unifying language of Spain and the Spanish territorial possessions was unsurpassed. By the mid-seventeenth century, Spanish was no longer a struggling koine in either Spain or the New World. On the contrary, Spanish was an imperial language that had become diversified and sophisticated. The features of the original New World Spanish koine, mostly coming from southern Spain, were already well spread throughout the continent. While the features of the original New World Spanish koine (except for seseo and yeísmo) distinguished the speech of Spanish speakers belonging to lower social strata, the process of monocentric standardization was very advanced in the New Spanish capital. By the mid-seventeenth century, a cultured variety of Spanish was well established in the capital of New Spain due to the presence and activities of a plethora of writers, preachers, and administrators (cf. Hidalgo 2001a and b). A good sample of documents demonstrating the diversity of writings of the ordinary individuals of different social strata, regions, ethnic backgrounds, and ages is available in Company Company (1994). Finally, the socio-ethnic varieties of marginal speakers also appear in compilations of colonial manuscripts as well as in the villancicos written by Sor Juana, who, in contrast to her contemporar-

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 77

ies, does not satirize speakers of marginal varieties because her villancicos were composed to be sung in the formal domain of Church.

5. The imbalance of power-sharing functions From mid-sixteenth century onward, the literature in Spanish written in Mexico was abundant and diverse. The only genre that was not cultivated was the novel. The prohibition to publish the novella was issued in mandates of 1532 and 1543. From the perspective of the Church, the publication and circulation of ‘libros de romances’ in the New World, was simply undesirable because of its profane content and fictitious stories (Henríquez Ureña 1984: 85). New World Spanish did not need the genre because it was firmly entrenched in all domains of power and prestige: Church, court, administration, education, entertainment, politics, personal correspondence, and journalism. Mexican literature in Spanish soon became a product of the new mainstream, a precious commodity that had varied functions: it was vital to those who aspire to social mobility and was valuable in the daily amusements of individuals of privileged status. In sum, New World Spanish was held in high esteem for both its integrative and instrumental attributes. The attitudes of criollos towards the mother tongue of their parents were not purist; on the other hand, they were accommodating to their New World environment. This is one reason the criollos succeeded in disseminating their own variety throughout the confines of New Spain.

5.1. Journalism With few exceptions (cf. Niño-Murcia 2001), the sociolinguistics of journalism in the Spanish-American colonies has not been carefully examined. However, this genre is important in New Spain because it contributed to the spread of the Spanish language since 1541, that is, two years after the advent of the printing press. News appeared intermittently in flyers or loose leaflets, the oldest flyer dated September 10, 1541. This collection of materials is known as relaciones, nuevas, noticias, sucesos or traslados and represent the origin of journalism, although they were not – strictly speaking – periodical publications. In 1667, however, the first newspaper entitled Gaceta was published on a regular monthly basis. In the following century, with the authorization of the Viceroy of New Spain, a second newspaper

78 Margarita Hidalgo

known as the Gaceta de México y Noticias de la Nueva España, was printed regularly since 1722 (edited by Father Juan Ignacio Castorena y Ursúa). This new genre turned into a bureaucratic practice vulnerable to the censorship of the times. Despite these limitations, the continual development of this publication stimulated the dissemination of news and information on scientific, literary, economic, commercial, and religious issues (Ruiz Castañeda 1990: 1; Ruiz Castañeda 1995: 50–60). An innovation coming from Spain, the Gazeta de México, was published between 1728 and 1742; as of 1742, it changed its title to El Mercurio de México. The colonial period ends with the publication of the last gazette, the Gazeta de México, which appeared in January 1748 and ended in 1821, the year in which the Independence of Mexico was consummated.

6. The domains of the Mexican indigenous languages As Spanish was gaining speakers, prestige and domains, the MIL were losing them. The demographic losses of MIL are discussed in my next article (“Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” in this volume and in the contribution by Cifuentes and Moctezuma, also in this volume). However, I do not attempt to equate the role of indigenous languages with the dramatic decimation of their speakers. The quantitative imbalance between MIL and Spanish was tilting in favor of the former, but the domains allocated to Spanish during the colonial period exceeded the wishes and expectations of the early colonists. This explains the fact that the roles of the MIL were restricted to the domain of religion. After the collapse of the Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, where Bernardino de Sahagún, Alonso de Molina, and other scholars strove to record and rescue for posterity the language and culture of the Nahuas, the works of philology were considerably reduced. Moreover, the seventeenth century of the Mexican colony does not attest to the existence of a single grammarian such as Friar Bernardino de Sahagún, Alonso de Molina, Andrés de Olmos, or any other thinker of the previous century. It seems that those in charge of the Mexican mission were resting on the laurels of the sixteenth-century scholars; indeed, the production of grammars and vocabularies in MIL declined significantly. It was common to re-edit the grammars of the large languages: Purhepecha, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi and Nahuatl. Materials designed to learn the languages of the surrounding areas in the northern provinces of New Spain were also produced.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 79

In addition, the grammars offered a more detailed analysis of the phonological and morphological traits of each language (Cifuentes 1998: 186– 188). Finally, some works were ex professo created to perpetuate the art of confession by eliciting information from the indigenous population (Rus 1989; Nágera Yanguas 1621). The enthusiasm, zeal, and devotion of the reverse language shifters of the sixteenth century disappeared in the following century, because the language policy of the Crown was better defined for the advancement of Spanish. In 1612, Philip III mandated education for girls in Spanish with the goal of preparing them in both religious and secular literature. In 1634, Philip IV confirmed the need to teach Spanish to the indigenous populations; to this effect, he ordered that the priests in charge of missions and churches motivate them to learn Spanish. This would result in placing Indians under the control of Spanish authorities and would also facilitate the communication between Spaniards and Indians. The mandates were ignored for a few decades until King Charles II intervened directly and reminded the clerical authorities that Spanish was necessary for teaching of matters dealing with the Catholic faith. In 1686, Charles II had mandated the teaching of Spanish to the Indians. In 1688, his mandate was responded by the Bishop of Oaxaca, who said that he had obeyed his mandate of 1686; at the same time he informed the King that the indigenous peoples respected the local authorities. Acting on this information, Charles II issued another decree in 1691 reiterating his mandates of 1686. Finally, in 1693 he told the Viceroy that the program of implementation should be scrutinized and evaluated. Nonetheless, the local decision-makers were adamantly opposed to the teaching of Spanish to the Indians and the programs did not succeed (cf. Brice Heath 1972: chapter 3). The criticism from above and below made the provision of real assistance to MIL all the more difficult. The decrees issued from Spain and internal conflicts among locals in charge of colonial affairs exacerbated the already disadvantageous conditions surrounding the MIL. Just a few theatrical pieces have been recorded for the seventeenth century. One of them was staged in Nahuatl in 1690. The existence of these works confirms that the domain of the MIL was restricted to religious activities selected by the authorities in charge of the local mission. Some works written in indigenous languages, e.g., the autos sacramentales also known as ejemplos or dechados (neixcuitilli) were normally staged on Sundays after the homilies. Precise information on the languages and titles of the autos sacramentales is speculative. Pedro Henríquez Ureña (1984) believes that Friar Juan Bautista wrote three volumes

80 Margarita Hidalgo

of “comedies” possibly in Nahuatl. Seven of them were published in the nineteenth century by researcher Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, but two belong to the beginning seventeenth century: La destrucción de Jerusalem and El Sacrificio de Isaac [1678] by Agustín de la Fuente, native from Tlatelolco. Two more autos were written in Chocha, Mixtec, and Tarascan. Other classic plays written by the authors of the Spanish Golden Age were translated into indigenous languages. In 1641, Bartolomé de Alba, descendant of the kings of Texcoco, translated two of the religious plays by Lope de Vega, La madre de la mejor and El animal profeta. He may have also translated El gran teatro del mundo by Calderón de la Barca (Henríquez Ureña 1984: 109–111). It was hard to strengthen the MIL not because they were dissociated from the traditional ethnoculture, but because activism on their behalf was contra-indicated and because their functions, far from being differentiated and/or shared with its robust competitor, were relegated to the religious domain. Within this domain, the local Spanish authorities re-assigned the MIL to sub-domains: representation of religious plays and confession. Manuals written for the purpose of confession appeared in Mazahua and the languages of Chiapas (Nágera Yanguas 1621; Rus 1989). In this fashion, the functions were not even partially recovered, much less reinforced by the speakers themselves or by the authorities in charge of secular and religious education. Finally, the eighteenth century is well-known for having one representative, Francisco Xavier Clavijero, who revamped the studies of Nahuatl. A Jesuit by training and vocation, Clavijero brought to an end the colonial enterprise in the areas of language and history of the ancient Mexicans. The work of the Jesuits culminated towards the end of the colonial period, inasmuch as they became the most outspoken instigators of the War of Independence against the former mother country, Spain. The nationalist endeavors of the Jesuits are pre-modern or quasi-modern, if we ponder nationalism in modern terms, i.e., from the nineteenth century on. In this vein, Fishman (1972) has defined the roles of nationalist proto-elites that are: the essential synthesizers, separators, popularizers, and organizers on whom the spread of nationalism depends. They not only create or further the broader unity and heightened authenticity that they seek, but they plant an awareness of both of those desiderata in a population that is becoming increasingly receptive to unifying and activating solutions of many kinds; they point to the success of nationalist struggles in distant cultures and in

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 81 other times with which the ordinary man would hardly be familiar; they spread the views of spokesmen that might otherwise remain unnoticed, and in general, they heighten awareness that are only latent, so that not only will masses come to feel that they constitute a nationality but that they will also be willing to act upon the basis of that feeling (16).

7. Conclusions Assessing language maintenance and shift in the multilingual and multicultural scenario of the Mexican colony helps to elucidate the dynamics of languages and cultures in contact, although the Westernization of Mesoamerica is not complete. The contact of Western culture with the nonWestern cultures provoked a clash of civilizations that may be interpreted in different ways: (1) The clash polarized the two civilizations to the extent that indigenous peoples sought marginal and often barren areas in order to isolate themselves from the new emerging society. In spite of the deleterious conditions imposed upon them, they still maintain a visible adherence to their own culture. (2) Another interpretation puts forth that the Mesoamerican and Spanish cultures had similarities that made the contact much easier, and that to this day, the cultures overlap in some areas more than in others. (3) Still a more radical and paradoxical view proposes that the clash of civilizations explains both the fusion and juxtaposition of Western and non-Western civilizations in Mesoamerica. The examination of language maintenance and language shift in the colonial space aids in discerning the present-day situation within a sociohistorical perspective. While the rescue mission of the sixteenth century can be seen as the untiring work of reverse language shifters – truncated by both the Old World and the New World Spanish authorities – language shift proceeded intermittently in the seventeenth century. Sixteenth century nationalists and reverse language shifters with ideals of autonomy were supplanted by the leading seventeenth century Jesuits who articulated a synergistic strategy that appropriated the symbols of the Aztec civilization and fused them with those of the emergent New World Spanish civilization. This plan of action favored the Spanish language to the extent that the new society created its own privileged spaces, while the MIL were overpowered by the transplanted language. The history of Spanish in the Mexican colony is not parallel to the history of indigenous languages, inasmuch as the latter have their own tradition, which is explored in the next article.

82 Margarita Hidalgo

However, the synergistic plan, better known in Latin American history as mestizaje, was so successful that it rendered a mainstream society that is still impacted – albeit superficially – by the traditions of the original indigenous cultures. This Indianized society still carries vestiges of preHispanic cultures and languages. In these particular groups of Mexican Spanish speakers, Claudia Parodi (in this volume) identifies an additional Stage 9 or substratum Stage – which goes beyond the eight Stages proposed in RSL theory – and which describes a more deteriorated cultural and linguistic position of the society in question.

Note 1. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1494–1573) was a Spanish philosopher and theologian known for his Demócrates Segundo; o de las Justas causas de la guerra contra los indios, and also for his debate with Bartolomé de las Casas (1484– 1566). Organized by Charles V, the great debate of 1550 between las Casas and the colonists’ advocate, took place in Valladolid, capital of Spain, before the Council of the Indies. For five days, las Casas and Sepúlveda debated on Spain’s treatment of Amerindians; while las Casas denounced the abusive system established by the colonists, Sepúlveda based his opinions on Aristotle’s Politics. This was the first debate in the world about human rights. (For thorough information on the subject, see Hanke [1974] 1994).

References Baudot, Georges 1974 The last years of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1585–90): The rescue of the confiscated work and the Seraphic conflicts. New unpublished documents. In Sixteenth-Century Mexico. The Work of Sahagún, Munro S. Edmonson (ed.), 165–188. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. 1988 Fray Rodrigo de Sequera. Devil’s advocate for Sahagún’s forbidden history. In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún. Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-century Aztec Mexico, Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson and Eloise Quiñones Keber (eds.), 119–134. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bernard, Carmen and Serge Gruzinski 1991 Histoire du Nouveau Monde. De la découverte à la conquête, une expérience européene. Paris: Arthème Fayard.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 83 Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo [1987] 1995 México profundo. Una civilización negada. Mexico: Editorial Grijalbo. Boone, Elizabeth 1994 Introduction.Writing and recording knowledge. In Writing Without Words. Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerican and the Andes, Elizabeth Boone and Walter Mignolo (eds.), 1–22. Durhman, N.C.: Duke University Press. Boone, Elizabeth and Walter Mignolo (eds.) 1994 Writing Without Words. Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerican and the Andes. Durhman, N.C.: Duke University Press. Brice Heath, Shirley 1972 Telling Tongues. From Colony to Nation. Language Policy in Mexico. New York: Teachers College Press. Browne, Walden 2000 Sahagún and the Transition to Modernity. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carrera de la Red, Avelina 1988 El “problema de la lengua” en el humanismo renacentista español. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Cifuentes, Bárbara 1998 Letras sobre voces. Multilingüismo a través de la historia. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social and Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Company Company, Concepción 1994 Documentos lingüísticos de la Nueva España. Mexico: El Colegio de México. Cruz, Juana Inés de la 1951–1957 Obras completas. (Edition, prologue and annotations by Alfonso Méndez Plancarte). Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. 4 vols. 1989 El sueño. (Edition and introduction by Alfonso Méndez Plancarte). Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Culbert, T. Patrick (ed.) 1977 The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press. Edmonson, Munro S. (ed.) 1974 Sixteenth-century Mexico. The Work of Sahagún. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press. Fishman, Joshua A. 1972 Language and Nationalism. Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

84 Margarita Hidalgo 1991

Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2001 Why is it so hard to save a threatened language? In Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), 1–22. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gruzinski, Serge [1988] 1991 La colonización de lo imaginario. Sociedades indígenas en el México español. Siglos XVI-XVII. (Translated from the French by Jorge Ferreiro). Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Hanke, Lewis [1974] 1994 All Mankind is One. A Study of the Disputation of Bartolomé de las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indians. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University. Henríquez Ureña, Pedro 1984 Estudios mexicanos. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Hensey, Fritz G. 1992 Syntax, text processing, and translation Ordo Artificialis in Sor Juana Inés’ ‘Primero Sueño’. Hispanic Linguistics 4 (2): 389–403. Hidalgo, Margarita 2001a One century of study in New World Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 9–32. 2001b Sociolinguistic stratification in New Spain. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 55–78. Klor de Alva, Jorge J.; H. B. Nicholson; and Eloise Quiñones Keber (eds.). 1988 The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún. Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-century Aztec Mexico. Albany: State University of New York. Klor de Alva, Jorge J. 1988 Sahagún and the birth of modern ethnography: Representing, confessing,and inscribing the native other. In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún. Pioneer ethnographer of Sixteenth-century Aztec Mexico, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson and Eloise Quiñones Keber (eds.), 53–64. León-Portilla, Miguel 1999 Bernardino de Sahagún. Pionero de la antropología. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Lockhart, James 1991 Nahuas and Spaniards. Postconquest Central Mexico History and Philology. Stanford University Press.

Dimensions of language maintenance and shift in colonial Mexico 85 1992

The Nahuas After the Conquest. A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: University Press. López Austin, Alfredo 1974 The research method of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún: The Questionnaires. In Sixteenth-century Mexico. The Work of Sahagún, Munro S. Edmonson (ed.), 111–149. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico. Mendieta, Jerónimo de [1596] 1870 Historia Eclesiástica indiana. (Edited by Joaquín García Icazbalceta). Mexico: Librería Robredo. Nágera Yangas, Diego de [1637] 1970 Doctrina y enseñanza de la lengua mazahua. Mexico: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México. Niño-Murcia, Mercedes 2001 Late-stage standardization and language ideology in the Colombian press. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 119– 144. Paz, Octavio 1982 Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o las trampas de la fe. Barcelona: Seix Barral. Quiñonez Keber, Eloise 1988 The Sahaguntine corpus. A bibliographic index of extant documents. In The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún. Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-century Aztec Mexico, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson and Eloise Quiñones Keber (eds.), 341–345. Reed Torres, Luis and María del Carmen Ruiz Castañeda (eds.) 1995 El periodismo en México. 500 años de historia. Mexico: EDAMEX. Ricard, Robert 1933 La “conquête spirituelle” de Mexique. Essai sur l’apostolat et les méthodes missionaries des Ordres Mendiants en Nouvelle-Espagne de 1523–1524 à 1572. Paris: Université de Paris. Institut d’Ethnologie. Ruiz Castañeda, María del Carmen, (Coordinator). 1990 La prensa. Pasado y presente de México. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1995 Periodismo mexicano del siglo XVII. In El periodismo en México. 500 años de historia, Luis Reed Torres and María del Carmen Ruiz Castañeda (eds.), 55–80. Mexico: EDAMEX. Ruz, M. H. (ed.). 1989 Las lenguas del Chiapas colonial. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas.

86 Margarita Hidalgo Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de 1950–1982 Florentine Codex. General History of the Things of New Spain. (Edited and translated by Arthur J.O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble). Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research. 1956 Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. Mexico: Porrúa. (Edited by Angel María Garibay). 4 vols. [1988] 2000 Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. (Unabridged version of the Spanish text of the manuscript known as Florentine Codex). Introduction, paleography, glossary and notes by Alfredo López Austin and Josefina García Quintana. Mexico: Comisión Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. 3 vols. Von der Walde Moheno, Lillian 1990 Los certámenes literarios del siglo XVII y un documento de la época. Signos. Anuario de Humanidades 1:121–143. (Mexico City). Woolard, Kathryn A. 2002 Bernardo de Aldrete and the morisco problem: A study in early modern Spanish language ideology. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History 3: 446– 480.

Chapter 4 Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages Margarita Hidalgo Abstract This article explores the various factors that have impinged on the survival of Mexican indigenous languages from the early times of the conquest and colonization of Mesoamerica to the present. Scholarship in and about indigenous language began early in the era of colonization; evangelization in indigenous peoples was conducted, too, in some of the most accessible and prestigious languages. Many Mexican indigenous languages have survived after major population losses, an early discourse of transculturation, and a language policy favoring Spanish in selective colonial domains. The slow process of recovery is related to demographic recovery, socio-religious movements, rebellion, and confrontation. Throughout the centuries, speakers have used different strategies of survival ranging from resistance to language maintenance with bilingualism and language shift with culture preservation. The causes of the Chiapas uprising are discussed in connection with the language attitudes of the indigenous peoples of the state. In the past three decades, a single trend of maintenance and shift can be identified and interpreted as survival and stabilization. Given the advances in sociolinguistics, linguistic rights of regional and/or autochthonous peoples, and uncensored communication via cyberspace, post-modern history may be more promising to indigenous populations.

1. Language survival Language survival is defined herein as the balance of language maintenance and language shift when the latter is the outcome of a major disruption. The conquest of Mexico is considered the beginning of the catastrophic loss of millions of speakers of Mesoamerican languages. From that point onwards, language maintenance and shift have become one single dynamic pattern. The socio-historical factors that have impinged on the

88 Margarita Hidalgo

preservation or demise of Mexican indigenous languages are explored in light of the reversing language shift (RLS) framework, which considers physical and demographic dislocation equivalent or translatable to language-in-culture dislocation. The cases examined within this framework are either Western or at least substantially impacted by greater exposure to Western-derived values, processes and dislocations (Fishman 1991: 7), although the model of RLS has usually been applied to modern industrialized societies. The process of colonization of the Mesoamerican peoples which followed the conquest fostered language-in-culture contact, which in turn altered many expressions of material and non-material culture. While many socio-cultural and linguistic dislocations have adversely affected the Mesoamerican peoples, several strategies of survival have been recorded for posterity by certain agents of change. Language survival is tantamount to culture survival, although some non-linguistic dimensions of culture may last longer than their respective languages. The losses in speakers, domains, and/or functions of a given language is known as language shift, whereas preservation is known as language maintenance. Quantifying losses and gains with relative accuracy poses a scientific challenge for both governmental agencies and researchers interested in describing the precise demographic behavior(s) of complex entities. When bilingualism or multilingualism are the end-result of catastrophe, language maintenance and shift are more inter-dependent or co-dependent than observers and speakers are willing to admit, because the perception of a change in the direction of assimilation to the victorious language seems to prevail. This article does not intend to highlight the quantitative or even qualitative facets of language shift in Mexico. It attempts to explore retrospectively the strategies of survival that have deterred an even more pronounced language shift after the apocalyptic encounter between Spaniards and Mesoamericans. Speakers of Mesoamerican languages began to shift to Spanish since the early days of the conquest of Mexico, but language shift has been gradual and selective. Paradoxically, the Mesoamerican languages were instrumental in the conquest of Mexico because Spaniards tenaciously sought communication in them due to the high degree of political and socio-cultural development reached by the millenary pre-Hispanic societies. Spaniards discovered the indigenous languages as they discovered the new lands, and from the onset, it was clear that they needed to use them for different functions.

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 89

2. Survival strategies In this scenario, various dramatic catalysts are responsible for initiating a language shift of major consequences: first, drastic population losses resulting from disease, warfare, and natural disasters; second, an early discourse of transculturation; and third, a tenacious language policy launched by the Spanish Crown (via a strong system of social stratification) for the recently discovered territories of the New World. These ominous conditions were countervailed by less inimical determinants that were conducive to language maintenance, that is, the recovery of the population, the rescue mission initiated by sixteenth century humanists, the rebellions propelled by socio-religious movements, and the recent post-modern confrontation with the modern Mexican nation-state. Survival is a cultural phenomenon originating under adverse conditions such as those imposed on the Mesoamerican peoples; it still occurs in connection with the many cultural changes that have affected the Mesoamerican civilization throughout centuries of contact with the Western civilization. As a case in point, the persistence of various traits of the Mesoamerican civilization under conditions of stress have resulted from adherence to the cultura propia (Bonfil Batalla 1987). While it is difficult to reconstruct the historical sequences of previous ethno-linguistic and cultural expressions and forms, the preservation of the cultura propia can be explained by different strategies of survival. These strategies are derived primarily from the Mesoamerican civilization, which is not represented by one skimpy group lacking cultural maturation, but by a large conglomerate of peoples which attained diverse degrees of cultural development and varied resources. A civilization is not an aggregate of isolated cultural traits but a vital scheme that gives significance to the acts of human beings who are, in turn, positioned in a peculiar relation with mother nature and the universe. This relationship is a larger, more stable, and more permanent framework in which several cultures are accommodated and several histories are understood. The testimonies of this long civilizing process surround the descendants of the Mesoamerican peoples; for instance, agro-products “invented” or “domesticated” in the region (e.g., maize, beans, squash, pepper, tomato, avocado, cacao, and cotton) have become general products of consumption in many areas of the world (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 32–34). The attitude towards mother nature is so significant that it may determine the adequate selection of the seeds to be sowed simultaneously with the celebration of a propitiatory ritual; it also explains why land may not be treated

90 Margarita Hidalgo

as a mere commodity but as a common territory. Ancient practices include the manufacturing of material objects such as houses, public places, cemeteries, sacred sites, in addition to forms of social organization, codes of communication, and the like. The cultura propia is accessed by the proprietors that identify with it. Language is, too, part of the patrimony of the cultura propia (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 48–49). The territorial distribution of the indigenous population shows a denser concentration in those areas that had reached a visible cultural development before the European invasion, although there is not an absolute correspondence between the two. The conglomerate of peoples known as Mesoamerica tends to be selfsufficient in different arenas: family, lineage, headquarters, and community. Due to social pressures, endogamy is commonly practiced in order to ensure self-sufficiency (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 57–59), but this is not an absolute condition, inasmuch as exchanges between groups and other sectors of the dominant society exist in different ways and with unequal intensity. The weekly tianguis (open market) or the annual fair are institutions used to facilitate the circulation of products. There is also a steady flow of arts and crafts, and some communities have specialties in some specific crafts; some have a longer tradition, for their technology can be pre-Hispanic while many others have been modified throughout the entire colony (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 63). Craftsmanship and agriculture are reinforced by means of regional trade. For many decades some groups use both components in their daily lives: those of the cultura propia and some of the imposed culture. However, some cultural traits may be rejected by the dominant society, e.g., clothing, language, housing, rituals, and other customs. In addition to objects of material culture, Mesoamerican peoples participate in a scheme of social complexities that is not readily appreciated. Individuals perform diverse occupations and activities, and even possess specialized knowledge. Medicine, for example, involves practices that belong to the public domain and that are used to treat common sickness, but there exist specialists who preserve ancestral traditions to treat illnesses that are severe. In combination with rituals prescribed by tradition, a more profound knowledge of therapeutic properties of herbs and other products caters to both body and soul. There are also symbolic elements belonging to the culture that are put in motion in order to re-establish health. Communities can count on specialists in house-building, manufacturing of agricultural tools, or “weather forecast administrators” who work according to the season of storms and rains. All these practices build the capacity for self-

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 91

sufficiency. In terms of social organization, the authority is linked to social prestige, which is demonstrated via service to the community and assumed responsibilities known as cargos (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 65–67). Time and the supernatural are not interpreted according to the views of Western society. In the Mesoamerican civilization, time is cyclical, not linear. The universe elapses in a series of cycles that are not identical, but go through the same stages in an endless spiral. When a cycle ends, another similar cycle begins. Human beings complete, too, their own cycle, which is in harmony with the other cycles of the universe; the needed harmony is expressed in rituals of the agro-calendar that symbolizes the renovation of life in which human beings participate. The cyclic notion is present, too, in the awareness of history: the ancestral past which was free of colonial domination, and which is at present the foundation of hope in the cycle of time – the golden age that will return one day (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 71). In spite of its many variations, the Mesoamerican civilization consists of a set of cultures whose diversity is visible within its basic unity; the coherence of its traits is disturbed or dislocated when it comes in contact with new ideas, objects, or peoples belonging to the other culture. Selfsufficiency can be restricted by contact with a dominant culture lacking the coherence or unity that Mesoamerican cultures have. Moreover, the notion of an autonomous culture upon which a cultural heritage rests is advanced in order to explain how Mesoamerican peoples confront the new situations, world changes, and the connections that each group establishes with the world. From this perspective, there is adaptation, resistance, appropriation, invention, and new strategies of accommodation that allow them to survive. This is only a small part of their patrimony, of their reality, but in this small part lies the reason for their existence (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 72). Indigenous groups remain as differentiated social units with their own identity that is based on a particular culture. Their many ways of resistance configure an intricate network of strategies occupying an ample space in their culture and daily life. A tradition of resistance makes the cultures permanent, while their dynamics is understood within the framework of colonial domination that limits and distorts their own developmental transformation (Bonfil Batalla [1987] 1995: 191). They survive because they selectively utilize some of the cultural components of the dominant culture and adapt them creatively to suit their own needs. In this context, I attempt to explore issues related to language maintenance and shift, for they approximately reveal the extent to which languages might have been

92 Margarita Hidalgo

affected and/or the circumstances in which they were affected, given that the Mesoamerican civilization and its languages were not completely destroyed. I also attempt to respond to questions such as: What was the impact of the early discourse on transculturation? Have the strategies of survival been effective to restore and recondition the previous stages of language-in-culture shift? What are the most effective forms of resistance?

3. Initial stages of the beginning catastrophe The realization of the conquest rested on the political crisis within the Aztec empire, the virulent eruption of epidemics resulting from contact between Amerindians and the newly arrived Europeans, and the improvisation of a team of native interpreters. Hernán Cortés, the forerunner of Mexico’s conquest, was fortunate to have been introduced at the outset to Malintzin, also known as doña Marina (her christened name) or la Malinche (her pejorative name), who soon became his interpreter, advisor, and companion. The dazzling career of Cortés in his campaign against the Aztecs has been assessed in connection with his ability to rely upon a team of loyal interpreters; the most outstanding of all was the Nahuatl-Mayan bilingual princess, Malintzin, who had been sold as a slave on various occasions in spite of her noble origins. The first allusion to Malintzin appeared in 1520 in the Cartas de Relación by Hernán Cortés himself, where he refers to her as his interpreter (Cortés [1520] 1866). Malintzin knew Mayan, which was also spoken by Jerónimo de Aguilar – a surviving Spaniard of a shipwreck enslaved by the Yucatec Mayas – who was found accidentally and successfully rescued by Cortés. Both Jerónimo de Aguilar and Malintzin became the trusted interpreters of Cortés. Malintzin communicated with Jerónimo de Aguilar in Mayan, and Aguilar in turn communicated in Spanish with Cortés. Aguilar conveyed to Malintzin the messages that Cortés wanted to deliver to Montezuma (the penultimate Aztec emperor). This triangular system of communication was expanded to include one more language (Totonac) and proved to be cost-efficient, for Malintzin and Aguilar gave Cortés valuable information about his unknown adversaries (the Aztecs), the exotic capital of their empire, and the system of subjugated provinces. Malintzin remained in proximity to the Spanish warriors throughout the conquest of the Aztec Empire: the expedition along the gulf of Mexico, the city-state of Tlaxcala, the city-state of Tenochtitlan – where Montezuma

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 93

ruled – and the city of Cholula. When Cortés finally reached Tenochtitlan, Malintzin was at his side as interpreter (Kartunnen 1994: 11). She addressed Montezuma in what is known in Nahuatl as “lordly speech”. That she dared to address herself directly to Montezuma in order to translate for Cortés bespeaks raw courage, for none of his own courtiers “dared even to think of looking him in the face but kept their eyes lowered with great reverence” (Karttunen 1994: 11). Apparently Malintzin knew that her audacity had instilled terror in the Aztec leaders. Shortly after this encounter, Montezuma was taken hostage. During his captivity, a Spanish boy named Orteguilla – who was picking up Nahuatl as quickly as Malintzin was acquiring Spanish – assisted Cortés at all times (Karttunen 1996: 13). Orteguilla’s task was to double-check the messages conveyed to and received by Cortés. Leaving the city-state of Texcoco on April 6, 1521, the Spaniards proceeded to attack Tenochtitlan; with this purpose in mind, they engaged in intense battles for the following five months until they seized the splendid capital, where the Aztec leaders were awaiting them. While the Spaniards were involved in perilous tasks on the southeast plains of the city – where the lakes could diminish their artillery and cavalry – the allied troops led by the Aztecs attempted to assault them by the rear. In the meantime, the Aztec warriors would rush them in a pincer move. This strategy failed because at this point the Aztecs encountered the smallpox virus left behind by the receding Spanish soldiers. As they were being debilitated by the spreading disease – inside their own city walls – the Aztecs realized that their strength was, too, dwindling beyond the confines of their capital. Scholars agree that both disease and political disarray defeated the Aztecs: smallpox killed the Tenochtitlans, the Tlaxcalans, and the Texcocans while many of the allied groups deserted the remaining leaders of the falling Aztec empire. Tenochtitlan was finally destroyed on August 13, 1521, when Cortés retook the capital. According to the chronicler López de Gómara “the enemy lost 100,000 men, or many more, according to others, but I am not including those who died of hunger and the pestilence” (in Cook 1998: 68). The sad outcomes resulting from disease only prolonged the agony of the native population, for “no one remained to provide water and food for those infected and convalescing. Nor was anyone available to tend to the normal agricultural tasks. The immediate consequence was excessive mortality, followed by a year of famine and starvation, and a subsequent passage of another killer pandemic, exacerbating mortality” (Cook 1998: 202).

94 Margarita Hidalgo

In the midst of annihilation, Malintzin “had seen it all, been in the thick of everything, called on at any hour to interpret between Cortés and the most intimidating people one could imagine. She had not been taken prisoner and sacrificed at the top of a pyramid, as some of the Spaniards had been. She had not been killed in the flight from Tenochtitlan. She had not drowned in the lake. She had not died of smallpox” (Karttunen 1994: 16). Other’s interpretations of Malintzin’s actions make her the central figure of the conquest, for she inaugurated a new discourse of transculturation (Baudot 1996: 300). Malintzin was indeed the most celebrated survivor of one of the most bewildering cataclysms in the history of humanity. The question that should be raised at this juncture is: Can Malintzin be considered the first language shifter after the Spanish conquest? All sources indicate that she used her linguistic abilities to the service of the Conquest; but her swift exposure to and acquisition of Spanish is part of a legend and not a determining factor or the most important indicator of language shift. Nonetheless, Malintzin and other interpreters are partially responsible for the fall of the Aztec Empire and indirectly related to the trend of language shift that could have been more pronounced, had the mendicant orders not intervened to mitigate the dramatic losses (see my contribution “The multiple dimensions of language maintenance in colonial Mexico” in this volume).

4. Survival strategies: A glimpse at demographic trends One of the most complex phenomena in Mexican prehistory is the peopling of ancient Mesoamerica, whose greatest success in terms of demographic density is found in the Central Mexican Basin, and for which scholars have pieced together a series of population estimates stretching over three millennia. Regional trends summarize a myriad of local experiences, welldocumented in the Teotihuacán valley; they show how difficult it was to win the demographic lottery in ancient Mesoamerica, for the disappearances of many ancient civilizations have provoked much speculation about their causes (McCaa 2000: 245–246). Scholars suggest that the question about Mesoamerica should be stated not in terms of the decline of cities, cultures, or peoples, but about the forms of survival. Bio-archaeological records reveal that Mesoamerican populations – like most ancient peoples – were fragile, weakened by physical and physiological stress and other adverse conditions, although somewhat less so than most other peoples of North America. In addition, paleo-demography corroborates the findings of

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 95

short life expectancy (McCaa 2000: 247). For instance, the Nahua civilization survived and thrived “by means of a high-pressure demographic system: high mortality and higher fertility with growth rates triple those of most paleo-populations” (McCaa 2000: 251). The contact with another civilization prompted a catastrophe of major proportions and led to the death of millions from disease, exploitation, environmental degradation, and warfare. “There is a consensus that the sixteenth century was a demographic disaster for Mesoamericans” (McCaa 2000: 252). Estimates for the magnitude of the disaster vary so widely that at least three schools of thought attempt to interpret the losses: catastrophists, moderates, and minimalists. The catastrophists or maximalists place the scale of demographic disaster at 90% or more and calculate a large native population at contact, exceeding ten, twenty, or even thirty million. The second group of scholars detects decreases of 50–85%, but favor smaller populations at contact (5–10 million), while minimalists perceive the scale of the disaster on the order of 25% (McCaa 2000: 244–252). It is estimated “that the population of Mexico must at contact have been no less than the minimalist estimate of 4 to 5 million and was likely double and possibly even triple that figure” (McCaa 2000: 253). Recovery of the native population began by the middle of the seventeenth century; some scholars place the nadir at 3.4 million Indians around 1650 whereas others estimate the figure at only 1.3 million. Under such circumstances, the recovery was accompanied by considerable mixing of peoples of various ethnic backgrounds, although Indians always comprised the majority of the population of colonial Mexico; people solely African or European constituted a very small subpopulation. By the end of the sixteenth century, the second largest group was that of Spanish speakers of mixed European and Indian stock raised in a Spanish environment (euromestizos); mixed stock of Indians and Europeans raised in an indigenous environment (indomestizos); and Spanish-speaking mixed groups with an African component (afromestizos) who also made up a considerable fraction of the population (McCaa 2000: 262–265). Even in this calamitous era, scholars find a subtle correspondence between the powerful external determinants (e.g., the late 1570’s epidemics) and language changes. For instance, a peak of post-conquest Nahuatl alphabetic writing was developed by a new generation [ca. 1580– 1610], which had had no real experience with the initial stage (1519-ca. 1545–1550) of the great revolution, reorientations, and catastrophes (Lockhart 1992: 428–429; 433–434).

96 Margarita Hidalgo

By the late eighteenth century, improvements in census taking give the impression of a rapid increase in all groups. “The most dramatic change was the growth of mestizos, who constituted about 25% of the population, rising to 40% in 1810” (McCaa 2000: 265). The nineteenth century witnessed a natural increase of the general population with little immigration and proved to exceed the population record for any other period of Mexican history prior to the demographic revolution of the twentieth century. From 5 million inhabitants in 1800, Mexico grew to 8 million by 1855, and to over 15 million in 1910, tripling in just over one hundred years. The worst decades of that century were those of war: 1810, 1840 and 1860, whereas the 1820s and 1830s were periods of higher than average growth (Mc Caa 2000: 279–280). The results of the first official census of independent Mexico appeared in 1895; they are derived from state censuses, information collected by prominent individuals and data documented in church records (Brachet 1976: 13–14). Little is known, however, about the general demographic trends of the indigenous peoples, although the most reliable sources point to a trend towards assimilation. Entire language groups disappeared in the North and the South (e.g., Californian, Lipano, Comanche, Concho, Chucona, Guasave, Opata, Tubar, Pochuteco and Chiapaneco). In addition, many indigenous groups participated in the new occupational activities such as mining, oil and textile industries, railroad construction, and military instruction areas, where they were more exposed to Spanish (Cifuentes and Pellicer 1989: 12–13). Finally, between 1921 and 1970, Mexico experienced a demographic transformation. The population increased considerably, from an annual rate of 1.7% during the 1920s to 3.3% during the 1960s. In fact, it had one of the fastest-growing populations in the world during the 1960s, almost three times the annual growth rate (1.2%) of the United States, and almost two times the annual growth rate of Canada (1.8%). Much of the increase in population from 1921 to 1970 was due to a large decrease in mortality rates; reductions in infant mortality greatly contributed to the decline in mortality rates while high fertility rates became moderate. Regressions suggest that states with a lower reduction in the proportion of indigenous population had also lower reductions in their fertility rates. Regression results also show that regions with a large proportion of indigenous population still have higher mortality and fertility rates nonetheless. The indigenous populations are highly concentrated by region (see “The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1979–2000” by Cifuentes and Moctezuma, in this volume). In the South of Mexico, over 40% of the

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 97

population spoke an indigenous language in 1930; this figure decreased to 25% in 1990 (Feliciano 2000: 604–612).

5. The twentieth century: Bilingualism and language maintenance Throughout the twentieth century, scholars have looked into the changes of monolingual and bilingual speakers of Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL). For example, Martínez Ruiz (1986) focused exclusively on monolingual speakers reported by the 1970 census. Absolute and relative figures for the ten most Indianized states are given by Brice Heath (1972), who directly measured results of language policy changes. Between 1940 and 1970, absolute figures show that bilinguals increased in every state from 1940–1950, and in seven states from 1950–1960 and from 1960– 1970. The most complete appraisals of the absolute and proportional decreases and increases are found in the works of Valdés and Menéndez (1987) and Valdés (1989 and 1995), who reconstructed the data on speakers of MIL from 1910 through 1990. Valdés’ analysis (1989) is concerned with the interpretation of changes that occurred as a response to external influences. The most important variable in identifying ethnicity and ethnic group is language. The data show that the dynamics of maintenance and shift is consistent, but the magnitude of the losses is gleaned through comparisons with the growth of the Spanish-speaking population, though the proportion of speakers of MIL (over 5 years of age) has remained below 15% during the past six decades. Table 1 shows the total population of the country (1930–2000); the total population over five years of age; and the total population of speakers of indigenous languages (henceforth SIL). The four columns from the far right show the percentage of SIL over 5 years of age, percentage of SIL relative to the total population, percentage of monolinguals, and percentage of bilinguals. Table 1 shows a consistent decline between 1930 and 1960; however, as of the decade of 1970, the gains and losses point to a clear trend of bilingualism, because the decline in the number of monolinguals is in direct proportion to the increase of bilinguals. The 1990 census added another variable, which included the number of SIL aged 0–4 who lived in a household where the head of household or spouse was a speaker of a SIL. The 1990 census registered 1,129,625 individuals; of these 975,276 were bilingual (Valdés 1995: 73).

98 Margarita Hidalgo Table 1. The population of Mexico relative to the population of SIL: 1930–2000 Year

Total Population

Population 5+

SIL 5+

%1

%2

%3

%4

1930

16 552 722

14 042 201

2 251 086

13.6

16.0

53

47

1940

19 653 552

16 788 660

2 490 909

12.7

14.8

50

53

1950

25 791 017

21 821 026

2 447 609

9.5

11.2

33

67

1960

34 923 129

29 146 382

3 030 254

8.7

10.4

36

64

1970

48 225 238

40 057 748

3 111 415

6.5

7.8

28

72

1980

66 846 833

57 498 965

5 181 038

7.8

9.0

23

71.4

1990

81 249 645

70 562 202

5 282 347

6.7

7.5

16

80

2000

97 483 412

84 794 454

6 044 547

6.2

7.1

18.5

81.5

1. Percentage of population of SIL 5 +; 2. Percentage of SIL in proportion to the total population; 3. Percentage of monolingual SIL; 4. Percentage of bilingual SIL Source: Valdés (1995: 68) and INEGI (2001: 267)

When the raw figures by language group are examined, the losses are again apparent among monolinguals while the gains tend to favor bilinguals. The growth of bilingualism is more apparent among the largest language groups: Mexica or Nahuatl, Maya, Zapotecan, Mixtec, Otomi, and Totonac (see Table 2). In contrast, some small language groups such as Tlapanec have experienced noticeable increases in recent decades, whereas some others such as Mixe show insignificant changes in the final analysis (cf. Valdés 1995 and INEGI 2001). The balance between language maintenance and shift is the most significant component of language survival. Finally, when bilinguals are added to the raw figures of monolinguals, most languages look more robust (see Tables 2 and 3). The differentials between bilinguals and monolinguals are normally larger among the largest language groups, whereas the same differentials among smaller language groups are less pronounced. The total number of SIL extrapolated from Table 3 (1970–2000) minus the total number of monolinguals which appears in Table 2 for the same period (1970–2000) show a consistent trend of increasing bilingualism. Table 4 shows the differentials in percentages. The persistence of some language groups can also be assessed taking into account the percent change of each language group according to fertility, mortality, and natural growth. For instance, the growth rate for 1980–1985 for language groups such as Nahuatl, Maya, Mixtec, Otomi, Zapotec, Mazahua, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Totonac, Mazatec, Tarascan, Chol, Huastec, Mixe, Tlapanecan, and others,

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 99

was 2.9%. The difference between fertility and mortality is considered the growth rate, which in these years is slightly higher than the national growth rate of 2.3% (Valdés 1989: 115).

Table 2. Examples of monolingual language groups by decade: 1930–2000 Year

Nahuatl

Maya

Zapotecan

Mixtec

Otomi

Totonac

1930

355 295

131 836

111 660

111 391

94 693

58 561

1940

360 071

114 011

104 661

124 994

87 404

59 242

1950

212 813

50 012

60 680

76 946

57 559

54 333

1960

297 285

81 013

78 763

106 545

57 721

63 794

1970

227 757

68 459

149 652

79 332

37 701

42 262

1980

289 124

89 887

67 032

94 539

46 979

58 538

1990

179 320

54 739

43 911

81 144

18 640

39 208

2000

195 934

65 061

42 756

99 680

16 836

38 489

Source: Valdés and Menéndez (1987: 17); Valdés (1995: 89); INEGI (2001:267)

Table 3. Examples of monolingual and bilingual language groups: 1970–2000 Year

Nahuatl

Maya

Zapotecan

Mixtec

Otomi

Totonac

1970

799 394

454 675

283 345

233 235

221 062

124 840

1980

1 376 989

665 377

422 937

323 137

306 190

196 003

1990

1 197 328

713 520

380 690

386 874

280 238

207 876

2000

1 448 936

880 291

451 038

437 873

291 722

240 034

Source: Valdés (1995: 89); INEGI (2001: 267)

Table 4. Percent of bilinguals: Six major language groups: 1970–2000 Year

Nahuatl

Maya

Zapotec

Mixtec

Otomi

Totonac

1970

71.5

86.4

47.2

65.9

82.9

66.1

1980

63.8

86.4

84.1

70.7

84.6

70.1

1990

86.9

92.3

89.1

79.0

93.3

83.6

2000

86.4

92.6

84.1

86.9

90.8

83.9

100 Margarita Hidalgo

6. Language survival and the recovery mission of the sixteenth century The detriment to the native populations was directly responsible for initiating a trend of language shift. The adverse conditions following the Mesoamerican catastrophe were promptly mitigated by favorable language policies advanced by the mendicant orders, whose members promoted, to a certain extent, language-in-culture maintenance. Between disaster and recovery, I identify an intermediate mechanism of survival, which is the end-result of the tensions between the two. Before 1524, several isolated friars preached the word of the Christian God to the indigenous peoples of Mexico. Hernán Cortés himself insisted upon the necessity to send missionaries to convert them. The famous mission of the Twelve Friars Minor of the Observance (better known as the Twelve Apostles) reached the coasts of Mexico on May 13 or 14, 1524 and arrived at the Great Tenochtitlan on June 17 or 18 of the same year. Their arrival meant the beginning of methodical evangelization, for they immediately trained themselves in ethnography and linguistics, and learned in addition the native languages of the regions they gradually discovered. Once the native language was mastered, the problem of explaining religious dogma became paramount. In order to resolve it, they adopted two complementary solutions: one group introduced into the Mesoamerican languages all the European words they thought necessary, while another group translated and avoided paraphrasing. The two methods were eventually fused into one, although the former was preferred. The principal result of the former was that texts written in the Mesoamerican languages were sprinkled with Latin and Spanish words (Ricard 1933). In religious matters, the Mexican mission adopted the concept of the tabula rasa, given the insistence of the religious orders to suppress the practices of autochthonous religions. According to Ricard (1933), their work of translation respected the native personality and soul. Scholarship initiated early in the colonial period laid the foundation for a rich production of texts in and about indigenous languages. The indigenous languages were perceived as being the most desirable vehicle to spread the Catholic faith. The scholarship in or about indigenous languages (between 1524 and 1572) amounts to 109 works written by the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, and anonymous writers. The recovery mission was intense, insofar as Nahuatl was used in the domains of education, Christian religion, scholarship, and local administrative affairs. Although the political puis-

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 101

sance of the Nahuas had been considerably diminished, the endeavors of the mendicant orders were effective in the partial restoration of the Mesoamerican languages, especially Nahuatl. Moreover, in the early stage of missionary linguistics, the friars accomplished a great deal, as they introduced the Latin alphabet and adapted the indigenous languages to reading, writing, and “grammatization”. In this period, Nahuatl, Otomi, Matlalzinca, Totonac, Tarascan, Mixtec, Zapotec, Zoque, and Huastec were covered (Ricard 1933: 344–352). In the century that followed, the polyglot friars expanded their scholarship in many other languages. By the end of the seventeenth century, scholarly production in Mesoamerican languages began to decline, although it was still common to re-edit grammars of some of the largest languages (Cifuentes 1998: 186). These works reflect the erudition of the times in the areas of philology, lexicography, ethnography, history, and religion. In this vein, Ricard (1933), Zavala (1996), and Cifuentes (1998) stress the results of the recovery mission initiated in the sixteenth century; in contrast, the work of Brice Heath (1972) underscores the trend of language shift resulting from colonial policy. While the policy of the Spanish Crown was resolute in promoting Spanish – in spite of a period of tolerance towards Nahuatl – many works of scholarship highlight the language maintenance trend. In addition to the 109 works above mentioned, Cifuentes (1998) includes the analysis of grammars, vocabularies, and descriptions of indigenous languages published throughout the colony. The manner of writing (from pictographic to alphabetic) and forms of expression such as songs, theater, titles, art and architecture are also well documented (Lockhart 1992: 326–426). According to Ricard (1933: ix), the beginning trends of recovery in the Mexican colony explain the subsequent development of the country: “Tout d’abord, le XVIe siècle est la période fundamentale dans l’historie et la formation du Mexique posthispanique: c’est la période où a lieu, sous sa form la plus aiguë, ce clash des civilisations dont aiment à parler les ethnologues, où tantôt se fondent et tantôt se juxtaposent les éléments américains et les apports espagnols dont le rapprochement a conféré au Mexique sa personalité actuelle; elle contient en germe toute l’evolution ultérieure du pays”. [To begin with, the sixteenth century is the fundamental period in the history and configuration of pre-Hispanic Mexico: it is the period where the ‘clash’ of civilizations takes place in its most acute form, where according to ethnologists, the New World components and the Spanish contributions are both fused and juxtaposed, and whose convergence has given Mexico its present personality. This contains the seed of all the subsequent

102 Margarita Hidalgo

evolution of the country]. The new civilization that fused or juxtaposed Mesoamerican and Western contributions mitigated the outcomes of the catastrophe. But nowhere was the “clash of civilizations” more apparent than in the ways of using language(s) and perceiving religious practices. Alphabetic writing in the Western tradition is an ancestral practice, whereas literacy in Romanized indigenous languages was not timely or opportunely rooted among their speakers, much less widespread. New forms of writing preserved the codes of the oral languages but dissolved the relationship that they maintained with their culture and thought, that is, with orality. Textual materials used for religious instruction alienated the Indians from their own languages because the religious mission appropriated them one by one in order to give them an alphabetic form completely distanced from the cultural heritage in which orality was contained. Writing in indigenous languages turned into a privilege that was the patrimony of the Church (Pellicer 1993: 25). In this vein, Pellicer (1993: 20) has underscored that orality has remained within the group of native speakers for whom it has been a means of communication, identity, cohesion, and cultural resistance. The varieties used for rituals had the function of reinforcing their social organization as well as the omnipresence of their symbolic resources. The role of language lay in the interaction of man with his deities, because placing language at the service of their own culture was more important than using it to control others’ culture. The act of governing was closely linked with the gift of eloquence, as there were social spaces arranged for use in discursive virtuosity. The skillfully weaved orality had the function of transmitting inter-generationally the laws, norms, and values that ensured collective identity. For all these reasons, the ritualized and cultured varieties of Nahuatl and other indigenous languages became invaluable tools of catechization. Some of these forms of discourse were modified with different lexicon, but they retained their structure and literary style (Pellicer 1993: 21). In contrast to the evolution of orality, the development of indigenous writing was determined by the demands of evangelization. Once they knew the language, missionaries represented its written form in the Latin alphabet. The relative ease with which they imposed an alphabet rooted in a cultural tradition wholly detached from the Mesoamerican civilization was conducive to symbolic oppression. To an extent, writing was an offensive strategy that truncated the development of patrimonial writing of the great Mesoamerican civilization. From then on, these practices can be considered part of linguistic colonialism (Pellicer 1993: 24–25). The colonialism of the

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 103

written word did not halt against the steadfastness of the alphabet, given that changes were introduced in the social functions and in the contents of the indigenous languages. Words, metaphors and other figures of speech were given new meanings in order to disseminate the Pater Noster, Salve Reginas, and all sorts of doctrines and confession books (Pellicer 1993: 25). Ironically, these texts in the Romanized indigenous languages rescued pre-Hispanic history, which was narrated by speakers in the native cultured varieties and rigorously transcribed. It is worth noting, however, that in the context of the power struggle between civil, religious, and secular authorities, writing in indigenous languages was restricted to functions dealing with religion and linguistics per se. Indigenous language literacy was mainly devoted to Christianization designs. This explains why ecclesiastic colonialism produced hundreds of grammars, dictionaries, and religious texts in and about indigenous languages. All of them contributed to the expansion of the precepts of the Church, but the indigenous languages did not attain a status comparable to Latin or Spanish (Pellicer 1993: 27). Despite the many restrictions imposed on the education of Indians, some were able to read, only a few were able to write, and even fewer had access to prominent roles in the Church that appropriated their languages. For this reason, they were deprived of an opportunity to participate in activities conducive to develop literacy in their own languages. In contrast to the instrumental and informative role to which they were confined, the indigenous languages preserved their space in the daily lives of their communities. As of the seventeenth century, they were vigorously linked to movements of resistance against the vice-regal authorities. In this way, indigenous literature is linked to orality, and as a consequence, it preserved traditional values and beliefs, ceremonial styles, symbolic force in therapeutic rituals, and also contributed in inaugurating and preserving prophecies that became part of subversive socio-religious movements throughout the colony (Pellicer 1993: 31). (See also Boone and Mignolo 1994). 7. Confrontation and resistance The Concilios Provinciales of 1565 and 1585 prohibited the indiscriminate translation of the gospel into indigenous languages; other restrictions included the prohibition to publish books dealing with the government, rituals, and beliefs of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples were not only deprived of some of their material commodities, but were also deprived of

104 Margarita Hidalgo

their right to have access to knowledge about their own autochthonous religion and about the newly implanted religion, unless the information were conveyed in Spanish. These drastic measures may explain why so many indigenous groups embraced socio-religious movements that are considered utopian projects and whose aspirations are seen as dimensions of possible futures that will grant social justice, well-being, and happiness on earth. Utopias stem from autochthonous peoples and represent their hopes of transformation of the world; they are endorsed by mythical, prophetic or messianic traditions which are mediated by collective participation and have become part of the project of de-colonization. Barabas looks into those that are exclusively rural and that were initiated by indigenous groups, for they represent both cultural and political resistance. These movements are not restricted to Mexico, but are the global expression of Latin American rebellion (e.g., Paraguay, Peru, Guatemala, Colombia, Brazil, and Bolivia). Success of the utopia is a victory of cultural survival, of never forgotten hopes that are always postponed (1987: 10). The concept of a tradition awaiting a golden age of a thousand years (a millennium) in which God will reign, is based on the Apocalypse and the Revelations of St. John. The millenarian belief is collective, terrene, imminent, ultimate, and catastrophic. Some of these movements have been labeled millenarian, revivalist, messianic, or nativist. In Latin America, they are not thoughtless revolts but conscious projects, meditated searches of material resources and implementation of cultural knowledge conducive to long-awaited achievements (e.g., the disappearance of colonizers and the recovery of the life truncated by the conquest). They are the result of intercultural contact situations that assume processes of change (Barabas 1987: 41–42). Although it is not necessarily in conflict with the nativist movement, acculturation is carried out by syncretism, while the myth plays a significant role in the movement because contact provokes a leap to the past (Barabas 1987: 53). The persistence of millenarian expectations can be explained by contextual situations of “multiple deprivation”. The actualization of the expectation in concrete junctures of colonial history appears to be connected to detonators that vary according to culture and context. These detonators can turn the existence and relationship between groups into critical situations. Multiple deprivation is the combined effect of poverty and powerlessness. This is not, however, the main factor explaining the evolution of millenarian movements; the disproportionate relationship between the expectations of change and the material resources available to attain them seems to be the major factor. In this scenario, religion provides

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 105

sacred means that are perceived as infallible to supersede religion itself. Deprivation can be, too, psychological, given that the validity of one culture and one identity is questioned by another dominant culture and identity (Barabas 1987). Between the sixteenth and the twentieth century, the number of socio-religious movements that attempted to re-evaluate the culture and identity of the Mesoamerican peoples and to restore their historical roots curbed by colonialism amounts to 52. These movements took place between 1531 and 1761 in the states of Yucatan, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Chiapas and Tabasco – where speakers of Maya predominate. They also occurred in the states of Oaxaca and Guerrero – where speakers of Zapotecan, Mixtecan, Mixe and Chontal can be found – as well as in the North of Mexico (Nayarit, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Durango and New Mexico) in addition to San Luis Potosí and Jalisco (Barabas 1987: 109–264). These old-fashioned rebellions are the direct testimony of a culture of resistance and survival, where orality has endured. 8. The Southern frontier and post-modern confrontation The regions of Chiapa and Soconusco (see Maps 1 and 2 based on Le Bot 1997: 39, 162) have a history of depopulation similar to that of central Mexico. In 1528, these areas were inhabited by approximately 220,000 indigenous persons, the number of which diminished considerably due to epidemics, warfare, and famine. Between 1529–31 and 1823, more than twenty epidemics have been documented. The first national census of 1895 reported an indigenous population of 160,000 vis-à-vis a growing population of mixed origin reaching almost 118,000 (De Vos 1994a: 61–64). By the end of the nineteenth century, the groups residing in Chiapas were significantly reduced both demographically and psychologically. Tzeltales, Tzotziles, Tojolabales and Choles were secluded in ‘reducciones’ (camps or reservations) where they were isolated from one another and divided to the extent that their languages have become understood locally as dialects while other signs of ethnic identity were either drastically transformed or completely eradicated. Groups of Mayan origin, the Tzeltales and Tzotziles, have staunchly adhered to their language(s) and culture(s) for about five hundred years. Only in recent times, however, have these groups questioned their own identities due primarily to the presence of religious sects, which have divided them in their own towns and villages (Fábregas Puig 1994). The aggressive Spanish penetration in this area occurred successively in 1524, 1526, 1527, 1528, 1536, 1542, 1559, and 1586 until the

106 Margarita Hidalgo

indigenous groups were subdued in 1695. In each of these violent encroachments, one entire region or one entire community responded with armed resistance, which then turned into outright insurrection. The insurrections are registered as follows: chiapanecas and zoques (1532–1534); cancuqueros and other groups of the Zendales (< Tzeltales) (1712); chamulas and neighboring Tzotzil-speaking communities (1869–70) (De Vos 1994a: 68). Other local revolts are also well-known to historians (cf..García de León 1984; Moscoso 1992). The reprisals imposed after each insurrection or revolt caused these groups to seek refuge in their homes and rural fields, where their languages and religion found more favorable conditions to survive (De Vos 1994a: 71). The history of independent Chiapas is not necessarily similar to that of independent Mexico. In 1821, Guatemala gained its sovereignty from Spain at the same time that it split from Mexico. Chiapas attempted to follow the Guatemalan route, but failed to become a sovereign nation. In 1824, Chiapas was annexed by Mexico while the Spanish-speaking emergent group in power promoted Spanish in public education and launched a ‘campaign’ against the Indian. In contrast to the rest of Mexico – where Indians began to (re)gain rights in landholdings and education – the indigenous peoples from Chiapas turned into quasi-captive slaves in the ‘fincas’ (farms) of the local ‘hacendados’ (landowners) (De Vos 1994b: 151). Some native groups of the area could escape the intolerable conditions imposed by the ‘hacendados’, and as a result, they secluded themselves in the mountains or the forest. In their isolated enclaves, the same groups rioting in the colony organized conspiracies that were again extinguished with undue force. Since the 1930’s, indigenous peoples (speakers of Tzetzal, Tzotzil, Chol, Tojolabal, and others) have steadily migrated to the subregion of ‘La Lacandona’ known as ‘Las Cañadas’ (“The Canyons”). The majority of the new migrants or ‘colonos’ escaped the opprobrious conditions of the ‘fincas’ in which they were working. Consequently, the population of the Lacandona (see Maps 1 and 2) has grown dramatically since 1920 when the small towns of Altamirano, Las Margaritas, Ocosingo and Palenque were inhabited by less than 11,000 people. The total population of these four municipalities in 1920 was merely 20,089; in 2000, it reached 376,515. The accelerated growth of the region stands in direct proportion to its ecological deterioration (De Vos 2002: 36–37). An interesting aspect of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas is their religious diversity. Since the 1970’s the number of individuals of Catholic affiliation began to decline in direct proportion to the increase of those identified as Protestant or Evangelical,

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 107

Map 1. Regions, ethnic groups, and migrations in Chiapas

Map 2. The scenario of the zapatista uprising

108 Margarita Hidalgo

or others (Leyva and Ascensio 1996: 68–69). Formerly separated from one other, today these groups identify themselves around a common denominator: ancestral oppression. A new identity has emerged vis-à-vis the cattle owners and ‘hacendados’ of Spanish origin (historically known as ‘kaxlanes’ (< castellanos). The movement for the new ethnicity became active in the 1970’s; those involved in the movement had assimilated all sorts of political and religious ideologies ranging from Maoism to liberation theology.

9. The languages of Chiapas In 1990, immediately before the zapatista uprising, the indigenous languages of Chiapas in descending quantitative order were the following: Tzeltal (258,153), Tzotzil (226,681) Chol (114,460), Tojolabal (35,567), Zoque (34,810), Kanjobal (10,349), Mam (8,725), Zapotec (2,721), and some others with less than 1000 speakers (e.g., Jacaltec, Mayan, Nahuatl). In 1990, eighteen languages are identified while two groups are unspecified making a total of 716,012 speakers; 169,593 more were added, inasmuch as the 1990 census appended a new variable that read “occupants of a household aged 0–4 where the head of household or spouse was a speaker of an indigenous languages” (Valdés 1995: 126). Ten years later, the XII Censo general (INEGI 2001: 271–72, 292) registered 52 languages and three unspecified language groups making a total of 809,592 speakers over five years plus 170,022 aged 0–4. Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Chol, and Tojolabal are the largest language groups (belonging to the Maya family) at the end of the twentieth century (see Table 5). Tzotziles are found in the highlands or Los Altos and spread out towards the Northeast near the border with Tabasco. They are concentrated in Chamula, Zinacantán, Chenalhó, and Simojovel and have the most effective territorial mobility in the state. Their language is closely related to Tzeltal and distantly related to Yucatec Mayan and Lacandon. Tzeltal represents the largest language group in Chiapas. Tzeltales are found in the municipalities of Ocosingo, Chilón, and Altamirano, but also in Tenejapa and Oxchuc, and are inclined towards Protestantism. Choles are found in Tila, Tumbalá, Sabanilla, Palenque, and Salto de Agua. Chol belongs to the Maya family and is related to Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Lacandon, Tojolabal, and Yucatec Mayan. There are three varieties of Chol (spoken in Tila, Tumbalá and Sabanilla) which are mutually intelligible. In

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 109

addition, Tojolabales are found in the ‘municipios’ of Las Margaritas but also in Comitán, Trinitaria, Altamirano and La Independencia; Tojolabal is related to Kanjobal, but also to Tzeltal and Tzotzil. Finally, Zoque does not belong to the Mayan family but is related to Mixe on the border with Oaxaca and Veracruz (Fábregas 1994). (See also the “The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000” by Cifuentes and Montezuma in this volume). Table 5. Monolingual language groups (mostly spoken in Chiapas): National data: (1930–2000) Year

Tzeltal

Tzotzil

Chol

Tojolabal

Zoque

1930

32 359

26 013

15 125

4 771

9 151

1940

34 502

49 194

19 499

6 882

6 581

1950

31 856

44 103

18 898

n.a.

4 804

1960

55 951

57 235

32 815

3 779

7 683

1970

57 314

50 329

30 434

4 296

7 560

1980

101 108

58 073

38 169

6 810

5 103

1990

94 560

78 158

38 204

7 707

4 576

2000

115 295

118 037

47 490

11 174

4 714

Source: Valdés and Menéndez (1987: 37); Valdés (1995: 89); INEGI (2001 : 267)

For many decades, Chiapas has ranked among the ten most indianized states, but has never been second or third. Between 1930 and 2000, states such as Campeche, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, or Yucatan have been ranked above Chiapas. Quantitative data on SIL between 1930 and 2000 indicate that Spanish is not drastically displacing the indigenous languages. Surprisingly, the indigenous languages keep growing, especially among those groups which have had a long history of resistance. Table 5 shows that the major languages of Chiapas have experienced losses and gains, only to recover (except for Zoque) sizeable groups of full-fledged monolinguals between 1970–2000. In the case of Tzeltal, the number of speakers more than doubled between 1970 and 1980 and its growth was sustained in the next two decades. The growth looks even healthier when the number of monolinguals and bilinguals is examined (see Table 6). The increases of Tzotzil, Chol and Tojolabal were less dramatic. The changes in the decade 1970–1980 may be explained by deficiencies in the census data-taking, given that the estimates for Tzeltal and Tzotzil were underreported in 1970

110 Margarita Hidalgo

(Valdés 1989: 177). Nevertheless, the official estimates for monolinguals and bilinguals in the past 30 years show changes that may be interpreted as bilingualism with language maintenance rather than bilingualism with language shift (see Tables 5 and 6). Questions about the communities of survivors, their language characteristics, and the local circumstances which led them to maintain their language(s) and culture(s) can be raised, for there is a tendency towards bilingualism rather than unidirectional language shift. Table 6. Monolingual and bilingual language groups (mostly spoken in Chiapas): National data: (1970–2000) Year

Tzeltal

Tzotzil

Chol

Tojolabal

Zoque

1970

99 412

95 383

73 253

13 303

58 452

1980

215 145

133 389

96 776

22 331

5 040

1990

261 084

229 303

128 240

36 011

43 160

2000

284 826

297 561

161 766

37 986

51 464

Source: a. 1970 and 1980 data derived from Valdés (1987: 37). b. 1990 data derived from Valdés (1995: 89); c. 2000 data derived from INEGI (2001: 267).

The differentials between bilinguals and monolinguals amongst the largest language groups of SIL nationwide are larger than amongst the language groups in Chiapas. As a case in point, Nahuatl, Maya Yucatec, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, and Totonac have higher ratios of bilinguals than the language groups in Chiapas (cf. Table 4). In contrast, the raw figures from Table 6 for the decades 1970–2000 show the totals of monolinguals and bilinguals; when monolinguals from Table 6 are subtracted from monolinguals in Table 5, the percentage of bilingual speakers is revealed in Table 7. For example, in 1980, the total for Tzeltal was 215,145; when this total is subtracted from the raw figure of monolinguals, we have a difference of 101,108, which represents 53%. In the following decade, the growth rate of Tzeltal bilinguals increased to 63.8%, but decreased to 59.6% according to the 2000 report. The descending trend of bilinguals is true for Tzotlzil and Tojolabal. There are some other interesting trends among the SIL of Chiapas. Men tend to be more bilingual than women. Whereas the largest language groups introduced in Table 2 and 3 are more balanced when it comes to the differentials of bilingualism by gender, the languages of Chiapas show larger differentials. For example, in the 2000 report, of the total bilingual speakers of Chol (92,160), 53,463 are men and only 38,697 are women.

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 111

Similarly, of the 157,027 Tzeltal bilinguals, 91,563 are men and 65,464 are women; in like manner, bilingual speakers of Tzotzil amount to 167,154; of these 99,764 are men and 67,390 are women; finally, of the 25,479 Tojolabales, 14,604 are men and 10,875 are women (INEGI 2001: 271–272). Table 7. Percent of bilinguals of the languages of Chiapas. National data: (1970–2000) Year

Tzeltal

Tzotzil

Chol

Tojolabal

1970

42.3

47.2

58.5

67.7

1980

53.0

56.5

60.5

69.5

1990

63.8

65.9

70.2

78.5

2000

59.6

60.3

70.6

70.5

10. Chiapas. The counterpoint Samuel Ruiz García was the thirty-fourth bishop of San Cristóbal de las Casas (cultural capital of Chiapas), where he began to envision the end of ecclesiastical imperialism in the Third World. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) and the Medellín Conference of Latin American bishops (1968) opened new horizons for the peoples of Chiapas, who thus responded to an invitation to tell him “what they expected of the church” (National Catholic Reporter 2000: 1). In three days of discussion in four Mayan languages, the 1250 delegates to the Congress of the Indigenous (1974) defined “a catechesis that would encourage the recovery of and respect for the people’s historical memory, its ministries, symbols and values, and specifically the development of indigenous clergy” (National Catholic Reporter 2000: 1– 2). “The option for the poor as an inescapable element of the Christian commitment merged as a dominant theme amongst the bishops of Latin America. The longstanding practice of imposing European forms in the evangelization of other cultures was openly questioned” (MacEoin 1996: 24). The renewed commitment of the Diocese was to incarnate the gospel in the cultures of the various communities, even if the linguistic diversity of the state was in itself a challenge. God’s salvific plan was revealed to the people of Chiapas so they could become agents of their own historical liberation. These views were recently and publicly reiterated by former Bishop Samuel Ruiz (Ruiz 2002). Since the 1970’s the rights of the indige-

112 Margarita Hidalgo

nous peoples to obtain land, education, and health, to organize their own cooperatives, to secure adequate transport from farm to market, and to process and commercialize their products was proclaimed by the Congress of the Indigenous. “They were the same demands the Zapatista rebels would formulate 20 years later” (National Catholic Reporter 2000: 2). Indeed, twenty years later, the same day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted (January 1, 1994), an indigenous guerrilla army in Chiapas declared war on the Mexican government. Rebels from the Zapatista National Liberation Army (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, known as EZLN or simply EZ) took over the mayoral offices of Altamirano, Chanal, Huitan, Ocosingo, Oxchuc, San Cristóbal de las Casas, and Las Margaritas (De Vos 2002: Map 38). The unexpected declaration of war was followed by a proclamation of the EZLN in the Tzotzil language (followed by the Spanish version) emphasizing that the war was the last resort, given that the Mexican government had been carrying out an undeclared war for decades. The reaction of the local Roman Catholic officials was to offer to mediate between the rebels and the authorities, in spite of the fact that the latter accused the members of the clergy of being followers and instigators of the theology of liberation movement. Bishop Samuel Ruiz became the peacemaker and his prompt intervention helped to prevent increasing violence.

11. Multiple deprivation The reasons behind the uprising lay in the awareness of multiple deprivation. While governmental policy favored large-scale producers to the detriment of small-scale producers, privatization led to exclusion of smallbusiness owners and workers. Additionally, the withering away of ‘ejidos’ (common land shares) was not only linked to basic survival but also to religious and cultural identity; finally, crop price supports and subsidization of primary goods were part of the new “economic order” linked to NAFTA. Multiple deprivation is more far-reaching, insofar as the state of Chiapas is well known for being heavily endowed with natural resources. It contains untapped petroleum fields and reserves of oil; for example, between 1984 and 1992, Petróleos Mexicanos drilled 19 oil wells in the Lacandona (De Vos 2002: 54). In this region, there are also precious woods, marketable flora and fauna, hydrocarbons, and minerals (De Vos 2002: 49). Twenty hydroelectric plants were recently built. Gas and minerals such as uranium,

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 113

iron, aluminum, copper, and others, can be found, too, in the state. In addition, Chiapas provides 55% of the national hydroelectric power; it has 30% of the water resources nationwide; and it is a major producer of coffee, corn, and cattle. Finally, its biodiversity makes it an attractive laboratory for experimentation with data on the planet’s environmental imbalances, erosion of natural species, genetic engineering, pharmaceutical products, and the like. In sharp contrast to the richness of the state, in 1990, 30% of all homes and 90% of indigenous households of Chiapas were without electricity; also, 90% of indigenous households were without running water. The 1990 statistics on educational attainment are equally deplorable: the average number of years of schooling – only four – represented the absolutely lowest in the country, three years below the national average and five full years below Mexico City. Illiteracy rates reached 30% of the population age 15 and older; 32% did not complete elementary school; 30% of children between the ages of six and 14 did not attend school; and only 18% of the population age 15 and older had completed secondary school (Pría 1994: 310–311). Celebrating Mexico’s entry to North American “democracy” and “modernity”, the neo-indigenous rebels attracted the attention of the world because they were searching to re-invent themselves. Many thought the conflict would go on for a long period, but according to former Bishop Ruiz, no one was able to foresee the real magnitude of the event “and we [were] surprised when it lasted 11 days – actually eight days” (Muñoz 1998). The armed conflict was short because “the Zapatistas never tried to gain power as the other guerrilla movements did. What they were trying to do was to shake up the socio-political conscience of the citizens of this country (...). They had the social and political power to be heard by Mexican and international public opinion” (Muñoz 1998). The Chiapas confrontation does not originate, however, from the socioreligious movements of the past, although the notion of multiple deprivation is put in bold relief in their demands. The neo-zapatista uprising belongs to the lineage of movements of indigenous liberation that emerged in Latin America during the past three decades (i.e., Shuar in Ecuador, Katar in Bolivia; Consejo Regional Indígena in Colombia; or Rigoberta Manchú in Guatemala). Their common denominator is the notion of a new modernity which links identity and integration; culture and economy; utopia and pragmatism; reason and heart; peculiarity and universality (Le Bot 1997: 19). The political roots of the Chiapas insurrection can be traced to

114 Margarita Hidalgo

Votán (the legendary leader of some indigenous Chiapas groups) and Emiliano Zapata (1879–1919), the southern agrarian leader who played a key role in the Mexican Revolution (1910–1921) (Le Bot 1997: 74). The longrange neo-zapatista agenda was better articulated in reference to political power, democracy, civil society, community, nation, and the emergence of the indigenous individual as a new subject of reflection. The political leader of the neo-zapatistas still is the mysterious Sub-Commander Marcos (an urbane intellectual with training in guerrilla movements); their shortrange goal was to design new ways of organizing the democracia comunitaria in communities which had only had experience with a traditional authoritarian model (Le Bot 1997: 83). Some of the internal contradictions of the neo-zapatistas were confronted and resolved via pragmatic solutions such as the inclusion of women and the consideration of diverse viewpoints, practices which were at times in conflict with local customs. Presumably, the neo-zapatismo was an actor in the process of democratization and contributed to its advancement. The long-term goal was the construction of a plural democracy resulting from the convergence of two movements: democratization of indigenous communities and democratization of the national society. The latter movement led to a reform of the political system, which in turn embraced the legitimate competition of more than two major parties (Le Bot 1997: 84–94). A multi-party system has indeed transformed the nation, thanks in part to the awakening of the national conscience resulting from the Chiapas uprising and from the civic movement of the Mexican northern states (particularly Chihuahua and Baja California Norte). The electoral reform of the late 1980’s leading to a multi-party system was pioneered in Cd. Juárez, Chihuahua and consummated in 2000. The most dynamic issue in the post-1994 Mexico continues to be Mexican identity, inasmuch as the neo-zapatistas claimed to be Mexican indigenous before claiming to be Mayas. The intense discussion over cultural and political autonomy, recognition of the democracia comunitaria, consuetudinary law, and bilingual education resulted in a document known as Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar or San Andrés Larráinzar Accords (henceforth SALA) which was endorsed by the EZLN and representatives of the federal government on February 16, 1996. The federal government soon noticed, however, that putting the SALA into practice would hinder the privatization and de-nationalization of the rich natural resources of the state, and consequently, reneged on its own commitment. This brought the peace negotiations to a standstill (see also Pellicer et al. in this volume).

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 115

12. The content of the San Andrés Larráinzar Accords (1996) The SALA are proposed constitutional amendments in the state of Chiapas dealing with issues ranging from human rights to the administration of natural resources. I highlight herein only those proposals that are directly or indirectly related to language and culture. These commitments make concessions in the following areas: Recognition of the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and autonomy as collective entities with different cultures. Promotion of autonomy in accordance with the additions and amendments to the General Constitution of the Republic; recognition of the multicultural composition of the state of Chiapas, which originates from the presence of the indigenous peoples (entities which enjoy historical continuities with the pre-Columbian societies and which maintain their own identity on the basis of their own territory, culture, and economic characteristics). The SALA give rights to use, promote, and develop the languages, cultures, customs and traditions of the state; in addition, rights are granted to use and enjoy the natural resources of their territories. Rights are given to indigenous women, on an equal footing with men, in all matters dealing with the governance and development of indigenous peoples. In addition, guarantees are given to the indigenous peoples to use their own mother tongue in statements and affidavits, which must be recorded with a translation into Spanish. These statements and affidavits in indigenous languages shall be recorded on audio tape, which shall be in turn attached to the corresponding file. Guarantees are also given to appoint interpreters who command both Spanish and indigenous languages; the interpreters are required to share and respect the culture and the indigenous juridical system. With respect to bilingual education, the SALA declare the recognition of the multicultural nature of the state; the right of the indigenous peoples to promote and spread the components which make up their culture, thus creating the need to establish bilingual and intercultural educational programs. Finally, the Mexican State guarantees an education that is respectful of their knowledge, traditions, and forms of organization. The indigenous peoples have priority in the decision-making process involving content associated with regional and cultural diversity of school programs (For a full text of the SALA, see Instituto Nacional Indigenista (2000) or www.ezln.org/san_andres/acuerdos.enhtm).

116 Margarita Hidalgo

13. Resistance, social change and language change It has been a decade now since the short-lived insurrection in Chiapas took place. Journalism and scholarship on the topic of Chiapas have promoted an editorial boom of unprecedented proportions. It is thus worthwhile to explore the question of whether the persistence of some of the languages of Chiapas is only coincidental, or if it is associated with the socio-historical determinants of survival. Moreover, in spite of the deleterious conditions imposed on the peoples of Chiapas, the population of SIL keeps growing and makes a sizeable fraction of the total population of the state. In 1990, immediately before the insurrection, it was as high as in 1930 (see Table 8). The decade 1990–2000 witnessed, however, a significant decrease of 6%, but the losses are compensated by the decrease of bilinguals amongst the two major groups: Tzeltal and Tzotzil (see Table 7 above). Table 8. SIL and total population of Chiapas: 1930–2000 Year

Total Population

Speakers of IL 5+

% Total Population

1930

529 983

139 532

26.3

1940

679 885

187 139

32.0

1950

907 026

198 087

26.2

1960

1 210 870

381 757

38.0

1970

1 569 053

287 836

22.2

1980

2 084 717

492 700

27.7

1990

3 210 496

716 012

26.4

2000

3 920 892

809 592

20.6

Source: a.1930–80 data derived from Valdés (1995: 21–26) b. 1990 data derived from Valdés (1995: 74–76) c. 2000 data derived from INEGI (2001: 267).

Bilingualism with language maintenance is a trend prevailing in Chiapas more so than in the rest of the country, but in the context of survival it is even more significant, given that the conditions of multiple deprivation have been exacerbated for centuries. The raw figures of Table 8 clearly show that the two major languages of Chiapas have ascended quantitatively between 1930 and 2000 while Table 9 shows the growth of monolinguals and bilinguals in the period 1980–2000 (see Maps 1 and 2).

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 117 Table 9. Monolinguals and bilinguals: State of Chiapas estimates: 1980–2000 Year

Tzeltal

Tzotzil

Chol

Tojolabal

1980

212 520

133 825

76 959

22 222

1990

258 153

226 681

114 468

35 567

2000

278 577

291 550

140 806

37 667

Source: Valdés (1987: Cuadro XV); Valdés (1995: 94–96) and INEGI (2001: 267)

Finally, the significance of bilingualism with language maintenance may be examined in the specific communities where the insurrection took place. The municipalities mentioned as foci, loci or simply related to the 1994 insurrection are the following: Altamirano, Chamula, Chanal, Larráinzar, Las Margaritas, Ocosingo, Palenque, Sabanilla, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Simojovel, where speakers of Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Zoque, Chol or Kanjobal are either bilingual or monolingual. In Palenque and Sabanilla the predominant language is Chol; in Las Margaritas is Tojolabal; Tzotzil prevails in Chamula, Larráinzar, San Cristóbal and Simojovel; while Tzeltal is the predominant language in Altamirano, Chanal and Ocosingo. In 1990, the total population of these municipalities ranged from 121,012 in Ocosingo to 7,159 in Chanal. Some of the municipalities (e.g., Larráinzar) and others (e.g., Chenalhó, Ocotepec, and Zinacantán) are 100% populated with SIL. This is not, however, the most important variable explaining their resistance to a pronounced language shift, given that there are other municipalities in the country that are entirely populated by indigenous people (in the states of Oaxaca, Veracruz and Yucatán, to name a few examples). Adherence to the cultura propia and the historical experience with resistance may explain language maintenance with moderate rates of bilingualism. Adherence to the cultura propia and the attitude of resistance may be considered one variable, which is coupled with the conditions of multiple deprivation. When all these variables are factored in, the explanation underlying language maintenance comes to light. Some may argue that the proportion of monolinguals is clearly lower than that of bilinguals and that the process of language shift is incessant. This is the preferred interpretation among those who consider language shift as a process apart from language maintenance. In my view, maintenance and shift are equivalent to bilingualism with maintenance or one single macrosocietal trend of stable bilingualism. Language functions and language

118 Margarita Hidalgo

attitudes are as important or more important than demographic growth. In this connection, it is also significant to explore these two phenomena. The multilingual and multicultural milieu of Chiapas has contributed to creating a scenario in which languages and dialects play their own roles and have their own functions. Reports about the region of La Lacandona reveal intriguing sociolinguistic patterns (Leyva and Ascencio 1996: 96– 103). In these diverse communities, inter-ethnic marriages are not only common but display interesting tendencies. In a nuclear family, for example, the mother uses her own language in domestic domains and with her children, but she has to learn her husband’s language and use it when he is the interlocutor. In this way, the husband’s language becomes the wife’s second language. The child of bilingual or multilingual homes can distinguish the role(s) of three languages; for example, he/she can use Chol with his/her mother; Tzeltal in the community, and Spanish with the teacher (in a classroom setting). Women are not as multilingual as men tend to be, except when they live in areas with accessible roads. In contrast, men are more often engaged in political or religious activities that require fluency in several languages. For example, a Tzotzil coming from the highlands is elected in his community as pre-deacon, but his parishioners and catechists may be speakers of Tzeltal. In a case like this, he would have to study Tzeltal as an adult. But a Chol speaker involved in political leadership may end up learning Tzeltal, even though he might have been previously acquainted with Tzotzil. At the level of the community, the majority group puts pressure on speakers so that the majority language is used in public domains (e.g., the sports court, church, store or school). The majority language can vary according to region or sub-region. The language of the classroom may be Castía (< castilla), i.e., the socio-ethnic regional variety of Spanish. In some regions or subregions, the lingua franca can be Tzeltal or Spanish. For example, members of the general assembly of the Union of Unions of ‘ejidatarios’ (< ‘ejido’) discuss their business in Tzeltal simply because there are more speakers of Tzeltal or militant Tzeltaleros. This language represents the needed cohesion in confronting Spanish speakers. “In this context, Tzeltal can be conceived as an instrument of cultural and political autonomy” (Leyva and Ascencio 1996: 101). Finally, indigenous languages are learned, too, by caxlanes (Spanish-speaking intermediaries) who are always willing and ready to negotiate the price of agro-products.

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 119

14. Language attitudes The indigenous peoples from Chiapas had been working on consciousness raising for several decades: one strain of this process came from the liberation theology movement of the 1970’s, which helped communities and individuals to give careful consideration to reflection on the individual, collective self, and the definition of a reality for each existential situation. The other strains originate from different ideologies which infiltrated the communities. The indigenous peoples of Chiapas have been historically resistant in assimilating to the Mexican “mainstream”. The conditions described above fortified their attitude of loyalty to their ancestral language(s) even when they tend to be bilingual. This attitude of resistance appears in the SALA, in which they demand rights to take control of their own cultures and languages in various domains. The unprecedented claims clearly show that individuals and groups working together in their communities had developed the needed awareness of the roles that their languages could play in the process of democratization. Cultural democracy for themselves and for future generations was one of the goals of their struggle. But they did not get to this stage by pure chance. The attitudes of loyalty together with the conditions of multiple deprivation were conducive to conceiving a Stage 1, similar to that proposed in the model of reversing language shift, the ideal stage representing the attainment of cultural democracy in the GIDS scale. The SALA reveal this philosophy. By questioning the Mexican Establishment and its links to the international economy, the indigenous peoples of Chiapas resolved to demand their right to return to their autochthonous lifestyles in order to (re)assert their languages and ethnicities. In this connection, historians have already documented the existence of autonomous municipalities that emerged in the late 1990’s, to wit: Libertad de los Pueblos Mayas, San Pedro Michoacán, Tierra y Libertad, 17 de Noviembre, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Ernesto Che Guevara, Maya, Francisco Gómez, Flores Magón, San Manuel, San Salvador, and José María Morelos y Pavón (De Vos 2002: 380). Self-proclaimed autonomous communities have the right to implement their own bilingualintercultural programs of bilingual education. Although Mexican law accords certain kinds of autonomy to municipalities and other entities, the notion of autonomy was not discussed in Mexico before 1994. While it is true that indigenous communities in Mexico enjoy a certain degree of de facto autonomy in the practices of customary law (ley de usos y costumbres) inherited from the colonial era, the government found it convenient to

120 Margarita Hidalgo

allow them to run some of their internal affairs under traditional authorities. The idea of legally recognized collective rights of “autonomy” was the most subversive issue that gained momentum in the last decade of the twentieth century.

15. Conclusion I have explored the socio-historical determinants that have impinged upon the survival of Mexican indigenous languages from the time of the major catastrophe of Tenochtitlan. First, the early discourse of transculturation initiated during the conquest does not seem to be directly or indirectly related to language shift. There is not a single piece of evidence indicating that such discourse accelerated or even affected the process of translinguification. In fact, the conquest of Mexico is followed by a prolific scholarship in and about indigenous languages. The track record of the recovery mission is so impressive that the experts of today still rely upon the original colonial sources in order to retrieve solid information on the indigenous languages. Nonetheless, as of the end of the sixteenth century, colonial erudition was effective in the process of disenfranchisement of speakers of indigenous languages who were not en masse trained in writing their own languages despite the fact that many were reconditioned and readapted to fit Westernized codes. Second, socio-religious movements became the preferred outlets for discontent that speakers of indigenous languages expressed, and who continually dreamed of recovering the past free of colonial domination. This strategy seems to have been a more effective plan of survival, which in effect, helped maintain language and culture. The demographic recovery of speakers of MIL after the catastrophe of Tenochtitlan has not been commensurate with the irreparable losses of the past 500 years. However, speakers of indigenous languages have resorted to two equally effective strategies of survival: language maintenance and language shift. Given that bilinguals are normally distinguished nationwide from Spanish-only speakers, maintenance with bilingualism is a dual strategy of survival associated with resistance on the one hand, and adaptation to the environment, on the other. It need not be said that different degrees of bilingualism can be interpreted as different degrees of adaptation and resistance. Finally, the short-lived uprising in Chiapas was introduced in this article as a case of post-modern confrontation pursuing both autonomy and cultural democ-

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 121

racy. In order to pursue these two goals, the powerless indigenous peoples from Chiapas were forced to seriously question the notion of national identity.

References Armendáriz, María Luisa (Compiladora) 1994 Chiapas, una radiografía. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Barabas, Alicia, M. 1987 Utopías indias. Movimientos sociorreligiosos en México. Mexico: Grijalbo. Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo [1987] 1995 México profundo. Una civilización negada. Mexico: Grijalbo. Baudot, George 1996 México y los albores del discurso colonial. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Brachet de Márquez, Viviane 1976 La población de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos en el siglo XIX (1824-1895). Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia / Secretaría de Educación Pública. Brice Heath, Shirley 1972 Telling Tongues. Language Policy in Mexico. From Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers College Press. Boone, Elizabeth and Walter Mignolo (eds.) 1994 Writing without Words. Indigenous Literacies in the Mesoamerican and the Andes. Durkham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Cifuentes, Bárbara 1998 Letras sobre voces. Multilingüismo a través de la historia. Mexico: Centro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Cifuentes, Bárbara and Dora Pellicer 1989 Ideology, politics and national language. A study in the creation of a national language in nineteenth century Mexico. Sociolinguistics 18: 7–17. Cook, Nobel David 1998 Disease and New World Conquest, 1492–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cortés, Hernán [1520] 1866 Cartas de relación de la conquista de México. Paris: Ediciones de Gayangos.

122 Margarita Hidalgo De Vos, Jan 1994a Vivir en frontera. La experiencia de los indios de Chiapas. Mexico. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social. 1994b Ser indio en Chiapas. Revista Siglo XIX. 15: 131–160. 2002 Una tierra para sembrar sueños. Historia reciente de la Selva Lacandona. 1950–2000. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Fábregas Puig, Andrés 1994 Los pueblos de Chiapas. In Chiapas, una radiografía, María Luisa Armendáriz (Compiladora), 172–197. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Feliciano, Zadia M. 2000 Mexico’s demographic transformation: From 1920 to 1990. In A Population History of North America, Michael R. Haines and Richard H. Steckel (eds.), 601–630. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. García de León, Antonio 1984 Resistencia y utopia. Memorial de agravios y crónicas de revueltas y profecías en la Provincia de Chiapas durante los últimos quinientos años de su historia. Mexico: Ediciones Era. Haines, Michael R. and Richard H. Steckel (eds.) 2000 A Population History of North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda 2000. vol. 1. Mexico. INEGI. Instituto Nacional Indigenista 2000 Los Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar. In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México: 1996–1997. vol. 2. Instituto Nacional Indigenista (ed.), 779–806. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Karttunen, Frances 1996 Between Worlds. Interpreters, Guides, and Survivors. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Le Bot, Yvon 1997 Subcomandante Marcos. El sueño zapatista. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés. (Translated from the French by Ari Cazés). Leyva Solano, Xóchitl and Gabriel Ascencio Franco 1996 Lacandonia al filo del agua. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Lockhart, James 1992 The Nahuas After the Conquest. A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: University Press.

Determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages 123 Martínez Ruiz, José Diversidad monolingüe de México en 1970. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. MacEoin, Gary 1996 The People’s Church. Bishop Samuel Ruiz of Mexico and Why he Matters. New York: Crossroad Books. McCaa, Robert 2000 The peopling of Mexico from origins to Revolution. In A Population Hisory of North America, Michael R. Haines and Richard H. Steckel (eds.), 241–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moscoso Pastrana, Prudencio 1992 Rebeliones indígenas en los Altos de Chiapas. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Muñoz, Sergio 1998 Samuel Ruiz mediating for peace and social justice in Chiapas, Mexico. Los Angeles Times. May 10, Section B, p. 3. National Catholic Reporter 2000 ‘Seeds of the Word’ in Chiapas Special Report Online. www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/html/. February 18. Pellicer, Dora 1993 Oralidad y escritura de la literatura indígena: una aproximación histórica. In Situación actual y perspectivas de la literatura en lenguas indígenas de México, Carlos Montemayor (ed.), 15–54. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Pría, Melba 1994 Análisis sobre la educación básica en Chiapas. Situación actual y perspectiva. In Chiapas, una radiografía, María Luisa Armendáriz (Compiladora), 310–329. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Ricard, Robert 1933 La “conquête spirituelle” de Mexique. Essai sur l’apostolat et les méthodes missionaries des Ordres Mendiants en Nouvelle-Espagne de 1523–1524 à 1572. Paris: Université de Paris. (Institut d’Ethnologie). Ruiz, Samuel 2002 The poor’s contribution to justice. Public Lecture delivered at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego, October 28. Valdés, Luz María 1989 El perfil demográfico de los indios mexicanos. Mexico: Siglo XXI. 1995 Los indios en los censos de México. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma.

124 Margarita Hidalgo Valdés, Luz María and María Teresa Menéndez 1987 Dinámica de la población de habla indígena: 1900–1980. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Zavala, Silvio 1996 Poder y lenguaje desde el siglo XVI. Mexico: El Colegio de México.

Part II. Language policy

Chapter 5 Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera Abstract This article contextualizes and examines the General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (LGDLPI) which has been in effect as of March 2003. The Law derives from a double juncture: firstly, the emergence of international and national declarations in favor of rights for minority groups and the creation of equal legislation; secondly, the negotiations of the Project for the Legislation of Indian Rights and Cultures (1996), which was elaborated with the participation of representatives from, and sympathizers of Mexico’s indigenous peoples’ movements, brought together by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and the Commission for Concordance and Pacification (COCOPA) as the governmental representative. The rejection of this Project of Law by the Mexican Senate gave rise to the Constitutional Reforms on Indian Affairs (2001), which finally became law in 2002. The LGDLPI’s activities within Mexico’s Chamber of Congress began against a backdrop of tension, aroused by this new legislative basis for indigenous peoples. Such activities made use of two preexistent proposals in this area. In its definitive version, the LGDLPI clearly reflects pronouncements calling for equality, acknowledgment and respect for all languages, as well as the universal nature of linguistic rights. This legislation also includes some of the most deeply felt demands amongst the Indian teachers and intellectuals who collaborated in its design: the obligatory nature of bilingual schooling, the use of Mexican indigenous languages in legal affairs, their standardization, and their usage in the mass media. Despite such innovations, many of the rights and considerations laid down by the LGDLPI ignore the adverse environment faced by such languages and the minoritized populations who employ them, while providing scarce resources to overcome discrimination, fragmentation, and language shift in the end. The Law’s limited scope derives from its subordinate position to the Reforms in Indian Affairs, the normativity and structure of the Ministry for Public Education, and the Federal Radio and Television Legislations. Finally, it should be noted that the participation of Indian peoples and communities in official plans and programs destined for the preserva-

128 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

tion and development of indigenous languages remains largely conditioned to the nature of specific elected government officials. Paradoxically, the responsibility for the maintenance of indigenous tongues continues to redound fundamentally on their users.

1. Introduction Recent estimates suggest that there are over six thousand tongues scattered around the approximately 200 States, which make up the contemporary political planet. The same estimates also suggest that 50% of the global population uses no more than 20 of these languages, and that 300 at best are used by over a million speakers. It should be noted that an average of 25 of the so-called minority languages disappear every year (Matthews 1996). Faced by an increasingly hostile environment and the pervasive pressure of majority tongues, not only by official State governments, but also by the globalization of cultures and economies, in recent decades many of the affected groups have called for the type of legislation that might stimulate the peaceful co-existence of communities. These groups acknowledge the universal validity of both individual and collective linguistic rights Mexico is certainly no stranger to this landscape. Currently, Spanish is the country’s dominant language in demographic, economic and cultural terms, although it co-exists with over 60 indigenous languages, employed by some 10% of the total population (see Cifuentes and Moctezuma, in this collection). The majority of Amerindian peoples still lack a standardized written system and school grammars for their languages, whose oral use is as best limited to communal and family circles, while remaining wholly absent from the broader context of national life. Such features are the result of a persistent asymmetry in terms of relations and communicative contacts between Spanish and indigenous language speakers during an initial period of Spanish colonialism, and a subsequent era which witnessed the birth of a monolingual, centralized national State. Almost two centuries after the establishment of a Mexican State (1821), its legislature has finally acknowledged the issue of plurilingualism through the General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas, or LGDLPI), which came into force on March 13, 2003. This law was born amidst a heated process of discussion and mobilization regarding the presence of indige-

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 129

nous peoples in the national political and economic arenas, and the search for a fairer, more equalized legislation. This article explores the challenges faced by the LGDLPI, its limitations, particularly in view of international proposals regarding linguistic rights, its trajectory and evolution, and finally, the extent of the commitments acquired by the Mexican State.

2. The treatment of linguistic diversity in national states Linguistic displacement is not a natural phenomenon. Today’s disproportionately high rate of multilingualism in the Western world is largely a result of the processes of minorization undergone by languages over centuries of Colonial expansion together with the consolidation of modern national states. The linguistic nationalism that characterize such states have, more than at any other time, propitiated the gradual disappearance of numberless cultural and linguistic codes of symbolic value, employed by their users as a means to interact with the world and with society. The loss of every single language entails the disappearance of discursive practices that form a part of the shared memories of speakers, the basis of their sense of belonging and identity. Faced with the cultural and linguistic diversity of the populations settled across the national territories, modern legislations have favored the establishment of single languages as a means to construct shared values and practices. The promotion of a legislative system based around the individual, with an aspiration for egalitarianism among all members of a national state, also resulted in the extension of a common language. As the tongue of the most powerful and prestigious social sectors, its obligatory nature derived legitimacy from its status as an emblem of national authenticity. Such premises were designed to weaken particular forms of social differentiation, while strengthening the uniformity of those communicative interchanges required for the maintenance of the State and the consolidation of a national community. This centralizing and unifying conception has nonetheless tolerated the persistence of linguistic diversity. An overview of modern constitutions will allow us to distinguish at least three avenues, which have been explored as means to solve the problems raised by linguistic plurality: (a) Forbidden diversity, in which the uses and functions of any language other than the official are forbidden throughout a national territory. An example is the Turkish Constitution of 1982: Articles 28/2, 42/9, which prohibit the

130 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

teaching, publication and transmission of any mother tongue other than Turkish. At the end of 1991, the governmental coalition formed by conservatives and social democrats, proposed a revision of the laws concerning education and the media; however, since 1994 those having to do with deterring terrorism that particularly affect Kurd minorities have constituted a barrier against any means of linguistic democracy (Gauthier et al. 1993; Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 1994). (b) Ignored diversity, which is the position taken by all those constitutions which lack any form of linguistic disposition, either with respect to the official language or to that of immigrant or autochtonous minorities within its territory. These are the cases, among others, of the Chilean constitution (1988) and the United States Constitution (1789) (Gauthier et al. 1993). (c) Accepted diversity, in which the State is forced to accept that the imposition of a single language does not consolidate, but divides the people and their nation, deepening inequalities among the range of ethnic groups that configure the total community. We can identify three specific scenarios of the latter type: (1) Officialized plurilingualism between languages and communities on similar socioeconomic levels, the historic trajectory of standardized tongues. Examples of this include the Canadian Constitutional Law (1982) that recognized the official status of English and French, and Article 3 of the Spanish Constitution (1978), which acknowledges the co-official status of autonomous linguistic communities (Gauthier et al. 1993). (2) The acceptance of minorized languages under certain conditions as in the last Peruvian Constitution written in the 1990s where Quechua and Aymara are official only in the areas where there are high concentration of indigenous speakers. (3) The constitutional establishment of linguistic equality between communities or peoples from radically different social and cultural backgrounds. Such is the case of Mexico, which has recently passed new legislation on linguistic rights where indigenous languages as well as Spanish are declared “national languages”. Some challenges deriving from this constitutional text are the social and cultural disparity of most indigenous peoples with the dominant models of modernity and the geographic dispersion of this conglomerate.

3. Human rights and linguistic rights The acceptance of linguistic diversity forms part of a continuing history of struggle against discrimination and inequality. The acknowledgment of the

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 131

universal nature of human rights in the eighteenth century marked a break from the granting of privileges, in exchange for loyalties or material retributions, which characterized the Middle Ages. Religious minorities were the first to benefit from those treaties that stipulated a right to worship, giving rise to a certain level of tolerance and diversity. Linguistic minorities, however, were not as fortunate, for they remained submitted to the homogeneity imposed by national States. Although the declarations of citizens’ rights effectively buried the medieval charters, the freedoms and obligations that they proclaimed were transmitted through official State languages. The transition from an acknowledgment of religious differences to the protection of human rights and a tolerance of ethnic differences was an important step taken by many European societies during the nineteenth century. This was the result of certain philosophical and ethical principles and a political need for pacts of equality and union among the members of nations. An early example can be found in the Final Act of the Vienna Congress of 1815, which acknowledged the rights of minority groups in seven countries, these being also linguistic minorities. Due to its own ethnic composition and political organization, fifty years later the Austro-Hungarian Empire advanced the right of ethnic minorities within its territory (e.g., German, Hungarian, Polish, Czech, Slovakian, Croatian, Serb, Italian, Slovenian, Bulgarian) to receive education in their own tongues, as established by Article 19 of its Constitution and against the prevailing tendency towards monolingualism in other European countries. Throughout the twentieth century, linguistic rights gradually crept into formulations on human rights, intended to guarantee civil and political freedoms, to the extent that their absence became glaringly evident within the context of democratic nations. Nonetheless, specialists agree that social, economic and cultural rights have so far been only broadly and sketchily outlined, although in certain international forums, such as the InterAmerican Court of Justice, they have been accorded an expansive character, and they may, as a result, be reformulated or broadened. In this sense, the Court has revised and recognized the effectiveness of certain indigenous costums with regard to labor practices. The concern for linguistic rights waxed and waned throughout the twentieth century. They were, for example, not accorded a specific role within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; instead, they were seen as part and parcel of more general demands for non-discrimination on the basis of colour, sex, religion, political opinion, or social and national

132 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

origins. Towards the end of the twentieth century, languages made a gradual appearance within declarations seeking to prevent the assimilation of indigenous peoples through the processes of globalization. During the 1980s, the importance of early-age education in children’s indigenous languages was emphasized at UNESCO meetings in Mexico, Peru and Chile. Minority languages were also in the agenda at the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and again at the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, endorsed by Mexico in 1990. Among other demands, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (draft, 1991) called for an educational model which encouraged the promotion, rather than the deterioration of group identities and languages. But it was not until the final decade of the twentieth century that linguistic rights were acknowledged as a specific issue in international documents, which were largely the result of scientific, ethical and political arguments. Their debate was supported, among others, by the works of Phillipson (1992), Fishman (1991), Wurm (1993), Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (1994), among others, who respectively acknowledged and demonstrated the notion of linguistic equality. The Declaration of the Tallinn Symposium on Linguistic Human Rights, in 1991, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1992 and the draft articles for A Universal Charter of Basic Human Language Rights prepared by the Living Languages Teachers International Federation warned about the status of threatened languages in the world and proposed actions to avoid their disappearance. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights of Barcelona (1996) better known as The Barcelona Declaration, which contemplates the inclusion of all minority tongues, and not only those spoken by indigenous peoples, establishes clear concepts and principles that outline the scope of linguistic rights. This Declaration became a general reference point for the evolution and discussion of linguistic rights in Mexico.

4. Chronicle of an indigenous call for equality: Linguistic rights The General Law on Linguistic Rights for Indigenous Peoples (2003) forms part of a broader context of constitutional reforms stemming from the demands issued by Mexico’s Indian social movements over the past decade. The pivotal catalysts were the social demands initiated by the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional,

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 133

or EZLN), the long-standing claims of other indigenous groups, and the growing calls for the Mexican government to adhere to the commitments undertaken before international organizations in favor of a fairer and more egalitarian legislation for indigenous peoples. Within this context, linguistic issues were viewed against a broader background of demands regarding the self-determination and autonomy of indigenous populations.

4.1. The Law of Indian Rights and Culture The social political and economic conflicts of Mexican Indian peoples were thrown into bold relief when on January 1, 1994. The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) coincided with uprising of the EZLN, which launched an armed insurrection in Southeastern Mexico, which was in turn confronted by the Mexican Army. A few weeks later, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari,2 was pressured to call a cease-fire and to present a project of Law for Concord and Pacification, which was submitted before the Mexican Congress. Following its approval, the Commission for Concord and Pacification (Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación or COCOPA) was established, formed by members of Mexico’s three most important political parties: Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI, National Action Party or PAN, and Democratic Revolution Party or PRD. Two years later, as the corollary for a series of dialogues between the EZLN and representatives of the Federal Government, the Accords for Concord and Pacification with Justice and Dignity (Acuerdos de Concordia y Pacificación con Justicia y Dignidad) were signed in San Andrés Larráinzar. (Ce-Acatl,1996: 27–54) and known since then as Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar (San Andrés Larráinzar Accords or SALA). The Zapatistas were advised in this dialogue by sympathizers of the Council of Indian Peoples (Consejo Nacional Indígena or CNI), academics, both Indian and mestizos3, and members of the Catholic Church involved in the defense of Indian rights. The Federal Government counted on the advice from other groups of academics and other indigenous organizations. Based on five central principles, the accords proposed a new relationship between Indian peoples, the government, and society: (a) the respect for differences, based on the assumption of equality; (b) the respect for Indian identities as well as self-determination in terms of social organization; (c) the promotion of sustainable development of natural resources as a means to preserve cultures; (d) consultation and agreement with Indian peoples regarding the

134 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

implementation of public actions or legislations with possible consequences for their situation; and (e), the decentralization of Federal faculties and functions of relevance for the Indian municipalities and communities.4 The scope of the SALA included the fields of justice, media, political participation and representation, the situation of women, Indian territories and autonomy, in addition to language, education and culture. Throughout this document, language was not treated as a specific, isolated issue; on the contrary, linguistic concerns were rather a part of the whole spirit of the above social principles. The SALA demanded that an equal social value be assigned to Spanish and indigenous languages, as a backbone for policies which both cultivate and protect the latter, while preserving the mandatory character of teaching the former. An appropriation of the nation’s plurilingual potential was posited as a means for society as a whole to gain a greater awareness of Indian peoples and cultures while simultaneously allowing the latter to enrich their interaction with the country’s different groups and social sectors. Finally, the participation of indigenous communities in the planning and determination of the regional contents of education was advanced both as a right and as means to revitalize Indian tongues. Once the SALA were signed, the two groups of signatory representatives transferred the documents back to the Zapatistas, for discussion and decision-making within their base communities; and government officials, for consideration by the relevant Ministries of State. Upon approval by these instances, the COCOPA Congressmen were charged with elaborating an initiative for a Law of Indian Rights and Culture (Ley de Derechos y Cultura Indígenas), which after a series of negotiations, became identified as the COCOPA Legislative Proposal (Propuesta de ley de la COCOPA). This initiative was submitted for its review to the then-President Ernesto Zedillo also affiliated with the PRI. During the review process, the text underwent a series of transformations particularly with respect to the issues of territory and autonomy. As a result, the Presidential proposal known as Government Observations to the Law of Indigenous Rights and Culture (Observaciones del Gobierno a la Ley de Derechos y Cultura Indígena, www.ezln.org December 20, 1996) was rejected by the EZLN. It was in the above circumstances that the document was turned over to the Legislative Branch, without the negotiating body – the COCOPA – being able to reopen negotiations with the EZLN. The conflict remained latent and relatively ignored by the government over the ensuing three years. However, the SALA retained a high public profile both nationally

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 135

and internationally, nurtured by non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), Mexican and foreing academics, members of the Mexican Catholic Church, and sectors of civil society. Vicente Fox was elected President in 2000, having risen through the ranks of Mexico’s most conservative political party, the PAN. However, the PRI – which had previously enjoyed an unbroken seven decade stint at the nation’s helm – was not wholly unseated, retaining a majority presence in the Congress. Nonetheless, the transformation of political agents favored a renewed dialogue concerning the unsettled issues of indigenous demands. In February 2001, the EZLN organized and headed a march from the nation’s Southeast to Mexico City, joined by the Indigenous National Council (Consejo Nacional Indígena or CNI). This mobilization, which received ample media coverage, garnered exceptional levels of support and solidarity among broad sectors of the Mexican population, culminating with the EZLN’s appearance before the Chamber of Congress on March 29, 2001, despite a series of obstacles raised by a number of parties, PAN and PRI being the most powerful, within the national government. After this achievement, President Fox was pressured to urge Congress to vote for the standing COCOPA Legislative Proposal. The Senate, which was in charge of the task, did not accept the original text of this proposal and voted in favor of a Statement on Indian Affairs (Dictamen en Materia Indígena), leading to a series of Reforms to Articles 1, 2, 4, 18 and 115 of the Mexican Constitution. Issued on April 27 of the same year, this unilateral decision –which was widely criticized by the majority of concerned groups, and by a number of legislators – was soon besieged by over three hundred injunctions and controversies arising mostly from Indian municipalities in the states where indigenous organizations and movements are more vigorous, i.e., Puebla, Oaxaca, Michoacan, Guerrero, Chiapas, Morelos and Jalisco. Following an unprecedented strategy, this crucial problem was brought before the National Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación) on May 2, 2002. Given that within the regulations of the Inter-American Court of Justice, rights concerning culture are not viewed as a closed catalog (García Ramírez 1998), the magistrates of the Supreme Court were presented with an opportunity to reopen negotiations while laying the foundations for a more inclusive and plural exercise in democracy (Villoro 2002). According to declarations made by its own president, they opted instead to rule in agreement with their role as “guardians of the Constitution”, 5 and the Reforms were officially accepted on August 14 of the same year as indicated in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) 2003.

136 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

The heated polemic that ensued from the abandonment of a fairer legislation for Indian peoples continued to rage among a broad spectrum of the Mexican population, though largely confined to the media. It was, however, those Indian groups already organized and enjoying governmental support or representation who decided to spread the scope of their demands into what they considered less contentious areas such as linguistic rights and bilingual education, modalities already sanctioned by the State.

4.2. The General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples It was in this climate of opinion that on May 9, 2001, the Chamber of Congress’ Commission for Indian Affairs (Comisión de Asuntos Indígenas de la Cámara de Diputados or CAI) undertook the responsibility of elaborating a law on linguistic rights, based on principles from two projects, which had emerged from Indian organizations. One was the initiative for a Federal Law on Linguistic Rights (Ley Federal de Derechos Linguisticos) submitted in April 2001, by a legislator of Mayan origin representing the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD)6. This initiative argued that Indian languages should be classified as national languages with an official status within their own territories, where they would alternate with Spanish in conditions of equality. The second project came from the Association of Indian Language Writers (Asociación de Escritores Indígenas or AELI), which had drafted a Declaration Regarding Linguistic and Cultural Ethnic Diversity in 1997, echoing the petitions expressed in the SALA. Within a year, this first document was transformed into a proposal of Law on Linguistic Rights for the Indian Peoples of Mexico (Ley de Derechos Linguïsticos de los Pueblos Indígenas de México), whose demands were to some extent informed by the Barcelona Declaration. In this second proposal, AELI incorporated a long-standing project of the National Institute for Indigenous Peoples (Instituto Nacional Indigenista or INI), which was the creation of a center for linguistic studies and planning, while allowing for the Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública or SEP) to retain an exclusive responsibility for decision making in the area of education for Indian peoples. It is worth noticing that at the very start of discussions concerning this legislation, the then-president of the CAI 7, a PRD party member of Zapotecan origin, insisted on the disconformities that had been expressed against the Dictum on Indian Affairs. However, lacking the legal option to re-open the subject on indigenous matters, this proposal was finally rooted in this

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 137

Dictum, which was already stated in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos): the right of Indian peoples to preserve and enrich their languages and to receive assistance from interpreters and translators in legal processes; the State’s commitment to the promotion of bilingual education, as well as a broadened Indian presence in the mass media.8 This normativity eventually led the CAI to merge with the Commission for Public Education and Educational Services (Comisión de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos or CEPSE), and to embark upon the task of elaborating a single initiative for a Law on Linguistic Rights. The Mother Tongue International Day (Día Internacional de la Lengua Materna), instituted in Mexico in February 2002, served as a backdrop to the report drafted by the two commissions. The CAI’s president was able to combine most of AELI’s original proposal, including the creation of a National Institute for Indigenous Languages (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas or INALI) with the PRD’s suggestion that Indian tongues should enjoy an official status equal to that of Spanish within their own territories. The preceding initiatives were joined, two months later, by a proposal from the PAN, which appropriated a variety of arguments from the documents described above,9 but it restricted the linguistic rights’ jurisdiction to municipalities with an Indian majority, and proposed that the most widely spoken tongue, Spanish, had the status of official language. Both proposals clearly limited the objective of indigenous linguistc rights. In search for consensus regarding this initiative of law, the CAI and the CEPSE organized a public consultation between June and July 2002 through ten forums, in ten different cities from the northwest to the southeast of the country. The Law’s main proposals were examined while old issues regarding the nature and extent of spaces for the use of tongues were raised. Though such events asked for the participation of some specialists in linguistic, cultural and legal affairs as well as traditional Indigenous organizations, it was the official authorities and the bilingual indigenous instructors affiliated with the Ministry of Education, who made up the largest sector. Therefore, the contributions regarding linguistic legislation which emerged from these scenarios had a mostly political purpose, serving to validate the process initiated by the CAI and the CEPSE. Negotiations among the different parliamentary fractions eventually led to a definitive legislative proposal which was brought and voted within its general terms on December 15, 2002 before a full Congressional gathering at the Chamber of Deputies. The General Law on Linguistic Rights of

138 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

Indigenous Peoples (Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas (LGDLPI) came into force with its publication in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on March 13, 2003 (See Appendix I).

5. Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas or LGDLPI The LGDLPI is a legislative text with a substantial dimension within the context of Constitutions which favor the protection of linguistic diversity within national states. Its Decree consists of two sections: the First Article creates a Law of Linguistic Rights while the Second Article establishes a Reform to the IV Fraction of the 7th Article of the General Educational Law. Eight transitory stipulations supplement these two articles, mostly to establish a schedule for the future implementation of these actions. The LGDLPI includes four Chapters. Chapter I (Articles 1 through 8) set down general guidelines on Mexican indigenous languages, awarding them a full status as national tongues alongside Spanish; Chapter II (Articles 9 through 12) stipulates the specific Rights established by this Law; Chapter III (Article 13) delimits the competences of the three governmental levels – federal, state and municipal – in the implementation of this Law. Finally, Chapter IV (Articles 14 through 25) decrees the creation of the INALI, which is organically tied to the Ministry for Education andintended to articulate the policies required to uphold the Law. The Reform in the Second Article stipulates that education must promote knowledge and respect for plurality amongst the population as a whole: it also mandates that it must be bilingual for the Indian population.

6. The challenges of linguistic diversity The LGDLPI faces an important challenge, which is to establish guidelines for action within a heterogeneous and complex linguistic universe whose surface has merely been scratched in terms of research or other sources which might provide a general diagnosis regarding the diversity of tongues, or the number and geographical distribution of their speakers, such as linguistic classifications or a national census of the population. Despite our view, which is that the latter sheds little light upon the qualitative dimen-

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 139

sions of diversity, the information it contains will prove vital for the solution of a fundamental problem that linguistic policies must somehow solve, which is the delimitation of communities, both in the present and in the future. Attempts to reconstruct the world of Amerindian languages have resulted in a range of classificatory studies which date back to the second half of the nineteenth century (Cifuentes 1998). Despite a patent interest in the relationship between these languages and their groupings, a uniform linguistic criterion that might account for this intricate linguistic tapestry has yet to arise. The two main tendencies – genetic and typological –differ with respect to the delimitation of linguistic families, groups and languages, as is evinced by the works of Swadesh (1959), Kauffman (1974), Suárez (1983), Manrique (1990) and Lastra (2001). The classifications by Manrique (1990) and Lastra (2001) maintain certain differences both in scope and in linguistic foundation. On the one hand, Manrtique’s Chart 1 (in this article) aims to account for the totality of indigenous languages presently spoken within the political borders of the Mexican territory; his classification – comprising twelve linguistic families and their sub-families – has guided the statistical recounts of the National Population Census. On the other hand, Lastra’s classification – which appears in Cifuentes and Moctezuma in this collection – adheres to the Mesoamerican cultural area proposal and incorporates languages from North America, Central America and the Caribbean, as well as extinct languages from this area. However, this classification does not comprise the Hokan– Coahuiltec phylum, which includes languages from the Yumana, the Seri and the Tequistlatecan families because it does not belong to the specified Mesoamerican area, although languages pertaining to these families are still spoken in Mexico. For the same reason, it does not include the Kickapoo, a language of the Algonquian family, which was brought into the Mexican territory during the nineteenth century with the arrival of a community of its native speakers. In linguistic terms, Lastra agrees with Rensch (1967), who sustains the validity of the Otomanguean phylum which integrates the Otopamean, Popolocan and Chatino-Zapotecan macro groups. She acknowledges the contributions of Suárez (1983) and Kaufman (1974) to this phylum but indicates that “...much descriptive work on Otomanguean is needed in order to refine the proposed reconstructions” (Lastra 2001: 127). On the other hand, Manrique follows Swadesh (1967) glottochronological calculations which do not sustain the Otomanguean hypothesis. The Chart that we pre-

140 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

sent in this article accounts for the Otopamean family, which includes the Pamean, Chichimecan, Otomian and Matlatzinca subfamilies, the Oaxacan family, with its Zapotecan Mixtecan and Mazatecan sub-families. Manrique (1988) recognized that not all specialists agreed with this separation of the Otomanguean phylum, but he also made it clear that there was no absolute evidence of its components. This article does not attempt to bridge the linguistic criteria that separate the above classifications. Instead, we have opted to include Manrique’s classification, which seems to be the most convenient for the development of a legislation given that it does includes the indigenous languages of Baja California Norte on the political border with the United States. The statistical recounts provided by the National Population Census, maintained in the country since 1895, are another source of information about the MIL and their speakers. Regardless of the subjective factors that the record of quantitative demographic data involve, the linguistic parameter is the one used to register the diversity of the Mexican population. Among other data, the National Population Census offers an approximate overview of the main linguistic communities and their quantitative significance. It also provides a quantitative overview of indigenous language speakers throughout the Mexican territory (see Cifuentes and Moctezuma, Table 1 in this collection). The same source reveals traces of languages spoken by at least one hundred individuals (mostly over 40). This double circumstance places them within the group of endangered languages (Robins et al. 2000, UNESCO 2003) (see Table 1). Table 1. Endangered languages Language

Total speakers (2000)

Percent over 40 years of age

Cochimi

82

57%

Aguacatec

23

57%

Kiliwa

52

69%

Lacandon

40

78%

6.1. The challenges of bilingualism Mexico’s linguistic situation is not made up solely by Indian languages, but also by Spanish, the tongue spoken by 81.4% of the population, with diverse degrees of bilingualism (see Table 2).

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 141 Table 2. Indigenous languages by number of speakers and percentage of bilinguals Number of Speakers

Bilinguals

%

Total

6,044,547

4,924,412

Nahuatl languages

1,448,936

1,224,587

84.41

Maya

800,291

729,029

91.09

Zapotec languages

451,038

396,905

87.99

Mixtec languages

440,796

334,254

75.82

Tzotzil

297,561

172,564

57.99

Otomi

291,722

267,409

91.66

Tzeltal

284,826

162,863

57.17

Totonac

240,034

196,660

87.93

Mazatec

214,447

157,192

73.30

Chol

161,766

111,621

69.00

Huastec

150,257

133,417

88.79

Mazahua

133,413

126,076

94.50

Chinantec languages

133,374

113,972

85.45

Purhepecha

121,409

103,161

84.97

Mixe

118,924

88,193

74.15

Tlapanec

99,389

66,407

66.81

Tarahumaran languages

75,545

60,091

79.54

Zoque

51,464

45,584

88.57

Amuzgo

41,455

21,679

52.29

Chatino

40,722

27,882

68.46

Chontal Tabasco

38,561

37,203

96.47

Popoluca

38,139

34,503

90.46

Tojolabal

37,986

25,790

67.89

Mayo

31,513

30,808

97.00

Huichol

30,686

25,450

82.93

Tepehuan

25,544

19,836

77.65

Trique

20,712

15,312

73.92

142 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera Table 2. Indigenous languages by number of speakers and percentage of bilinguals (continued) Number of Speakers

Bilinguals

%

Popoloc

16,468

15,078

91.55

Cora

16,410

10,993

66.98

Huave

14,224

11,800

82.95

Cuicatec

13,425

12,194

90.83

Yaqui

13,317

12,412

93.20

Tepehua

9,435

8,813

93.40

Kanjobal

9,015

7,947

88.15

Pame

8,312

6,369

76.62

Mame

7,580

7,141

94.20

Oaxaca Chontal

4,959

4,747

95.72

Tacuate

1,738

1,516

87.22

Chuj

1,796

1,585

88.25

Guarijio

1,671

1,552

92.87

Chichimec

1,641

1,562

95.18

Matlatzinca

1,302

1,254

96.31

Chocho

992

954

96.16

Pima

741

721

97.30

Kekchi

677

606

89.51

Jacaltec

529

494

93.38

Ocuiltec

466

439

94.20

Seri

458

450

98.25

Ixcatec

351

318

90.59

Quiche

246

238

96.74

Cackchiquel

210

204

97.14

Pai Pai

201

196

97.51

Cucapa

178

171

96.06

Motocintlec

174

174

100.00

Kumiai

161

159

98.75

Papago

141

140

99.29

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 143 Table 2. Indigenous languages by number of speakers and percentage of bilinguals (continued) Number of Speakers Kikapu

Bilinguals

%

138

114

82.60

Ixil

90

88

97.77

Cochimi

82

82

100.00

Kiliwa

52

47

90.38

Lacandon

40

40

100.00

Aguacatec

23

22

95.65

Soltec

06

06

100.00

Papabuc

05

03

60.00

Opata

04

03

75.00

Other Indigenous Languages in Mexico

278

258

92.80

Other Indigenous Languages in the Americas

411

405

98.54

89,539

83,433

93.18

Unspecified

Source: XII censo general de población y vivienda (2001)

Historical data reveal that the power and expansion of pre-Hispanic peoples was usually unequal, giving rise to differing situations of political economic and linguistic domination. During the first decades after the Conquest, Spanish had little choice but to compete with the functions of those Indian languages with the greatest distribution and prestige. Communicative needs obliged the colonial administration to adopt and adapt the most widely used language to the point that the legal institutions implanted in New Spain at one stage privileged the use of Nahuatl which brought about the creation of a “written Nahuatl”. (See Claudia Parodi's “The Indianization of Spaniards in New Spain” and Margarita Hidalgo’s “The multiple dimensions of language maintenance and language shift in colonial Mexico”, in this collection; see also Herrera et al. to appear). However, throughout three centuries, Spanish, the language of colonial authorities, gradually disempowered the Nahuatl language and reduced and weakened on the whole, the sociocultural force of the dozens of indigenous languages spoken in the conquered territories. As Bastardas (1996) has

144 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

pointed out from a socio-cognitive perspective, the political and economic context in which languages participate plays a determining role in the attitudes of prestige and stigma towards the languages involved in bilingual situations. Consequently, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an expansion of the institutionalized functions of Spanish had a detrimental effect upon the symbolic meanings and representations that the Indian speakers themselves associated with their mother tongues and finally eroded the ecosystem of linguistic plurality in Mexico. Throughout this process, Spanish-speaking monolingualism and Indian bilingualism became the norm, the former as a right, and the latter as an obligation and as the only viable option for participation in national life. The statistics for the past five decades confirm this phenomenon (see Table 3). Table 3. Growth of bilingual indigenous population Year

% Monolinguals

% Bilinguals

1950

33.0

67.0

1960

36.0

64.0

1970

28.0

72.0

1980

23.0

71.4

1990

16.0

80.0

2000

16.5

81.4

In spite of the fact that demographic indicators provide an initial quantitative overview concerning the effects of contact between indigenous languages and Spanish, they fail to account for the former’s enduring vitality, which may result from a range of factors, including the type of bilingualism, the concentration or territorial dispersion of the linguistic community, and the multiple social and political factors that encourage either loyalty towards or rejection of the mother tongue. As Romaine (1995) has correctly pointed out, the broad scale of polls provide a profile of the linguistic situation that differs from that which might arise from ethnographic studies whose data, albeit less ponderable, might well reveal more about the specific situations undergone by minority languages and their speakers. The ethnography of communication allows us to distinguish a broad spectrum of linguistic competences, which range from an incipient Spanish to a standardized Spanish in its different styles (Pellicer 2001). Furthermore, sociolinguistic research and contact studies have provided important clues con-

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 145

cerning the heterogeneity of situations, which take place not only with Spanish speakers but also with those of other Indian languages (Flores Farfán 1992; Lastra 1994). Many Indian peoples remain in their home territories, maintaining their frontiers of identity; consequently, although bilingualism tends to eradicate the spaces of usage for MIL, the latter frequently retain cultural, social and political functions within the intimate community and in many instances, in the impersonal society as well (Fishman, 1991:6). However, this linguistic vitality varies according to a range of factors that favor the use of Spanish, including migration and education. The former is propitiated as much by the direct challenges of survival as by an absence of governmental incentives in Mexico’s rural communities. The Spanish-oriented nature of traditional scholastic structures, on its part, reinforces the cultural and generational gaps that distance a younger generation of Indians from the usage of their mother tongue. In brief, the situation of contact that characterizes the Mexican diversity at present is marked by the conflict and interaction of objective factors (linguistic, demographic, territorial, cultural, economic), and some others that are most certainly subjective. This complex reality, both past and present, has to reckon with a law whose political existence is founded on an aspiration for linguistic equality. Nonetheless, the full exercise of these rights will, in practice, undoubtedly depend upon a broader characterization of MIL, in view of the nature of their full social context.

6.2. The Law and its object A glance at the set of statements which constitute the LGDLPI reveals a pervasive vagueness in the definition of those very entities which constitute the object of these rights. Although Chapter I Article 4 indicates that the Law will acknowledge which are the Mexican indigenous languages, a further section signals that the INALI will elaborate within two years a “sociolinguistic census” and a “catalog of indigenous languages” with this purpose (LGDLPI, Chapter IV, Articles 14(h) and 20 and 3rd Transitory). Both the census and the catalog are conceived as being isolated from the contributions of pre-existing language classification systems, although a vision of linguistic diversity had already been presented at the CAI as a necessary precondition to the Law’s realization (Lastra 2002). Moreover, the strategy outlined for the INALI’s delimitation of indigenous communi-

146 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

ties pivots around the collaboration of academic institutions and community groups whose interests and fulfillment with regards to languages are not by definition similar (LGDLPI, Chapter IV Articles 14 (h) and 20). A clear recognition of MIL to be acknowledged by participants of such diverse and fragmented natures might yet prove unattainable. In our view, the present classifications and the census data could help to build an initial nomenclature of MIL. The identification of grammatized and abstract entities is of fundamental importance but it calls for a laborious of long-term linguistic planning, so that the determination of dialect frontiers for each language would entail an operational strategy. This should be sustained on common grounds, allowing us to identify dynamic communities of speakers while guaranteeing their persistence and coexistence, appealing to their metalinguistic awareness. This is to say, a shared knowledge as regards the differences and similarities between speaking communities, their stylistic variants, and the local criteria for normativity and adequation. The scope for such a catalog, sustained on social and communitary criteria, would extend much further than the initial nomenclature.

6.3. The national languages The national indigenous languages are defined in the Law in terms of a range of juxtaposed ideas of territorial, historic, and linguistic orders, their place of origin, their role in the founding of the nation, their structure and functionality among other criteria (LGDLPI, Chapter I Articles 1 to 4). Ideas concerning the “social surroundings” (Mackey 1994: 39) and the communities of speakers, which are precisely those spaces where group interactions take place, are beyond its consideration. The heterogeneity of situations and the impact of subtractive bilingualism are part of the surrounding’s inherent complexity. We must also bear in mind that linguistic disparity coincides with economic disparity, and that it is those groups which concentrate the lowest levels of development that are also characterized by the usage of MIL. The Law attempts to place socially unequal communities on an equal level confering the “same value” to Spanish and to MIL through the epithet “national languages” (LGDLPI: Chapter I, Article 4). Paradoxically, the Law’s very title, “…Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, excludes the Spanish speakers, which are not subject to any of

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 147

the linguistic rights and obligations stipulated in this text. They are merely receivers of certain educational guidelines, which sometimes implicitly and other times indirectly, serve to remind them of the fact that Mexico is a plural nation (LGDLPI: Chapter II Article 9 and LGE: Reform to Article 7, Fraction IV). The exclusion of the Spanish-speaking society in the title and the text of the Law maintains the compensatory nature of minority rights (Pellicer 1999) while emphasizing the minoritized status of Indian populations. The acceptance of MIL in services and in public information (cf. Chapter I (Articles 6, 7) depends upon the principle of equality, as well as the foundation for increased levels of governmental participation and consultation amongst the Indigenous communities, as necessary conditions for the protection and promotion of their languages. Unfortunately, we can see that these dispositions are not covered in Chapter II, which is devoted to the formulation of the rights of Indian speakers. Here, the State’s commitment is circumscribed to two obligations, which in any case have long applied to all Mexicans as part of the National Constitution: the right to free basic education which currently covers the first nine years of schooling and the right to obtain justice in one’s own mother tongue.

6.4. The Law on Education and the procurement of justice Public and bilingual education for indigenous communities has been the goal of prior legislations and practices, which date back to the 1940’s. A range of diversely entitled programs for bilingual education has emerged from the Ministry of Education under the Federal Law for Education since 1973. However, it was not until 1983 that such programs began to acquire a greater importance within official plans and programs for development, which acknowledged the importance of “bilingual and bicultural education” as an adequate means to maintain the identity of these populations while preventing their cultural assimilation (Secretaría de Educación Pública 1985). Curricula designed to this end were largely limited to alphabetization in the MIL and to the creation of mostly literary texts for elementary grade education. In some isolated instances, some States have implemented the teaching of MIL throughout basic education. A new term, “bilingual intercultural education”, has been recently coined by a new branch of the Ministry for Education for this form and level of education. In spite of the fact that it has not been mirrored by any substantial changes

148 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

in terms of policy and contents, this is the denomination employed by the Law when it poses education in the indigenous mother tongues as a right and as an obligation for the three levels of government (LGDLPI, Capítulo II Artículo 11). Elementary schools, which are still conceived as the main linguistic concession to minority requirements, are required to act as the most important arena for the promotion and recovery of indigenous language use. In view of this preeminent goal, the role of indigenous bilingual teachers is of considerable importance. Nonetheless, proposed curricula for the training of these teachers seem unable to generate the levels of linguistic competence demanded from them (LGDLPI, Chapter III, Article 13 IV and VI). For teachers to fully carry out their duties would presuppose, at the very least, some level of metalinguistic knowledge, which is scarcely consolidated or even widespread within the educational curriculum, and the circulation of a writing system which has yet to be socialized, even in stages prior to standardization. Writing is, furthermore, a central precondition for the satisfaction of two of the most important commitments of this Law. The first consists in the public distribution of decrees, laws, programs and governmental services in the MIL (LGDLPI, Chapter I Article (b), Chapter II, Article 13.II. The second, a responsibility of the juridical power, mandates the assistance of interpreters and defenders versed in the language and culture of those accused or otherwise involved in trials or other legal proceedings, be they individuals or peoples. Both tasks face formidable challenges, including the translation of a cultural universe founded on oral traditions and common law into a world that pivots around the written word and the Roman law. The temporal dimension of these complex cultural transformations is exemplified by historical studies which clearly reveal that when two languages and two judicial systems confront one another, the conciliation of linguistic and behavioral norms is an extremely long-term process (Bouthiller and Meynaud 1972). Particularly unequal are the instances where the minoritized languages lack the kind of standardized writing required for participation in the legislative system. The correlation of forces in such processes is beyond the scope of legislative statements, and the Law limits itself to an immediate solution: support for the professionalization of bilingual interpreters and translators (LGDLPI, Chapter III, Article 13.XI). Furthermore, the oral and written translation of bilingual legislative interlocutions entails the development of specialized genres: neologisms and terminologies for legal realities, as well as the argumentative genres

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 149

required by two very different and distant universes. The experience related by Aubry (2003) concerning the translation of the SALA in ten indigenous languages of the state of Chiapas demonstrates the complicated nature of this process, which can not be solved with the exclusive aid of dictionaries and grammars, but requires the knowledge of culture and traditions together with the consensus of the speakers. The INALI, whose task it is to train such specialists (LGDLPI, Chapter IV, Article 14 (d, e, f)), should have to bear in mind that the “certification and accreditation of bilingual technicians and professionals” presupposes, not only an ethical responsibility, but also the creation of a solid technical infrastructure. The preceding considerations indicate that a text concerning the rights of Indian speakers cannot be rooted in the cultural unilaterality of Western thought. In particular the educational and legal rights have to bridge two different traditions, one oral, one based on the written word. We observe however that the rights posed in this Law are couched fundamentally in writing, a practice which, on the one hand, is not shared by all indigenous communities and, on the other, tends to undermine orally transmitted systems of knowledge. The educational levels considered either fail to acknowledge or actively discourage oral traditions, which should be an inalienable right for indigenous cultures, especially in light of the fact that such traditions lie at the heart of both their daily and ritual practices, and of their collective memories. In our judgment, a truly effective law must recover this right; it must also acknowledge indigenous systems for decision making and consensus as vital references for the proper administration of justice in the MIL.

6.5. The Law and the mass media In the LGDLPI, dispositions regarding the use of the mass media are in a somewhat peculiar situation. Although they appear from the very first chapter, they are not considered within the section that outlines specific rights (LGDLPI, Chapter 1, Article 6; Chapter II, Article 13.II; Chapter IV, Article 14(c)). This absence is disappointing, because the media could provide fertile grounds for an exercise in the principle that all of the nation’s languages should be equal upon the public arena. To amplify the presence of MIL in the mass media would be an achievement that could easily outstrip the results provided by bilingual schools circumscribed to rural indigenous communities. The mass media provide an extremely balanced

150 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

forum, which could allow indigenous voices to be heard in their own villages while raising awareness among the Spanish-speaking population of their country’s linguistic diversity. Unfortunately, the State’s limited authority over the media prevents the implementation of alternative policies that might compensate for the absence of Indigenous languages upon the stage that Fishman (1991) defines as the impersonal society. The media are presently designed solely to promote the economic and cultural interests of their awardees. The State has yielded to private initiative, against its own interests, their time jurisdictions (Villanueva 2002), and it is only allotted a daily space of eighteen minutes on television and thirty-five on radio. In view of such restrictions, the idea that the State is aptly placed to promote linguistic diversity as mandated by the new Law seems wieldly improbable. The search for new regulatory mechanisms for the media, such as a plural council that has been under discussion for some time now, should include the Indian populations (Villanueva 2002). According to the democratic aspirations of present-day society, resources would have to be found and allocated so that, as is established by the Reforms to the 2nd Article of the Constitution, “Indian peoples and communities are able to acquire, operate and administrate their own communications media…” (LGDLPI, Article 2, Section B, Clause VI). At present, the indigenous communities have yet to acquire any significant level of control over their rights concerning the media (LGDLPI, Chapter II, Article 12; Chapter III, Article 13.XIV). In brief, the revitalization of the indigenous languages must begin within the indigenous communities, so that it can be transferred without linguistic loss into the impersonal bilingual community. The route will depend upon the elaboration of negotiated, sensible, and balanced linguistic policies that consider both the private and public domains of languages, without ignoring the different expressive ranges of both the oral and the written traditions. 7. Conclusions In this article we have covered the broad political events that led to the design and approval of the LGDLPI. This Law is a step forward in terms of linguistic rights to the extent that it places Spanish and the MIL upon the same legal footing. However, its potential impact upon the future of national linguistic policies will largely depend upon the specific interpretation and implementation of its statements.

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 151

In our view, an adequate exercise of the rights outlined in the LGDLPI will depend on a much broader characterization of MIL and the inclusion of myriad aspects of the social context that surrounds them. In this sense, we must not forget that a linguistic policy for the reactivation of minorized languages, many already deteriorating, can pose a critical dilemma for their speakers: to maintain a linguistic community that has, so far, been synonymous with marginalization, or to adopt the cultural guidelines needed for survival as part of a contemporary labor market. This conflict can only be avoided through a carefully planned, protected bilingualism, that is, development of a diglossic situation that can actually contribute to the maintenance of differentiated social functions for languages in contact. As part of this process, those languages that have suffered the stigma of marginalization must recover their historic memories and future expectations. Similarly, within the context of their communicative practices, the MIL must be integrated simultaneously to the gradual broadening of their contact with plurality. On their part, the Spanish speaking communities must be exposed to this plurality, both through education and through the mass media.

Notes 1. We wish to express our gratitude to Leonardo Manrique Castañeda for his contributions to this article, which he offered a few weeks before his death. Dr. Manrique provided both the map and the classification of Mexican indigenous languages. These two sources have not been published elsewhere. We also want to thank José Luis Moctezuma and Alfredo Ramírez Celestino for their comments during the beginning stages of this article. 2. Carlos Salinas de Gortari, affiliated with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was President of Mexico from 1988 to 1994. He was also responsible for the negotiations of the North American Trade Agreement. 3. The Mexican population is considered to be either mestizo (Indigenous and European mixed-blood) or indigenous.. 4. Cf. Ce-Acatl. 1996. 78–79, 27–54. 5. The President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Genaro David Góngora, declared that he would act based on “technical scaffolding”, as deemed necessary by the Supreme Court’s magistrates, in agreement with their role as “guardian of the Constitution”. Cf. La Jornada, May 6, 2002, p. 3. 6. Cf. Uuc-Kib Espadas. 2001. “Initiative for the Federal Law for Linguistic Rights”.

152 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera 7. Cf. Héctor Sánchez. 2002. “Contributions to the discussion of the initiative for the Federal Law of Linguistic Rights”. Día Internacional de la Lengua Materna. 8. Cf. Second Article, Section A, Parts 4 and 8, and Section B, Parts 2 and 6 of the Mexican Constitution. 9. Cf. Gumercindo Alvarez Sotelo. 2002. “Iniciativa de Ley General de Lenguas Indígenas”.

References Aranda, Jesús 2002 La reforma indígena estará hoy bajo la lupa de la SCJN (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación). La Jornada. May 6, p.3. Aubry, Andrés 2003 Los Acuerdos de San Andrés y las lenguas nativas. La Jornada. July 30, p. 20. Bastardas i Boada, Albert 1996 Ecologia de les llengües. Medi, contactes i dinàmica sociolingüística. Barcelona: Ediciones Proa. Bastardas, Albert and Emili Boix (eds.) 1994 ¿Un Estado una lengua? La organización política de la diversidad lingüística. Barcelona: Octaedro. Bouthillier, Guy and Jean Meynaud 1972 Le choc de langues au Québec. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec. Centro de Estudios Antropológicos, Científicos, Artísticos, Tradicionales y Lingüísticos. 1996 Los Primeros Acuerdos de Sacam Ch’en. (Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar). Ce-Acatl, 78–79. Mexico: JC Impresores. Cifuentes, Bárbara 1998 Letras sobre voces. Multilingüismo a través de la historia. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social and Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. 1994 On the limits of ethnolinguistic democracy. In Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Tove SkutnabbKangas and Robert Phillipson (eds.), 49–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 153 Flores Farfán, José A. 1992 Sociolingüística del náhuatl. Conservación y cambio de la lengua mexicana en el Alto Balsas. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. García Ramírez, Sergio 1998 La jurisdicción interamericana sobre derechos humanos: actualidad y perspectivas. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 54: 116–149. Gauthier, Francóis, Jacques Leclerc and Jacques Maurais 1993 Langues et Constitutions. Quebec: Conseil International de la Langue Française and Office de la langue Française. Hagège, Claude 2000 No a la muerte de las lenguas. Buenos Aires / Mexico: Paidós. Herrera, Ma. del Carmen, Valentín Peralta, Brígida von Metz, et al. 2005 Análisis interdisciplinario de textos nahuas del siglo XVI. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 35 Instituto Nacional de Geografía, Estadística e Informática (INEGI) 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda 2000. Mexico: INEGI. Kaufman, Terrence 1974 Idiomas de Mesoamérica. Guatemala: Editorial José de la Pineda Ibarra. Lastra, Yolanda 1994 Préstamos y alternancias de código en otomí y en español. In Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, Carolin Mackay and Verónica Vázquez (eds.), 185–195. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2002 Diversidad lingüística. Protección de las lenguas indígenas de México (Panel of May 9, 2001). In Comisión de Asuntos Indígenas de la Cámara de Diputados, 21–26. Mexico: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Mackey, William 1994 La ecología de las sociedades plurilingües. In ¿Un Estado una lengua? La organización política de la diversidad lingüística, Albert Bastardas and Emili Boix (eds.), 27–54. Barcelona: Octaedro. Manrique, Leonardo (Coord) 1988 Atlas cultural de México. Lingüística. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Mexico: Grupo Editorial Planeta. McRae, Kenneth D. 1994 El establecimiento de una política lingüística en sociedades plurilingúes: cinco dimensiones cruciales. In ¿Un estado una lengua? Albert Bastardas and Emili Boix (eds.), 77–98. Barcelona: Octaedro.

154 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera Pellicer, Dora 1999 Derechos lingüísticos y supervivencia de las lenguas indígenas. In Las causas sociales de la desaparición y del mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de América, Anita Herzfeld and Yolanda Lastra (eds.), 1–19. Hermosillo: Editorial Universidad de Sonora. 2001 Narraciones mazahuas en español: Composición y actuación. Antropológicas 20: 45–57. Phillipson, Robert 1992 English Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rabasa, Emilio 1998 Para una protección efectiva de los derechos humanos en América. Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 54: 150–156. Rensch, Calvin 1967 Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Language Science Monographs 14. Robins, Robert, Eugenius Uhlembeck and Beatriz Garza Cuarón (eds.) 2000 Lenguas en peligro. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson 1994 Linguistic human rights, past and present. In Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, Tove SkutnabbKangas and Robert Phillipson (eds.), 71–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Robert Phillipson (eds.) 1994 Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Lingüistic Discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Suárez, Jorge 1983 The Mesoamerican Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swadesh, Mauricio 1959 Indian Linguistic Groups of Mexico. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Swadesh, Morris 1967 Lexicostatistic classification. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5, Norman A. McQwon (ed.), 79–115. Austin: The University of Texas Press. United Nations Education and Science Organization 2003 Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Language Vitality and Endangerment. International Expert Meeting on the UNESCO Program. Paris-Fontenoy, March 10–12, 2003.

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 155 Valdés, Luz María 1995 Los indios en los censos de población. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Villanueva, Ernesto 2002 Entre la simulación y la mentira. Proceso 20 (1354): 18. Villoro, Luis 2002 Una democracia excluyente. La Jornada. September 14, p. 19. Wurm, Stephen A. 1993 The Red Book of Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Information Document. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. International Consultation on New Perspectives for UNESCO’S Program. The Intangible Cultural Heritage.

List of primary sources Initiatives, Declarations, Agreements and Decrees Álvarez Sotelo, Gumercindo (2002, April). Iniciativa de Ley General de Lenguas Indígenas. Compendio de Iniciativas. Documentos de Trabajo para los Foros de Consulta Indígenas sobre Derechos Lingüísticos. Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura. In Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos (eds.), 23–45. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Iniciativa que crea la Ley Federal de los Derechos Lingüísticos. Documentos de Trabajo. (2001). Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Conclusiones de los Foros de Consulta sobre Derechos Lingüísticos (2002). Cámara de Diputados de la LVIII Legislatura. Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Compendio de Iniciativas. Documentos de Trabajo para los Foros de Consulta Indígena sobre los Derechos Lingüísticos (2002). Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura. Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Día Internacional de la Lengua Materna. Documentos Internacionales y Nacionales. (February 21, 2002). Mexico City: Oficina de Representación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Presidencia de la República; Comisión de Asuntos Indígenas de la Cámara de Diputados; Escritores de Lenguas Indígenas A.C. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA)

156 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera Panel: Protección de las lenguas indígenas de México. (May 9, 2001). Mexico City: Cámara de Diputados de la LVIII Legislatura. Comisión de Asuntos Indígenas. Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO International Labour Organization.([1989] suscribed by Mexico in 1990). Declaración de los Escritores Indígenas en torno a la diversidad étnica, lingüística y cultural de México (1997-2002). Reprinted In Día Internacional de la Lengua Materna. Documentos Internacionales y nacionales (pp. 79-82). Decreto de creación de la Coordinación General de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe de la Secretaría de Educación Pública. Mexico City: Diario Oficial de la Federación. (January 22, 2001). Decreto por el que se autoriza a la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público a recibir de los concesionarios de estaciones de radio y televisión el pago del impuesto que se indica. Mexico City: Diario Oficial de la Federación. (October 10, 2002). Decreto que crea la Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas de México y Reforma la Fracción IV, del Artículo 7º de la Ley General de Educación. Mexico City: Diario Oficial de la Federación. (March 13, 2003). Decreto que Reforma los Artículos 1º, 2º, 4º, 18º y 115º de la Constitución Mexicana. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación. (August 14, 2001). Dictamen en Materia Indígena dado en la sede legal del Senado de la República. Mexico City. (April 25, 2001). www.senado.gob.mx Escritores de Lenguas Indígenas A. C. Propuesta de Iniciativa Ley de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas. Compendio de Iniciativas. Documentos de Trabajo para los Foros de Consulta Indígenas sobre Derechos Lingüísticos. In Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos (eds.), 47–63. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. (2001). Espadas Ancona, Ucc-Kib (2001). Iniciativa que crea la Ley Federal de Derechos Lingüísticos, y deroga la Fracción IV del Artículo 7 de la Ley general de Educación de los Pueblos Indígenas. In Compendio de Iniciativas. Documentos de Trabajo para los Foros de Consulta Indígenas sobre Derechos Lingüísticos. Cámara de Diputados LVIII Legislatura Comisiones Unidas de Asuntos Indígenas y de Educación Pública y Servicios Educativos (eds.), 9-21. Mexico City: Talleres Gráficos de la Cámara de Diputados. Oficina de Representación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Presidencia de la República (2002). Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas. Proyecto de Creación. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social.

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 157 Sánchez, Héctor. Aportaciones del diputado Héctor Sánchez López para la discusión a la iniciativa que crea la Ley Federal de Derechos Lingüísticos. Día Internacional de la Lengua Materna. Documentos Internacionales y Nacionales 100-112. (February 21, 2002). Secretaría de Educación Pública (1985). Bases Generales para la Educación Indígena. Mexico City. Secretaría de Educación Pública-Dirección General de Educación Indígena. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ([1989] (signed by México in 1990). United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, draft (1991). World Conference on Linguistic Rights. Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. Barcelona Declaration (June 6, 1996).

TEQUES TLATECAN 6. Oaxaca Chontal

SERI 5. Seri

YUMANA 1. Paipai 2. Kiliwa 3. Cucapa 4. Cochimi

HOCÁN – COAHUILTEC

CHICHIMECAN 18. Chichimeco Jonaz

Quiotepec 9. Quiotepec Chinantec 10. Yólox Chinantec Palantla 11. Palantla Chinantec MATLATZINCA 12. Valle Nacional 21. Matlatzinca Chinantec 22. Ocuiltec Lalana 13. Lalana Chinantec 14. Latani Chinantec 15. Petlapa Chinantec

OTOMIAN 19. Otomi 20. Mazahua

PAMEAN 16. Northern Pame 17. Southern Pame

OTOPAMEAN

Ojitec 7. Ojitlán Chinantec 8. Usila Chinantec

CHINANTECAN

Chart 1. Classification of Mexican Indigenous Languages

Appendix I

Inik 50. Huastec

MAYAN

Chatino and Papabuc Raxche 30. Chatino 57. Mam 31. Papabuc 58. Teco Motozintlec 59. Motozintlec

Yaxche 52. Chol 53. Chontal Southern Mountain Range 54. Tzeltal 28. Cuixtla Zapotec 55. Tzotzil 29. Soltec 56. Tojolabal

26. Valley Zapotec 27. Tehuan

Northern Serrano 23. Villalta Zapotec Winik. 24. Vijano Zapotec Yaxque 25. del Rincón 51. Peninsular Zapotec Maya and Lacandon Valley and Isthmus

ZAPOTECAN

OAXACAN

Aztecan 66. Nahuatl languages

Cora-Huichol 64. Cora 65. Huichol

Tarahumara-cahita 62. Tarahumara and Guarijio 63.Yaqui and Mayo

Pimic 60. Pima-Papago 61. Tepehuan

Sonoran

SOUTHERN UTOAZTECAN

UTO-AZTECAN

158 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

HOCÁN – COAHUILTEC CHINANTECAN

OTOPAMEAN

OAXACAN

MAZATECAN 40. Mazatec 41. Chocho or Popoloca 42. Ixcatec

Amuzgan 39. Amuzgo

Trique 38. Trique

Cuicatec 37. Cuicatec

Mixtec 34. Low Mixteca Mixtec 35.Mazatec zone Mixtec 36. Puebla Mixtec

Mixtec languages 32. Coastal Mixtec 33. High Mixteca

MIXTECAN

Chart 1. Classification of Mexican Indigenous Languages (continued) MAYAN

UTO-AZTECAN

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 159

44. Tlapanec

TLAPANECAN 48. Zoque

46. Tepehua 49. Popoluca

47. Mixe

MIXE-ZOQUEAN

45. Totonac

TOTONACAN

a. Numbers correspond to those on Map 1 on the following page b. Source : Leonardo Manrique Castañeda (1990) with some modifications c. Bold capitals = families d. Bold capitals italics = sub-families e. Italics sub-groups f. Roman type = languages

43. Huave

HUAVEAN

Chart 1. Classification of Mexican Indigenous Languages (continued)

67. Tarasco or Purhepecha

TARASCAN

68. Kickapoo

ALGONQUIAN

160 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

Map 1. Classificacion of Mexican Indigenous Languages

Appendix II

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 161

162 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

Appendix III Textual references 1. Report on indigenous matters. Diario Oficial, April 25, 2001 Second Article. The Mexican Nation is one and indivisible. The Nation has a multicultural composition based originally on its indigenous peoples, who are those descendants of populations that inhabited the current territory that makes up the country, at the beginning of a colonial period, and they preserve their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions, or at least partially. The consciousness of their indigenous identity should be the fundamental criteria for determining to whom the decrees about indigenous peoples should be applied. Those communities that form a social, economic, and cultural unity, seated in a territory, and recognizing their own authorities in agreement with their uses and costumes are considered as integrating a distinctive indigenous population. A. This Constitution recognizes and guarantees the rights of the indigenous peoples and communities to the free determination, and as a consequence, the autonomy to: IV. Preserve and enrich their languages, knowledge and all the elements that constitute their culture and identity... VIII. Have full access to the jurisdiction of the State. In order to guarantee this right, in all the judgments and proceedings which they are part of, individually or collectively, their customs and culturally-specific aspects should be taken into account, respecting the precepts of this Constitution. The indigenous people have, at any given time, the right to be assisted by interpreters and counselors for the defense who are versed in the knowledge of their language and culture. The constitutions and laws of the federal entities will establish the characteristics of free determination and autonomy that best express the situations and aspirations of the indigenous peoples of each entity, as well as the norms for recognizing the indigenous communities as entities of public interest. B. The Federation, the States, and the Municipalities, in order to promote equal opportunities for the indigenous populations and eliminate any discriminatory practice, will establish institutions and determine the necessary politics for guaran-

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 163 teeing the validity of the rights of the indigenous populations and the integral development of its villages and communities, which should be designed and operated in conjunction with them. In order to shoot down deficiencies and backwardness that affect the indigenous populations and communities such authorities have the obligation to: II. Guarantee and increase the levels of education, favoring bilingual and intercultural education, literacy, and whole basic education for everyone, productive qualification, and higher education. Establish a scholarship system for indigenous students at all levels. Define and develop educational programs with regional content able to recognize the cultural heritage of the people, in agreement with the laws and under consultation with the indigenous communities. Promote the respect and the knowledge of the diversity of cultures that exist in the nation... VI. Extend the communication network that would permit the integration of communities by means of the construction and enlargement of communications and telecommunication channels. Establish conditions that allow indigenous people and communities to acquire, operate and administer media communications in terms determined by law.

164 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

Appendix IV. General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Title page)

Legislating diversity in twenty-first century Mexico 165

Appendix IV. General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (continued)(Page 1)

166 Dora Pellicer, Bárbara Cifuentes and Carmen Herrera

Appendix V. Spanish abbreviations used in this article AELI ASAL CAI CEPSE COCOPA DGEI EZLN INI INALI LGDLPI PAN PRD PRI SEP SCJN TLC

Association of Indigenous Language Writers San Andrés Larrainzar Agreements Commission of Indigenous Affairs Commission of Public Education and Services Commission for Concord and Pacification General Office for Indigenous Education Zapatista Army of National Liberation National Institute for Indigenous Peoples National Institute of Indigenous Languages General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples National Action Party Democratic Revolutionary Party Institutional Revolutionary Party Public Education Ministery Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation National Free Trade Agreement

Chapter 6 Centralization vs. local initiatives. Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages F. Daniel Althoff Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the approaches of two North American countries in the area of indigenous language rights. The enactment in 2003 of comprehensive indigenous language rights legislation in Mexico stands in contrast to the legislative approach taken in the USA where 1990 federal legislation in that area is much more modest. It is suggested that the centralizing approach of the Mexican government in this area is the outcome of historical interactions between the indigenous peoples and the postIndependence central government which refused to recognize indigenous corporate sovereignty. By the same token, it is argued that the localized approach to indigenous languages rights favored in the USA stems from the fact that the USA government has historically recognized indigenous peoples as sovereign nations, and that Native American tribal governments have a high degree of autonomy not found in Mexico.

1. Introduction As the end of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (1995– 2004) coincidentally approached, the Congress of Mexico undertook to pass one of the most comprehensive pieces of national linguistic legislation proposed in North America: the General Law on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter “General Law”). In this volume, Pellicer et al. thoroughly situated and contextualized how this remarkable General Law came about. To paraphrase their account, following close on the heels of the neo-revolutionary armed uprising led by the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista National Liberation Army or EZLN) in the southern state of Chiapas in 1994, the demands for justice and equitable treatment for the indigenous people of Mexico received substantial and favorable coverage from domestic and international media. In a climate of heightened scrutiny from the media and human rights organizations, repre-

168 F. Daniel Althoff

sentatives from EZLN forces and the Mexican government produced a set of proposals that became a bill sent before the Mexican Congress. This bill addressing the “rights and culture” of indigenous peoples was defeated in the Senate. That defeat, however, gave rise instead to a series of constitutional reforms1 which in turn led to another bill being introduced in the Lower House of Congress, the Chamber of Deputies. This bill, now reduced in scope to addressing the language rights of indigenous peoples, was enacted by the Congress and took effect in March 2003.

2. The General Law Limited though it may be to matters of linguistic rights, the text of the General Law is comprehensive, thorough, and detailed (see the appended English translation). The text of the legislation is written under two Articles: Article the First consists of four “Chapters” which include 25 (sub)articles. Article the Second is a brief statement which amends the text of another piece of legislation, the General Law on Education. The final section of the General Law, consisting of eight points, is entitled Transitorios (translated as “Enabling Legislation”). These eight “transitory” points prescribe the timelines by which the events and institutions created by the text of the General Law are to be carried out. Appearing under Article the First, Chapter 1 of the General Law defines the term “indigenous languages” and indicates that the Mexican federal government will recognize them as “national languages” on a par with Spanish where there are communities speaking an indigenous language as a majority. The General Law also requires the government to broadcast in indigenous languages (using an undefined “percentage” of its statutorily allotted daily time), and requires state and local governments to make government services accessible in indigenous languages. Chapter 2 of the General Law details those rights enjoyed by speakers of indigenous languages, including the right to bilingual education in Spanish and their first language. Notably, Chapter 2 assigns equal responsibility for achieving the General Law’s objectives to “society” and “residents and institutions of indigenous towns and communities;” they are deemed corresponsables. As the General Law enters into even more specifics, Chapter 3 requires the federal government to account for the linguistic and cultural distinctions of the indigenous people in matters of justice, including the administration and prosecution of law; the same requirement applies to state and

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 169

local governments where indigenous languages predominate. This particular Chapter consists entirely of one article (Article 13) detailing 14 items as the State’s special areas of competence and obligation, including the availability of specially trained bilingual faculty and government employees as well as the repeated requirement of broadcasts in Mexican indigenous languages (hereinafter MIL). Numerous articles refer to including, promoting, encouraging, and fostering the dissemination and preservation of indigenous languages, with special reference to educational and research institutions, civic associations, libraries, and public school curricula. Central to achieving the General Law’s goals is the establishment of a new federal agency, the Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (“National Institute of Indigenous Languages,” henceforth INALI). The INALI is created in Chapter 4 of the General Law, under Article 14. This article also defines the functions of the agency, including the design and implementation of a sociolinguistic census to be carried out in coordination with Mexico’s census bureau, the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). The first sociolinguistic census will serve to establish the areas where the use of MIL is greatest; subsequent sociolinguistic censuses will be concurrent with general censuses of the population. The INALI is created to be an independent agency with its own budget, personnel, resources, and internal governing structure. Moreover, the General Law mandates that the headquarters of INALI be located in the capital, Mexico City. The creation of INALI as an agency of the national government reflects the key role that the federal capital has always played in Mexican civic life. Although the official name of the country is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (“United Mexican States”) and this phrase appears emblazoned on the coinage and government aircraft, the reality is that the federal system as practiced in Mexico differs in important ways from the federalism of the United States of America. One small but telling example of this difference involves the case of individual state identities. Each of the 50 states in the USA has a separate flag which typically flies underneath the national standard. In Mexico, state flags are non-existent, although each state – or “federative entity” in the common constitutional phrase – has its own official seal or coat of arms. There is no flag of any entidad federativa either to compete with or complement the national banner. Another instance illustrating the longer reach and greater authority of the Mexican federal government is in the area of professional licensing. In the USA, the individual states through their own accrediting bodies and boards, regulate and license

170 F. Daniel Althoff

the various professions: attorneys, physicians, teachers, etc. In contrast, professional licensing and regulations are controlled by the central government in Mexico City; the various agencies and federal departments are charged with issuing the license (or cédula) to each professional practitioner. This focus on the capital as the hub of authority dates at least to the days of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (ca.1523–1821); it is entirely too easy to overlook the existing pre-Conquest concentration of authority in the earlier Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan (modern Mexico City). The national expectations for the central government’s role in legislative and regulatory issues are vastly different in the two countries.

3. The United States approach to legislation of Amerindian languages In the USA, there is no piece of federal legislation exactly analogous to the 2003 General Law in Mexico. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–477), however, comes closest to addressing the points found in the Mexican law. In contrast to the lengthy and detailed text of the Mexican General Law, the Native American Languages Act (NALA) is much shorter and much more broadly worded (see Appendix II). It consists only of six “sections” corresponding broadly to the “Articles” in the Mexican text. These six “sections” are further divided under six headings. After a technical entry which allows Public Law 101–477 to be cited as the NALA, the text begins with the “Findings” of the Congress; these will serve as a rationale for the Act’s few actual provisions. The “Definitions” section immediately following “Findings” is again more technical; the indigenous peoples of the United States are therein defined in terms of previous federal legislation.2 The “Declaration of Policy” in the NALA reflects generally the same policy as that elaborated in the Mexican General Law. The USA text defines a national policy to “preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.” The provisions of the NALA’s “Declaration of Policy” are much more limited in scope in comparison to those found in the Mexican General Law. Whereas the Mexican General Law makes specific requirements on federal, state, and local governments – for providing indigenous language-speaking interpreters in court proceedings; for providing indigenous language-speaking teachers in bilingual classrooms; for disseminating and broadcasting the content of government services and programs in indigenous languages, etc. – the NALA speaks only to the

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 171

educational realm. We find that NALA will “allow exceptions to teacher certification requirements for Federal programs … for instruction in Native American languages when such teacher certification requirements hinder the employment of qualified teachers who teach in Native American languages….” Similarly, NALA recognizes the right of indigenous people “to use Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior.” More broadly and vaguely, NALA seeks to “encourage” state and local educational programs to work with Native American governments to implement programs favoring the policies established in NALA. We find “support” for granting academic credit for proficiency in indigenous languages, and the federal government will again “encourage” Native American languages to be included in school curricula at all levels of instruction with the same academic credit accorded to indigenous languages as to foreign languages. The fifth section of NALA, entitled “No Restrictions,” asserts the absolute right of Native Americans to express themselves in their own language in any public proceeding. There is no requirement, however, that the same public proceeding have interpreters available, or that it be carried out, in whole or in part, in any indigenous language. Finally, the sixth section (“Evaluations”) is directed to the President of the United States. This item requires him to direct the heads of federal departments and agencies to “evaluate their policies and procedures … in order to determine and implement changes needed to bring the policies and procedures into compliance with the provisions of this title….”3

4. Similarities and differences What accounts for the significant differences in similarly intended, and even similarly worded, legislation in the two countries? Why, in the case of Mexico, is a new bureaucracy erected while the USA contents itself with what appears primarily to be a statement of good wishes? Apart from the long-standing preference for centralized control in Mexico, we can view these texts as being the direct results of the historical interaction between the two independent nations and their indigenous peoples. Although the Spanish colonial government recognized the existence and authority of indigenous governments as repúblicas de indios, the independent Mexican government recognized no authority other than its own. As noted by Leticia Reina (2002: 49), the Constitution of 1824 decreed equality among citi-

172 F. Daniel Althoff

zens, which was the equivalent of the legal disappearance of the indigenous population. She observes, moreover, that the entire body of laws enacted by the liberal nineteenth-century Mexican State was intended not only to put an end to indigenous autonomy granted by the Spanish crown, but also to remove them from their lands by passing the Leyes de Reforma (“Laws of Reform”). All of this was occurring while the government attempted to simultaneously exterminate indigenous cultures (Reina 2002: 50). The Mexican government, however, was never able to completely eliminate the indigenous peoples whether de jure or de facto. Indeed, much of Mexican national identity depends on the continued existence of the “Indian.” Article 2 of the Mexican Constitution4 refers to the Mexican Nation as “pluricultural,” being built originally upon its indigenous peoples, i.e., those who descend from peoples who inhabited the present-day territory of the country at the onset of colonization, and who preserve their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions, or part of them. Very significantly, a self-awareness of indigenous identity is key to determining to whom government regulations concerning indigenous affairs will apply. The modern Mexican State now has an array of services and institutions intended to serve indigenous peoples’ needs and interests. Chief among these is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (“National Commission for Indigenous Peoples’ Development” or CDI). The CDI was established in mid 2003; it is the direct descendant and institutional successor of the venerable Instituto Nacional Indigenista (“National Indigenous Institute”) which existed for over 50 years. There is also an office for indigenous representation (Oficina para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) in the Presidency. Current President Vicente Fox Quesada proclaims his commitment to the inclusion and development of native peoples on the opening page of that website (http://indigenas.presidencia.gob.mx). The estimates of the indigenous population in Mexico in the year 2000 can range considerably, depending on the source consulted. The Instituto Nacional de Geografía, Estadística e Informática (2004), the agency charged with carrying out the decennial census, gives a figure of 6,044,547; this number does not include those indigenous people who do not speak an indigenous language. The number of indigenous people is therefore a minimum of 6.2% of the 97,483,412 estimated population, so it is not surprising to see governmental agencies responding to the indigenous presence in various modalities. Despite the numerous ways in which the indigenous population is targeted for services, however, there is very little indication

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 173

that the indigenous communities and peoples are recognized as discrete groups or corporate entities, apart from speaking distinct languages. This, I believe, is one the most important facts motivating the different levels of national linguistic legislation in the USA and Mexico. The past policies of the United States towards the native peoples – including removal, genocide, cultural annihilation – will not be defended here; there is no defense for them. Those crimes are openly acknowledged. The crimes of the Mexican government against the indigenous peoples of that country are also acknowledged. What appears to be relevant to this discussion of indigenous language rights in the two countries is the fact the United States, in contrast to Mexico, understood that its agreements and dealings were always with sovereign nations. Again, these agreements and dealings – expressed in treaties and pacts – were more often honored in the breach, but there was a legal precedent established: the sovereign government of the United States made agreements with the various sovereign governments of the indigenous nations. The more powerful USA government, of course, was most often in the position to dictate terms and conditions, yet there has always been the official cachet of government-togovernment agreements. Through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency of the Department of the Interior, the federal government of the United States currently recognizes 562 tribal governments. The very existence of sovereign, indigenous governments is something that powerfully and, I would argue, positively affects the development of the indigenous peoples in the United States, and aids in their struggle to use and preserve their heritage languages. Tribal governments in the United States typically exercise a wide range of sovereign powers, although some of these – such as minting money – are reserved exclusively to the USA federal government. Among their most common characteristics, tribal governments are democratically elected; have law enforcement authority on tribal lands; conduct trials; may issue car license plates; offer social and medical benefits to their members; engage in commercial enterprises, sometimes on a very large scale; and operate schools and colleges. The high degree of autonomy of the American Indian nations, however, does not place them among the privileged members of USA society: as a group, the indigenous peoples of the United States still suffer most disproportionately from alcoholism, unemployment, poverty, infant mortality, and a variety of other social and health-related disorders. Their autonomy, however, allows the indigenous nations the

174 F. Daniel Althoff

freedom to set tribal priorities for the well being of their members, including the preservation of traditional culture and language.

5. Oklahoma indigenous language initiatives Oklahoma, the state in which I reside, is second only to California in the number of indigenous people in its population.5 Although there are literally dozens of federally recognized tribes resident in Oklahoma, the best known of these have historically been referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the Seminole Nation. These nations are at the forefront of Native American issues in Oklahoma and are generally well represented in the state legislature; they are the most visible tribal entities due to the number of their members-citizens; and they maintain an active presence on the World Wide Web. The Five Civilized Tribes consequently serve as frequent reference points and as bellwethers. With that in mind, we will see that the importance of indigenous language preservation and development, as tribal priorities, varies widely. The Cherokee Nation has a long tradition of native language literacy, and after the Navajo people, it is the second most numerous tribal group in the United States. The Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, headquartered in Tahlequah, is taking important steps to preserve and strengthen the living language. The website of the Cherokee Nation offers online language lessons, and the Cherokee government has produced a proposal for a 10 year plan for revitalizing the Cherokee language. An important feature of that proposal is the use of two professional linguists as consultants and planners. It should be noted that Northeastern State University, a regional public university located in Tahlequah, also offers numerous courses in Cherokee, including a B.S. degree in Bilingual Cherokee Elementary Education. The Choctaw Nation, with its tribal government complex located in Durant, is deeply involved in language preservation and development. There is a Choctaw Language Department, and courses in Choctaw are offered via distance learning as well as at community centers at various locations in Oklahoma (and even one in Anaheim, California). There is a recently developed Choctaw language and culture text, Chahta Anumpa (2001) authored by a professional linguist in consultation with a fluent native speaker. Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant now offers a

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 175

limited number of college-level Choctaw courses in partnership with qualified instructors provided by the Choctaw Nation. The Chickasaw Nation, headquartered in Ada (approximately 60 miles north of Durant), often works in close collaboration with the Choctaw Nation. For example, due to the fact that the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribal jurisdictions abut each other, there are joint Chickasaw-Choctaw health care clinics available to members of either nation. The Chickasaw and Choctaw languages are so closely related that the Chickasaw Nation website refers indigenous language questions to the Choctaw Nation, noting that there are only minor dialectal differences between the two. The Chickasaw Nation’s website, in fact, offers a Choctaw translation of the 23rd Psalm as an appropriate illustration of Chickasaw language. The remaining two of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma are at more modest levels of language preservation. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, with tribal seat in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, has a Cultural Preservation Office and has prepared Introductory Muscogee (Creek) language materials for primary education (K–3) which are available online. Finally, the Seminole Nation in Wewoka offers online information that is currently split between two different websites. The older but more informative of the two identifies Seminole as a Muscogean language that is facing challenges to its survival, but that there are steps being taken to introduce it and teach it to young children. Unfortunately, further details concerning language planning and preservation for Seminole speakers is not available at either website, nor is there any identifiable office within the Seminole Nation administration responsible for cultural preservation, including language issues. It should be noted, however, that any lack of webbased references does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest or dedication to language preservation on the part of any tribal government. We should bear in mind that the human and capital resources of each American Indian Nation vary just as they do within modern nation-states, i.e. from the populous and wealthy to the populous and poor; from the small and wealthy, to the small and poor.

6. Conclusion The national legislation in Mexico and the USA related to the preservation and promotion of indigenous languages and indigenous language rights has much phraseology in common. What distinguishes the approaches taken in

176 F. Daniel Althoff

both countries is the historical and constitutional setting: since before its national independence, Mexico has looked toward the central government to take initiatives in many areas that are reserved to the individual states in the USA. As Mexico has not generally regarded the indigenous peoples as corporate and sovereign entities, the federal government in recent years has instituted numerous programs to de-marginalize the native peoples and ensure the recognition of their individual and collective rights. From the Mexican perspective, this would almost naturally require a new federal bureaucracy. In light of the fact that greater than 6% of the population is indigenous, establishing a new National Institute of Indigenous Languages indeed appears inevitable. Despite its well-known crimes and offenses against the native peoples, the federal government of the United States has historically maintained a policy of acknowledging the sovereignty of American Indian nations. The (federally recognized) native peoples have consequently established nations within a nation, which include most of the apparatuses of sovereign governments. The USA government has generally left the question of preserving and developing native languages to the individual tribal governments; we have seen how the level of commitment towards their language can vary widely among the Nations. The federal NALA of 1990 does little more than offer encouragement to the American Indian governments in protecting native languages, but it does at least recognize the right of American Indians to express themselves in their language “in any public proceeding, including publicly supported education programs.”6 In their analysis of the Mexican General Law, Pellicer et al. (in this volume) warn that the MIL are threatened by increasing bilingualism and Spanish monolingualism; this is occurring even though a substantial number of Mexico’s inhabitants are indigenous and many live in relative isolation. The indigenous population of the United States is tiny in comparison to that of Mexico: approximately 1.5% of the USA population in the 2000 census claimed Native identity. Although the tribal governments in the USA have a great deal of autonomy, and many of them have their own lands and territories (“reservations”), the native peoples in the USA face many of the same problems as their indigenous counterparts elsewhere: the growing dependence on a culturally-dominant language and the subsequent loss of the traditional language. The two responses to the question of indigenous language rights, as illustrated by the national legislation cited here, could hardly be more polar. In Mexico, the challenge has been taken up by the federal government on

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 177

behalf of indigenous peoples, who for years, have not “existed” as individual ethnicities, and who have never been able to express their collective sovereign will in the face of a powerful, centralizing federal government. In the United States, there is a tradition of recognizing indigenous national sovereignty. American Indian sovereignty has perhaps never been more fully exercised, or more fully honored by the US government, than in the past 30 years. Although this more-complete indigenous sovereignty has not exorcised the social ills plaguing Native Americans or erased the effects of neglect and abuse by the federal government, tribal governments have the legal authority and capacity to set their own priorities. More so than ever before, American Indian nations are in control of their own social and financial destiny. They have their own resources – intellectual, social, and capital – to bring to bear on their own challenges. The NALA of 1990 recognizes the historical moment, both of increased self-determination and the threat posed against native languages by the dominant English-speaking culture. The “central control” approach as deployed in Mexico and the “local control” approach in the United States speak to the historical and actual circumstances of indigenous peoples in both countries. Both approaches seek to strengthen indigenous cultures and languages. How successful they are will depend in large measure on the effort of the indigenous people themselves in the face of the global marginalization and disappearance of minority languages in general.

Notes 1. Derechos de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas en la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (“Rights of the indigenous peoples and communities in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States”), signed by President Vicente Fox Quesada, August 3, 2001. 2. In the NALA (1990), indigenous peoples (“Native Americans”) are identified as (American) Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander. 3. The President was to have submitted a report to that effect to the US Congress by October 1991. I have been unable to determine if such a report was in fact submitted. 4. “La Nación Mexicana es única e indivisible. La Nación tiene una composición pluricultural sustentada originalmente en sus pueblos indígenas que son aquellos que descienden de poblaciones que habitaban en el territorio actual del país al iniciarse la colonización y que conservan sus propias instituciones sociales, económicas, culturales y políticas, o parte de ellas. La conciencia de su identi-

178 F. Daniel Althoff dad indígena deberá ser criterio fundamental para determinar a quienes se aplican las disposiciones sobre pueblos indígenas.” 5. In descending order, the 10 states with the greatest number of indigenous people are: California, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, New York, Washington, North Carolina, Michigan, and Alaska. 6. In further developments, the Native American Languages Act of 1992 (Public Law102-524) establishes a federal grants program for the preservation and development of indigenous languages, as well as an Administration for Native Americans within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Cherokee Nation has applied to this federal program to help fund implementation of its ambitious language revitalization effort. A bill to amend the NALA of 1990 to provide for the support of Native American language survival schools was introduced in the USA Senate in March 2003 (108th Congress, Senate Bill 575), and in the USA House of Representatives in June 2003 (108th Congress, House Resolution 2362). Each legislative chamber referred the proposal to subcommittees; no legislation was passed.

References Cherokee Nation 2004 www.cherokee.org Chickasaw Nation 2004 www.chickasaw.net Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 2004 www.choctawnation.com. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2003 Decreto que crea la Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas de México y Reforma la Fracción IV del Artículo 7º de la Ley General de Educación. Mexico City (March 13). Haig, Marcia and Henry Willis 2001 Choctaw Language and Culture: Chahta anumpa. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2004 www.inegi.gob.mx. Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 2004 www.muscogeenation-nsn.gov. Reina, Leticia 2002 Reindianización: paradoja del liberalismo. Mexico Indígena (Nueva Epoca) 1: 49–56. Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 2004 www.cowboy.net/native/old-seminole-old. 2004 www.seminole.com

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 179

Appendix I The General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples (English version) Thursday, 13 March 2003

Official Daily

(First section)

EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF STATE DECREE by which the General Law on the Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples is created and Section IV of Article 7 of the General Law on Education is reformed. In the margin a stamp with the National Seal which reads: United Mexican States – Presidency of the Republic. VICENTE FOX QUESADA, President of the United Mexican States, to its inhabitants, be it known: That the Honorable Congress of the Union has seen fit to direct to me the following DECREE THE GENERAL CONGRESS OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES DECREES THE GENERAL LAW ON THE LINGUISTIC RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IS CREATED. IT REFORMS SECTION IV OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE GENERAL LAW ON EDUCATION ARTICLE THE FIRST. The General Law on the Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples is created According to the following text GENERAL LAW ON LINGUISTIC RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Chapter I GENERAL DISPOSITIONS ARTICLE 1. The present law belongs to the public order or social interest, is of general observance in the United Mexican States and has as its purpose regulating the recognition and protection of individual and collective linguistic rights of the indigenous peoples and communities, as well as promoting the use and development of indigenous languages. ARTICLE 2. Indigenous languages are those that proceed from the peoples existing within the national territory before the establishment of the Mexican State, in addition to those proceeding from other Indo-American peoples, likewise preexisting, which later have

180 F. Daniel Althoff taken root within the national territory and are recognized as possessing an ordered and systematic complex of functional and symbolic oral forms. ARTICLE 3. The indigenous languages are an integral part of the national cultural and linguistic patrimony. The plurality of indigenous languages is one of the chief expressions of the multicultural composition of the Mexican Nation. ARTICLE 4. The indigenous languages that are recognized in terms of the present Law and Spanish are national languages due to their historic origin. And they have the same validity in their territory, locale, and context in which they may be spoken. ARTICLE 5. The State through its orders of government--the Federation, States, and municipalities--in the areas of their respective competencies will recognize, protect, and promote the preservation, development, and use of national indigenous languages. ARTICLE 6. The State will adopt and implement the necessary means to assure that the mass media will broadcast the reality and linguistic and cultural diversity of the Mexican Nation. Additionally, it will devote a percentage of the time available to it in the licensed mass media, in accordance with applicable legislation, for broadcasting programs in the diverse national languages spoken in their area of coverage, and cultural programs promoting the literature, oral traditions and the use of national indigenous languages in the diverse regions of the country. ARTICLE 7. The indigenous languages will be valid, as is Spanish, for any matter or transaction of a public nature, as well as for having full access to any procedures, services and public information. It is incumbent upon the State to guarantee the exercise of the rights foreseen in this article, in accordance with the following. a).- In the Federal District and in the other States with districts having municipalities which speak indigenous languages, the corresponding Governments, in consultation with local and migrant indigenous communities, will determine which of its agencies will adopt and implement means so that the required authorities may attend to and resolve the matters submitted to them in indigenous languages. b).- In the municipalities with communities that speak indigenous languages, the measures referred to in the previous paragraph will be adopted and implemented in all instances. The Federation and States will have available and will disseminate by means of texts, audiovisual and computer media, laws and regulations as well as the contents of programs, public works and services directed to indigenous communities in the language of the corresponding beneficiaries. ARTICLE 8. No person will be subject to any type of discrimination on account of or by virtue of the language he or she speaks. Chapter II ON THE RIGHTS OF THE SPEAKERS OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES ARTICLE 9. It is the right of every Mexican to communicate in the language of which he or she is a speaker, without restrictions, in the public or private sphere, in oral or written form, in all social, economic, political, cultural, religious and any other activities.

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 181 ARTICLE 10. The State will guarantee the right of indigenous peoples and communities to access to the jurisdiction of the State in the national indigenous language of which they are speakers. In order to guarantee that right, in all trials and legal processes to which they are party, individually or collectively, their customs and cultural distinctions must be taken into account, respecting the precepts of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The federal authorities responsible for the prosecution and administration of justice, including agrarian and labor law, will provide what is necessary so that in the trials they conduct indigenous people will be assisted free of charge, at all times, by interpreters and defense counsel who have knowledge of their indigenous language and culture. In terms of Article 5, in the States and municipalities with communities that speak indigenous languages, the measures referred to in the previous paragraph will be adopted and implemented in the instances that may be required. ARTICLE 11. Federal and State educational authorities will guarantee that the indigenous population will have access to obligatory, bilingual and intercultural education and will adopt the necessary means so that within the educational system respect for the dignity and identity of persons is assured, independently of their language. Likewise at intermediate and upper levels, interculturalism, multilingualism and respect for diversity and linguistic rights will be promoted. ARTICLE 12. Society and especially the residents and institutions of indigenous towns and communities will be equally responsible for achieving the objectives of this Law, and active participants in the use and teaching of languages in family, community and regional settings towards the goal of linguistic rehabilitation. Chapter III ON THE DISTRIBUTION, CONCURRENCE, AND COORDINATION OF COMPETENCIES ARTICLE 13. It is the State’s duty, through its distinctive orders of government in their respective areas of competency, to create institutions and undertake activities in order to achieve the general objectives of the present Law, and in particular the following I. To include in national, state, and municipal plans and programs dealing with indigenous education and culture those policies and actions tending to protect, preserve, promote, and develop the diverse national indigenous languages, with the participation of indigenous peoples and communities; II. To disseminate the content of programs, public works, and services directed to indigenous communities in the national indigenous languages of the beneficiaries; III. To broadcast the national indigenous languages of the region through the media in order to promote their use and development; IV. To include the origin and evolution of national indigenous languages, as well as their contributions to national culture, in the basic education curricula and teacher preparation programs; V. To oversee that interculturalism, multilingualism, and respect for linguistic diversity are promoted or implemented in public and private education in order to contribute

182 F. Daniel Althoff to the preservation, study, and development of national indigenous languages and their literature; VI. To guarantee that the faculty who attend to basic bilingual education in indigenous communities speak and write the local language and are familiar with the culture of the indigenous people in question; VII. To promote policies of research, dissemination, study, and documentation of national indigenous languages and their literary expressions; VIII. To create libraries, periodical collections, cultural centers or other depository institutions that will preserve linguistic materials in national indigenous languages; IX. To endeavor to set aside a space in public libraries for preserving the most representative information and documentation of national indigenous languages and their literature; X. To support public and private institutions, as well as legally constituted civil associations, that carry out ethnolinguistic research in everything related to fulfilling the objectives of this Law; XI. To support the professional formation and accreditation of interpreters and translators in national indigenous languages and Spanish; XII. To guarantee that public institutions, agencies, and offices have personnel knowledgeable in the national indigenous languages required in their respective territories; XIII. To establish policies, actions, and ways to protect and preserve the use of national languages and cultures among migratory indigenous people within the national territory and abroad a and XIV. To favor and encourage the participation of speakers of national indigenous languages in policies which will promote studies to be carried out in the diverse branches of government and in academic and research settings. Chapter IV ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES ARTICLE 14. The National Institute of Indigenous Languages is hereby created as a decentralized organ of the Federal Public Administration to be of public and social service, with its own legal status and budget, located within the Department of Public Education, whose purpose is to promote the strengthening, preservation, and development of the indigenous languages spoken within the national territory, the knowledge and enjoyment of the Nation’s cultural riches, and to advise the three orders of government in articulating public policies in that area. To the fulfillment of that purpose, the Institute will have the following characteristics and functions: a) To design strategies and instruments for the development of national indigenous languages in coordination with the three orders of government and the indigenous peoples and communities. b) To promote programs, projects, and actions to invigorate knowledge of national indigenous languages and cultures.

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 183 c)

d)

e) f) g) h)

i)

j)

k) l)

To broaden the social space for the use of national indigenous languages and promote access to their knowledge, stimulate the preservation, knowledge, and appreciation of indigenous languages in public spaces and the media, according to the norms and regulations in this area. To establish standards and formulate programs to certify and accredit bilingual technicians and professionals; to promote the training of specialists in this area who will likewise be familiar with the culture involved, linking their activities with undergraduate and graduate studies, certificate studies, and courses for specialization, updating, and professional preparation. To formulate and carry out projects in linguistic, literary, and educational development. To design and promote grammar production, standardization of writing, and reading and writing skills in national indigenous languages. To carry out and promote basic and applied research for the greater knowledge of national indigenous languages and to promote their dissemination. To carry out research to determine the diversity of national indigenous languages and support the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics to design the methodology for undertaking the sociolinguistic census to learn the number and distribution of their speakers. To act as consulting and advising organ in this field to the agencies and entities of the Federal Public Administration as well as units of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, to state and municipal governments, and public and private institutions and non-profit organizations. To report on the application of what the Constitution, international treaties ratified by Mexico, and this Law specify with regard to indigenous languages, and to issue to the three orders of government the recommendations and pertinent means to guarantee their preservation and development. To promote and support the creation and function of institutes in the states and municipalities in conformance with the applicable law of the states, based on the presence of national indigenous languages in their respective territories. To sign agreements, in accordance with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, with natural persons or legal entities, and with national, international or foreign organizations, public or private, according to the activities proper to the Institute and applicable regulations.

ARTICLE 15. The administration of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages will be under the charge of a National Council as its collective governing body, and a Director General responsible for the functioning of the same Institute. The legal seat of the Institute will be Mexico City, Federal District. ARTICLE 16. The National Council shall be composed of: seven representatives from the Federal Public Administration, three representatives from schools, institutions of higher education and indigenous universities, and three representatives from academic institutions and civil organizations which have distinguished themselves in promoting, preserving, and defending the use of indigenous languages.

184 F. Daniel Althoff

The representatives from the Federal Public Administration are the following: 1) The Secretary of Public Education who will preside in his role as head of the coordinating body of the sector, with authority as established by the Federal Law on Public Sector Entities. 2) A representative from the Department of Treasury and Public Credit at the level of undersecretary. 3) A representative from the Department of Social Development. 4) A representative from the Department of Highways and Transportation. 5) A representative from the National Council for Culture and the Arts. 6) A representative from the National Indigenous Institute. 7) A representative from the Department of Foreign Relations. The Director General will be designated by the President of the United Mexican States from a list presented by the National Council and will remain in the position for a maximum period of 6 years; will preferably be a native speaker of some indigenous language; with experience related to some substantive activity of the Institute and will enjoy recognized professional and academic prestige in the research, development, dissemination, and use of indigenous languages. ARTICLE 17. The functioning rules of the governing body, the operating and administrative structure, as well as the powers and operating procedures of the governing body will be established in the Internal Regulations of the unit which will be issued by the National Council. The governing body, composed of the majority of its members, will meet ordinarily every six months, and extraordinarily whenever it is convened by its President, and its decisions will be made by the majority of those present. ARTICLE 18. To fulfill his duties, the Director General will have the powers of administrative oversight and to attend to lawsuits and collections, including those which require a special legal clause, with no limitations beyond those which may be imposed generally by statute or ad hoc regulations by the National Council. ARTICLE 19. The auditing body of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages will be comprised of a Public Property Commissioner and a deputy named by the Department of Comptroller and Administrative Development. ARTICLE 20. The National Council of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages, after previously consulting the particular studies of the National Institute of Anthropology and History and the National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics, with the joint proposal of the representatives from indigenous peoples and communities and the academic institutions which form part of the Council itself, will make the catalogue of indigenous languages; the catalogue will be published in the Official Daily of the Federation. ARTICLE 21. The capital resources of the National Institute of Languages will be comprised of the goods enumerated as follows: I. The amount the Federal Government annually fixes for it as subsidy through its Expenditures Budget;

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 185 II.

The products obtained through public works it carries out and the sale of its publications; III. Those it may acquire through inheritance, bequests, donations or any other title from individuals or institutions, public or private. ARTICLE 22. To guarantee the fulfillment of the obligations and functions indicated in this Law and, in conformity to that which is disposed in the penultimate paragraph of Section B, of Article 2 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States regarding indigenous culture, the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of the Union, the Legislatures of the States and Municipal Governments, in the areas of their respective competencies, will establish the specific entries in the expenditures budgets they approve in order to protect, promote, preserve, use, and develop indigenous languages. ARTICLE 23. Labor relations between the National Institute of Indigenous Languages and its workers will be governed by the Federal Law on Workers in the Service of the State, obligatory under Section A of Constitutional Article 123. ARTICLE 24. The National Institute of Indigenous Languages and its corresponding state branches, in their turn, will urge the appropriate authorities to promulgate laws that sanction and penalize the commission of any type of discrimination, exclusion and exploitation of people speaking national indigenous languages, or that violate the provisions which establish rights in favor of the speakers of national indigenous languages enshrined in this Law. ARTICLE 25. The authorities, institutions, servants and public officials who violate the provisions of the present Law will be subject to liability according to what is envisioned in the Fourth Title of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and its regulatory laws with regard to the liability of public servants. ARTICLE THE SECOND. Section IV of Article 7 of the General Law on Education has been amended to be as follows: ARTICLE 7. IV. To promote through education knowledge of the linguistic pluralism of the Nation and respect for the linguistic rights of the indigenous peoples. The speakers of indigenous languages will have access to obligatory education in their own language and in Spanish. ENABLING LEGLISLATION First. The present Decree will go into effect the day following its publication in the Official Daily of the Federation. Second. The National Council of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages will become constituted within six months following the publication of this Decree in the Official Daily of the Federation. To that end, the Secretary of the Department of Public Education will convene directors and principals of schools, institutions of higher education, and indigenous universities, academic institutions, including among these specifically the Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology, as well as civic organizations, so

186 F. Daniel Althoff that they may propose their respective representatives to form the National Council of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages. Once these proposals are received, the Secretary of Public Education, the representatives of the Departments of Treasury and Public Credit, of Social Development, of the Department of Highways and Transportation, of the National Council for Culture and the Arts, of the National Indigenous Institute, and of the Department of Foreign Relations will determine the composition of the first National Council of the Institute which will function for the period of one year. At the end of this period, the National Council must be composed in the terms of the Statute which the first National Council must issue within a period of six months, beginning from its installation. Third. The catalogue referred to in Article 20 of the General Law on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples shall be made within the period of one year following the date on which the National Council of the National Institute of Indigenous Languages is constituted, in conformance with the previous article of enabling legislation. Fourth. The first sociolinguistic census shall be taken and published within the period of two years beginning from the effective date of this Decree. Subsequent sociolinguistic censuses shall be taken together with the General Census of Population and Housing. Fifth. The Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of the Union shall establish within the Expenditures Budget the entry corresponding to the National Institute of Indigenous Languages so that it may fulfill the objectives established in the present Law. Sixth. The state legislatures shall analyze, according to their own ethnolinguistic compositions, the appropriate adaptation of the corresponding laws in accordance with what is established in this Law. Seventh. With regard to Section VI of Article 13 of the present Law, in case the competent educational authorities do not have trained personnel immediately available, they shall have a period of two years, beginning with the publication of the present Law, to train the necessary staff. To the end of complying thoroughly with said provision, teacher training institutions shall include the undergraduate degree in indigenous education Eighth. All provisions contravening the present Decree are repealed. Mexico City, Federal District, December 15, 2002.- Senator Enrique Jackson Ramírez, President – Deputy Beatriz Paredes Rangel, President – Senator. Mrs. I. Castellanos Cortés, Secretary – Deputy Adela Cerezo Bautista, Secretary – Signatures. In compliance with the provisions of Section I, Article 89 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and for its due publication and observance, I issue the present Decree at the Residence of the Federal Executive Branch, in Mexico City, Federal District, on the tenth day of the month of March of two thousand three – Vicente Fox Quesada – Signature – The Secretary of State, Santiago Creel Miranda – Signature.

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 187

Appendix II Native American Languages Act of 1990 P.L. 101-477 (October 30, 1990) This federal policy statement recognizing the language rights of American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders was quietly enacted in the waning hours of the 101st Congress. Sponsored by Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the bill passed on a voice vote in both House and Senate without hearings or any vocal opposition. It authorizes no new programs for Native Americans, nor additional funding for existing ones, but is expected to facilitate efforts to preserve indigenous languages. SHORT TITLE SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Native American Languages Act." FINDINGS SEC. 102. The Congress finds that— (1) the status of the cultures and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United States has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages; (2) special status is accorded Native Americans in the United States, a status that recognizes distinct cultural and political rights, including the right to continue separate identities; (3) the traditional languages of Native Americans are an integral part of their cultures and identities and form the basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of Native American cultures, literatures, histories, religions, political institutions, and values; (4) there is a widespread practice of treating Native American languages as if they were anachronisms; (5) there is a lack of clear, comprehensive, and consistent Federal policy on treatment of Native American languages which has often resulted in acts of suppression and extermination of Native American languages and cultures; (6) there is convincing evidence that student achievement and performance, community and school pride, and educational opportunity is clearly and directly tied to respect for, and support of, the first language of the child or student; (7) it is clearly in the interests of the United States, individual States, and territories to encourage the full academic and human potential achievements of all students and citizens and to take step to realize these ends;

188 F. Daniel Althoff

(8) acts of suppression and extermination directed against Native American languages and cultures are in conflict with the United States policy of self-determination for Native Americans; (9) languages are the means of communication for the full range of human experiences and are critical to the survival of cultural and political integrity of any people; and (10) language provides a direct and powerful means of promoting international communication by people who share languages. DEFINITIONS SEC. 103. For purposes of this title— (1) The term "Native American" means an Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander. (2) The term "Indian" has the meaning given to such term under section 5351(4) of the Indian Education Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2651(4)). (3) The term "Native Hawaiian" has the meaning given to such term by section 4009 of Public Law 100-297 (20 U.S.C. 4909). (4) The term "Native American Pacific Islander" means any descendant of the aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific Ocean that is a territory or possession of the United States. (5) The terms "Indian tribe" and "tribal organization" have the respective meaning given to each of such terms under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). (6) The term "Native American language" means the historical, traditional languages spoken by Native Americans. (7) The term "traditional leaders" includes Native Americans who have special expertise in Native American culture and Native American languages. (8) The term "Indian reservation" has the same meaning given to the term "reservation" under section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452). DECLARATION OF POLICY SEC. 104. It is the policy of the United States to—

Mexican and U.S. legislation of Amerindian languages 189 (1) preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages; (2) allow exceptions to teacher certification requirements for Federal programs and programs funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government, for instruction in Native American languages when such teacher certification requirements hinder the employment of qualified teachers who teach in Native American languages, and to encourage State and territorial governments to make similar exceptions; (3) encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction in order to encourage and support— (a) Native American language survival, (b) equal educational opportunity, (c) increased student success and performance, (d) increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history, and (e) increased student and community pride; (4) encourage State and local education programs to work with Native American parents, educators, Indian tribes, and other Native American governing bodies in the implementation of programs to put this policy into effect; (5) recognize the right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior; (6) fully recognize the inherent right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies, States, territories, and possessions of the United States to take action on, and give official status to, their Native American languages for the purpose of conducting their own business; (7) support the granting of comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a Native American language the same academic credit as comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a foreign language, with recognition of such Native American language proficiency by institutions of higher education as fulfilling foreign language entrance or degree requirements; and (8) encourage all institutions of elementary, secondary, and higher education, where appropriate, to include Native American languages in the curriculum in the same manner as foreign languages and to grant proficiency in Native American languages the same full academic credit as proficiency in foreign languages.

190 F. Daniel Althoff

NO RESTRICTIONS SEC. 105. The right of Native Americans to express themselves through the use of Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding, including publicly supported education programs. EVALUATIONS SEC. 106. (a) The President shall direct the heads of the various Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities to— (1) evaluate their policies and procedures in consultation with Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies as well as traditional leaders and educators in order to determine and implement changes needed to bring the policies and procedures into compliance with the provisions of this Act; (2) give the greatest effect possible in making such evaluations, absent a clear specific Federal statutory requirement to the contrary, to the policies and procedures which will give the broadest effect to the provisions of this Act; and (3) evaluate the laws which they administer and make recommendations to the President on amendments needed to bring such laws into compliance with the provisions of this Act. (b) By no later than the date that is one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report containing recommendations for amendments to Federal laws that are needed to bring such laws into compliance with the provisions of this Act. USE OF ENGLISH SEC. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as precluding the use of Federal funds to teach English to Native Americans.

Chapter 7 The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Abstract Mexico’s linguistic diversity has been acknowledged throughout the centuries. Despite this continuity, the information regarding multilingualism has undergone numerous changes, due either to the assumptions and intentions that have motivated official re-counts or to the methods used to reconstruct and define the languages in question. Regional outlines of languages began in the sixteenth century, while both the classifications and series of statistics had their start in the nineteenth century. During the twentieth century, the data collected by the national censuses were in fact the means of recognizing and differentiating the Mexican indigenous population. In spite of the many limitations, they still represent the official estimates and are in addition the only resource available that allows us to have a general, encompassing panorama of the indigenous languages spoken in Mexico. Based on census information from the last three decades, we offer an overview of the maintenance and shift trends of the 27 most widely spoken languages. In order to achieve this purpose, four indicators have been examined: (1) Permanency of speakers of indigenous language (SIL) in their ancestral settlements; (2) rate of growth of the SIL; (3) rate of Spanish / indigenous language bilingualism; and (4) and use of the SIL in the home domain. The data analyzed for the decades 1970–2000 help identify those groups that show a tendency towards language maintenance or towards language shift. 1. Introduction The purpose of this article is to offer an overview of the Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL) through the information gathered by the national censuses (1970–2000). The estimates of the indigenous population are not new; on the contrary, colonial authorities were able and willing to gather data utilizing different methods (e.g., direct observation, reports

192 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

from religious authorities, original surveys). In modern times, the methods and goals that have motivated the qualitative and quantitative recognition of existing multilingualism in the country point to the notion that in the national surveys there is the underlying assumption indicating that the indigenous languages constitute the most reliable means of identifying the indigenous population. The available information about the amount of speakers of indigenous languages (henceforth SIL) has been utilized to gauge the degree of cultural heterogeneity prevailing among Mexicans. In like manner, this article reviews the continuities and changes that appear in the census registers of the twentieth century: both the names and the numbers of the languages and the criteria that motivated the re-counts have changed (e.g., quantity of SIL, monolingualism; bilingualism; use of the indigenous languages in the home domain). In order to interpret these interesting changes, we take into consideration the different approaches of the language policies, better known as indigenismo. The estimates on MIL derived from the data gathered and organized by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) in the past three decades (1970–2000). For the XII Censo general de población y vivienda – which provides the data for the decade 1990–2000 – we use the compact disc known as Tabulados básicos nacionales y por entidad federativa. Base de datos y tabuladores de la muestra censal (2002) prepared by the INEGI. We have consulted the Chapter “Indigenous Language”, which has four distinct sections about the categories mentioned below: 1. Population over 5 years by State, sex, and age (by quinquennial groups) and its distribution according to their condition of SIL or Spanish speaker; 2. Population over 5 years who speaks an indigenous language by sex and type of language, and its distribution according to age (by quinquennial groups); 3. Population over 5 years who speaks an indigenous language by State and type of language, and its distribution according to their condition of Spanish speaker and sex; and 4. Population 0–4 years living in a household where the head of household and/or spouse speaks an indigenous language (by State and type of language). In addition, we have utilized the estimate known as “Población indígena por lengua, según condición de habla de indígena por porción de hablantes” (2003), gathered by the Sistema Nacional de Indicadores para la Población Indígena and interpreted according to Serrano (2003). Finally, the

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 193

census data corresponding to the decades 1970, 1980 and 1990 have been taken from the following secondary reconstructed sources: Hablantes de lengua indígena en México (Horcasitas y Crespo 1979); La población y las lenguas de México en 1970 (Olivera et al. 1982); Dinámica de la población de habla indígena (Valdés and Menéndez 1987); El perfil demográfico de los indios mexicanos (Valdés 1988); and Los indios en los censos de población (Valdés 1995). The data selected for this article are herein analyzed in light of sociolinguistic theories and methodologies; we are interested primarily in the processes that are actively involved in the growth of the SIL and in the process of “bilingualization” during the decades 1970–2000. The purpose of this examination is to identify the trends that define either language maintenance or language shift in this period. This analysis offers the needed overview of a macro-societal occurrence, that is, multilingualism in each of the 31 States of the country (see Map 1). With this purpose in mind, we highlight the most noticeable differences among those states which have been the traditional residence of Mesoamerican ethnolinguistic groups and those that are the recipients of large groups of indigenous immigrants. Our detailed analysis leads to the presentation of the 27 languages for which we found statistical series and whose number of speakers exceeds 0.1% of the total population of SIL. This analysis takes into consideration the data on the volume of their respective SIL, bilingual individuals, age groups, places of residence, and use of the indigenous language in the home domain. These data are complemented with those corresponding to the growth and “bilingualization” of the SIL in the past three decades. The final analysis establishes a tripartite division of this universe, that is, a distinction corresponding to the main tendencies that are currently observed with respect to vitality of MIL, the different dimensions of bilingualism amongst SIL, and the factors that either hamper or foster language maintenance or language shift. 2. Early approaches to multilingualism The earliest inquiries on the linguistic diversity of New Spain were conducted by the Catholic Church. During three centuries of colonial life, this was the only institution that had an interest in gathering realistic notes on the variety and spread of the existing languages in the territories of the mission.

Map 1. Mexican states and state capitals

194 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 195

The organization of the tasks of cathechesis made access to this knowledge indispensable. Retrospectively, the information stemming from the Church administration and the literature prepared by the mission (e.g., grammars, vocabularies, and religious materials) is a valuable source of information that aids in the design of the regional maps about the language diversity of the past. This information sheds light on the ethnolinguistic groups that were assigned in the area of influence of each of the religous orders, as well as on the similarities and differences of linguistic nature that were detected by the missionaries established in the (research) fields. The examination of the colonial sources has helped in the understanding of the magnitude and proportions of multilingualism at the moment of contact with the Western civilization and the re-configuration of the linguistic mosaic that followed. During the sixteenth century, the indigenous population suffered considerable losses due to war, disease, and re-arrangements in the system of social organization. It is estimated that the final balance of the demographic decay resulted in a population loss of millions of people in Central México, the most densely populated site stretching from the broad area of the Tehuantepec Isthmus to the frontier with the Chichimec peoples. The proportion of losses reported for other Provinces are equally catastrophic (Cook and Borah 1989: 215–221; Sánchez Albornoz 2000: 16–23). It is also estimated that about 113 languages spoken by the nomadic and semi-nomadic groups of the Northern and Western regions were extinct in the sixteenth century (Swadesh 1959: 36–38). In contrast, the languages of sedentary groups, mostly settled in the Center, South and Southwest regions, displayed higher ratios of survival (cf. Garza and Lastra 1991). The re-counts of the colonial administration differentiated the indigenous population according to the condition adjudicated to the casts. It is estimated that by 1810, the population of New Spain was composed of 6,122,354 people whose distribution by race was as follows: 10,000 Africans; 15,000 Europeans; 3,367,281 Indians; 642,461 afromestizos (Spanish-speaking mixed groups with an African component); 704,245 indomestizos (Spanish speakers of Indian and European stock raised in an Indian environment); and 1,092,369 euromestizos (Spanish speakers of European and Indian stock raised in a Spanish environment) (Aguirre Beltrán 1946: 237). These figures suggest that by the time of Independence (1810–1821), the proportion of SIL ranged between 55% and 72% of the total population of the country. During the nineteenth century, the queries about linguistic diversity were utilized to complete two urgent tasks of the Mexican gov-

196 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

ernments, i.e., the design of national statistics and the construction of the history of the Nation. The early findings endorsed the racial and cultural criteria in order to differentiate and calculate the population. By 1894, as a result of the institutionalization of the national censuses, official statistics resorted to the indigenous languages as the primary criterion that would identify the indigenous population. This methodology was supported by ethnographic and linguistic queries which compared the data of preceding decades. On the one hand, the ethnographic classifications acknowledged the existence of 182 “hablas” (i.e., languages and dialects); of these, 108 made up a total of 11 language families. The remaining 74 “hablas” were excluded from this classification (Orozco y Berra 1864). Linguistic classification estimated that there were 108 languages belonging to 19 families and four grammatical typologies (Pimentel 1875; Cifuentes 1994). Based on the reconstruction of linguistic evidence, the two abovementined reports substantiated the interpretation about the origin and history of the indigenous peoples; in addition, the chronological and spatial mobility of the speakers was traced. The combination of linguistic data (typological and lexical) with geographic and historical testimonies (customs, political systems, extension of settlements, migrations and contacts) led to the acknowledgement of the main pre-Hispanic civilizations (Mexica or Aztec, Mayan, Tarascan, Zapotecan and Mixtecan) and of the other indigenous peoples that did not exhibit a prominent process of political and intellectual development. These inquiries integrated the survey of cultures and languages as well as the hierarchy established among them in the ancient history of the Nation (Cifuentes 2002). According to nineteenth century intellectuals and government officials, the survival of indigenous languages was interpreted under a different light. The existing multilingualism in the country was a major cause of concern, given that the vitality of the MIL attested to the relevance and significance that the traditions and preHispanic customs still had in an ample sector of the population. In their eyes, linguistic diversity fostered resentment among indigenous peoples and lack of union among Mexicans. Therefore, the spread of Spanish was the only means to transform México into a modern, culturally cohesive nation (Pimentel 1903). The statistical studies preceding the 1895 census revealed the total number of speakers of MIL and their standards of living. These calculations pointed to the fact that the “pure indigenous race” made up of impoverished peasants reached 3,800,000 individuals or more than a third of the entire population of the country (García Cubas 1880: 156). This population dis-

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 197

played the highest ratios of malnourishment and the lowest rates of growth and literacy. It was also pointed out that the disappearance of the indigenous peoples and languages was an irreversible process when such process was examined under Darwinist laws. Moreover, the only possibility of survival could be accomplished via their integration into the national society and the rights and obligations established by law for all the citizens. These views justified the foundation of the Dirección General de Estadística (1882), a government-sponsored agency that assumed the responsibility of designing, administering, and analyzing the national censuses. Counting on linguistic, ethnographic and demographic studies of the indigenous population, the first national census included a question related to linguistic selfadscription. At present, this indicator is still utilized to identify the demographic trends of the indigenous population and to assess the linguistic and cultural homogeneity of the Mexican people.

3. Indigenous languages and SIL in the national censuses The twentieth century national censuses exhibit both continuity and innovation. These registers still differentiate the Mexican population through their respective languages and maintain two restricting criteria to calculate the indigenous linguistic diversity: (1) the age of the user; and (2) the selection of the language(s) spoken by the user. However, some innovations have been introduced in recent decades: (3) the inclusion of bilingual SIL under 5; and (4) the use of the indigenous language in the home domain. In addition, the total number of MIL that emerged throughout the decades stands out as a major disparity of the census registers. Fifty-two languages were counted at the time of the first national census was administered. In 1910, two languages were lost and the census registered only 50; seven more disappeared in 1921, and only 43 were documented; the losses continued in 1930, when the number of languages went down to 36; the declining trend continued in 1940 with 33 languages and in 1950 with 29. In the past four decades, the recovery is not only continuous but dramatic: In 1960, the census documented 30 languages; in 1970, there were 31 languages; in 1980, they added 9 more languages and counted a total of 40; in 1990, the number was incremented to 92; finally, in the 2000 report, the number of languages decreased to 86. The inconsistency about the number of languages is coupled with the inconsistency about their identification by name.

198 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

3.1. Names and number of languages In spite of the deficiencies of the national census data, three groups of languages can be distinguished consistently. The first one includes an assortment of languages that appear regularly throughout the censuses and whose existence and designations are recognized by both the speakers and specialized scholars. The first group of 22 languages is well-documented with the following names: Amuzgo, Cora, Chatino, Chinantec, Huastec, Huichol, Maya, Mayo, Mazahua, Mazatec, Mixe, Mixtec, Nahuatl or Mexicano, Otomi, Purhepecha or Tarascan, Tarahumar, Totonac, Tzeltal or Tzendal, Tzotzil, Yaqui, Zapotec and Zoque. In contrast, the documentation of the second group has been asystematic (Seri, Guarijio, Trique, Cocopa, Tojolabal), or very recent (e.g., Aguacatec, Ixil, Chuj). Finally, the third group is made of extinct languages that still appear in the census lists: Chiapanec, Chicomuceltec, Opata and Tepecan and others that can no longer be identified with a speech community (e.g., Yuma) (Manrique 1997: 54–56). The census registers show, too, a variety of denominations. Therefore, there are multiple errors resulting from the similarities of designations, e.g., Mayo and Maya; Popoluca and Popoloca; Tepehua and Tepehuan, or names that appear identical (Oaxaca Chontal or Tabasco Chontal; Southern Tepehuan or Northern Tepehuan). Other confusing reports are due to the distinction or significance assigned to some languages by interested scholars, although in some cases, these names are not used or recognized by the speakers themeselves; for example, speakers of Tohono O'odham or Papago do not know their language as Pima Alto, which is derived from their toponym. The speakers of Yaqui and Mayo identify themselves as members of specific speech communities and reject the generic denomination of Cahita, a colonial designation that named a cluster of languages of the region (cf. Reff 1991 and Moctezuma 2001). Furthermore, the incompatibility among the different names led to the creation of other categories, which read as: “languages with no classification”, “other languages”, “other Mexican languages”, and “insufficiently specified”. The estimate in this category increased to about 90,000 individuals in the 2000 census report. Another irregularity of the census list can be found in the diversity of criteria used to designate dialect variations. The most recent language catalogs and dialectological studies estimate that there are approximately 63 living languages (see Chart 1). This precision leads scholars to state that the generic denomination assigned to Nahuatl, Tarahumar, Totonac, Tepehua,

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 199

Popoloca, Mazatec, Mixtec, Chatino, Zapotec, Mixe, Popoluca, Zoque, and Chinantec actually corresponds to thirteen macro-linguistic groups whose variants present different degrees of intelligibility. Due to the impossible task of establishing precise limits between languages and dialects, official surveys are known for offering one single option or one single name for entities that are quite complex. The conspicuous increment of languages as of the 1980 census is associated with the independent denominations given to variants of macrogroups and to the incorporation of the languages that have a reduced number of speakers. For this reason we found, for example, that the census registered the Chinantec, Mixtec, and Zapotec languages with the generic name, although a variable indicating secondary peculiarities was introduced. In the case of Zapotec, the census included two dialects as independent languages (Papabuco and Soltec); the same applies to Tacuate when it is differentiated from Mixtec. Although the introduction of small languages was initiated in 1980, the next census included the vast majority of them. Languages belonging to this group are found in different locations of the country. In the Center, Matlatzinca and Ocuiltec can be found; in the East, Pame and Chichimeco; in the Southeast, some Guatemalan languages are still spoken (e.g., Mam, Ixcatec, Jacaltec, Kanjobal, Lacandon, Motocintlec, Acateco), whereas in the Northwest, Kiliwa, Cochimi, Pai-Pai and Seri are still identified. Chart 1. Mexican indigenous languages Hokan Pai-pai Kiliwa Cochimi Cocopa Kumiai Seri

Uto-Aztecan PIMIC Papago or tohono ’odham Pima Northern Tepehuan Southern Tepehuan

TotonacTepehua

Otomanguean

Totonacan OTOPAMEAN

MixeZoquean MIXEAN

Mayan Huastecan Huastec

Totonac*

Pamean

Mixe*

Tepehua

Pame

Tepehua*

ChichimecoJonaz

Popoluca* Chicomuceltec+ Zoquean Yucatecan

Otomian Otomimazahua Otomi Mazahua

Zoque*

Yucatec Lacandon GREATER TZELTALAN Cholan Chol

200 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Chart 1. Mexican indigenous languages (continued) Hokan

Uto-Aztecan

TotonacTepehua

Otomanguean

MixeZoquean

Mayan

Tarahumar*

MatlatzincaOcuiltec

Tabasco Chontal

Guarijio

Matlatzinca

Tzeltalan

Opata+

Ocuiltec

Tzeltal

Yaqui

POPOLOCAN

Tzotzil

Mayo

PopolocaIxacatec

GREATER KANJOBAL

Popoloca*

Chujean

Chocho

Chuj

Ixcatec

Tojolabal

Mazatecan

Kanjobalan

Mazatec *

Kanjobal

SubtiabaTlapanec

Jacaltec

Tlapanec

GREATER MAM

TARACAHITIC

CORACHOL Cora Huichol AZTECAN Nahuatl*

Amuzgan

+ Extinct * Macro-group ALGONQUIAN:

-Kickapoo TEQUISTLATECANJICAQUEAN:

- Tequistlatec or Oaxaca Chontal Isolated Languages:

- Purhepecha - Huave

Motocintlec

Amuzgo

Mamean

Mixtecan

Mam

Mixtec* including Tacuate

Teco

Cuicatec Trique CHATINOZAPOTECAN Chatinan Chatino* Zapotecan Zapotec* including Papabuc and Soltec

Ixilian Ixil Aguacatec GREATER QUICHEAN Quichean Quiche Cackchiquel Kekchi Kekchi

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 201 Chart 1. Mexican indigenous languages (continued) Hokan

Uto-Aztecan

TotonacTepehua

Otomanguean

MixeZoquean

Mayan

Chinantecan Chinantec * Chiapanecmanguean Chiapanec+

The collection of an increasing number of languages is enhanced not only by the design of more efficient statistical instruments but also by the demands of emergent indigenous groups and organizations who insist on being acknowledged due to their sociocultural and linguistic specificity. Against the statistical genocide that characterized the census registers for a long time, the last three decades of the twentieth century attempt to offer a more realistic scenario of linguistic plurality. In spite of these endeavors, the information gathered to date barely allows us to glimpse at the variety and vastness of the linguistic patrimony of the country.

3.2. Quantifying the SIL The national censuses have modified the criteria to enumerate the MIL and their users. These modifications are in consonance with the cultural, educational, and linguistic policies that prevailed during the twentieth century. The initial interest for the differentiation between Spanish speakers and SIL is followed by the concern for quantifying monolinguals and bilinguals. Recently, these queries have been oriented towards the acknowledgement of the vitality of the languages among indigenous groups. The census logs of 1895, 1910, 1921 and 1930 established a tripartite division which marked a basic difference between (1) “those who spoke Spanish or not”; (2) “those who spoke indigenous languages or not”; and (3) “those who spoke foreign languages” (Parra 1950: 13). Between 1930 and 1960, the census data collection focused on monolingual speakers of each language while the data related to bilingual individuals appeared exclusively in the national, state, or municipal estimates without specifying the precise languages of the surveyed individuals. Finally, the last three decades (1970– 2000) are distinguished by the inclusion of estimates of both monolinguals

202 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

and bilinguals and by the integration of new dimensions that help determine the numbers of SIL and the numbers of Spanish speakers in the homes of indigenous peoples.

3.3. Monolingual SIL The concern with monolingualism in indigenous languages has been deemphasized in order to orient the census surveys to collect data on bilingualism. Between 1930 and 1960, the study of monolingualism was the focus of attention of governmental and educational institutions. Government officials and academics alike addressed the limited influences of the State over the indigenous population. The promoters of official indigenismo indicated that, in spite of the Mexican Revolution (1910–1921), which focused on agrarian reforms, the Mexican nation continued to be divided because “it encompassed different cultures and lifestyles that were not related to one another, and the most backward of all was the indigenous” (Villoro 2000: 35). Inspired by a nationalist spirit, anthropologists and educators assumed the most urgent task, which consisted in taking to the indigenous communities the technical components of modernity – including the Spanish language. This would not preclude the respect for their culture and ways of authentic expression. Governmental programs catering to the indigenous peoples had as a goal their social and spiritual recovery within the cloisters of a unified nation. Emphasizing the relationship between language and culture, the promoters of official indigenismo considered that monolingualism was the most significant symptom of the deeply rooted indigenous customs and worldviews. This presupposition was matched with another one of psychological order: in combination, the two presuppositions caused them to assert that “[the individual] who uses an indigenous languages exclusively must be the one who feels to be indigenous” (Caso 1948 in Parra 1950: 14). Not knowing Spanish was interpreted as an attitude of resistance against discrimination and exploitation. This conviction was reinforced with the following arguments: “the Indian prefers the security awarded to him/her by the full participation of the native culture to the fortuitous advantages derived from his/her entrance into a culture which is presumably better – provided the conditions are equal” (Aguirre Beltrán 1972: 4). One of the priorities of the indigenist programs during their first 30 years was to overcome the monolingualism that prevailed in the indigenous

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 203

population(s). Educational agencies were created with the explicit goal of teaching Spanish; for this reason, their programs chose the direct method known as ‘castellanización’ or the programs of ‘alfabetización’ in the mother tongue (Brice Heath 1972: 218–222). Census data on bilingualism were useful to trace the process of acculturation and mestizaje, and in particular, the advances that were being observed in the educational programs. The design of the census survey in these decades highlighted the information related to the mastery of Spanish. The first question that appeared in the survey instrument was, “Do you speak Spanish?”; if affirmative, the second question was, “What other language or dialect do you speak?” (Parra 1950: 14). Ironically, the exhortative declarations of the pioneers of indigenismo in support for the respect of the cultures and lifestyles of the Mexican indigenous peoples were not intended to strengthen their languages. On the contrary, the increment of bilingualism was considered favorable to the nation and the most positive option for the indigenous peoples. This optimist perspective on bilingualism justified a new dichotomy: the language of the State was meant for progress and the indigenous languages for the domestic domain.

3.4. Monolingual and bilingual SIL The constant condemnation of the under-reporting practices related to the indigenous population and the trends favoring programs of bilingual education were considerably influential in the modification that follows in the census design. In response to these demands, the 1970 census log included for the first time the enumeration of monolingual and bilingual individuals for each language. However, this modification in the calculating methods – which had as a goal the increment of SIL – did not immediately yield the desired results, given that the final estimates revealed negligible variations between 1970 and 1980 (see Graph 1). The most drastic changes were noticed however in the 1980 census, in which subdivisions of macrolinguistic groups and small languages were tallied. In addition, the SIL appeared for the first time in quinquennial groups. The high rates of growth reported by this census log were sufficient to question the validity of the official data. The lack of credibility of the results is obvious; for example, the growth of Huichol is documented at 750%; Tepehuan at 316%; Tarahumar at 144%; Mazahua at 85%, and the like). To these unsuspected results, we can add the negative growth reported in the following decade

204 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

1921

1930

1940

Monolinguals 1,185,162

1,237,018

Bilinguals

1,253,891

1,065,924

795,069

1960

1970

1,104,955 859,854

1,652,341 1,925,299 2,251,561

Monolinguals Bilinguals

Graph 1. Bilingualism and monolingualism (1921–2000)

16.58% 81.47%

15.83% 80.23%

71.74%

72.36%

63.54% 1950

22.65%

27.64%

36.46%

32.48% 67.51%

49.66% 50.34%

47.35%

52.03%

37.73%

52.65%

(1980–1990): presumably, Zapotec and Otomi decreased to 0.08% and 0.12%, respectively. In view of these irregularities, the demographers corrected the data by comparing the figures collected for the decades 1970– 1980 and 1980–1990 (Valdés and Menéndez 1987: 16 and Valdés 1995: 31). The following decade (i.e., 1990) the census documented 92 languages. Likewise, it introduced new pieces of information for the indigenous population 0–4 years old with residence in houses in which the head of household happened to be a SIL. In addition, it specified the relationship of the speakers living in the same house. The results of this innovation were presented independently of the results calculated for the SIL over 5 years. With the inclusion of this new data, the sum of the SIL increased over 20%. The quest for coherence and reliability oriented the censustakers to design a new methodology that was applied in the Conteo de población y vivienda (1995) [Counting of Population and Housing], which registered 78 indigenous languages. The innnovation consisted in counting the population below 5 years by ‘home’ instead of ‘housing’; a ‘home’ was defined by the common expenses and by the language of the‘head of household’ or ‘spouse’. Finally, the 2000 census documented 86 languages, retained the data by quinquennial groups, and made corrections to data related to speakers between 0 and 4 years of age. The unit of analysis was the “home”, given that the home was the privileged space in which biological and social reproduction of the indigenous population was to be examined (Fernández Ham 2000: 39–40).

1980

1990

1,174,594

836,224

2000 1,002,236

3,699,653 4,237,962 4,920,261

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 205

It is worth-mentioning the research that has been recently promoted by the National System of Indicators of the Indigenous Population (henceforth NSIIP), an organization that connects the Commision for the Development of the Indigenous Population (formerly the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, the Program of the United Nations for Development, and the National Council of Population). One of the objectives of the NSIIP is to identify the degree of vitality of the MIL for each of the indigenous groups. This statistical program designed by the demographers and anthropologists of the NSIIP corroborates that the total number of SIL reported by the national census does not coincide with the data reported by individuals who perceive themselves as being members of the Mexican indigenous collectivity. For this reason, when the two criteria are combined in one, a new composite known as Ethnolinguistic Group (EG) is used in order to probe into each community according to ethnolinguistic category. For each EG, the total number of speakers over 5 years living at homes – where the “head of household, spouse or any of the relatives: father, mother, mother-in-law, father-in-law and granparents”– are identified as SIL (Serrano 2003: 68). In order to report the index of languages of each EG, the program differentiates the SIL and the Spanish speakers who live in the same home. The basic distinction is the affirmative response vis-à-vis the negative response to the question related to the use of the indigenous language in the home domain. Once the information was appraised, it was determined that the national average of use of the indigenous language of the EG was 32.6%. On the basis of these results, the statistical program of the NSIIP established three degress of vitality: (1) high vitality (when the number of SIL is higher than 50%); (2) medium vitality (when the number of SIL ranges between 32% and 50%); and (3) low vitality (when the users of the indigenosu languages rank below 32%) (Serrano 2003). The data gathered for the EG point to the fact that in the indigenous homes there are different groups of speakers: monolinguals in indigenous languages, bilinguals, and monolinguals in Spanish, even when this methodology does not intend to gauge linguistic competencies. This approach suggests that all the members of the “homes” where an indigenous language is spoken might know superficially or passively an indigenous language, and even when there is no knowldege at all, members of the indigenous home most likely identify themselves with their EG. Finally, the results complement the data on bilingualism, age groups, and rates of language shift. The re-counts of the last three decades show an increasing interest to offer a complete scenario of multilingualism. Until now, the focus of the census has been the variety of languages and the state of affairs with respect to increasing trends of bilingualism. Nonetheless, it is also possible to

206 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

observe that the queries are more distanced from their initial objective, which is the identification of indigenous people. The current academic debates question the significance of the language indicator as a differentiator and quantifier of the indigenous groups, given that not all of them maintain the language of their ancestors. The spread of bilingualism and Spanish monolingualism questions the relative inadequacy of the language criterion as the sole identifier of ethnic group. Whereas anthropologists propose the integration of the criterion of “ethnic self-adscription” as a basis to identify ethnic groups (Barabas 1996: 47–48), promoters of indigenous demography continue to search positive indicators conducive to define this population. In sum, the diverse trends of the official language data pose new challenges. In the case of multilingualism, the quest for a renewed analysis demands explorations on the realm of language maintenance and shift.

4. Survey of linguistic diversity: national census data (1970–2000) According to the INEGI (2001), the total population of Mexico in the year 2000 was 97,483 412. The total of SIL over 5 years is 6,044,547 individuals, which represents 7.12% of the total population of over 5. It is estimated that the total number of monolinguals is merely 1,002,236 or 16.58% of the SIL. Nowadays the largest concentrations of SIL are located in the Center, the South, and the Southeast regions of the country where the early settlements of indigenous populations were found in pre-Hispanic times, i.e., Mesoamerica. Another concentration can be found along the Northwest coast, the Tarahumara Sierra, and the zone of the Great Nayar (Northern Jalisco and Southern Nayarit) (see Map 1). In both cases, the settlements of SIL are located in towns and villages that are normally in unhospitable expanses and small intra-mountainous valleys. In contrast to this relative homogeneity, in large urban areas and surroundings as well as in the agricultural areas distinguished by the cultivation of export products (e.g, tomato, avocado in Sinaloa, Sonora and Baja California), numerous groups of SIL belonging to different groups can be found.

4.1. Multilingualism by state In each state of the country, the proportion of SIL relative to the Spanishspeaking population presents relevant differences. According to the INEGI

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 207

(2001), the states with a higher proportion of SIL are: Yucatan, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Hidalgo, Campeche, Guerrero, Puebla, San Luis Potosi and Veracruz, where the highest percentages of SIL range from 37% in Yucatan to 10.35% in Veracruz (all of them in the Mesoamerican area). Other states located in the ancient Mesoamerican area with lower proportions of SIL are: Tabasco, Michoacan, state of México, Tlaxcala, Morelos, Queretaro and Mexico City, all of which have 3.7% of SIL or lower. Finally, the states of the Northern region with the highest ratios of SIL are Nayarit, Chihuahua, Sonora, Sinaloa and Durango. Table 1 shows the total population, total population over 5 years, SIL over 5 years, and percentage of SIL by state in descending order (see also Map 1). Table 1. Speakers of indigenous language (SIL) by state: Total population, population over 5 years, SIL over 5 years, SIL % STATE TOTAL

Total Population

Total Population 5 + years

Total SIL 5 + years

% SIL

97 483 412

84 794 454

6 044 547

7.12

Oaxaca

3 438 765

3 019 103

1 120 312

37.1

Chiapas

3 920 892

2 288 963

809 592

35.3

Veracruz

6 908 975

6 118 108

633 372

10.3

Puebla

5 076 686

4 337 362

565 509

13.0

Yucatan

1 658 210

1 472 683

549 532

37.3

Guerrero

3 079 649

2 646 137

367 110

13.8

13 096 686

11 097 516

361 972

3.2

Hidalgo

2 235 591

1 973 968

339 866

17.2

San Luis Potosi

2 299 360

2 010 539

235 253

11.7

874 963

755 442

173 592

22.9

Federal District

8 605 239

7 738 307

141 710

1.8

Michoacan

3 985 667

3 479 357

121 849

3.5

Campeche

690 689

606 699

93 765

15.4

Chihuahua

3 052 907

2 621 057

84 086

3.2

Tabasco

1 891 829

1 664 366

62 027

3.7

Sonora

2 216 969

1 956 617

55 694

2.8

Sinaloa

2 536 844

2 241 296

49 744

2.2

State of Mexico

Quintana Roo

208 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Table 1. Speakers of indigenous language (SIL) by state: Total population, population over 5 years, SIL over 5 years, SIL % (continued) Total SIL 5 + years

% SIL

5 541 480

39 259

0.7

2 487 367

2 010 869

37 685

1.8

920 185

815 263

37 206

4.5

Morelos

1 555 296

1 334 892

30 896

2.3

Tlaxcala

962 646

846 877

26 662

3.1

Queretaro

1 404 306

1 224 088

25 269

2.0

Durango

1 448 661

1 264 011

24 934

1.9

Tamaulipas

2 753 222

2 427 309

17 118

0.7

Nuevo Leon

3 834 141

3 392 025

15 446

0.4

Guanajuato

4 663 032

4 049 950

10 598

0.2

424 041

374 215

5 353

1.4

2 298 070

2 018 053

3 032

0.1

542 627

457 777

2 932

0.6

1 353 610

1 188 724

1 837

0.1

994 285

821 404

1 224

0.1

STATE

Total Population

Jalisco

6 322 002

Baja California N. Nayarit

Baja California S. Coahuila Colima Zacatecas Aguascalientes

Total Population 5 + years

The highest rates of growth of the SIL in the past three decades (1970– 2000) were documented in the states that attract a considerable proportion of migrant workers, but which originally had a nil or extremely low authentic population of indigenous origin. The demand for cheap agricultural labor and the proximity to the United States augmented the flow of migrant workers – most of the time temporary – to the Northern states of Baja California Sur, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Sinaloa, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas (see Map 1). The increment of SIL in these states – and in Colima and Jalisco, both located along the Pacific Rim – reaches more than 600%. In contrast, the states which were the ancestral residence of the indigenous population show an increment as high as 181.2%. This is the case of Chiapas, while the state of Tlaxcala reaches a growth rate of only 34%. The noticeable exception among the traditionally-indigenous states is Quintana Roo whose increment of 350% is justified by the migration of Maya speakers of neighboring states (i.e., Yucatan and Campeche) to this

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 209

tourist center – where Cancún is located – due mainly to the fact that the economic boom of this region occurred precisely between 1970 and 2000. A regular pattern observed in the states that attract migrants who happen to be SIL is the growing bilingualism. However, the Northern states of Baja California Norte, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa show a relevant proportion of monolingual SIL. Monolingualism is not typical of the native groups of the region (Mayos and Yaquis), but it does define the group of migrants from Oaxaca who work in agriculture (Mixtecs, Zapotecs and Triques). Migrants from Oaxaca tend to migrate with family members; for this reason, children and the elderly are registered as being monolingual. The percentage of bilingual SIL in the states that comprise the traditional settlements of indigenous peoples varies widely. Table 2 shows the absolute numbers of SIL by state in alphabetical order and the increment of SIL nationwide between 1970 and 2000. The growth rates are immoderate in some states, for example, Aguascalientes, whose bilingual SIL increased more than 30% and Zacatecas almost 60%. Those states with a large indigenous population display increments ranging from 16.7% in Guerrero to 12.5% in Chiapas, 10% in Oaxaca, and 11.5% in San Luis Potosi. Bilingual SIL are higher in Tabasco and Yucatan as well as in the Central states and the Federal District (i.e., Mexico City). Survey data show that the most accelerated increments of bilingualism in the past three decades appeared in the States of Hidalgo ranging from 61.3% to 81.4%, the difference being 20%. The state of Hidalgo is followed by Guerrero (46.9% to 63.6%), Puebla (72.8% to 84.4%), San Luis Potosi (77.2% to 88.7%), Oaxaca (69.5% to 79.5%), Quintana Roo (78.7% to 91.6%) and Veracruz (75.1% to 84.4%). Other states had gone through the process of bilingualism in previous decades – when they reached an all-time high of 80% in 1970. This explains that by the year 2000 they grew only 9.1%. Table 2. SIL by state: 1970–2000 and bilingualism: 1970–2000 SIL State 1970

2000

Total Mexico

3 111 415

6 044 547

Aguascalients

283

1 224

2 096 119

Baja Calif. Norte Baja Calif. Sur

Bilinguals Growth 1970–2000 94.27%

1970

2000

Growth 1970–2000

72.3%

81.4%

9.1%

332.5

61.4

97.6

36.2

37 685

1 697.9

77.1

91.5

14.4

5 353

4 398.3

74.7

93.1

18.4

210 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Table 2. SIL by state: 1970–2000 and bilingualism: 1970–2000 (continued) SIL State

Bilinguals Growth 1970–2000

Growth 1970–2000

1970

2000

64.4

89.6

92.9

6.3

3 032

421.8

73.1

95.7

22.6

406

2 932

622.1

76.6

90.5

13.9

287 836

809 562

181.1

48.7

61.2

12.5

Chihuahua

26 309

84 086

219.6

67.0

80.2

15.2

Federal District

1970

2000

57 031

93 765

Coahuila

581

Colima Chiapas

Campeche

68 660

141 710

106.3

97.8

97.1

-0.7

Durango

4 848

24 934

414.3

71.8

79.8

8.0

Guanajuato

2 272

10 598

366.8

81.8

93.5

11.7

Guerrero

160 182

367 110

129.1

46.9

63.6

16.7

Hidalgo

201 368

339 866

68.7

61.3

81.4

20.1

5 559

39 256

606.1

62.3

88.0

25.7

200 729

361 972

80.3

89.7

95.5

5.8

Michoacan

6 2851

121 869

93.9

80.4

84.9

4.5

Morelos

16 354

30 896

88.9

90.9

93.0

2.1

Nayarit

9 476

37 206

392.6

67.1

79.4

12.3

787

15 446

1 862.0

82.1

97.3

15.2

Oaxaca

677 347

112 0312

65.3

69.5

79.5

10.0

Puebla

346 140

565 509

63.3

72.8

84.4

11.6

Queretaro

11 660

25 259

116.6

78.3

90.6

12.3

Quintana Roo

38 529

173 592

350.5

78.7

91.6

12.9

Jalisco State of Mexico

Nuevo Leon

San Luis Potosi

113 898

235 253

106.5

77.2

88.7

11.5

Sinaloa

11 979

49 744

315.2

94.9

84.4

-10.5

Sonora

29 116

55 694

91.2

92.8

95.2

2.4

Tabasco

34 188

62 027

81.4

93.6

95.4

1.8

2 346

17 118

629.6

72.0

96.8

24.8

Tlaxcala

19 886

26 662

34.0

95.1

95.0

-0.1

Veracruz

360 309

63 3372

75.7

75.1

84.0

8.9

Yucatan

357 270

549 532

53.8

84.2

90.5

6.3

1 000

1 222

22.2

30.9

90.1

59.2

Tamaulipas

Zacatecas

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 211

5. The diversity of indigenous languages The census data for the year 2000 indicate that the national growth rate of bilingual SIL reached 81.4%. The states with the largest indigenous populations show a variation of 30% of bilingual SIL. The highest rates of bilingual SIL are found in the States of Tabasco (95.4%), Tlaxcala (95%), Campeche (92.9%), Yucatan (90.5%) and Quintana Roo (91.6%). These states are followed by those located in the East and West: San Luis Potosi (88.7%), Veracruz (84%), Puebla (84.4%), Hidalgo (81.4%), Michoacan (84.9%). Finally, the rate of bilingual SIL drops in the Southern region: Oaxaca (79.5%), Guerrero (63.6%), and Chiapas (61.2%). (See Map 1 for location of states). On the other hand, Table 2 shows that between 1970 and 2000, the number of bilingual SIL increased 9.1% nationwide. During this period, two states are distinguished for being the hosts of indigenous migrant workers: Zacatecas (59.2%) and Aguascalientes (36.2%). However, in the states with a significant numbers of indigenous-origin individuals, two situations are observed: the first one is represented by the states which in 1970 registered more than 80% of bilingual SIL and whose increment of bilinguals in 2000 was under the national average. This is the case of Yucatan and Campeche with a growth rate of 6.3%; Michoacan (4.5%); Tabasco (1.8%) and Tlaxcala (-0.1%). The second situation is illustrated by the states in which bilingual SIL were reported under 80% in 1970, and which in the year 2000 were under the national average: Oaxaca (10%); San Luis Potosi (11.5%); Puebla (11.6%); Chiapas (12.5%); Quintana Roo (12.6%); Guerrero (16.7%); and Hidalgo (20.1%). These figures indicate that the states of the second group, that is, those whose rate of bilingualism in 1970 was under 80% (Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi, Puebla, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Guerrero and Hidalgo) are presently going through an intense and accelerated process of bilingualization. In contrast, those of the first group, which had a rate of bilingualism over 80% (e.g., Yucatan and Campeche) had already experienced a drop in the number of SIL before 1970. Against these two trends, we find that the state of Veracruz is the exception, since it had a rate of bilingualism of 84% and an increment of bilingualism of 8.9%.

212 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

5.1. Large Indigenous Languages by state It has been pointed out that the linguistic diversity is found in the Center, South and Southeast of the country. However, each state varies considerably according to the number of languages spoken and the number of their respective SIL. Yucatan and Quintana Roo stand out from the rest of the Mexican states due to the prevailing presence of the ancestral Maya lanfuage. Increasing diversity is found in the remaining 15 states in which Large Indigenous Languages are mostly spoken, as illustrated by the respective charts. Of the languages documented in Oaxaca and the Federal District, nine are used by more than 1% of the population. Eight are spoken in Veracruz; only six in Puebla, Tabasco and the state of Mexico; five in Chiapas; four in Campeche, Morelos and Guerrero; three in Michoacan, San Luis Potosi, Tlaxcala and Queretaro; and two in Hidalgo. (See Map 1 for location of states). This geographic distribution of the SIL not only shows those individuals that remain in their ancestral territory but also the mobility to the nearest urban centers. This type of migration generally ends up in a permanent change of residence, which contrasts with the migration to the North of Mexico. The languages of the state of Oaxaca that are spoken in Mexico City, Morelos, and the state of Mexico, and the extremely high rates of bilingualism reported, are the result of a process of recent migration.

Campeche SIL: 93 765

Chiapas SIL: 809 592

Others 8.8%

Zoque 5.1% Tojolabal 4.6%

Chol 9.4%

Others 2.6%

Tzotzil 36.0%

Tzeltal 1.8%

Chol 17.3%

Maya 80.0%

Tzeltal 34.4%

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 213 Guerrero SIL: 367 110

Federal District SIL: 141 712

Chinantec 2.4%

Others 19.4%

Amuzgo 9.4%

Nahuatl 26.4%

Others 0.8%

Mixe 2.4%

Nahuatl 37.2%

Totonac 3.3% Mazatec 6.0% Mazahua 6.7%

Tlapanec 24.6% Otomi 12.0%

Zapotec 9.9%

Mixtec 11.5%

Mixtec 28.0%

Mexico SIL: 361 972

Hidalgo SIL: 339 866 Others 1.3%

Totonac 3.3%

Others 9.1% Mazahua 31.3%

Zapotec 4.6%

Otomi 33.5%

Mixtec 7.5%

Nahuatl 65.2%

Nahuatl 15.4% Otomi 28.8%

214 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Michoacan SIL: 121 829

Morelos SIL: 30 896

Mazahua Others 3% 4% Nahuatl 4%

Others 20.7% Zapotec 2.0% Tlapanec 4.5%

Nahuatl 60.3%

Mixtec 12.5%

Puebla SIL: 565 509

Oaxaca (SIL 1 120 312) Huave 1.2% Chatino 3.3%

Trique 1.3%

Cuicatec 1.0%

Mazatec 2.1%

Others 3.4%

Popoloca 2.6%

Zapotec 33.7%

Mixe 9.4%

Otomi 1.4%

Mixtec 1.4% Others 1.1%

Totonac 17.7%

Chinantec 9.5%

Mazatec 15.5%

Nahuatl 73.7%

Mixtec 21.7%

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 215 Queretaro SIL: 25 269

Quintana Roo SIL: 173 594 Others 5.9%

Mazahua Others 7.2% 1.3% Nahuatl 4.2%

Maya 94.1%

Otomi 87.3%

Tabasco SIL: 62 027

San Luis Potosi SIL: 235 253 Pame 3.3%

Others 0.8%

Others Zoque 14.8% Tzotzil 1.1% 1.4% Maya 1.9%

Huastec 37.1%

Tzeltal 3.0% Nahuatl 58.8%

Chol 16.1%

Chontal 61.7%

216 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Veracruz (SIL 633 372)

Tlaxcala SIL:26 662

Totonac 4.5%

Otomi 3.1%

Others 3.4%

Chinantec 3.0% Zapotec 3.2% Popoluca 5.7% Huastec 8.1%

Mazatec 1.8% Otomi Others 2.7% 3.2%

Nahuatl 53.4%

Totonac 18.9%

Nahuatl 89.0%

Yucatan SIL: 549 532 Others 0.5%

Maya 99.5%

5.2. Indigenous languages by quantity of SIL The XII Censo general de población (INEGI 2001) documented 86 indigenous languages and added the following categories: “Other Mexican languages”; “Other Amerindian languages”; and “Not specified”. Using the quantitative criterion, three major groups are distinguished: (1) Lenguas

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 217

Indígenas Mayores or LIMA (Large Indigenous Languages [LIL]) shown in Graph 2; Lenguas Indígenas Medianas or LIME (Medium Indigenous Languages [MedIL]) shown in Graph 3, and Lenguas Indígenas Pequeñas or LIPE (Small Indigenous Languages [SMIL]) shown in Graph 4. Each of the 17 LIL has a number of users higher than 1% of the total of SIL. In combination, these LIL make 90% of the total of all SIL. On the other hand, the number of users of the 19 MedIL is limited to a miniscule proportion of speakers fluctuating between 1% and 0.1% of the total SIL; these 19 languages represent merely 7.6% of the total number of SIL. Not all the MedIL were reported systematically (e.g., Tabasco Chontal, Trique, Popoluca, Popoloca, Kanjobal, Pame and Mam); moreover, some of them display an increase that is superior to the mean of the rest of the languages (Huichol and Tepehuan). For these reasons, the balance includes only 10 of them. Finally, the SMIL group is made of 29 languages that have only less Tarahumar

75,545

Tlapanec

99,389

Mixe

118,924

Purhepecha

121,409

Chinantec

133,374

Mazahua

133,413

Huastec

150,257

Chol

161,766

Mazatec

214,447

Totonac

240,034

Tzeltal

284,826

Otomi

291,722

Tzotzil

297,561

Mixtec

440,796

Zapotec

451,038

Maya

800,291

Nahuatl

1,448,936 0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Number of speakers

Graph 2. Large Indigenous Languages (more than 1% of the Total SIL). XII National Census (2000)

218 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Mam

7,580 8,312 9,015 9,435 13,317 13,425 14,224 16,410 16,468 20,712 25,544 30,686 31,513

Kanjobal Yaqui Huave Popoloca Tepehuan Mayo

37,986 38,139 38,561 40,722 41,455

Popoloca Chatino

51,464

Zoque

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Number of Speakers

Graph 3. Medium Indigenous Languages (less than 1% and more than .1% of Total SIL). XII National Census (2000)

than 0.1% of the total number of speakers; in combination, they represent 2.4% of the total SIL. Their recent inclusion in the census register makes it impossible to trace them beyond one or two decades. For this reason they are not discussed herein.

5.3. Indigenous languages and language families The languages included in this section belong to the different families (or phyla). The Mayan family has five LIL (Maya, Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Chol and Huastec) and one MedIL (Tojolabal). In the Otomaguean family, we found seven LIL (Zapotec, Mixtec, Mazatec, Chinantec, Otomi, Mazahua and Tlapanec) and three MedIL (Amuzgo, Cuicatec and Chatino); in the Totonac-Tepehua family, we found one LIL (Totonac) and one MedIL (Tepehua); in the Mixe-Zoque, we found a LIL (Mixe) and a MedIL (Zoque). Finally, in the Uto-Aztecan family there are two LIL (Nahuatl and Tarahu-

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 219 Opata

4 5 6 23 40 52 82 90 138 141 161 174 178 201 210 246 351 458 466 529 677 741 992

Soltec Lacandon Cochimi Kickapoo Kumiai Cocopa Cakchiquel Ixcatec Ocuiltec Kekchi Chocho

1,302 1,641 1,671 1,738 1,796

Chichimeco Tacuate Oaxaca Chontal

4959

0

1000

2000 3000 4000 Number of Speakers

5000

6000

Graph 4. Small Indigenous Languages (less than .1% of Total SIL). XII National Census (2000)

mar) and three MedIL (Mayo, Yaqui and Cora). Two isolated languages are included (Purhepecha and Huave) in this group. In thirteen cases (Nahuatl, Tarahumar, Totonac, Tepehua, Mazatec, Popoloca, Mixtec, Zapotec, Chatino, Chinantec, Mixe, Popoluca and Zoque), we are dealing with macro-linguistic groups that form dialect concatenations or series with different degrees of intelligibility.

5.4. Geographic distribution and permanence of SIL The data of the XII Censo general de población (INEGI 2001) leads us to infer that the main nuclei of indigenous population maintain their ancestral territories. In these rural localities, mostly disperse, the increment of SIL is greater. In addition, the rates of bilingualism are lower, although higher in

220 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

those in which the SIL residence is recent. According to the same source, the geographic distribution of the SIL of the 27 languages studied in this section is the following (see Charts 2 and 3): (a) The languages of the Mayan family are located in the South and Southeast of the country. Maya is the most common language of the region and almost exclusive to the three states that make the Yucatan Peninsula. Its distribution is the following: Yucatan, 69.3%; Quintana Roo, 20.4%; Campeche, 9.8%. Additionally, four Mayan languages are located in Chiapas. The proportion of the respective SIL residing in this state is as follows: Tojolabal (99.1%); Tzeltal (97.8%); Tzotzil (97%); Chol (87.4%). Huastec belongs, too, in the same family while the distribution of its users corresponds to 58.1% in San Luis Potosi and 34.3% in Veracruz. (b) The main settlements of the Otomanguean family are in Oaxaca, Veracruz, Guerrero, Mexico, Hidalgo and Queretaro. A full 90% of SIL of Cuicatec reside in Oaxaca and virtually all the speakers of Chatino, i.e., 98.2%. Three other languages are spoken in Oaxaca and Veracruz: Mazatec has 72.2% and 4.8% SIL, while Zapotec has 83.7% and 4.5%; Chinantec has 80.2% and 14.6%, respectively. On the other hand, the vast majority of the Mixtec and Amuzgo speakers are located in Oaxaca (with 53.3% and 23.4%) and Guerrero (with 11.6% and 83.4%), respectively. A full 90.9% of Tlapanecs reside in Guerrero. In the state of Mexico, 85% of the Mazahuas are located while 35.7% of Otomis reside in this state. Otomis are also found in Hidalgo (39%), Queretaro (7.5%), and Veracruz (6.0%). (See Map 1 for location of states). (c) Members of the Totonac-Tepehua family are distributed in three states: Puebla, Veracruz and Hidalgo; 41.8% of the speakers of Totonac reside in Puebla and 49.9% in Veracruz. In Veracruz, 64.6% of Tepehuas can be found whereas 19.5% of the same group resides in Hidalgo. On the other hand, the principal settlements of the MixeZoque family are located in three states: Oaxaca, Chiapas and Veracruz. In Oaxaca, there can be found 88.6% of the speakers of Mixe with Chiapas being the territory of 80.8% of speakers of Zoque, which is also spoken in Veracruz by merely 5.4%. Finally, a full 90% of speakers of Purhepecha live in the state of Michoacan and 96.1% of Huave speakers live in Oaxaca.

Yucatan 69.3 Q. Roo 20.4 Campeche 9.8 Chiapas Tabasco Tamaulipas S. L Potosi Veracruz Oaxaca Puebla Mexico Federal Dis. Guerrero Morelos Michoacan Hidalgo Quertaro Jalisco Tlaxcala. Baja Cal. N. Chihuahua Sinaloa 0.5 5.4 97.0 97.8 87.4 0.6 6.1

Maya Tzot Tzel Chol

41.8 3.5 1.9

0.6

0.5

49.9

Toto

2.7 58.1 34.3

Huas

3.8 2.9

1.9 88.6

Mixe

1.4 1.8

14.6 80.2

0.6

4.5 4.8 83.7 72.2 5.5 3.7 4.1 3.1 4.0

.5

3.2

0.8 55.3 1.8 6.1 3.7 23.4 0.8

1.7 1.6 90.9 1.4 1.2

3.2

85.0 7.2

Chin Zap Mazatec Mixtec Tlapa Mazah

Chart 2. Current geographic distribution of Large and Medium Indigenous Languages

39.0 7.5

2.8 35.7 5.8

6.0

Oto

1.7

2.5

90.0

1.4 1.4

Purh

1.6

15.2

28.7 3.8 2.5 9.4 1.2

0.5 9.5 23.3

Nah

93.0 2.5

Tara

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 221

19.5

64.6

Tepehua

Mayo

Nayarit

21.7

0.5

96.1

Huave

Sinaloa

3.4

98.2

Chatino

76.5

1.2

90.0

Cuicatec

Sonora

Mexico

Hidalgo

83.4

Guerrero

5.4

Veracruz 11.6

99.1

80.8

Chiapas

Amuzgo

Oaxaca

Tojolabal

Zoque

Chart 2. Current geographic distribution of Large and Medium Indigenous Languages (continued)

1.8

93.6

Yaqui

93.7

Cora

222 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

92.4

Veracruz

96.9 97.3

Federal Dis.

54.6

97.0

96.4

91.2

77.9

93.7

93.1

64.5

98.1

97.6

94.4

96.2

94.2

96.1

95.3

70.7

80.5

89.5

96.6

96.1

89.2

68.8

90.0

91.0

98.0 97.9

97.1 97.1

83.1 85.8

94.0 96.2

Queretaro

97.6

97.4

71.2

93.4

97.1

Hidalgo

Michoacan

Morelos

Guerrero

75.6

Mexico

84.8

Puebla

97.4

85.4

S. L. Potosi

Oaxaca

97.4

Tamaulipas

92.5 93.7

90.5 90.8

Tabasco

93.1

Campeche 57.3 56.3 65.4

86.1

Q. Roo

Chiapas

90.5

Yucatan

Maya Tzot Tzel Chol Huas Toto Mixe Chin Zap Mazatec Mixtec Tlapa Mazah Oto

83.8

95.9

95.2

76.1

93.6

73.6

97.9

89.9

86.2

83.0

91.4

96.7

Pureh Nah Tara

Chart 3. Current geographic distribution and bilingualism. Large and Medium Indigenous Languages (more than 0. 5% SIL)

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 223

Cuicatec

Huave

Mayo

94.4

97.9

Nayarit

97.4

82.0

Sinaloa

68.0

91.3

Tepehua

97.8

90.1

Chatino

Sonora

Mexico

Hidalgo

46.9

Guerrero

92.5

Veracruz 74.6

67.64

86.9

Chiapas

Oaxaca

Tojolabal

Zoque

92.8

Yaqui

65.5

Cora

91.2

89.9

Sinaloa

95.2

94.8

78.5

Amuzgo

95.2

95.5

Pureh Nah Tara

Chihuahua

Baja C. N.

Tlaxcala.

Jalisco

Maya Tzot Tzel Chol Huas Toto Mixe Chin Zap Mazatec Mixtec Tlapa Mazah Oto

Chart 3. Current geographic distribution and bilingualism. Large and Medium Indigenous Languages (more than 0. 5% SIL) (continued)

224 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 225

(d) Of the five languages of the Uto-Aztecan family, Nahuatl is distinguished by the vast extension covered and the uneven spread of their communities of speakers. The main settlements of the SIL are located in Puebla (28.7%); Veracruz (23.3%); Hidalgo (15.3%); San Luis Potosi (9.5%) and Guerrero (9.4%) in addition to the Federal District (2.5). The other four languages of this family are found in the northern region of the country: 93% of Tarahumar speakers reside in Chihuahua; the same percentage of Yaquis reside in Sonora and also the same percentage of Cora speakers reside in Nayarit. Mayos residing in Sonora make 75.6% while those residing in Sinaloa make 21.7%. Chart 2 shows the current distribution of 27 languages by state. It also shows the percentage of SIL that remain in their ancestral territories (see pecent in bold). For example, speakers of Maya reside in Yucatan, Quintana Roo, and Campeche; this is true for speakers of Tzotzil and Tzeltal who reside primarily in Chiapas. It also shows the proportions of SIL who reside out of their original settlements. These two figures for each language are conducive to establishing three categories of SIL according to the patterns of permanency in their traditional settlements: Low Permanency (less than 80%); Medium Permanency (from 80% to 89%); and High Permanency (higher than 90%). The percentages of SIL for each state traditionally considered “ancestral settlement for each language” was added in order to determine the overall score of each language. For example, Mixtecs in the State of Oaxaca amount to 55.3% and the same group in the State of Guerrero amounts to 23.4%. Mixtec then belongs in the category of low permanency with 78.7% along with Mazatec (77.7%). An example of a language falling in the medium permanency group is Zapotec (with 83.7% of the original SIL in Oaxaca and 4.5% in Veracruz). The total permanency of Zapotec is 88%. Other languages that belong to the second category are: Otomi and Mixe (88%), Chol (87%), Mazahua (85%), Tepehua (84%), Zoque (86%), and Nahuatl (86%). The languages of high permanency are: Maya (99.5), Tojolabal and Tzotzil (99%), Tzeltal (97%), Mayo and Chatino (98%), Huave (96%), Amuzgo (95%), Chinanctec (94%), Huastec (92%), Cuicatec, Tlapanec and Purhepecha (90%), Totonac (91%), and the Uto-Aztecan languages in the Northern region: Tarahumar, Cora and Yaqui (93%) and Mayo (98%). Likewise, these three types correspond to lower or higher degree of recent migration, a phenomenon that can be validated by looking into the degree of bilingualism for those SIL residing outside of their ancestral territories.

226 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

5.5. Geographic distribution, permanence of SIL, and bilingualism The rates of bilingualism vary considerably according to the original settlements of the SIL. Chart 3 shows the current distribution of Large and Medium Languages by State. The percentage score which appears in bold in Chart 3 highlights the states that are the ancestral settlements for each language. For example, Maya in the States of Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo is as high as 93.1% and as low as 86.1%. In the case of Huastec, the highest rate is registered in Veracruz (92.4%) and the lowest in San Luis Potosi (85.4%). Among SIL of Zapotec, Chinantec, and Mixe, bilingualism is higher in Veracruz (96%, 94% and 93%, respectively) than in Oaxaca (86%, 83% and 71%, respectively); bilingual speakers of Mixtec and Amuzgo are higher in Oaxaca (78% and 74%) than those reported for Guerrero (56% and 49%, respectively). Bilingualism among Otomis in the state of Mexico is very high (95%), while the highest rates of Nahuatl bilinguals appear in San Luis Potosi (91.4%) and Puebla (86.2%) but decrease in Veracruz (83%), Hidalgo (76.1), and Guerrero (73.6). The rates of bilingualism higher than 90% are not exclusive to the regions that receive indigenous populations; these high rates can also be found in some of the traditional settlements of the SIL. These are the cases of Sonora where Mayo and Yaqui are found with 97% and 92%, respectively; Sinaloa with Mayo (97%); Veracruz (with Chinantec at 94% and Huastec and Zoque at 92%). These and other high rates of bilingualism are similar to those encountered in Mexico City and the state of Mexico, the areas of intense assimilation. The data on bilingualism in the traditional settlements of the SIL provide additional information on those cases in which the rates of bilingualism are lower than those reported by state (see Table 2). For example, in the case of Chiapas, the total rate of bilingualism reaches 61%, but the rate of bilingualism amongst Tzotzil and Tzeltal is lower (57.3% and 56.3%, respectively). In the State of Veracruz, the total rate is 84%, but the rate is lower among Otomi and Nahuatl SIL.

6.

Growth of SIL and bilingualism

According to the data of the past three decades (1970–2000), all the languages mentioned in this study increased the number of users. Table 4 shows the accumulated growth rate of 30 of the 66 languages listed.

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 227

Wheras Chatino, Tlapanec, Chol, and Tzoltil triplicated the total number of SIL, others grew between 100% and 199%: Amuzgo, Tarahumar, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Cora, Chinantec, Huastec, Mixe, Mazatec, and Purhepecha. Finally, those that grew at a rate below 100% were: Totonac, Huave, Zoque, Mixtec, Yaqui, Nahuatl, Maya, Tepehua, Zapotec, Otomi, Cuicatec, Mazahua, and Mayo. This survey shows that the four largest languages (Nahuatl, Maya, Zapotec and Mixtec) did not increase at all. Of the LIL, only Tzoltil, Tlapanec and Chol increased 200%. A larger increment was reported for one MIL: Chatino. The four languages with a larger SIL growth rate are located in the States of Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero (see Table 4). Table 4. MIL and SIL: 1970–2000 Languages

1970

1980

1990

2000

Growth rate %

TOTALS

3 111 415

5 181 038

5 282 347

6 044 547

94.27

Nahuatl

799 394

1 376 989

1 197 328

1 448 936

81.2

Maya

454 675

665 377

713 520

800 291

76.0

Zapotec

283 345

442 937

403 457

451 038

59.1

Mixtec

233 235

323 137

386 874

440 796

88.9

Tzotzil

95 383

133 389

229 203

297 561

211.9

Otomi

221 062

306 190

280 238

291 722

31.9

Tzeltal

99 412

215 145

261 084

284 826

186.5

Totonac

124 840

196 003

207 876

240 034

92.2

Mazatec

101 541

124 176

168 374

214 447

111.1

Chol

73 253

96 773

128 240

161 766

220.8

Huastec

66 091

103 788

120 739

150 257

127.3

Mazahua

104 729

194 125

127 826

133 413

27.3

Chinantec

54 145

77 087

109 100

133 374

146.3

Purhepecha

60 411

118 614

94 835

121 409

100.9

Mixe

54 403

74 087

95 264

118 924

118.5

Tlapenec

30 804

55 068

68 483

99 389

222.6

Tarahumar

25 479

62 419

54 431

75 545

196.4

Zoque

27 140

30 995

43 161

51 464

89.6

228 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Table 4. MIL and SIL: 1970–2000 (continued) Languages

1970

1980

1990

2000

Amuzgo

13 883

18 659

28 228

41 455

198.6

Chatino

11 773

20 543

28 987

40 722

245.8

28 948

10 256

38 561

Tabasco Chontal

Growth rate %

Popoluca

27 818

23 762

31 250

38 139

37.1

Tojolabal

13 303

22 331

36 011

37 986

185.5

Mayo

27 848

56 387

37 410

31 513

13.1

Huichol

6 874

51 850

19 363

30 686

346.4

Tepehuan

5 617

17 802

18 469

25 544

354.7

8 408

14 981

20 712

Triqui Popoloca

16 468

Cora

6 242

12 240

11 223

16 410

162.8

Huave

7 442

9 972

11 955

14 224

91.1

10 192

14 155

12 667

13 425

31.7

Yaqui

7 080

9 282

10 980

13 337

87.9

Tepehua

5 545

8 487

8 702

9 435

70.1

14 325

9 015

5 649

5 732

8 312

1980

1990

2000

Mam

3 711

13 168

7 580

Oaxaca Chontal

8 086

2 232

4 959

Cuicatec

Kanjobal Pame Languages

1 970

Tacuate

1 738

Chuj

1 796

Guarijio

1 671

Chichimeco-jonaz

1 582

1 641

Matlatzinca

1 452

1 302

12 310

12 553

992*

553

860

741

Chocho Pima Kekchi Jacaltec

677 1 263

529

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 229 Table 4. MIL and SIL: 1970–2000 (continued) Languages

1970

1980

Ocuiltec Seri

486

Ixcatec

1990

2000

755

466

561

458

1 220

351

Quiche

246

Cackchiquel

220

Pai-Pai

223

201

Cocopa

136

178

Motocintlec

235

174

Kumiai Papago or Tohono O’odham

161 236

Kickapoo

141 232

Ixil

138 90

Cochimi Kiliwa Lacandon

148

82

41

52

104

40

Aguacatec

23

Soltec

06

Papabuc

05

Opata

04

Yuma

Growth rate %

609

26

The data gathered by the national censuses (1970–2000) lead us to substantiate the existing trend towards “bilingualization”, a phenomenon that is herein defined as a resulting consequence of the thorough-going policy of Hispanization of the Mesoamerican population during the twentieth century. However, the accelerated shift towards bilingualism shows significant variations. Those SIL that showed the lowest rates of bilingualism thirty years ago experienced a drastic and accelerated process of bilingualization. In contrast, languages that had an already high rate of bilingualism exhibit less drastic changes. The languages that in 1970 showed the lowest rates of bilingualism were: Amuzgo 36.1%; Tzeltal 42.3%; Tlapanec 43.8%; Ma-

230 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

zatec 46.5%; Tzotzil 47.2%; Chatino 51.7%; and Chol 58%. When the percent change of bilingualism between 1970 and 2000 is compared, we observed that Mazatec (26.8%) and Tlapanec (23%) experienced the most drastic changes, while the other languages display an increase between 10% and 16% (see Table 5). Table 5. Growth of bilingualism by language: 1970–2000 % Bilingualism

% Bilingualism

% Growth of

1970

2000

bilingualism

Mazatec

46.5

73.3

26.8

Tlapanec

43.8

66.8

23.0

Totonac

66.1

87.9

21.8

Huave

62.6

82.9

20.3

Chatino

51.7

68.5

16.7

Zoque

72.4

88.5

16.1

Amuzgo

36.1

52.1

16.0

Tzeltal

42.3

57.1

14.8

Tepehua

79.8

93.4

13.6

Nahuatl

71.5

84.5

12.1

Mixe

62.0

74.1

12.1

Tarahumar

68.3

79.5

11.2

Chinantec

74.3

85.4

11.1

Tzotzil

47.2

57.9

10.7

Chol

58.0

69.0

10.6

Mixtec

65.9

75.8

9.9

Otomi

82.9

91.6

8.7

Mazahua

88.6

94.5

5.9

Huastec

82.9

88.7

5.8

Zapotec

82.4

87.9

5.5

Cora

62.3

66.9

4.6

Cuicatec

88.0

90.8

2.8

Purhepecha

82.4

84.9

2.5

Yaqui

90.9

93.2

2.3

Language

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 231 Table 5. Growth of bilingualism by language: 1970–2000 (continued) % Bilingualism

% Bilingualism

% Growth of

1970

2000

bilingualism

Maya

89.9

91.0

1.1

Mayo

95.9

97.0

1.1

Tojolabal

67.9

67.8

-0.1

Language

On the other hand, the languages that in 1970 displayed rates of bilingualism between 60% and 80% were: Mixe, Cora, Huave, Zoque, Mixtec, Totonac, Tojolabal, Tarahumar, Nahuatl, Zoque, Chinantec, and Tepehua. The process of bilingualization has three variations: five languages increased between 9% and 13%: Mixtec (9.9%), Chinantec (11.1%), Tarahumar (11.2%); Mixe and Nahuatl (12.1%), and Tepehua (13.6%). Three other languages grew more dramatically: Totonac (21.8%); Huave (20.3%); and Zoque (16.1%). Finally, in sharp contrast with the abovementioned groups, two languages had small increments or none at all: Cora (4.6%) and Tojolabal (-0.1%). Finally, a third group is made up of those languages that in 1970 had a rate of bilingual SIL higher than 80%: Purhepecha and Zapotec 82.4%; Mazahua 88.6%; Huastec and Otomi 82.9%; Cuicatec 88%; Maya 89.9%; Yaqui 90.9%; and Mayo 95.9%. This group shows that bilingual SIL ranged from 8% to 1%. The estimates on bilingualism reported in the 2000 census depict a different scenario from thirty years ago. At present the SIL that display a moderate rate of bilingualism (50%–69%) are Amuzgo, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tlapanec, Cora, Tojolabal, Chatino, and Chol. A high rate of bilingualism (70%–90%) is documented for Mazatec, Mixe, Mixtec, Tarahumar, Huave, Nahuatl, Purhepecha, Chinantec, Totonac, Zapotec, Zoque, and Huastec. Finally, those languages exhibiting a very high rate of bilingualism are Cuicatec 90.8%; Maya 91%; Otomi 91.6%; Yaqui 93.2%; Tepehua 93.4%; Mazahua 94.5%; and Mayo 97% (see Table 5).

7. Use of the mother tongue in the home domain According to Serrano (2003), the NSIIP looked into the data related to “use of the indigenous language in the home” and determined that three degrees of linguistic vitality can be found for the 27 Ethnolinguistic Groups (EG), which appear in Table 6. We have used the results of the analysis of this

232 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

dimension, but we have not used the quantitative criteria established to determine the degrees of vitality. The concept of EG is an encompassing entity that includes at least the families where the head of household is a SIL. Therefore, the concept of EG leads us to quantify the SIL of each of the 27 large and medium indigenous languages and the respective percentages of those who do speak an indigenous language in the indigenous homes (see Table 6). The 27 EG comprising the unit of analysis range between 34.5% and 74.1% in the use of indigenous language in the home domain. The languages with the highest rates of “home language use” are the following: Tzeltal 74.1%; Chol 73.2%; Tzotzil 73.1%; Amuzgo 71.9%; Tlapanec 70.9%; Mixe 70.4%; Mazatec 70.1%; Tojolabal 69.7%; Huave 69.3%; Chatino 67.9%; Cora 67.3%; Huastec and Chinantec 66.3%. Those with a medium rate of home language use are Tarahumar 62%; Mixtec 61.2%; Purhepecha 59.8%; Zoque 59.4%; Nahuatl 59.2%; Tepehua 58.8%; Cuicatec 58.4%; Totonac 58.3%; Zapotec 58.2%, Yaqui 56.9% and Maya 54.2%. The lowest rates of home language use are found in Otomi 45.1%; Mazahua 40.8% and Mayo 34.5%. Table 6. Ethnolinguistic groups: Use of language in the home domain Ethnolinguistic Group

Total

Tzeltal

384 074

Do speak the indigenous language

%

284 826

74.1

Chol

220 978

161 766

73.2

Tzotzil

406 962

297 561

73.1

Amuzgo

57 666

41 455

71.9

Tlapanec

140 254

99 389

70.9

Mixe

168 935

118 924

70.4

Mazatec

305 836

214 477

70.1

Tojolabal

54 505

37 986

69.7

Huave

20 528

14 224

69.3

Chatino

60 003

40 722

67.9

Cora

24 390

16 410

67.3

Huastec

226 447

150 257

66.3

Chinantec

201 201

133 374

66.3

Tarahumar

121 835

75 545

62.0

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 233 Table 6. Ethnolinguistic groups: Use of language in the home domain (continued) Ethnolinguistic Group

Total

Do speak the indigenous language

%

Mixtec

726 601

444 498

61.2

Purhepecha

202 884

121 409

59.8

86 589

51 464

59.4

Nahuatl

2 445 969

1 448 936

59.2

Tepehua

16 051

9 435

58.8

Cuicatec

22 984

13 425

58.4

Totonac

411 266

240 034

58.3

Zapotec

777 253

452 887

58.2

Yaqui

23 411

13 317

56.9

Maya

1 475 575

800 291

54.2

Otomi

646 875

291 722

45.1

Mazahua

326 660

133 430

40.8

91 261

31 513

34.5

Zoque

Mayo

The data on “the use of the indigenous language in the home domain” along with the data on bilingualism appear to be extremely useful to differentiate the two sides of bilingualism, i.e., language maintenance in the home domain and language shift in the societal domain. Bilingualism may appear with a strong tendency to maintenance or show clear signs of shift to Spanish. It can be assumed that societal bilingualism – even in high rates – is compatible with a relative stability of the indigenous language. On the othr hand, a drastic shift to Spanish can be deterred timely and opportunely via intervention policies of language shift reversal. 8. Age groups among the SIL The distribution currently displayed by the SIL by quinquennial subgroups allows us to distinguish the use of the 27 languages among the young, i.e., those who are grouped between 5 and 19 years of age. The age criterion can help distinguish again three groups according to the percentages of young SIL (see Table 7). The youngest subgroup makes more than 40% of SIL in the following language groups: Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tlapanec, Chol,

234 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

Tojolabal, Cora, Chatino and Amuzgo. A second cluster of languages falls in the second category, wherein the SIL make 39% to 30% of the youngest subgroup: Chinantec, Huastec, Mazatec, Tarahumar, Mixe, Zoque, Mixtec, Huave, Purhepecha, Nahuatl, Totonac, and Tepehua. Finally, the third group of languages representing less than 29% of the SIL are the following: Zapotec, Cuicatec, Yaqui, Maya, Otomi, Mazahua, and Mayo. The abovementioned distribution corresponds likewise to the total amount of SIL over 50 years of age. This subgroup is higher than the younger population among the Mayas (26%); Otomis (28%); Mazahua (29%) and Mayos (45%). The languages of this group report, in addition, a low rate of use in the home domain. In brief, these groups are strongly bilingualized and have, in addition, a low proportion of younger individuals. The analysis of the data is conducive to propose that the highest probabilities of language shift are found in specific groups: a. Those that have a lower number of SIL (belonging to in the Small Indigenous Language group); b. those belonging to the Large and to the Medium Indigenous Language Group but which c. do not increase the number of SIL; and d. are not used by the younger population. The last indicator refers to those languages that are not a substantial component of communication in the home domain. Table 7. SIL and age groups in percentages Language

TOTAL SIL

5– 19 years 20–34 years 35– 49 years 50+ years

Tzotzil

297 561

47.9

26.3

14.9

10.6

Tzeltal

284 826

47.9

26.9

14.6

10.4

99 389

47.0

24.8

14.7

13.3

161 766

45.7

26.9

15.8

11.5

Tojolabal

37 986

45.5

26.4

15.6

12.3

Cora

16 410

44.7

25.4

16.8

12.8

Chatino

40 722

44.2

25.1

16.1

14.3

Amuzgo

41 455

44.0

26.5

16.5

12.9

Chinantec

133 374

39.6

26.2

18.0

16.0

Huastec

150 257

39.3

24.7

18.2

18.3

Mazatec

214 477

38.9

25.7

18.4

16.8

75 545

38.3

26.6

18.4

16.8

118 924

38.3

25.2

18.6

17.7

Tlapanec Chol

Tarahumar Mixe

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 235 Table 7. SIL and age groups in percentages (continued) Language

TOTAL SIL

5– 19 years 20–34 years 35– 49 years 50+ years

Zoque

51 464

37.9

25.1

18.1

18.9

Mixtec

440 796

37.5

24.3

18.3

20.1

Huave

14 224

36.8

26.6

19.0

17.4

121 409

36.3

24.1

18.4

21.0

1 448 936

34.8

24.9

19.2

20.9

Totonac

240 034

32.5

24.3

20.6

22.4

Tepehua

9 435

31.8

25.5

21.1

21.5

Zapotec

451 038

29.1

24.9

21.4

24.8

Cuicatec

13 425

28.7

23.2

20.3

27.6

Yaqui

13 337

27.9

27.1

21.3

23.5

Maya

800 291

24.3

27.0

22.5

26.0

Otomi

291 722

23.2

24.9

23.0

28.7

Mazahua

133 413

20.4

25.5

24.7

29.1

31 513

8.2

18.2

28.4

45.0

Purhepecha Nahuatl

Mayo

9. Language maintenance and language shift Three major groups have been identified in order to illustrate the tendency towards language maintenance or language shift, the most significant criterion in this classification being the rate of bilingualism. The final balance, however, is complemented with the data found on the following concurrent indicators: (1) use of the indigenous language in the home domain; (2) rate of growth of the SIL population during the past three decades (1970–2000); and (3) permanency of the SIL in their original settlements. These factors in combination help us distinguish three clusters known as Group I, Group II, and Group III. (See Graphs 5, 6 and 7). Each language in each group appears in ascending order; in Group I, for example, Amuzgo is the language with a lowest percent score of bilingualism (52.1%) while Chol has the highest rate with (69%) (Graph 5). Group II includes 12 more languages, Mazatec being the least bilingual and Huastec the most bilingual (Graph 6). Finally, in Group III, we found seven languages whose score of bilingualism ranges from 90.8% for Cuicatec to 97% for Mayo (See Graph 7).

236 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

9.1. Group I In Group I, we find four LIL (Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Chol and Tlapanec) and four MIL (Amuzgo, Cora, Tojolabal and Chatino). Comparatively speaking, Group I displays the lowest rates of bilingualism (between 52% and 69%), and a high rate of use in the home domain (higher than 67%). In Group I, we found the four languages that tripled the SIL population and the other four that have a rate of growth higher than 162%. Except for the Chol language, the other languages belonging to Group I also have a high rate of permanency. On the other hand, the languages of this Group exhibit the highest percentages of young SIL (between 42% and 47%) (See Table 7). The languages of Group I exhibit two extreme variations in the process of bilingualization (optimal and minimal). In the cases of Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Amuzgo and Tlapanec, the increase of bilingualism (ranging from 10% to 23%), has not yet modified the dominant presence of these languages in the home domain (which is higher than 70%). This is a recent change and for this reason, at present, in the indigenous communities there exist a considerable number of children and old folks who normally interact with a growing number of bilingual adults (young and younger). To this dimension, we can add the high rate of permanency (above 90%) of the respective SIL in their original settlements. Some variations are expected in Group I. For example, despite the fact that Chatino is the language with the highest growth of SIL (254.4%) and with a high rate of permanency (98%), this 300.00% 250.00% 200.00% 150.00% 100.00% 50.00% 0.00%

amuzgo

tzeltal

tzotzil tlapanec

cora

tojolabal chatino

chol

bilingualism

52.10% 57.10% 57.90% 66.80% 66.90% 67.80% 68.50% 69.00%

use in home

71.90% 74.10% 73.10% 70.90% 67.30% 69.70% 67.90% 73.20%

growth rate

198.00% 186.00% 211.00% 222.00% 162.00% 185.00% 245.00% 220.00%

permanence 95.00% 97.00% 97.00% 90.00% 93.00% 99.00% 98.00% 87.00%

Graph 5. (Group I) % Bilingualism 2000; % use in home; % growth rate 1970–2000; % permanence in original settlements

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 237

language shows, comparatively, one of the lowest percentages of use in the home domain. In contrast, the case of Chol stands out among the rest due to the high rate of language use in the home domain and among the young sub-groups, in spite of the fact that it has a slightly lower rate of permanency (87%). Cora and Tojolabal show negligible changes in the rates of bilingualism (4% to -0.1), but also they exhibit a low rate of use in the home domain in this group (67% and 69% respectively). In the latter case, it is sensible to assume the existence of stable bilingualism, given that the use of the indigenous language and Spanish has included for the past three decades the SIL of different age groups. Finally, Tojolabal has the highest rate of permanency in the three groups.

9.2. Group II Group II is made up of ten LIL (Mazatec, Mixe, Mixtec, Tarahumar, Nahuatl, Purhepecha, Chinantec, Totonac, Zapotec and Huastec) and two MIL (Huave and Zoque). Group II has a moderate rate of bilingualism (73% to 89%). Five languages of this Group (Mazatec, Mixe Huave, Chinatec and Huastec) show high rates of use in the home domain, i.e., more than 66%;the remaining eight languages show a rate lower than 62%. In contrast to Group I, in Group II, the percentages of young SIL vary between 29% and 39% (See Table 7). Group II exhibits, in addition, an ample range of variations of other factors: growth of SIL, bilingualization and permanency. The looming change towards bilingualism of Group II is detrimental to the use in the home domain. In an early stage, we find Mazatec and Mixe, two languages that currently show a rate of bilingualism higher than 70% and a rate of home language use of 70%. Three more languages, Huave, Chinantec and Huastec belong in the second stage, given that they exhibit a rate of bilingualism between 82% and 88%; however, its rate of use in the home domain is high (69%, 66.3% and 63%, respectively). In a third stage we find Tarahumar, Mixtec, Purhepecha, Nahuatl, Zoque, Totonac and Zapotec, whose rates of bilinguism ranges from 75% to 88%, while its rate of use in the home domain is not too high (62 al 58%). The three factors that allow us to understand the dynamics of SIL can vary greatly from language to language and from group to group. As a case in point, the languages of Group II can be described as follows: Mazatec has undergone the most drastic bilingualization of all the languages (26%)

70.40% 118.00% 88.00%

73.30% 70.10% 111.00% 77.00%

use in home

growth rate

permanence

mixtec

78.70%

88.00%

61.30%

75.80%

93.00%

196.00%

62.00%

79.50%

tarahumar

huave

96.00%

91.00%

69.30%

82.90%

nahuatl

86.00%

81.00%

59.20%

84.40%

90.00%

100.00%

59.80%

84.90%

purhepecha

94.00%

146.00%

66.30%

85.40%

chinantec

totonac

91.00%

92.00%

58.30%

87.90%

88.00%

59.00%

58.20%

87.90%

zapotec

zoque

86.00%

89.00%

59.40%

88.50%

92.00%

127.00%

66.30%

88.70%

huastec

Graph 6. (Group II) % Bilingualism 2000; % use in home; % growth rate 1970–2000, % permanence in original settlements

mixe 74.10%

mazatec

bilingualism

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

238 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 239

and has at the same time a low permanency rate (77%). However, Mazatec maintains a high rate of use in the home domain. This presupposes that the original settlements were highly monolingual; in fact, 39% of the SIL of Mazatec residing in the state of Oaxaca are monolingual (See Chart 3). Along the same lines, we see the trends of Huave, whose rate of bilingualism grew, too, 20%; however, its rate of bilingualism three decades ago was 62.6%, that is, higher than the rate of growth of Mazatec. In spite of this difference, both languages have high rates of language use in the home domain. In turn, the use in the home domain in the case of Huave has been strenghtened by the high rate of permanency (96%), the highest among the languages of Group II. It is interesting to note that with respect to the growth rates of SIL, Tarahumar and Zapotec represent the two poles of Group II. Speakers of the former language increased 196% in three decades, but its rate of bilingualism increased 11%. In contrast, Zapotec displays a SIL growth rate of 59% and an increase of bilingualism of only 5%. When compared to the languages with high rates of growth and permanency, Tarahumar has the lowest rate of home language use (62%) and the lowest rate of young SIL (38%). Finally, Zapotec shows mixed trends between Group II and Group III, insofar as its rates of language use in the home domain and bilingualism are moderate at 58.2% and 87%, respectively, whereas the growth of SIL at 59% and permanency are low at 88%. In addition, Zapotec has the lowest proportion of young SIL of Group II (29.1%). Presently, Nahuatl and Purhepecha have similar rates of bilingualism, home language use, and proportions of young SIL speakers. The two final figures on bilingualism are very similar, but it has to be taken into account that the Nahuatl shows one of the lowest rates of growth in Group II and that its settlements are scattered and that in each of them the percentage of bilinguals is different. In contrast, the settlements of speakers of Purhepecha are located only in the state of Michoacán. Likewise, Nahuatl and Purhepecha differ in the rate of bilingualism, which is drastic in the case of Nahuatl (12%) and minimal in the case of Purepecha (2%) as well as in the rate of bilingualism in the main settlements of the SIL. The different Nahua territories present significant variations in their rates of monolingualism and bilingualism (in the states of Guerrero 73.6%; Hidalgo 76.1%; Veracruz 83%; Puebla 86%). On the other hand, the settlements of Purhepechas, which reside in the same geographic vicinity, display a higher rate of bilingualism (83% in the case of Michoacan). Comparatively speaking, Purhepecha has higher rates of growth and permanency.

240 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

9.3. Group III Finally, Group III is made up of seven languages, three of them belonging to the LIL Group (Maya, Otomi and Mazahua) and four to the MIL (Cuicatec, Tepehua, Yaqui and Mayo). The common denominator of these languages is the high rate of bilingualism (above 90%). None of the languages belonging to this group duplicated the number of SIL in the past three decades. On the other hand, four languages of this group (Tepehua, Cuicatec, Yaqui and Maya) register at present a medium rate of use in the home domain, i.e., higher than 54%. The three remaining languages (Otomi, Mazahua and Mayo) exhibit a low rate of the same indicator, that is, less than 45%. With the exception of Tepehua, the languages of Grupo III have the lowest rates of young SIL (See Table 7). In this group, we notice the last stages of bilingualism and the initial stages of shift towards Spanish monolingualism. In the process of language shift, there are few monolingual SIL over 50. In addition, there are young and younger Spanish monolingual adults. The languages that are very advanced in the process of shift towards monolingualism in Spanish are Mayo and Mazahua, given that they show the lowest rates of home language use (34.5% and 40.8%) and the lowest SIL growth (13% and 27%). However, there are significant differences between the two languages: in 1970, Mayo had the highest rate of bilingualism (95.9%) and by the year 2000, it increased only 1.1%; in addition, at present, a sizeable mayority of its speakers (73%) is older than 35. These two circumstances are different in the case of Mazahua, inasmuch as its 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% bilingualism use in home growth rate permanence

cuicatec

maya

otomi

yaqui

tepehua

mazahua

mayo

90.80% 58.40% 31.00% 90.00%

91.00% 54.20% 76.00% 99.50%

91.60% 45.10% 31.00% 88.00%

93.20% 56.90% 87.00% 93.00%

93.40% 58.80% 70.00% 84.00%

94.50% 40.80% 27.00% 85.00%

97.00% 34.50% 13.00% 98.00%

Graph 7. (Group III) % Bilingualism 2000; % use in home; % growth rate 1970– 2000; % permanence in original settlements

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 241

growth of bilingual SIL in the past three decades increased to 11.9%, and currently exhibits a more equitable distribution within the four age groups (20.4%, 25.5%, 24.7% and 29.1%). We assume that Mazahua still maintains its function as a means of comunication across generations. Nonetheless, the generational distribution also appears among other languages of the same Group: Maya and Otomi (See Table 7). The situation of Tepehua, Yaqui, and Maya is not so extreme, because these languages documented a higher rate of use in the home domain (58.8.%, 56.9%, and 54.2 respectively), in addition to an increase of SIL (70%, 86% and 76%, respectively), and a rate of young SIL ( 31%, 27% and 24%, respectively). Finally, Otomi and Cuicatec show a low increment of SIL (31%). Nevertheless, in the case of Otomi, its recent process of bilingualization (8%) may contribute to its use in the home domain, which is still at 45.1%. The case of Cuicatec shows a negligible growth of bilingualism (2%). It is possible that its medium rate of use in the home domain (58.4%) could result from the balance between young SIL (28.7%) and older SIL (27.6%) (See Table 7).

10. Conclusions The data collected during the past three decades provide valuable information on the basic trends of the 27 languages documented in this study. All of them have increased the number of SIL and all of them have increased the number of bilingual SIL in absolute terms. Additionally, the rate of growth of bilingualism shows an inverse proportion to the rate of Use of the indigenous language in the home domain and also to the decreasing volume of young SIL, while the rate of permanency points to patterns of diverse behaviors: whereas some groups staunchly adhere to their places of origin, others tend to migrate in varying proportions. National censuses are the necessary reference for government agencies and academic institutions that request information about indigenous peoples and their languages. Their constant appropriateness and improvement demand collective endeavors in order to define concepts leading to consistent criteria and methodologies. This endeavor is urgent in the Mexican scenario, given that the recent approval of the Law on Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (2003) requires the design of renewed goals of language maintenance and multilingualism that go hand in hand with the ethi-

242 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma

cal and juridical principles fomenting respect for cultural diversity. (For a full discussion, see Pellicer et al. in this volume). The information based on the censuses of the past three decades allows us to glimpse at the current state of national multilingualism. The scenario presented herein describes the complexities and linguistic discrepancies that characterize the country. While some of them tend towards maintenance (Amuzgo, Tzetzil, Tzeltal, Tlapanec, Cora, Tojolabal, Chatino and Chol), some others are in the advanced stages of displacement (Mazahua and Mayo). Interestingly enough, the languages that have been used as symbols of nationalism in the past two centuries (Nahuatl, Maya, Purhepecha and Zapotec) do not exhibit the symptoms that guarantee vitality. The overview provided by the national censuses is conducive to acknowledge some of the most significant challenges that should be assumed by indigenist language polices at present, which are not confronted – as in the past – with a mostly monolingual population, but with a complex universe of language communities with different degrees of vitality. Agencies should thus plan to cater to bilingual and/or multilingual populations that might be willing and able to maintain and preserve their heritage in order to counterbalance the high and medium rates of bilingualism that appear among all language groups. References Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo 1946 La población negra en México: 1519–1810. Mexico: Ediciones Fuente Cultural. 1972 Preface. In Oaxaca Indígena, Margarita Nolasco (ed.), 3–8. Mexico: Instituto de Investigación e Integración Social del Estado de Oaxaca and Secretaría de Educación Pública. Barabas, Alicia 1996 La multietnicidad en Oaxaca. In La pluralidad en peligro, Miguel Bartolomé and Alicia Barabas (eds.), 45–61. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Bartholomew, Doris, Yolanda Lastra and Leonardo Manrique (Coordinators). 1994 Panorama de los estudios de lenguas indígenas de México. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala. 2 vols. Brice Heath, Shirley 1979 La política del lenguaje en México. De la colonia a la nación. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 243 Caso, Alfonso 1950 Preface. In Memorias del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. 1, 9–12. Cifuentes, Bárbara 1994 Las lenguas amerindias y la conformación de la lengua nacional en México en el siglo XIX. Language Problems and Language Planning 18(3): 208–222. 1998 Lenguas para un pasado, huellas de una nación. Mexico: Plaza y Valdés, Comisión Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Cook, Sherburne and Woodrow Borah 1989 El pasado de México: Aspectos sociodemográficos. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 1997 Conteo de población y vivienda de 1995. Mexico: INEGI. 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda. Mexico: INEGI. Fernández Ham, Patricia 2000 Hogares indígenas y su población. In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México, Vol. 1, 39– 41. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Flores, Anselmo 1963 Distribución municipal de los hablantes de lenguas indígenas en la República Mexicana. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. García Cubas, Antonio 1880 Curso elemental de geografía. Mexico: Imprenta de la Viuda de Murguía. Garza Cuarón, Beatriz and Yolanda Lastra 1991 Endangered languages in Mexico. In Endangered Languages, Robert Robins and E. Uhlenbeck (eds.), 93–104. Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers. Horcasitas de Barros, M. L. and Ana María Crespo 1979 Hablantes de lengua indígena en México. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas 2002 Proyecto de creación. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología

244 Bárbara Cifuentes and José Luis Moctezuma Social. (Oficina de Representación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Presidencia de la República). Lastra, Yolanda 2001 Linguistics. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilizations of Mexico and Central América, David Carrasco (ed.), 123–131. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Manrique Castañeda, Leonardo 1997 Clasificaciones de las lenguas indígenas de México y sus resultados en el censo de 1990. In Políticas lingüísticas en México, Beatriz Garza Cuarón (ed.), 39–65. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Martínez Ruiz, Jesús 1977 Densidad territorial de los monolingües y bilingües en México en 1960–1970. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Moctezuma, José Luis 2001 De pascolas y venados. Adaptación, cambio y persistencia de las lenguas yaqui y mayo frente al español. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores and El Colegio de Sinaloa. Olivera, Mercedes, Inés Ortiz and Carmen Valverde 1982 La población y las lenguas indígenas de México en 1970. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Orozco y Berra, Manuel 1864 Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. Precedida de un ensayo de inmigraciones de las tribus. Mexico: Imprenta J. M. Andrade y Escalante. Parra, Germán 1950 Densidad de la población de habla indígena de la República Mexicana. In Memorias del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Vol. 1, 13–76. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Parra, Manuel and Wigberto Jiménez Moreno 1954 Bibliografía indigenista de México y Centro América (1850–1950). In Memorias del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Vol. 4. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Pimentel, Francisco 1875 Cuadro descriptivo comparativo de las lenguas indígenas de México. Mexico: Tipografia de Isidoro Epstein. 1903 Memoria de las causas que han originado la situación actual de la raza indígena. In Obras Completas, Vol. 3, 7–149. Mexico. Tipografía Económica.

The Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 1970–2000 245 Reff, Daniel T. 1991 Disease, Depopulation and Cultural Change in Northwestern New Spain: 1518–1764. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Sánchez Albornoz 2000 La población de la América colonial española. In Historia de América Latina, Leslie Bethell (ed.), 15–38. Vol. 4. Cambridge and Barcelona: Cambridge University Press and Editorial Crítica. Serrano, Enrique 2003 ¿Cuántos indígenas hablan lengua indígena? México Indígena. Nueva Época 2 (4): 65–69. Swadesh, Mauricio 1959 Mapas de clasificación lingüística de México y las Américas. Cuadernos del Instituto de Historia 8: 36–38. Valdés, Luz María 1988 El perfil demográfico de los indios mexicanos. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. 1995 Los indios en los censos de población. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Valdés, Luz María and María Teresa Menéndez 1987 Dinámica de la población de habla indígena. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Vega de la, Sergio 2001 Índice de desarrollo social de los pueblos indígenas. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Villoro, Luis 2000 ¿El fin del indigenismo? In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México, Vol. 1, 35–37. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.

Part III. Bilingualism and bilingual education

Chapter 8 Local language promoters and new discursive spaces: Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell Abstract This chapter focuses on uses of Nahuatl in the Malintzi region of the state of Tlaxcala during the last decades of the twentieth century, a period of rapid language loss and contradictory ideological stances towards the linguistic legacy. Although communities varied considerably, by 1980 the uses Mexicano were largely limited to adult generations, and to intimate spheres or traditional ritual contexts. Nevertheless, ethnographic observation in Mexicano communities and their schools, including several managed by a bilingual education program initiated in the mid 1980’s, revealed ways in which the native language use “surfaced” in unexpected contexts, or was promoted by teachers and other professionals the classroom and in other public contexts. The authors propose that the arrival of bilingual schools, as well as the general ideological ambience of the 1990’s – when movements for Indian Rights arose in Mexico – has opened a discursive space for the discussion of language shift and revitalization, creating possibilities for local language promoters to publicly encourage use of the native language, both within schools and significantly, in other community contexts. Although these efforts do not yet signal a trend towards reversal, they support the notion that effective language revival would require the commitment of a group of local speakers who actively engage in changing the current of existing linguistic ideologies and practices.

1. Introduction This article is concerned with the presence and uses of Nahuatl, locally known as Mexicano, in schools and other contexts in the Malintzi region of Tlaxcala, which is marked by rapid language shift towards Spanish between the 1980’s and the present (Hill and Hill 1986; Hill and Hill 1999). Drawing on extensive ethnographic observations in multiple communities and schools, we note some of the changes brought about during the past

250 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

decades. A number of events which rendered native language use in public, non-intimate spaces more common, led more speakers to openly admit and refer to their knowledge of Mexicano. We argue that these events opened a new discursive space for the discussion of the Mexicano language and to new uses among speakers in public contexts. The emergence of these new discursive spaces is due on large part to local language promoters working both through and outside local public schools. Many of these language promoters are teachers either in the regular school system or in the recently established (between 1982 and 1988) Tlaxcalan bilingual schools. Others are local residents, university students or professionals who openly value the language, engage in limited efforts at promoting the local language, collect legends and disseminate them, write texts in the native language, organize native language activities for children, and record oral tradition and local history. These language promoters, or potential reversing language shifters (also known as RLSers in reversing language shift theory) (cf. Fishman 1991), have undertaken actions both within schools and in places such as community cultural centers and the local Catholic churches. While the emergence of these new discursive spaces documented herein probably does not yet constitute a trend in reversing language shift, it does show that the issue of language shift and revitalization is being considered, discussed and acted upon within Tlaxcalan indigenous communities. Additionally, the changes may reflect the positive stance towards the native languages created after the indigenous movements that arose in the early 1990’s at a national level.1 Given this background, rather than centering our studies on the official language policies and the bilingual education program discourses, we have chosen to privilege a view from the communities and schools themselves, thus capturing both grassroots efforts and reactions, and the uses, effects, and appropriations of public discourse and official policy in the Malintzi region.2

2. Language use in the Malintzi region During the periods in which we did our fieldwork, use of Mexicano was still widespread and valued in some contexts and among many speakers in the Malintzi region. Census figures have certainly underestimated the actual use of Mexicano in the towns on the skirts of the Malintzi volcano, particularly of Contla, Chiautempan, and San Pablo del Monte. In the 1970’s most adults in the outlying towns of these counties still spoke

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 251

Mexicano in their everyday transactions, as well as in intimate and household spheres (Hill and Hill 1986). In fact, at that time Hill and Hill (1986) study registered a certain “purism” among the younger bilingual generations, many working in factories outside of their communities, who criticized their elders for the use of Spanish loan words, albeit grammatically adapted to Mexicano speech. Indeed, there is great ambivalence and ideological multiplicity here regarding who is a “good Mexicano speaker,” and indeed, who can be considered a “speaker” at all (Hill 1993; Messing 2003a). In the 1980s, Mexicano was consistently heard primarily among the elder generations, and rarely between children and parents in the presence of outsiders. Today families and even individuals vary according to their knowledge of the language and their desire to use it. Mexicano language use has been limited to the intimate sphere, with the exception of a few ritual spaces, such as wedding ceremonies. Particular towns and barrios (neighborhoods) differ in their degrees of language shift, but each shows evidence of a break in inter-generational language transmission; serious language shift is occurring in this region (Garza Cuarón and Lastra 1991; Hill and Hill 1986; Nava Nava 2003). In the county seats of Chiautempan, Contla and San Pablo del Monte, Spanish has largely replaced Mexicano. However, their subordinate towns and barrios have shown a range of regional differences in the maintenance or loss of Mexicano language use (Hill and Hill 1986; Nutini 1968; Messing 2003a,b). According to a study in Xaltipan, a town in the Contla county (Nava Nava 2003), many parents of the generation of the 1960s and 1970s also decided to protect their children from the humiliations associated with “being Indian”, particularly on entering school, and by deliberately choosing to prevent their children from learning the language. Many taught their children Spanish as a first language, or at least exposed them to its use in other contexts, and dissuaded their use of Mexicano in the home and community. These children grew up with a “passive” knowledge of the language, which allowed them to understand conversation among adults and with their monolingual grandparents, though they tended to answer in Spanish. Some of them, including Refugio Nava Nava, the author of this study, recovered an “active” use of the language after becoming adults.3 Nava Nava’s work illustrates the great diversity in language use and attitudes among residents of the many towns and barrios of Contla, with less Mexicano language use being attributed to those who live in the center of

252 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

the county, and more among residents of towns on the outskirts of town, and with a trend towards greater linguistic conservatism as one travels up the volcano to higher elevation towns. The process of acquiring Spanish and Mexicano as a first language used (actively or passively [cf. Flores Farfán 1999]) in different social contexts was ongoing, and was not always a linear process. There is a great deal of variation in language use even within the same family in Mexicano speaking regions, and the reality of household practices is difficult to discern (Messing 2003a). At the same time some towns, not all of them geographically remote, resisted and maintained the readily observable use of Mexicano with pride, such as San Isidro Buensuceso, and to a lesser extent in San Francisco Tetlanohcan, and San Pedro Tlalcuapan. San Isidro Buensuceso, a town of San Pablo del Monte municipality, has proven to be particularly resistant to language shift, and children are still predominantly fluent Mexicano speakers.4 By the 1980’s, such communities as Ocotlan and Axcotla del Monte were already in the process of assuring their children a native competence in Spanish and moving toward passive competence in Mexicano. The variation within the towns and barrios in the county of San Bernardino Contla itself is striking. The generalized patterns of language use are that the more remote communities on the higher reaches of the Malintzi tend towards greater maintenance of Mexicano language use. This occurs across generational and socio-economic class lines; therefore, towns such as Ocotlan, San Jose, Cuahutenco, and Barrio La Luz have maintained a stronger use of Mexicano than the head-town and other sections of Contla on lower elevations (See Map 1). Thus, overall in the region it has been possible to find speakers whose linguistic and communicative competences can be located at Stages 4, 5, 6 and 7 along Fishman’s (1991, 2001) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), taking into account the twenty-year span we consider in this overview. More precisely, there is a range of language use in and out of institutions that is most consistent with Fishman’s (1991) Stages 6 and 7, with elements of Stage 5. We note that while it allows us to compare the Malintzi to other Mexican and international ethno-linguistic situations, one of the challenges of the GIDS scale in describing the Malintzi region is that there is no absolute separation that can be made between public vs. private and formal vs. informal uses of languages in these communities, and no way to test for number of speakers who are semi- or quasi-speakers of the language (cf. Dorian 1972 and Flores Farfán 1999).

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 253

It is also important to highlight the fact that Tlaxcala is a rather atypical case in Mexico, as we shall show. The 1910 census data placed over half of the state’s population in the category of “Indian,” yet the Malintzi region was not targeted as an “Indian region” when the post-revolutionary “indigenista” institutions and programs were founded. Although the schools attended a great number of monolingual or bilingual Mexicano speakers, and even many of the teachers were native bilinguals, they were bound by the common Spanish curriculum and textbooks. Although schools with bilingual personnel were first introduced by the Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) in 1955, they were late in arriving to Tlaxcala. Formal bilingual preschools and primary schools, managed by the national ministry’s General Directorate of Indigenous Education (DGEI) were only founded in a few communities during the mid-1980s, and did not have an official program oriented towards teaching Nahuatl until the early 1990s. By then, almost all towns and barrios had regular state or federal primary schools, bound by the common national Spanish curriculum and textbooks. (For the location of the State of Tlaxcala and neighboring states, see Cifuentes and Moctezuma, Map 1; for data on SIL by State, growth rate and bilingualism, growth rate and language, growth of bilingualism by language, by use of language in the home domain, and by age groups, see Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Cifuentes and Moctezuma, in this volume).

3. Comparing ethnographic studies: The authors’ research in the region This contribution attempts to compare and place in historical perspective instances of use of Mexicano which the authors were able to document in two separate periods of ethnographic fieldwork. It explores uses of the language in the context of “regular” schools during the 1980s, and in the context of “bilingual” schools in the late 1990s and several communities. The comparison shows a shift from the utter denial or sub-surface use of the language in educational spheres in the 1980s, towards the contradictory ideologies which surfaced and permeated public discourse on the language in the late 1990s. It further elaborates on the emergence of discursive spaces and the work of local language promoters. The following gives a brief summary of the general research undertaken in the region by each author. Additionally, both authors were able to take part in and/or witness some of the alternative contexts for language revitalization activities, between 1999 and 2004.

Map 1. The Malintizi Volcano area of study

254 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 255

Approaching various aspects of both classroom and school-community relationships, educational anthropologist Elsie Rockwell conducted and coordinated fieldwork in several schools and communities in Contla and Chiautempan. Results of these studies (Rockwell 1995) uncovered the huge gaps between the highly centralized and uniform Mexican educational policy and actual practices observed in classrooms. Teachers translated the national curriculum and textbooks into classroom discourse and activities with a considerable degree of diversity. Rockwell considers the actual school practices as resulting from institutional constraints on teachers’ work, diverse teacher biographies, local initiatives, preferences and pressures, and the effects of intertwined cultural threads and historical trends influencing school cultures (Rockwell 1996, 1999). Some of these currents are reflected in the ways teachers appropriated and used the official textbooks, and reformulated their contents in ways accessible to the students (Rockwell 2000). The ethnographic research of linguistic anthropologist Jacqueline Messing was done over several stages between 1996, 2002, and 2004 in the counties of Contla and San Pablo del Monte. Her study focused on the ideological multiplicity present in these communities with regard to language use, identity, and economics, emerging in local conversation about language and about bilingual schooling. Through this comparative study of language shift and linguistic ideology in two communities, Messing identified multiple language ideologies that surface in everyday discourses (Messing 2003a): (1) Salir adelante [forging ahead], improving one’s socioeconomic position; (2) Menosprecio [disrespect], denigration of indigenous identity, too often stigmatized; and (3) Pro-Indígena [proindigenous], promoting a positive attitude towards indigenous people. She found that socio-economic progress is discussed by Malintzi residents through ideologically-laden discursive stances, which are a combination of denigrative and/or pro-indigenous perspectives. This interplay of alternating denigration and promotion of indigenous language and identity is present in these communities and also reflected in discourses about local DGEI bilingual schooling from observations and interviews with teachers, language promoters and families. This research sought to compare local ideologies of language with the reality of the “bilingual” schools and addressed the questions: How did teachers and students incorporate and interpret the national state-sanctioned curriculum? How did local discourses of bilingualism compare with discourses of bilingual education?

256 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

An implicit and explicit ideology of Mexicano language use is that its speakers, particularly in the Contla County, feel that Mexicano usage belongs to social contexts of intimacy. With bilingual schooling, in a way Mexicano was forced into the non-intimate and very public sphere of the school, where speakers may or may not have social or familial/ritual ties with each other outside schooling. Additionally, the widespread community menosprecio and ambivalence towards transmitting the ancestral language, and fostering an identity that is markedly “indigenous” to outsiders is something that has made the idea of bilingual education suspect or seemingly inappropriate to some Malintzi residents (Messing 2003a).

3.1. Research perspectives Our research projects were both motivated by a desire to document rather than judge what happened in schools, and to view schooling as consisting of a complex whole comprising local appropriations of national policies and realities (Rockwell 1998) in the lives of children and adults within a particular socio-cultural and socio-linguistic context. We were each interested in the diverse and unpredictable linguistic practices that occur in community schools, as the highly structured national curriculum is locally re-elaborated and represented when teachers and students come together in the classroom. Thus, we describe the contexts in which the indigenous language “surfaced” in classrooms and other school contexts, at times as casual remarks and at times as deliberate instructional interventions. In the regular (non-DGEI) school system during the 1980s, there was evidence of a veiled use of Mexicano among bilingual teachers and students, often in the absence of external observers, but also as a means used among students to evade a monolingual teacher’s vigilance. In some classrooms, there was a more open use of Mexicano terms in instructional sequences. Within the bilingual schools observed in the late 1990s, still largely bound by the national curriculum, teachers used Mexicano intermittently and inconsistently, and the language was treated as a subject rather than a means of communication. However, despite the many constraints on their work, some bilingual teachers deliberately engaged in attempts at local language revitalization, both in school and non-school contexts.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 257

4. Indigenismo, schooling and Tlaxcala as a special case In the Malintzi region, the local variety of Nahuatl known as Mexicano was still dominant in daily oral transactions in and among communities, and to some extent was still written (for letters, verses, speeches and such), on the eve of the Revolution of 1910.5 After 1920, the winning faction established a centralized federal government based on a single political Party, which successfully incorporated and controlled the different sectors of the country’s population through a network of official unions, corporate sectors and governing agencies. For some reason, the Mexicanos of Tlaxcala were considered only under the category of campesinos (peasants), and were not approached by the official indigenist institutions (Hill 1991), designed to link communities to the central state by using bilingual promoters as brokers (Modiano 1984). Later, the Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) (1948) bypassed Tlaxcala, as it set up centers in remoter, more “Indian,” regions of the country, in a deliberate attempt to “integrate them into society” and establish a homogenous national culture and language. By mid-twentieth century, for most politicians and scholars in Mexico, Indian communities were a thing of the past in Tlaxcala. Then, a handful of anthropologists (cf. Nutini 1968; Reyes García; Hill and Hill 1986, among others) began to describe the continuities of social organization, ritual life, and language use that linked Mexicanos of the Malintzi region to their legacy, in spite of their early incorporation into the commercial and political life of the nation. The history of formal schooling in the Indian towns of central Tlaxcala, as in other regions, predates national independence, with the compulsory founding of elementary schools for boys charged to the “community funds” collected and administered by the colonial authorities (Tanck de Estrada 1999). These schools survived with difficulty the turbulent postIndependence period, but were reestablished when the Liberal Party came into power. However, during the thirty-year period (1880–1910) dominated by president Porfirio Díaz, the Tlaxcalan governor favored urban schools and inaugurated schools for girls, while closing the smaller one-room schools in the indigenous barrios. After the Mexican Revolution (1910– 1921) the newly founded Secretaría de Educación Pública (hereinafter SEP) set up a parallel school system, sending teachers to many towns and rural communities of Tlaxcala (Rockwell 1994 and 1996). Both before and after the revolutionary period, documents show that official educational discourse systematically ignored the cultural and linguistic realities of children in

258 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

Malintzi schools. Old timers recall that school teachers often punished students who were caught speaking Mexicano, although it has been documented that during the first half of the twentieth century a few of the local teachers did use the language to communicate with monolingual parents and students (Hernández Hernández 1987). By the 1970’s, the Instituto Nacional Indigenista’s preparatory preschools, founded to teach Spanish to Indian children before they entered regular schools, had become a full-fledged indigenous primary school system in the Secretaría de Educación Pública. There, the General Directorate of Indigenous Education (later DGEI) undertook an extensive program of setting up schools with native para-professionals or promoters6 and bilingual teachers who had been through regular normal schools. The group of noted anthropologists and linguists7 then in charge of the agency defined a policy that explicitly countered the previous “direct Castilianization” method, and advocated a transitional model, with the use of bilingual primers, to be produced by selected bilingual teachers working with linguists, as a bridge towards immersion in the all-Spanish curriculum, common to all national schools (Bertely 1998; Brice Heath 1972; Hidalgo 1994; PattheyChávez 1994). Significantly, Tlaxcala was again bypassed; the one exception was the general boarding school in San Pablo Apetatitlán for indigenous students from various regions. The DGEI assumed control over this school in 1970, replacing monolingual teachers with teachers trained in the bilingual program. Similar schools existed throughout the country and had been notorious for their prohibition of native language use. In fact, most of the DGEI’s incoming teachers at that time had finished their primary schooling in the boarding school system, often thereby severing vital links with their communities and acquiring little more than a profound cultural alienation, although some were later to become the most ardent defenders of bicultural and bilingual policies and legislation (cf. Varese 1983; Valiñas 1987; Bonfil Batalla 1994). The Apetatitlan School served older students, both from Tlaxcala and from other indigenous regions. Given the linguistic diversity, even those teachers who were willing to use the native language could do little to promote it. Thus, the Castilianization approach continued to prevail, although some teachers did allow students to talk among themselves in their languages.8 By then, parents in the nearby Malintzi towns had access to a variety of urban primary schools,9 and preferred to keep their children at home, although some did send older ones to the boarding school to facilitate their entry into the teaching corps.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 259

In 1982, the DGEI set up an office in Tlaxcala and charged it with training the first generation of bilingual local “promoters,” para-professional teachers (generally with secondary schooling completed), prepared to establish pre-schools. The original boarding school staff promoted the incorporation of the Malintzi area to the DGEI system, arguing that Nahuatl indeed persisted in the region. Professional interests were also in play; the move meant union control of positions in a new school district, with easy access to higher education, and thus it attracted bilingual teachers from neighboring states. In 1985, the DGEI began to establish its own primary schools, singling out some of the more remote towns of barrios where the use of the language was deemed to be still alive among the younger generations. These schools were primarily required to teach the national curriculum, although bilingual teachers were “allowed” to use and foster the native language. DGEI schools coexist alongside the previous school systems, and often draw their students from the same communities. By then, the official DGEI policy and discourse, drawn up in the national office by a strong group of bilingual teachers, had become considerably more ‘radical’ on paper. The new programs challenged the aims of cultural integration and the transitional model that lurked behind the initial steps towards bilingual education. By spelling out a policy that bowed to linguistic and cultural pluralism, these central office teams not only were adopting international trends, but they were also defending their professional niche in the national educational system. In practice, however, most teachers in the system still carried the legacy of Castilianization into their classrooms; few actually used the native language texts. Given the teacher allocation practices, teachers were often assigned to particular regions where many did not even speak the native language of their students. This “divergence between the formal and the real” has been a constant in the Mexican system of indigenous education (Calvo Pontón and Donnadieu Aguado 1992; Bertely 1998). Writing about Quechua regions in the Andes, Hornberger (2000) documents a similar type of “ideological paradox.” Luykx (1999) describes a similar process in Bolivia, noting a strong divergence between professional bilingual staff and the indigenous communities. Indeed the community ideological paradox is one that surfaces within schools that are both national and local institutions. In 1993, the government’s legal framework underwent an additional shift: after decades of a uniform national curriculum, a new Education Law favored the differentiation of elementary school programs and the production of alternative curricula and materials. The official recognition of cul-

260 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

tural pluralism influenced the discourse of teacher training and sustained efforts to produce native-language texts for the bilingual schools during the 1990s. Nevertheless, no official texts had been produced for Tlaxcalan Mexicano by 2000,10 although several were being drafted locally and pending official approval from the Secretaría de Educación Pública through the DGEI. In most schools the bilingual teachers still used the national texts. There are at present three concurrent attempts to write local Mexicano language textbooks in the state of Tlaxcala. Some teachers – local language promoters – have written their own materials for use in their classrooms.

5. The surfacing of Mexicano in the regular (non-DGEI) schools of the region: 1980s–early 1990s The practice of utter denial of Mexicano in educational discourse in the state was still present when co-author Elsie Rockwell began ethnographic research on teaching practices in several schools of the Contla and Chiautempan counties in the 1980’s. However, after some time in the field, signs of oral use of the local language did begin to emerge in the schools. Upon inquiry, some monolingual teachers revealed that their students sometimes used Mexicano among themselves, to avoid being understood. In Ocotlan, the barrio of Contla highest on one side of the Malintzi volcano, children would at times use the language in the playground. In one instance, a group of girls were “playing house,” and the one who was cast as “the grandmother” produced Mexicano phrases seemingly associated with her role. On the other hand, these same children did not reveal their knowledge of the language within the school setting. The force that separated domains of usage of each language seemed to be effective, at this time and in these schools, in excluding Mexicano from the formal classroom activities. The language situation was particularly interesting in state schools, as in these cases many teachers were locally born, and spoke fluent local Spanish. Those teachers who did speak or understand Mexicano could choose to reveal it or not when conversing with outsiders. Despite the menosprecio ideological stance, in our interviews at least three teachers spontaneously claimed local Mexicano ancestry with pride. Those teachers who knew the language normally did not use it in schools, at least in the presence of the researcher. Little by little, in less formal gatherings, such as celebrations outside of the school context, it became obvious that many state teachers indeed did speak or at least understand Mexicano. At certain moments they

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 261

would intersperse their conversation with anecdotes, comments, and jokes in the language; this practice caused their peers no surprise, rather it seemed to strengthen their mutual identification in the face of outsiders. In classrooms, some teachers unassumingly resorted to local cultural knowledge, as when they told legends, particularly in relation to the Malintzi volcano, or when they narrated episodes of local history, such as the near-mythical founding of the towns or the famed passage of the Spanish conqueror Cortés and his men through the state. In these sequences, some state teachers tended to identify with their students by using an inclusive ‘we’ when talking of indigenous peoples. Other teachers, however, reflected the prevailing menosprecio ideological position, by referring to the indigenous past, in the third person, as a stage that had been superseded by colonial civilization and national progress. Thus one teacher, in comparing ancient practice with modern medicine, asked: “…do doctors nowadays still cure with herbs?” Students remained silent. Despite the general ideological ambiguity, by the early 1990s some of the “regular” schools did make a special effort to revalue and use the native language. Such was the case of the state school of Muñoztla, a barrio of Tlalcuapan, a town noted for its positive stance towards tradition.11 In this case, teachers censured students who “cursed” or “insulted each other” in Mexicano, yet promoted ceremonial uses of the language, for example, teaching children to sing the national anthem in Nahuatl. The most interesting finding, however, was that Mexicano words at times surfaced quite naturally in classes given by local teachers. Among these, in 1993 a sixth-grade class in the barrio of Muñoztla was most significant. After a visit to an experimental “ecological house”, the teacher reviewed the experience in rapid interaction with the group. During the hour-long session, the teacher used about a dozen Mexicano words to describe aspects of the environment and domestic space. The hour-long class cannot be summarized for lack of space,12 but the following exchanges, in which traditional steam baths, temazcales are being compared to the public steam baths in the region, are revealing. Excerpt 1: 1

Mtro. …entonces hay que estar desinfectando el baño (de vapor)... el baño ese... ese de temazcal... es muy saludable... porque [no necesita del vapor…

T.

…then, you have to keep on disinfecting the (steam) bath… the bath… the temazcal one… is very healthy…. because it doesn’t need steam…

262 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell 2

Aos

… noo...

3

Mtro.. ….si no que el mismo]… ¿cómo se llama?… xique… ¿no...?

4

Ao

5

Mtro. …debe ser así (lo dibuja)... el mismo xitle... [ chitle..

6

Ao

7

Mtro. no sé ] cómo se dice.. . xitle... ¿dónde se pisa?

8

Aos

aha... sí…

sí... xitle!.. (gritan)

ah… sí…

Ss

… noo...

T..

… rather its own…what is it called? … xique… no...?

S

aha... yes…

T

it must be like this (drawing it on the board)… the very xitle… chitle...

S

yes... xitle! (shouting)

T.

I don´t know how to say it... xitle… where you stand?

Ss

…ah… yes…

A few minutes later, he again uses a Mexicano term. Excerpt 2: 1

Mtro. y… pobre ciudad ¿verdad?… todo lleno de humo... de... [ ese sí es... humo de petróleo… ¿no?

T.

(referring to public baths )… …and… poor city, right?… all full of smoke…from…[ that is petroleum smoke… no?

2

Ao

S.

…yes…

3

Mtro. ... del... el petróleo… del chapopote que luego ahoga...

T.

… from …the petroleum… from the pitch that sometimes suffocates…

4

Ao

... echa el chapopote...

S.

… it throws up pitch…

5

Mtro. ... echa el chapopote...]… luego últimamente las este... las... calderas... algunas ya son de gas ¿verdad?… que son peligrosas... si no... pero allá en la (.....) ahí existen algunos baños que tienen el... la caldera de chapopote... y cuando se apaga... n’ ombre !… hunde toda la ciudad (risas).. o sea... la...los baños de las casas que están ahí cerca... sí... contamina demasiado... porque a veces hasta... pasa a tiznar la ropa que ya lavaron las mujeres... e... llega el humito ese... pero

T.

it throws up pitch…]…then recently.. the …uh… the caldrons…some are now gasburning, right?… they are dangerous… yes…no?… but… there in the … there are some baths that have a pitch caldron and when it is turned off… no… man! …it smothers the whole city (Ss laugh)… in other words… the… the baths… the houses that are near them… yes…it pollutes an awful lot… because at times it even…goes as far as to soil the clothes that the women have washed…uh… that smoke comes down… but it comes with huixtli

sí...

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 263 llega con... huixtli... que le nombran ¿no?… ¿cuichtli?… 6

Aos

sí!

7

Mtro. … o este... de esas... bolitas de... de humo (hollín) que llegan... se pegan en la ropa... ya se manchó la ropa… o sea... de nada sirve... y a veces hasta hace uno corajes... pero pues ya qué ¿verdad... ?

(soot)…what they call… isn´t it that?…cuichtli?… Ss.

yes!

T

… or uh…those little bits of…of smoke (ashes) that fall… and stick onto the clothes… so the clothes are stained… it’s no use… sometimes you even get angry… but what can you do… right?

In this sequence, for example, the teacher uses xitle and cuichtli; in both cases he tries alternating the Nahuatl phonemes for /š / and /þ/, and is corrected by some students. By testing the pronunciation he may have been distancing himself from full-fledged Mexicano speakers, nonetheless, he did not offer a Spanish equivalent in either case. During the class the teacher also used or accepted numerous Nahuatl loan words, such as chapopote, chilpayate, and temazcal, which are common in the Spanish of central Mexico. In neither case did the students seem to object the use of these terms. In this case Nahuatl was not treated as a target language but rather a means for communication with the student. Considering the whole period 1980–1993, some schools seemed to be more permeable to the local language than others, depending upon the degree of language shift in the communities, or certain pro-indígena ideologies in towns such as Muñoztla. The local teachers’ passive or active acceptance of its use, despite official prohibition, was also significant in these moments when Nahuatl was heard in the classroom. 6. The use of Mexicano in bilingual schools in the late 1990s and early 2000s A decade later, language shift had advanced still further in the region, although the patterns of language use were still irregular. When Messing did her research a multitude of patterns of use and ideological stances about use of Mexicano and local identity, surfaced among members of two communities, including families, teachers and students connected to the system of bilingual primary schools.13 The official curriculum in the centralized bilingual Tlaxcala schools at the time stated that each grade should undertake one-half an hour of

264 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

Nahuatl study a week; this is very little time allotted to what should otherwise be a significant activity. Instances of bilingual education that took place in the classroom as Messing observed them (Messing 2003a) included the teaching and practice of lexical items, such as colors, parts of the body, and animals, phrases, songs and poems, and the teaching and memorization of the National and State anthems in their Mexicano translations. Occasionally, teachers gave students the task of finding out a list of Mexicano words or sayings from their families. In some classrooms, teachers took it upon themselves to spend more time than this, however the activities remain restricted so that they do not constitute a full bilingual education program.14 In San Isidro since the children are all actively fluent in both languages, the observer heard Mexicano spoken all the time, but predominantly in student-to-student conversation, whether in class or during recess. Students would address their teachers in either or both languages. Teachers addressed their students in both languages, but primarily in Spanish; a common communicative pattern was for a student to address a teacher in Mexicano, with the teacher replying in Spanish. Several teachers require students to learn to write Mexicano, giving them writing assignments that correspond to their grade level; this too is up to the will of the individual teacher. These interested teachers perceive the educational goal to be biliteracy, although they do not have materials to support the teaching of biliteracy, unless they create them themselves, which a few do.15 An example of a song that students learned for a special event, a dance and poetry contest within the indigenous education division is the following: Y’onic itac ze zitlalli teretzallan hualquistihuitz y onic itac no MALLINTZIN tlacatzallan hualhuetzcatihuitz la, la, la…. I saw a star in the middle of the mountains coming out I saw my Malintzi [mountain] in the middle of laughing people la, la, la….. [no author/date; capital letters in original]

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 265

The local-ness of this song is clear, and serves as an example of the character of these schools that surfaces within the curriculum. While all Tlaxcalan primary schools in the indigenous system are taught by local teachers and have a local character, the explicit surfacing of Mexicano, as in this example would be less likely happen in a non-designated bilingual school. In the observed school in the Contla municipal county, for a few years teachers met after school to plan curriculum units in Mexicano. The teachers who are completely fluent in Mexicano – and comfortable selfidentifying as such – ran the workshop, and offered support to their colleagues. Afterwards the teachers used the materials they had developed during this period, and the more interested ones continued on their own. In each school there were at least two teachers who spent more time each week with Mexicano in their classes. A Mexicano lesson often involved the teaching and practice of lexical items, the memorization and practice of poetry, and practice of conversational phrases such as in the following classroom example, from a school in which a teacher introduces Mexicano as a classroom subject. T: A ver, alguien se acuerda como como este… le preguntamos a alguien cómo se llama, a ver. Student 1 [S1] repeats: ¿Cómo se llama? T: Aha. S2: Ay, esto yo no me acuerdo. Yo me acuerdo de… S3: Quenin tocayotiya’? Teacher [marking pauses to highlight pronunciation]: Que-nin [pause] timo [pause] to-ca-yo-ti-ya.’ Quenin timo tocayotiya? Several students repeat this at once: Quenin timo tocayotiya Teacher: ¿Quién quiere preguntarle a alguien? Students: !Yo! !Yo! T: Let’s see, does someone remember how how um… we ask someone what their name is, let’s see. Student 1 [S1] repeats: What’s their name? T: Aha. S2: Ay, this I don’t remember. I remember… S3: Quenin tocayotiya’? [What is your name/ what are you called?] Teacher [marking pauses to highlight pronunciation]: Que-nin [pause] timo [pause] to-ca-yo-ti-ya’. Quenin timo-tocayotiya? Several students repeat this at once: Quenin timo-tocayotiya Teacher: ¿Who wants to ask someone? Students: me! me!

266 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

The students in this example have a playful attitude as they guess and practice these expressions, however limited the linguistic goals are for this activity. The class continued repeating conversational phrases for about forty minutes, and spent some time discussing the construction of honorifics, adding -tsin to students’ names. This discourse sample was transcribed from a recording done by a teacher who regularly incorporated Mexicano into the classroom. This teacher has also, for instance, used a lottery game in class, which requires matching pictures to Mexicano lexical items. The matrix language in this excerpt is Spanish, rather than Mexicano, thus linguistically framing the teaching of Mexicano as the target language within the context of the colonial language (for discussion of this phenomenon see Meek, Messing and Hill 2000). This classroom use of the official language, even while the practice of the native language is attempted has been documented in other “bilingual education” classrooms (cf. Calvo Pontón 1992, Hidalgo 1994). In the above example the teacher’s way of asking “Quenin timo-tocayotiya?” (What is your name?) is calqued on the Spanish “¿Cómo se llama?” (What are you called?), rather than the locally salient “Tlen motoca?” The teacher is a fluent speaker of the local variant of Mexicano, making this classroom choice of phrase puzzling, and yet another example of the ideological multiplicity that pervades language use in community and schooling. The teachers who are most dedicated to the goal of making space for Mexicano in the classroom tend to be the ones who are most studentcentered in their teaching methods. For instance, such teachers send their students home with the assignment of asking their families for words, expressions and sayings in Mexicano, and they have told me that students will bring their own questions about Mexicano expressions to school, to find out what they mean. The teachers who allot the space in their classroom time for Mexicano on a regular basis, and have a positive attitude about Mexicano in favor of a menosprecio ideological stance find that their students will come to class volunteering new expressions heard at home. Some students delighted in telling their teachers the swear words in Mexicano they had learned at home; the children thus socialize each other in this way. Several students of these specific teachers came up to me on several occasions to say that they understood or used Mexicano with certain relatives in their families, admitting to a certain linguistic and communicative competence generally avoided by their peers (Messing 2003a).16

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 267

7. Bilingual education reconsidered The aforementioned instances of Mexicano language use take place within a linguistically ideologically complex community and educational system that does not support its teachers with sufficient materials, nor with adequate training to support a complete bilingual education. Calvo Pontón and Donnadieu Aguado (1992) have pointed to a clear contradiction in Bilingual-Bicultural Education in Mexico between that which is formal (what is supposed to happen in schools, according to its public discourse) and that which is real (what actually happens in classrooms). Consider for instance the following quote, from their research in bilingual schools in a Mazahua region of Central Mexico: If reality were to present itself another way; that is to say, if both bilingual bicultural education and indigenous teachers were true agents of change that managed to achieve the official goal of “imparting education to the most marginal sectors of the country with the goal of achieving their social mobility and their integration to the economic life of the country,” we could have results that would indicate substantial changes in the structure of the national system. It is in this sense that we can speak of a divergence between the formal and the real. (Calvo Pontón and Donnadieu Aguado 1993:173; our translation)

These authors have found that there is a difference between the ideologically-laden official discourse, and the practice of most teachers, and that, unlike some individual indigenous teachers, the national system itself is not yet a true agent of change for language revitalization. One teacherinterviewee (Messing 2003a) spoke of hacerlo real, of making the dream of bilingual education real, and he describes the need for more time and support to make this take place. The above quote serves to summarize an educational situation that is replete with contradictions, between stated objectives and actual schooling practices, in the region discussed by Calvo Pontón and Donnadieu Aguado, as well as in Tlaxcala.17 Messing’s study of language, identity and schooling offers a detailing of the myriad of constraints on teachers, both ideological and structural in nature, including the handful of teachers who were particularly dedicated to the maintenance of their language, through the bilingual schools under the supervision of the DGEI.

268 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

7.1. The politics of bilingual education and local language promoters in and out of the educational system It is particularly revealing to consider local bilingual teachers not only as teachers, but also, and perhaps above all, as townspeople involved in a number of other private and public activities. We think that it is from this perspective that it is possible to view some local bilingual teachers, as the local language promoters that Fishman (1991, 2001) tells us exist in all sociolinguistic situations undergoing language shift. Based on interviews with elders, Rockwell considers that even during the years in which Mexicano was banned from schools, there were teachers who thought otherwise, and who both used the language with students and parents, and took on active roles in promoting its maintenance in intimate and ceremonial spheres. A few in fact wrote or published verses and speeches in the Nahuatl, for private or public occasions. In the 1990’s the teachers within the DGEI bilingual system who were most committed to using Mexicano, had various resources: strong ties with local children and families, access to facilities, knowledge and special interest in the issue of language and education, and connections to other local intellectuals (i.e., university students, writers, community leaders). Messing found that many Tlaxcalan teachers who are within the bilingual system itself are critical of what is possible within this bureaucracy, but at the same time among them are the handful of teachers who spend many hours developing Mexicano curriculum for their school to supplement the national one. They are “within the system” and see its problems, but have little choice (mainly due to their economic circumstances) but to continue working under the existing conditions. Paradoxically, they are also often “recruited” by central offices for such tasks as teacher training and attending national courses or conferences. However, for the most part, their extraordinary efforts to make the “formal” goals become realities are not rewarded, and are often sabotaged. A focus on these local language promoters is enlightening because they are the voices that have been underrepresented in the linguistic and anthropological literature on Mexican bilingual education. Consider for instance the following interview excerpt from a local teacher and language promoter. Maestra Lidia has written her own text and spends much time preparing work in Mexicano for her students, who are from the Malintzi region with the most public use of Mexicano. In Messing’s observations, Lidia’s classroom had elements of bilingual education on a weekly basis. Her attitudes about policies on bilingual education are expressed below:

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 269 L: Bueno, pues una de las condiciones que tenemos y a lo mejor de las encomiendas que nos han dado así políticamente es la revaloración, el fomento para hablar la lengua Náhuatl. Sí, sobretodo revalorarla y, y este, lejos de decirle a los niños “no la hables,” pues este impulsar, bueno impulsar la lengua Náhuatl. Estar constantemente diciéndoles, bueno así casi, casi como “Tu lengua vale, habla.” Y es, forma parte de tu historia, de la historia de tus antepasados, en fin. Entonces creo que es una de las situaciones, de los retos bien grandes, pero que tenemos que enfrentarnos también a muchas otras cuestiones. Hay gente que ya no quiere hablar Náhuatl les... Aunque he notado que, de los años que he estado allá, sí ya existe un aprecio entre la gente de hablarla, de… no, ya no hay vergüenza como cuando nosotros llegamos, de no hablar. Ya no hay esa situación del principio “No hablo porque no sé,” “Yo sé hablar más español que Náhuatl.” Creo que ahora ya es una situación de orgullo, lo que yo he notado, el proceso que hacen ellos. De alguna manera, a lo mejor la educación bilingüe ha servido, pero no ha sido, yo creo que muy contundente para, para hacer todo, todo un trabajo en, de revaloración, de recuperación, de, de difusión inclusive. O sea, nos hace falta demasiado, estamos en pañales apenas [risas]. L. Okay, well one of the conditions that we have and maybe one of the tasks that have been given to us politically is revaluation, the fostering of speaking the Nahuatl language. Yes, overall to revalue/revalorize it and, and um, far from telling the children “don’t speak it,” well um to promote, well to promote the Nahuatl language. To be constantly telling them, well almost like, like “Your language has value/meaning, speak.” And it is, it forms a part of your history, of the history of your ancestors, that is. So I think that it is one of the situations, of the rather large challenges, but that we have to also confront many other issues. There are people that don’t want to speak Nahuatl anymore they… Although I have noticed that, from the years that I have been over there, yes, now there exists an appreciation among the people to speak it, of… no, there isn’t shame anymore like when we arrived, to not speak. There isn’t that situation from the beginning “I don’t speak because I don’t know,” “I know how to speak Spanish more than Nahuatl.” I think that now it’s a situation of pride, what I’ve noticed, the process that they go through. In some way, it’s probable that bilingual education has served [its purpose], but it hasn’t been, I think, very directly, in order to to do everything, a whole job of, of re-valorization, of recuperation, of, of including dissemination. That is, we are missing too much, we are barely in diapers. [laughter]. (cited in Messing 2003a).

Lidia’s comments suggest that the situation regarding Bilingual Bicultural or Intercultural Education is multi-faceted and while there is a lot of “just

270 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

discourse” to the practice of bilingual education--speeches about the importance of bilingual education--teachers like herself are investing substantial time to making the goals of bilingual education come true in actual practice. It is interesting to note that part of the DGEI discourse on bilingual education is reference to “lengua indígena” (indigenous language), and locally this translates to a favored usage of the term “Nahuatl,” with its fully recognized status as a language, rather than the locally used “Mexicano.” These language promoters begin their work in their individual classrooms, and by encouraging positive attitudes towards Mexicano from within the educational institution itself. This teacher’s comment summarizes the desire on the part of local teachers to make the idea and the official discourse of bilingual education more of a reality in their schools. The two main themes summarizing co-author Messing’s interviews (2003a) and observations in these institutions are valorar (valuing)18 and rescatar (rescuing). Interviewees were clear that the latter, reversal of language shift, may be an unrealistic goal, but most were generally optimistic that they can have an effect on their students by offering them a positive attitude towards Mexicano, thus constituting an alternative to a strong menosprecio (denigrative) language ideology. Dorian (1987) has suggested that language maintenance efforts, which may seem unlikely to succeed still have importance in local communities, and can still play some role in revitalization. Revitalization movements can offer an alternative to rampant negative linguistic attitudes, in at least some members of the communities undergoing substantial language shift. In the case of Tlaxcalan bilingual schools and the handful of language promoters who can be found there, they are using a variety of situations to open a new discursive space for Mexicano in their communities, with or without institutional support. This discursive space is not as likely to exist within the schools that are not charged with consciousness-raising regarding local language issues. A key issue here is that in Tlaxcalan towns with few employment options, young people who are attracted to learning and teaching, and interested in intellectual challenges will continue to favor becoming teachers over the readily available factory or commercial labor. In order to enter the teaching corps, they must prove some level of proficiency in Mexicano; some of those who become teachers in the bilingual system, either start out or will become actively interested in promoting the Mexicano language, regional history and oral traditions. This will provide a continuing source of future language promoters.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 271

The use and teaching of Mexicano is clearly highly restricted in the cited examples putting into question the role of the school in language revitalization (on this debate see Fishman 1991: 368–380; McCarty 1998; Nava Nava 2003). Despite the efforts of future bilingual teachers and other language promoters, Nava Nava (2003) finds that revitalization must come from within the community itself. This is a worthy but rather difficult goal, which implies above all an ideological shift, which some local language promoters are undertaking. Some indications of this possibility were observed during the 1990s. Co-author Messing organized a presentation in San Bernardino Contla for the Spanish translation of Hill and Hill’s (1999) book, Hablando Mexicano: La dinámica de una lengua sincrética en el centro de México with a panel consisting of several Tlaxcalan intellectuals, teachers and Mexicano speakers, scholars, and the authors and translators. The presentation drew a sizeable audience, and the interest expressed by many who were present offered a rare glimpse into a publicly legitimated event in which the value of the language and the importance of its use was proclaimed. After this event, a small group including teachers, other townspeople, some of them university students, and outside researchers (including Rockwell and Messing, and Flores Farfán) engaged in initiatives such as children’s workshops and exhibits, organized by a group called Matitlahtocan Mexicano: Let’s speak Mexicano: the committee for the promotion of the Mexicano language. Other initiatives have included a short weekly bilingual radio program, university student projects coordinated through the Casa de Cultura19, and several attempts to revive the use of Mexicano for Catholic masses in honor of the Patron Saints during annual celebrations. These special masses include the invitation of bilingual priests from neighboring towns, the collective writing of Nahuatl versions of the liturgy, and the training the church choir – formed entirely of young people – to sing an all-Mexicano repertoire; it is notable that during the mass some older women pray in Mexicano in a public way, as they were taught to do as children. In 2004 a local television show began airing a program in Mexicano. Although these are very small attempts in the face of an overwhelming current of language shift, they reveal the existence and importance of local language promoters, and the desire to promote public, non-intimate sphere events in which Mexicano language use is valued and encouraged. Through these contexts we see that linguistic knowledge – whether active or passive – crosses over the leaky boundaries between intimate and public contexts, and serves to contest the challenges made towards maintaining intergenerational ties by

272 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

the strong shift towards Spanish. Reversing language shift will only be possible through the work of these language promoters, and their work should be recognized.

8. Conclusions Our analysis has attempted to focus attention on local agency in the face of structure rather than the reverse; it has also considered the specific historical antecedents of schooling within this discussion of the potential impact that members of the recent bilingual schools in Tlaxcala might have towards a larger goal of reversing language shift. Finally, we have focused attention on local people’s practices, discourses, and on classroom activities embedded within their socio-cultural and ideological contexts. Drawing on research done in the Malintzi region, in different periods and schools, as well as with different objectives and tools, we have attempted to combine perspectives to offer a multi-faceted view of the issue of language shift and schooling. Observing present linguistic practices must take into account a century of official denial of the ancestral language, and a strong trend to prohibit its use in classrooms. The stigmatization associated with native language use ultimately led to generations of “passive speakers,” such as many students enrolled in Malintzi schools. However, even before the founding of bilingual schools, some local public school teachers (who were themselves bilingual) acknowledged and even conveyed a positive stance towards Mexicano to their students, despite official policies to the contrary. An important conclusion we draw is that the advent of bilingual schools in the region has influenced the discursive ambience surrounding the use of Mexicano. The relatively scarce and formal use of Mexicano in bilingual classrooms that we observed does not alone revitalize the language; however, the very existence of this usage, i.e., the presence of Mexicano in the non-intimate, public school classroom has brought about shifts in the conditions of discourse that make the emergence of new, more positive ways of thinking about the ancestral language possible. Viewed from a Tlaxcalan perspective, bilingual education in Tlaxcala has opened up a new discursive space, a space in which new practices have the potential of emerging where before they were either banned or considered inappropriate, particularly in presence of non-speakers, or outsiders. The attempts to “revalorar”, i.e., to foster a new respect for the language through bilingual schooling in the

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 273

Malintzi region – while not part of a comprehensive revitalization project – are part of the work that local language promoters, many of them local teachers, who are trying to undertake from within this new discursive space, the national schools and local communities in which they work. One of the important outcomes has been to show how some bilingual teachers, particularly those working in the bilingual schools established in the 1990’s, take on roles as language promoters that far exceed the minimal resources and exigencies of the bilingual curriculum, yet receive little official recognition. The simultaneous yet contrary trends towards language revitalization and language change are quite sensitive to even small variations in the ideological ambience surrounding indigenous languages, so that the appearance of language promoters may have considerable effect in shifting the subtle boundaries between the intimate spheres where Mexicano is used only in the presence of other speakers of the language, and the public sphere where its use may not only be openly admitted but proclaimed. This boundary has shifted with the advent of those bilingual teachers and professionals, working or studying in official institutions, who have undertaken language projects that reach beyond the requirements or expectations of their supervisors. We fully agree with a view of language revitalization that must emerge from the communities themselves; we also suggest that the efforts of the local language promoters must be recognized for their efforts, and supported whenever possible by scholars. The constraints placed on them by the national system loom large, but their impact as local reverse language shifters may begin to spark an ideological reversal in favor of positive attitudes towards local language, culture and education which, in our opinion, is a key first step.

Notes 1. These began in 1992, with the Quincentennial protests, reaching a climax with the 1994 and subsequent Zapatista uprisings and subsequent actions and marches, some of which were witnessed by the people of Contla and other Malintzi counties. One consequence was the organization of the independent National Indigenous Council which supported the struggle for an Indian Rights Law. 2. Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Margarita Hidalgo and the anonymous reviewers of our chapter for their insightful comments. J. Messing

274 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

wishes to thank the following institutions for support of this research: University of Arizona, Fulbright Commission, and the Spencer Foundation; She thanks Elise Rockwell, José Antonio Flores Farfán, Jane Hill, Refugio Nava Nava, Susan Philips, and Ramos Rosales Flores for important feedback. E. Rockwell acknowledges financial support from the Center for Research and Advanced Studies, and the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, for several stages of the research. She thanks colleagues and students who contributed to the empirical and theoretical work over the years, and particularly to Jacqueline Messing, Jose Antonio Flores Farfán, Leonor Cuamatzi, and Ramos Rosales. Thanks to Edgar Amador at the University of South Florida for editorial assistance. Refugio Nava Nava. Variación en el náhuatl de Tlaxcala: Los cuatro niveles de habla. Master’s thesis. Maestría en Lingüística Indoamericana. Centro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Mexico City. The high elevation of the location of this town makes it the most remote Mexicano speaking town in the state of Tlaxcala, which is likely a factor in its strong degree of language maintenance. Reference to the strength of the Nahuatl language during early Colonial rule (1521 to 1821) is a necessary point of departure. Considered an official language in the “Republic of Indians” of Tlaxcala, Nahuatl was used for innumerable legal and administrative transactions and documents, and survived the Spanish Crown’s unrelenting attempts to Castilianize (i.e., enforce the learning of Spanish) its New World colonies. Predictably, the early friars generally found it easier to learn and transcribe the native languages for their missionary enterprise than to teach Spanish to all Indians. Nevertheless, eighteenth-century colonial authorities progressively imposed the exclusive use of Spanish for official documents, and after Mexico’s Independence (1810-1821), Nahuatl was banned from the public sphere. Promoters were young bilingual members of the indigenous regions who had concluded at least primary schooling, often in the boarding schools. Their initial role was to take charge of the pre-school children and teach them Spanish. At the time, Anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán served as undersecretary of Culture, and Salomón Nahmad, José Rendón and Evangelina Arana de Swadesh figured as directors of the Dirección General de Educación Extraescolar en el Medio Indígena, later changed to Dirección General de Educación Indígena. Co-author Rockwell worked in the DGEI during the early 1970s, and organized regional in-service teacher training courses held at the Tlaxcala boarding school. She observed language use in the classes, though did not do systematic research on them at that time (Rockwell 1979:31–38). Some held reservations about the intentions of the boarding school and feared they would “sign their children over to the government.” Interview with Cleofas Galicia, of Contla, by E. Rockwell, in 1983.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 275 10. Text has been produced for the Puebla dialect of Mexicano; however due to the dialectal differences the text is rarely used in the observed schools. 11. In Tlalcuapan lived Andrés Bello, a former collaborator of Nutini and later scholar of Mexicano and native-language poet. Many of his family had also became teachers. 12. For further analysis of this lesson see Rockwell (2000). 13. Note that the schools under “primary education” and those designated as “bilingual schools” operate under the SEP (Secretaria de Educación Pública), however the bilingual schools are under the specific auspices of the “Directorate General for Indigenous Education;” both serve the same population. 14. Local teacher and scholar Romano Morales (1999: 59) points out that in Tlaxcalan bilingual schools the language has been relegated to cultural events, such as the Nahuatl poetry competitions, indigenous story-telling, and the teaching of the national and state anthems in Nahuatl, all of which are corroborated by my observations. He suggests that to remedy the situation of what he terms “ethnic education,” the sixth grade should be taught the alphabet, demonstratives, colors and phrases in conversation – all of this is intended to reaffirm the child’s ethnic identity, rather than to achieve fluency in the language. 15. Biliteracy in indigenous communities as an educational goal is itself a complex issue (Hornberger 1989). 16. Pellicer (1997) suggests that the oral tradition should be used as a resource in Mexican educational contexts, a point which is well taken. The language promoters have a strong sense of the importance of including this element in the classroom, and have on occasion experimented with it. 17. See Mallon (1995) on teachers in Mexico as local intellectuals, and Giroux (1988) on teachers as transformative intellectuals. 18. See Hill (2002) for an analysis of “hyperbolic valorization” a discursive process through which people (language advocates as well as native speakers) connect the notion of value with language. 19. Projects have included the development of a card game with Mexicano lexical items, an oral history project based on an undergraduate thesis, an effort on the part of a local Cultural center (Casa de Cultura) to connect university students interested in local lore, history and writing to interested students in primary schools for an after school program, and the voluntary establishment of a cultural center with resources on local language and history in Xaltipan.

References Bertely Busquets, María 1998 Educación indígena del siglo XX en México. Un siglo de educación en México. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

276 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo [1987] 1994 México profundo: Una civilización negada. Mexico: Grijalbo. Brice Heath, Shirley 1972 Telling Tongues. Language Policy in Mexico. From Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers College Press. Calvo Pontón, Beatriz and Laura Donnadieu 1992 ¿Una educación indígena bilingüe y bicultural? Capacitación diferencial de los maestros mazahuas. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Dorian, Nancy 1987 The value of language-maintenance efforts which are unlikely to succeed. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 57– 67. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991 Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters. 2001 Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Flores Farfán, José Antonio 1999 Cuatreros somos y toindioma hablamos: Contactos y conflictos entre el náhuatl y el español en el sur de México. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Francis, Norbert 1997 Malintzin: Bilingüismo y alfabetización en la Sierra de Tlaxcala (México). Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala. Garza Cuarón, Beatriz and Yolanda Lastra 1991 Endangered languages in Mexico. In Endangered Languages, Robert H. Robins and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), 93–134. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Giroux, H. 1988 Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Hernández Hernández, Claudio 1987 El trabajo escolar de un maestro rural. Los maestros y la cultura nacional, 1920–1952. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública. Hidalgo, Margarita 1994 Bilingual education, nationalism and ethnicity in Mexico. Language Problems and Language Planning 18(3): 185–207.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 277 Hill, Jane H. 1978 Language death, language contact, and language evolution. In Approaches to Language. Anthropological Issues, W.C. McCormack and S. A. Wurm. (eds.), 45–78. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. 1991 In ne:ca gobierno de Puebla: Mexicano penetrations of the Mexican state. In Indians, Nation-States and Culture. Greg Urban and Joel Sherzer (eds.), 72–94. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1993 Structure and practice in language shift. In Progression and Regression in Language: Sociocultural, Neuropsychological, and Linguistic Perspectives, Kenneth Hyltenstam and Åke viberg (eds.), 68–93. Cambridge: University Press. 2002 “Expert Rhetorics" in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is Listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12 (2): 119–133. Hill, Jane H. and Kenneth Hill 1986 Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of a Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1999 Hablando mexicano: La dinámica de una lengua sincrética en el centro de México (Translated by José A.Flores Farfán and Gerardo López-Cruz, Trans.). Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Hornberger, Nancy. H. 1989 Haku yachaywasiman: la educación bilingüe y el futuro del quechua en Puno. (Let’s Go to School: Bilingual Education and the Future of Quechua in Puno.) Lima: Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno. 2000 Bilingual education policy and practice: Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 31(2): 173–201. Luykx, Aurolyn 1999 The Citizen Factory: Schooling and Cultural Production in Bolivia. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mallon, Florencia 1995 Peasant and Nation: The Making of Post-colonial Mexico and Peru. Berkeley: University of California Press. McCarty, Teresa 1998 Schooling, resistance, and American Indian languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 132: 27–41. Meek, Barbra, Jacqueline Messing, and Jane Hill 2000 Framing indigenous languages as secondary to matrix languages. Paper presented to the Linguistic Society of America.

278 Jacqueline H. E. Messing and Elsie Rockwell Messing, Jacqueline 2003a Ideological multiplicity in discourse: Language shift and bilingual schooling in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Ph.D. diss. University of Arizona. 2003b Fractal recursivity in ideologies of language, identity and modernity in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Texas Linguistic Forum 45: 95–105. Modiano, Nancy 1984 Bilingual-bicultural education in Mexico: Recent research. Contemporary Educational Psychology 9: 254–59. Nava Nava, Refugio 2003 Variación en el náhuatl de Tlaxcala: Los cuatro niveles de habla. México: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Nutini, Hugo 1968 San Bernardino Contla: Marriage and Family Structure in a Tlaxcalan municipio. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Patthey-Chavez, G. G. 1994 Language policy and planning in Mexico: Indigenous language policy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14: 200–219. Pellicer, Dora 1997 Derechos lingüísticos y supervivencia de las lenguas indígenas. In Las causas sociales de la desaparición y del mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de América, Annita Herzfeld and Yolanda Lastra (eds), 1–19. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. Philips, Susan U. 2004 Language and social inequality. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Alessandro Duranti (ed.), 31–38. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Rockwell, Elsie 1979 The possibility of change in inter-ethnic relations through bilingualbicultural education. In Concepts for Communication and Development in Bilingual-Bicultural Communities, Florencio Sánchez Cámara and Felipe Ayala (eds.), 474–495. The Hague: Mouton. 1994 Schools of the revolution: Enacting and contesting state forms in Tlaxcala, 1910–1930. In Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Gilbert M. Joseph and Danie Nugent (eds.), 170–208. Durham: Duke University Press. 1995 La escuela cotidiana. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. 1996 Keys to appropriation: Rural schooling in Mexico. In The Cultural Production of the Educated Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practice, Bradley A. Levinson, Douglas E.

Mexicano in and out of schools in Tlaxcala 279 Foley and Dorothy C. Holland (eds.), 301–324. Albany: State University of New York. 1999 Recovering history in the study of schooling: From the longue durée to everyday co-construction. Human Development 42 (3): 113–128. 2000 Teaching Genres: A Bakhtinian Approach. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 31 (3): 260–282. Romano Morales, Inocencio 1999 Reintroducción al uso de la lengua náhuatl para alumnos con tendencia al monolingüismo castellano en la escuela primaria bilingüe de Tlaxcala. Maestros y Enfoques: Revista de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional 1 (2–3): 21–33. Tanck de Estrada, Dorothy 1999 Pueblos de indios y educacion en el Mexico colonial, 1750–1821. Mexico: Colegio de México. Valiñas, Leopoldo 1987 ¿Hay alfabetos bilingües-biculturales? Santa Clos y lo bilingüe: dos mitos que nadie cree. In Funciones sociales y conciencia del lenguaje, Héctor Muñoz Cruz (ed.), 119–227. Xalapa: Universidad Veracruzana. Varese, Stefano 1983 Indigenas y educación en México. Oaxaca: Centro de Estudios Educativos.

Chapter 9 Bilingual education: Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová Abstract Despite the high percentage of Spanish-Maya bilingualism that was still present during the last decades in the state of Yucatan, there is an increasing loss of intergenerational transmission of Yucatec Maya as the mother tongue. This article examines the sociolinguistic situation as well as indigenous education in relationship with linguistic change. Bilingual education introduced by the Dirección General de Educación Indígena (DGEI) in 1955 is held responsible for the decreasing use of indigenous languages in Mexico. After continuous changes in the school system, the Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) has realized its relevance for the development of linguistic policy and set forth the following premises: “The educational system should be [used] as one of the principal instruments for language preservation and the development of Amerindian languages” (INI 2000:123). The present article examines and compares the methods and practices of the two programs that were introduced in 1996 and which represent the two modalities of indigenous education. The program for Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Education under the auspices of DGEI and the program of Educational Assistance to the Indigenous Population for Cultural Development under the auspices of the Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo (CONAFE). Based on case studies, CONAFE’s program is proposed as a strategy for linguistic preservation of Yucatec Maya. In its application, with the cooperation of the local population and the instructor´s educational methods and social work, it is possible to transmit to learning children a sense of “conscious bilingualism”. 1. The Mayan and Spanish languages in the Yucatan peninsula The Yucatec Maya is one of the most important languages in the American continent and the second-most spoken indigenous language in Mexico due not only to the number of speakers but to its associated tradition with the great Mesoamerican civilization. According to the data from the Instituto

282

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

Nacional de Geografía, Estadística e Informática, there are 800,291 speakers of the Mayan language who are five years or older out of a total population of 2,057,753 who are five years and older.1 “La maya,” the name given to the language by its speakers, is spoken in the Yucatan peninsula, a region comprised of the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo. The socio-linguistic situation has been changing since 1940 due to regional transformations, such as the development of agriculture, tourism, and the process of internal migration associated to the growth of the cities, and the process of proletarization and nationalization of its peasants. This situation varies according to geographic regions: in the western and southern parts of the state of Campeche, Spanish predominates due to the strong immigration patterns of people from Central Mexico as well as indigenous ch’ol speakers from the state of Chiapas and from various Mayan ethnic groups from Guatemala. In the state of Quintana Roo three sub-regions are distinguished: the Caribbean coast, where the use of Spanish and English predominate; the center, where the Mayan language is used, and the south, where the use of Spanish prevails (Pfeiler 1999). However, the scenario changes if we observe the linguistic situation in the state of Yucatan: at first glance, what strikes one’s attention is the high ratios of bilingualism,2 and the fact that the Mayan language is spoken in 106 municipalities, the number of speakers varying according to the economic region. (With respect to the language(s) spoken in the neighboring states of the Yucatan Peninsula, Campeche and Quintana Roo, see Map 1 and Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Cifuentes and Moctezuma in this volume). The corn-producing agricultural zone reflects the highest percentage of the monolingual Mayan population, followed by the citrus-growing, livestock-raising, and agave fiber producing zones. In the fishing zones, monolingual speakers of the Mayan language have not been recorded (Pfeiler 1999: 270) (See Map 1).

2. The Mayan population: Bilingual and monolingual According to national census data, a sizeable change in the use of Mayan and Spanish can be observed as of 1940 (see Graph 1). Since then, the number of monolingual speakers of the Mayan language started to decrease at the same time that the number of bilingual speakers was increasing (Pfelier 1999: 273). In spite of the fact that in the past decade both bilinguals and Maya monolinguals have increased in absolute numbers, the percentage rates show that since 1930, the presence of the Mayan language tends to decrease in the general population of the Yucatec society (see Graph 2).

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 283

Map1. Use of Maya and Spanish in Yucatan

2.1. Bilingual and monolingual speakers of Mayan language by percentage of increase From 1940 on, when at the national level it was admitted that it was necessary to alphabetize first in the vernacular languages and later in Spanish, the percentage of the monolingual speakers of the Mayan language started to decrease considerably. We suppose that the teaching methods, or the linguistic centricism, combined with the strategy of Hispanicizing the rural population, has played an important role in the process, considering that the school is the domain in which one relates to others with the language of prestige, Spanish. However, the reduction in speakers of Maya at this stage does not correspond to a “regular” socio-demographic development but it is due primarily to the processes of socio-economic changes, in general, and to the disappearance of the agave fiber producing industry, in particular.

284

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

1,800,000 1,600,000

1,658,210

1,400,000 1,362,940

Persons

1,200,000 1,000,000

1,063,733.00

800,000 758,355

600,000

614,049 516,899

400,000 386,096

418,210

1930

1940

200,000 0 1950

1960

1970 Year

1980

1990

2000

Persons: Bilinguals 5 + years Persons: Monolinguals 5 + years Persons: Total

Graph 1. Bilingual and monolingual speakers (5 + years) in proportion to the total population. State of Yucatan 45% 40% 35%

Percentage

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970 Year

1980

1990

2000

Persons: Bilinguals 5 + years Persons: Monolinguals 5 + years

Graph 2. Bilinguals and monolinguals by rate of growth %

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 285

The topic of the language census data in general and especially the data referring to speakers of the threatened languages has been discussed at great length (Hill 2002: 127; Fishman 2002: 146). There are, in addition, few socio-linguistic studies focusing on the state of bilingualism in this region. Following Fishman (1971), Pfeiler (1988: 423) classifies the bilingualism for this region as “diglossia with bilingualism”, understanding diglossia at the socio-cultural level and bilingualism at the individual level. Applying Lambert’s terminology (1967: 96), which distinguishes between “integrative bilingualism” and “instrumental bilingualism,” the situation of Yucatan in the rural areas is characterized by instrumental bilingualism. “People learn the second language, in this case Spanish, for practical reasons (business, doctor’s appointments, services, etc.) without having the intention of perfecting it” (Pfeiler; 1988: 423). Following Rojo (1982: 269–310), who distinguishes between “adscriptive diglossia” and “functional diglossia”, Zámišová (2003: 38) defines the Yucatec linguistic reality as “diglossic bilingualism of adscription with features of functional diglossia”. Each one of the two co-existing languages in the bilingual society carries out different functions so that the societal dynamics in general determines the use of one language or another. An indigenous person who looks for work outside of his/her community or who aspires to continue his/her basic education sees him/herself obligated to learn Spanish because the Mayan language in these environments does not enjoy social recognition. At present the use of the Mayan language is restricted to the familiar domains; there are, however, communities and villages where authorities primarily use the Mayan language in official meetings. This is reflected in studies dealing with, among other topics, the use of the two languages, and the attitudes towards them (Barrera Vásquez 1980; Jiménez Peraza 1982; Kummer 1980, 1982; Lope Blanch 1984; Luxa 1990; Pfeiler 1985, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 1997, 1999a, 1999b; Burns 1992; Pfeiler and Franks 1993; Mossbrucker 1992, 2001; Berkley 1998, 2001; Pellicer 1999). The factors definitely favoring the ethno-linguistic vitality of the Mayan language are the following: ʊ The traditional area of residence which has been inhabited in a continuous manner by the same population; ʊ the concentration of the members of the same ethno-linguistic group in a specific region; ʊ the geographic isolation of the communities more or less until 1960;

286

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

the social prestige that the language enjoyed during the entire colonial period and in the twentieth century (Mossbrucker 2001: 44); ʊ the dialectal homogeneity and the existence of a standard norm; ʊ the references to the history of past Mayan culture in communication mediums; ʊ foreign interest in the Mayan culture and language. In contrast to external opinions, we highlight the most frequent opinions about the Mayan language among the speakers themselves, because they could be decisive with respect to the future of their language: (a) “One does not speak the legitimate Mayan language any longer. The Mayan language of today is very much mixed with Spanish. It is corrupted” 3; (b) “The children do understand it but now they do not speak it.” (c) “We would like for the children to speak both languages.” Despite its prominent societal presence, Yucatec Maya nowadays is transmitted less and less from parents to children (Pfeiler 1999, Zámišová 2003). However, one can perceive amongst the Mayans a feeling that we would attribute to nuances of nostalgia in their desire that the children speak the Mayan language; nonetheless, it is alarming to observe that the opinions of both researchers and speakers reveal the decline of the intergenerational transmission of the mother tongue. Socio-linguistic changes constitute in and of themselves authentic social transformations that are found in a complex dialectic relationship with other change factors. Socio-linguistic changes are not inevitable, but to a certain extent, they are controllable via processes of intervention of determined social actions; in other words, they can be influenced by certain linguistic policies. The planning and application of linguistic policies serve as a regulating organism of relationships between the ample social and linguistic transformations (Zámišová 2001). In this realm, it has been demonstrated that the school can be an agent for the maintenance of the mother tongue (Hornberger 1988: 231) as long as one teaches the language in combination with the socio-cultural context of the community or within it. Following the call of Fishman stating that “We prepare teachers to foster recessive languages (...) when what we should be preparing are community organizers and cultural workers” (2002: 147), we analyzed the approaches to the community education practice of the Consejo Nacional del Fomento Educativo4 (henceforth CONAFE) in three communities in the eastern part of the state of Yucatan, and we present it as a possible strategy for the maintenance of the indigenous language in this region. ʊ

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 287

3. Indigenous education Since the beginning of bilingual-bicultural education programs in 1955, funded by the Departamento de Educación Indígena and continued by the Dirección General de Educación Indígena (henceforth DGEI) from the Secretary of Public Education, the method used through 1980 was distinguished by the Hispanization approach, which included the assimilation and integration of the indigenous population into the national culture. The instruction of the indigenous language was seen as a tool to facilitate the imposition of the national language and culture, or as a “gradual educational transition from the native to the national culture” (Díaz-Couder 2000: 106). As of the 1980’s, the bilingual educational plan proposes the inclusion of the cultural values of the indigenous population in order to guarantee a development not dependent and subordinate to the values of the national society. Since 1996 it is proposed to include indigenous education as bilingual and intercultural, implemented in two modalities: Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Education (henceforth IIBE), under the auspices of the DGEI, and the Program of Educational Assistance to the Indigenous Population (henceforth PEAIP under the auspices of the CONAFE. A school day in San Antonio (PAEIP) 6 The instructor welcomes the boys and girls in the Mayan language. She chooses a book from the library and thumbs through it until she finds the story she was looking for, and she then passes it to a boy who starts to read “Le yuumil ixi´im tsikbal.” All of the boys and girls listen to the story, and, after finishing it, the whole class wants to comment on it at the same time. The instructor coordinates participation of the boys and girls and each one comments what they like about “The Lord of the Corn.” When they have finished, another child reads the Spanish translation of the short story. Afterwards, the boys and girls eat breakfast. The instructor reviews the preceding “research project”: The boys and girls are seated in three groups. First, the boys and girls in the second and third levels are assigned compositions for which they will choose the language they prefer in order to complete them. Afterwards, the instructor works with the children in the first level correcting their pronunciation and writing in the Mayan language, looking for similar words, like k’aay – kaal, k’an – kan, k’aan – kaan, k’ab – kaab.

288

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

The children go to the chalkboard, write the words, correct their words together, and read them again. Later, they copy what they have written in their notebooks and create their respective drawings, while the instructor attends to the other levels, helping those that are having problems, and in a group they correct their homework, always by level. When the children are finished with their review drills, the instructor asks that they sing, explaining to them that they can relax this way and can return to concentrating themselves. All of them sing together in Maya “X-Juaaana ku yook’ot jats‘uts…” and then in Spanish “Juana baila bonito…” (“Juana dances pretty”). Later he starts with a new investigation project: “My Earth”. To introduce the project’s theme, they read aloud two passages in Spanish from their textbooks in this language. The students all seated together in a circle. Immediately after finishing the passages, they comment in the Mayan language what they have just read with the instructor and always in the Mayan language they explain the content to those children who are not so advanced, those who do not understand Spanish well. Later, the children draw the Earth as a circle with a sketch of the continents and write their respective names. As homework, the children should speak to their parents about the weather conditions, the flora and fauna typical of the region and, following that discussion, they write a short essay in the Mayan language or in Spanish, whichever they prefer. The school day is now coming to an end, but before leaving school the children play various games (Observation notes by co-author Zámišová (March 10, 2003).

3.1. Indigenous intercultural bilingual education (IIBE) The IIBE program has defined and published its guidelines only up to the year 2000, and it continues today largely in a stage of transition because it still lacks the didactic and methodological support corresponding to the inter-cultural theme for both the teachers and the pupils. Out of the total of school-age children who are to receive elementary education, 29% are Mayan language speakers, but the DGEI assists only 8.6% of them; 20.4% or more than two-thirds of the Mayan speakers attend general education programs (Personal communication with Professor José Antonio Juh y López, head of the Technical-Pedagogical Department of Indigenous Education, May 30, 2003).

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 289

With respect to methodology, the teacher has the obligation to cover the same range of content areas that are studied in the programs in the regular primary schools and to use the educational materials in both the indigenous language (four books, one for each grade, with regional themes) and in Spanish without favoring any in particular. In addition, it is also suggested that the teacher generate complementary didactic materials on his/her own as part of the learning process. It has been observed, and the same teachers corroborate it, that one searches to accomplish the purposes of general education by way of textbooks in Spanish. Spanish is not taught as a second language, but teachers employ identical didactic materials to those used for native speakers of Spanish. In this way, students learn the second language primarily through writing it.5 This proves that the IIBE has not contributed to the maintenance of the indigenous language in Yucatan (Pfeiler and Franks 1993); this is similar to the progress (or lack of progress) reported for other regions in Mexico ( cf. Lastra 2001). 4. The Program of Educational Assistance to the Indigenous Population (PEAIP) Since 1996, CONAFE has put into place the PEAIP with the purpose of assisting the micro-localities, that is, indigenous communities with bilingual education projects in various states of the Mexican Republic. The centers are divided into three modalities: primary, pre-school, and shared room (pre-school and elementary). In the state of Yucatan, the PEAIP-CONAFE serves communities ranging from fewer than 100 to 500 inhabitants. After observing the methodological strategies implemented by the CONAFE (2000), we reached the conclusion that this program does contribute to the maintenance of the Mayan language. Let us first take a look at the approaches: In the Educational Proposal from PEAIP-CONAFE, great importance is given to working on the educational process from a perspective in which knowledge not only constructs itself through the study of themes, areas or subjects, but also through a search for the actions and interactions of the child in his/her natural and cultural surroundings, including the persons of her/his home and his/her classmates. In this way, the child constructs his/her knowledge not only in school time and space, but in extra-curricular activities, that is to say, throughout his/her daily life. The concept of community education consists in multilevel work: younger children with less knowledge learn by listening to the older chil-

290

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

dren with more knowledge, and in this way it is procured that the students assume responsibilities of support or in teaching within their social group. The role of the instructor in this process is to coordinate the work of the group that is divided into three levels (each one of two grades), working with the three levels on a Research Project, but demanding in each level a different degree of knowledge. A child can work on a Research Project for one or two weeks, focusing on enticing themes and departing from both community knowledge and the knowledge of the pupil in order to produce new knowledge and define the necessities of learning. The child learns by exploring his/her reality. The basic bilingual education program of the CONAFE has primarily a psycho-pedagogical approach. The goal of the program is to define the student’s bilingualism in terms of habits, abilities, competencies and values not only in the mother tongue, but in the second language. It is not possible to affirm that the purpose is to accomplish the coordinated bilingualism of the children who exit primary school, given that this will depend on the environmental conditions that surround the child. The students are alphabetized in the Mayan language, their mother tongue, which is to be consolidated throughout their elementary education. The instructor expects the child to not only acquire the abilities of learning how to read and write, but to be transformed into an active learner--a task that is accomplished by the creative participation of the child in the Research Project. From the beginning of the learning process, the children are in contact with the second language, Spanish, through the presence of those more advanced students; however, first-level students are not expected to develop the second language in an active manner. Below is a description of all three levels being taught: Level 1: Reading and writing in the Mayan language; development of oral expression and comprehension in the Mayan language (monolingual) through description; progress in oral expression and comprehension in Spanish (passive). Level 2: Reading and writing in the Mayan language (perfection); reading and writing in Spanish (initiation); development of the oral comprehension and expression in the Mayan language (dialogue and narration); development of oral expression and comprehension in Spanish (active, monologue and description). Level 3: Reading and writing in the Mayan language (grammar); reading and writing in Spanish (perfection); development of oral expression and comprehension in the Mayan language (discourse).

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 291

It is worth mentioning that, generally speaking, the instructors live during week in the communities, and in this way, they share their daily life with the people of the area, permitting them to know the particular social climate of the community. The instructor develops his/her teaching position during the course of one or two years, and this job is conducted as social work. This means that he/she does not receive a salary, but only a stipend for his/her traveling expenses, and, when finished with this job, the CONAFE awards him/her a scholarship so that he/she can continue his/her studies.

5. IIBE and PEAIP in comparison We sum up and compare below the structure and organization as well as the methodological assumptions at the primary level and the observed conclusions in the fieldwork, 7 from the two modalities in the indigenous education, the PEAIP and the IIBE. Table 1. Structure and organization of indigenous education in the Yucatan. Bilingual Indigenous Education: Structure and Organization

SEP-CONAFE-PEAIP: Indigenous Community Course

Number of schools

106 primary education centers 8

173 primary education9 centers

Students served

From 4 to 25 children: one instructor

Up to 25 children: one teacher

School attendance in 2003

749 children

13,859 children

Duration of study

Three levels: Each one lasts two years

Six grades: unitary –complete organization

Type of teaching

Multi-level work

Multi-grade work

Class schedule

Established for mornings, flexible (adapted to the activities of the parents)

Fixed for mornings, not flexible

Number of teachers and their academic preparation

106 instructors with bachelor’s degree (majority), secondary education or preparatory school (ages: between 14 and 27 years old)

548 teachers: half of them with bachelor’s degree from the UPN, 10 the rest with a high school degree, some secondary education, Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees, primary school.

SEP-DGEI-IIBE: Primary

26-40 children: two teachers

292

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

Table 1. Structure and organization of indigenous education in the Yucatan. (continued) Bilingual Indigenous Education: Structure and Organization Methodological support for the teachers

SEP-CONAFE-PEAIP: Indigenous Community Course

SEP-DGEI-IIBE: Primary

System of methodological support: training course (two months); support follow-up by trainer-tutors, educational assistants, on-site regional coordinators; linguistic workshop; language and culture workshop; additional methodology materials for each instructor

Without methodology support: without organized long-term courses: sometimes courses are organized by the leaders’ own initiative or according to zones; support materials with a deficient distribution

Place of residence

Work community

City; travels daily to work center

Mother tongue of the teachers interviewed

84 instructors: 44 Mayan language, 27 Spanish, 12 bilingual (Mayan-Spanish), 1 Tzeltal

48 teachers: 36 Mayan language, 12 Spanish

Learning areas of the mayan language as a second language

Mainly in the family; three instructors in “the first grades of bilingual-bicultural education

Mainly in the family; one teacher in the school exercising his/her profession

Type of employment

Stipend scholarship (from one to two years)

Temporary or term contract

Profile of the teacher

In Table 1, one observes the strong presence of the IIBE program as compared with the PEAIP. There exists a difference in the class schedules and in the teacher’s place of residence. The type of employment of the teacher is related to the age and the fluctuation in the teachers. This factor makes the rendering of the educational practice of the PEAIP highly dependent upon the instructor as an individual. In Table 2, the methodological differences are observed that result in two contradicting linguistic situations: a conscious bilingualism with the maintenance of the Mayan language PEAIP and the Hispanicization through linguistic centricism (IIBE). Through the observation of the activities of the PEAIP in three communities (San Antonio, San Mateo, and Akabchen), we came to the conclusion that the PEAIP instructor can really play the role of the community educator, converting the teaching-learning process into a meaningful experience, a fact for both children and the

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 293

community at large. Its methodological strategy focuses on the respect for the student’s own linguistic, social, cultural and economic environment, and also in the value of indigenous cultural knowledge. The instructor expands upon this knowledge by explaining and gradually teaching the student the language and life of the “other,” without losing sight of the mother tongue and its cultural context. Through this egalitarian approach to teaching, the student values both his/her mother tongue and its surroundings: the Spanish language within its own context. With this we consider that one can speak of a process that culminates in a “conscious bilingualism.” Table 2. Methodological strategies: their accomplishments in the indigenous education in the region of Valladolid Indigenous Bilingual Education: Methodological Strategies Methodological Strategies

SEP-CONAFE-PEAIP: Community Course (San Antonio, San Mateo, Akabchen)

SEP-DGEI-IIBE: PRIMARY (Yalcobá, Kanxok, Xocen)

– “Research projects”

Instruction using national

– Child’s diary

textbooks

– Textbooks as didactic support material Teacher’s role

Educational coordinator and promoter

Educational authority

Goal/Result

The student involves the community

The student does not involve the community

Bilingualism in the Teaching:

Does not aspire to be a coordinated bilingualism.

In practice

In the first level, it is not expected that the children speak or write in Spanish.

Aspires to be a coordinated bilingualism. From the first grade on the students learn the alphabet in both languages.

Approach and Development of Reading and Writing:

It is expected that the child will apply the reading and writing to something meaningful and useful for him/her.

In practice:

The student is creative in the textbook assignments (diary, newspaper, letter).

It is expected that the child be dominant in the reading and writing of both languages. Many times the student reads and writes without understanding the content.

294

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

Table 2. Methodological strategies: their accomplishments in the indigenous education in the region of Valladolid (continued) Indigenous Bilingual Education: Methodological Strategies Didactic Support for the Students in the Classroom

SEP-CONAFE-PEAIP: Community Course

SEP-DGEI-IIBE: PRIMARY

(San Antonio, San Mateo, Akabchen)

(Yalcobá, Kanxok, Xocen)

– National textbooks and the Mayan textbook “Maaya t’aan,” every kind of poster11 in Maya and Spanish, storybooks and legends published by CONAFE or created in class.

– National textbooks and the Mayan textbook “Maaya t’aan” for four grades, little use of other didactic material, posters published by CONAFE or created in class.

– Books published by CONAFE and other institutions that are accessible by the entire community.

– Lack of books; sometimes books are only found in the office of the school principal.

Result

Conscious bilingualism through the community activities

Hispanization through the use of linguistic centricism12

Effect on the Maintenance of the use of Mayan

Maintenance of Mayan

Language shift of Mayan

6. Conclusion With respect to the linguistic policies of the Yucatan peninsula, various strategies stand out at the institutional level and, in particular, the indigenous educational institution, which have given strong support to the maintenance of the Mayan language. From 1940 on, there have been various efforts on behalf of the State government and from civil associations to promote the use of the Mayan language. Institutions and organizations were found that are dedicated to the study, teaching, and spreading of the language. At the state level we can mention the radio station XEPET Radio Peto, “The Voice of the Mayas” that has existed since 1982 in Peto; the Municipal Academy of the Mayan Language “Itzamná” founded in 1986, and the Institute for the Development of the Mayan Culture of the state of Yucatan

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 295

(INDEMAYA), founded in 2001. In 1997, the Mayan language began to be taught as the second language in 75 urban primary and 23 secondary schools, Merida being the biggest municipality with its 26 centers (25 primary schools and one secondary school). (Information retrieved from the DGEI Merida, January 14, 2003). This program, developed by the SEPDGEI is denominated “Ko’one’ex kanik maaya” (“We’re going to learn the Mayan language”) and is designed by anthropologists and Mayan teachers. It is important to mention the work carried out by indigenous ethnolinguists on didactic material, grammar books, dictionaries, and other materials in the Mayan language for the teaching of it in primary education. Among the civil associations we include the Academy of the Mayan Language, A.C., known as the State Academy of the Mayan Language (created in 1937 by Alfredo Barrera Vásquez), and the civil association Mayaón, formed in 1990 by a group of teachers of Bilingual Bicultural Education Program from the eastern region of the Yucatan. However, despite the apparent significant presence of the Mayan language in both the media and in those institutional previously mentioned, a growing abandonment of the intergenerational transmission of the Mayan language is clearly documented. Only from 1996 on, the learning of the language inside of the cultural context “language-in-culture apprenticeship” (Fishman 2002: 147) has been the focus of the programs; for this reason, we recognize the great importance of the maintenance of the Mayan language in the undertaking by the community instructors of PEAIP and their acceptance by the population of the communities. Through the teaching of a “conscious bilingualism” the child is allowed to recognize the cultural, social and linguistic values while at the same time he/she learns to share them with the population of the community. Simultaneously, this teaching reinforces language loyalty, the basic attitude in the process of language maintenance and shift; in turn this supports the process of linguistic normalization (in the terms of Haugen, 1987: 59-64 which refers to the social extension of the language and the planning of its status). In the case of the Yucatan, it purports a complex socio-linguistic process that has developed into a conflictive socio-linguistic reality. The issue is about promoting a subordinate language, Maya, and linking the social progress of the Mayan language to the development of the superimposed language. With the normalization, it is desired that the use of the subordinate language, that is to say the Mayan language, might return to its normal

296

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

state, in the sense of the non-extraordinary habitual, in all of the domains of society. To finalize this study we want to mention a political strategy that will have an impact on the indigenous linguistic situation as much in Yucatan as in all of Mexico: In March 2003 the first section of the Official Daily of the Federation published the “General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples” whose goal is the recognition and the protection of the linguistic, individual, and collective rights of indigenous peoples and communities, and the promotion of the development of the indigenous languages. This Law espouses certain perspectives for the future of indigenous languages, even though, as the history of educational politics in Mexico has taught, the existence of laws does not guarantee its fulfillment (see Pellicer et al. in this volume; for the entire English version of the Law, see also Daniel Althoff in this volume).

Notes 1. The total number of the inhabitants 5 years and older for each state is: Yucatan (1,188,433); Campeche (456,452); and Quintana Roo (412,868) (INEGI 2001). 2. In his study of the Spanish of Yucatan, Juan M. Lope Blanch (1984), establishes that the state of Yucatan is the most highly bilingual of all of Mexico and defines the Mayan language as adstratum of its Spanish counterpart. 3. With respect to Nahuatl, denominated as “legitimate Mexican”, Hill and Hill (1977: 60) observe a linguistic change similar to that of the Yucatan. “They [speakers of Nahuatl] say that now the language is no longer pure, but that it is ‘scrambled’ and ‘mixed’ with too many words from Spanish.” This feeling is probably the most salient attitude about their language among speakers, and comes up early in any conversation about language attitudes. 4. The CONAFE is a decentralized organism of the Federal Public Administration, with its own jurisdiction and patrimony. It was created by a presidential decree on September 9, 1971, and modified through the amendment on February 11, 1982. Its objective is to gather complementing resources, economic and technical, national and foreign in order to achieve the best educational development in the country and to disseminate the diffusion of the Mexican culture abroad. 5. Being immersed in a supposedly bilingual school environment, the children findthemselves in a clearly interesting diglossic situation; the Mayan language is used exclusively in its oral form and constitutes the base of school learning; Spanish is associated with writing (Pellicer 1999: 74).

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 297 6. San Antonio is a small community, close to Valladolid (corn-producing zone), made up of eleven families. The common language is Maya. The attitudes about the teaching of the Mayan language among the familial patriarchs of the community are very positive. They completely accept the bilingual-bicultural education of the children. 7. The investigation of this topic was carried out during the period of 2002–2003 and is based upon the collection of census data, the application of surveys about linguistic competence, use and attitudes to bilingual teachers (84 PEAIP instructors from the regions of Valladolid, Tekax and Peto; and 48 teachers from EIIB from the region of Valladolid) and participating observations during the class in various PEAIP educational centers and DGEI primary schools from the Valladolid region. 8. These are divided into 47 centers of PEAIP Community Courses, corresponding to primary education, and 59 centers of PEAIP Shared Rooms which include the modalities of pre-school and primary education. The centers are divided into six zones/regions, which do not coincide with the headquarters of the DGEI; the main PEAIP regions of primary education are Valladolid, with 60 centers, Peto, with 20 centers, and Tekax, with 20 centers. 9. The primary schools of the intercultural-bilingual program are divided into six regions: Maxcanú (five centers), Ticul (23 centers), Sotuta (19 centers), Peto (40 centers), Valladolid (56 centers) and Tizimín (30 centers). 10. With the goal of providing the teachers that are working in the indigenous areas with a more elevated level of studies, the program of pre-school education was established in the Pedagogic National University (UPN). Originally, this program was the brainchild of an agreement between the DGEI and the UPN. 11. The poster with the Mayan alphabet was published by CONAFE. Since 1984 there exists an official alphabet by the National Institute for Adult Education (INEA) in accordance with various educational institutions that use the Mayan language (SEP-INEA: 1984). 12. The method used is focused on the learning of the second language with little or no association to the culture and life of the community.

References Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo 1980 Estudios lingüísticos. Obras completas. Mérida: Fondo Editorial de Yucatán. Burns, Allan F. 1992 The road under the ground: The role of Europe and urban life in Yucatec Mayan narratives. Folk 34: 43–62.

298

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

Berkley, Anthony R. 1998 Remembrance and revitalization: The archive of pure Maya. Ph.D. diss. University of Chicago. 2001 Respecting Maya language revitalization. Linguistics and Education 12 (3): 345–366. Consejo Nacional del Fomento Educativo (CONAFE) 2000 Escuela y comunidades originarias en México. Mexico: CONAFE. Díaz-Couder, Ernesto 2000 Diversidad sociocultural y educación en México. In Globalización, educación y cultura: Un reto para América Latina, José M. Juárez Nuñez and Sonia Carboni (coords.), 105–147. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Fishman, Joshua A. 1971 Advances in the Sociology of Language. vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton. 2002 Commentary: What a difference 30 years make! Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12 (2): 144–149. Haugen, Einar 1987 Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hill, Jane H. 2002 “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: Who Is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12 (2): 119–133. Hill, Jane and Kenneth Hill 1977 Language death and relexification in Tlaxcalan Nahuatl. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12: 55–67. Hornberger, Nancy H. 1988 Bilingual education and language maintenance. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda, 2000. Tabulados Básicos. Mexico: INEGI. Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI). 2000 Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México. 1996–1997. Mexico: INI and Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Jiménez Peraza, Pedro C. 1982 Lealtad hacia la lengua maya. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública and INI. Kummer, Wolfgang 1980 Die Geschichte der Sprach- und Indigenismuspolitik in Yucatán (Mexiko). Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 14: 2–71.

Strategy for language maintenance or shift of Yucatec Maya? 299 1982

Spracheinstellungen einer bilingualen indianischen Minorität in einer Diglossiesituation Spanisch-Yucatec Maya. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 21: 1–34. Lambert, Wallace E. 1967 A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 91–109. Lastra, Yolanda 2001 Otomi language shift and some recent efforts to reverse it. In Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), 142–165. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lope Blanch, Juán M. 1984 Un caso de interferencia amerindia en el español de México. Anuario de Letras 22: 209–218. Luxa, Gabriela 1990 Kultur- und Sprachkontakt in Mexiko am Beispiel des Spanischen in Yucatán. Konflikt und Harmonie in einer aussergewöhnlichen Sprachensituation. Thesis. Frankfurt am Main. Mossbrucker, Harald 1992 “Etnia”, “cultura” y el impacto de la migración entre los mayas de Yucatán. América Indígena 4: 187–214. 2001 Cultura y etnicidad en Yucatán: Conceptos generales y situaciones específicas. Colección Americana 3. Hannover: Verlag für Ethnologie. Pellicer, Alejandra 1999 Así escriben los niños maya su lengua materna. Mexico: Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas / Plaza y Valdés Editores. Pfeiler, Barbara 1985 Yucatán: Das Volk und seine Sprache. Zwei Fallstudien zur Bilinguismussituation. Wien: Universität Wien (Ph.D. dissertation). 1988 Yucatán: el uso de dos lenguas en contacto. Estudios de Cultura Maya 18: 423–444. 1993a La lealtad lingüística del indígena maya yucateco: Validación de la prueba de “matched-guise”. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 17(11): 82–94. 1993b Reinforcing cultural identity and environmental awareness among the Maya of Yucatán. Mexicon 15(1): 5–6. 1997 El xe’ek’ y la hach maya: Cambio y futuro del maya ante la modernidad cultural en Yucatán. In Convergencia e individualidad. Las lenguas mayas entre hispanización e indigenismo, Andreas Koechert and Thomas Stolz (eds.), 125–140. Colección Americana 7, Hannover: Verlag für Ethnologie.

300

Barbara Pfeiler and Lenka Zámišová

1999a

Situación sociolingüística. Capítulo IV.I. Atlas de procesos territoriales de Yucatán. 269–299. Mexico: PROESA, Proyección Cartográfica. 1999b Identidad y conciencia lingüística en Yucatán. In Interculturalidad e identidad indígena. Preguntas abiertas a la globalización en México. Andreas Koechert and Barbara Pfeiler (eds.), 123–133. Colección Americana 4, Hannover: Verlag für Ethnologie. Barbara Pfeiler and Anne Franks 1993 Bilingual education: Preserving the Mayan language. Proceedings of the XVth Congress of Linguists (Quebec) 4: 185–189. Rojo, Guillermo 1982 Conductas y actitudes lingüísticas en Galicia. Revista Española de Lingüística 11(2): 269–310. Zámišová, Lenka 2001 Algunos aspectos de la situación sociolingüística en Galicia. Thesis, Filozofická fakulta-Masarykova Univerzita, Brno. 2003 La situación sociolingüística en el territorio de la península de Yucatán. Multilingüismo en la sociedad y relaciones entre política. Lengua e identidad social. Informe de investigación de posgrado. Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas/Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.

Chapter 10 Intervention in indigenous education. Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers José Antonio Flores Farfán Abstract The project known as Proyecto de Revitalización, Mantenimiento y Desarrollo Lingüístico y Cultural (PRMDLC) is based on the recreation of several Mexican indigenous oral and visual traditions in different media in a number of languages and regions in Mexico (e.g., Nahuatl, Yucatec Maya). The basic limitations orienting official language policies towards ethnolinguistic minorities are highlighted in order to understand the goals of the project. The proposal that guides the actions that sustain our researchintervention approach is opposed to the State's practices, basically linked to schools, whose profiles are still assimilationist. Based on a critical assessment, different problematic aspects involved in the development of an alternative from-the-bottom up methodology are discussed. This intends to face the enormous challenges posed in alternative educational projects in terms of vindicating an intercultural successful approach towards native languages and cultures, not only in the specific cases discussed herein but as general language planning issues in endangered communities. Three visual genres of innovative educational materials which have the function of empowering the speakers of Nahuatl are introduced: Amate illustrations; riddles and tales showed in tri-dimensional videos. These materials trigger oral production, thus recreating local cultural Mesoamerican forms of expression and fostering language re-acquisition.

1. Introduction It is a well-known fact that the world’s indigenous languages are endangered to different degrees. Several languages of the United States and Mexico (in California and Baja California) such as Kiliwa or Cucapá are almost extinct. In contrast, other languages are demographically stronger. The case

302 José Antonio Flores Farfán

of Nahuatl stands out as the largest Mexican indigenous language. The total number of speakers of Nahuatl in Mexico reached 1,448, 936 in 2000; of these 1,224,587 also speak Spanish whereas 195,934 are monolingual (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (henceforth INEGI) 2001: 267). Of 97, 794,454 over 5 years old reported by the INEGI (2001), the total 6,044,547 million speakers of indigenous languages make about 7% of the total population of the country. According to this source, the total number of speakers of Nahuatl represents less than 10% of the total indigenous population of the country; this in turn represents the highest percentage within the universe of speakers of indigenous languages. Significant differences arise depending on the source one relies on (cf., e.g., INEGI 2001 versus Instituto Nacional Indigenista [INI] 2002). From optimistic viewpoints (e.g. Comisión Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes 1998 and INI 2002), the indigenous population make up less than 15% of an almost 100 million Mexicans. Inasmuch as most speakers also speak Spanish, indigenous monolingualism is indeed low. Nonetheless, monolingualism in indigenous languages is more a qualitative than a quantitative phenomenon spread unevenly throughout the country. In contrast to the national census, other sources state that Nahuatl speakers amount to over 2,500,000 million people (CONACULTA 1998). This is probably an overestimation even if common stereotypes prevent people from reporting that they speak their mother tongue, a fact that probably, among other things, makes the national census underreport the amount of indigenous population in Mexico. Whatever the precise quantitative figure may be, and even if Nahuatl and Yucatec Maya (YM) apparently could not be considered small or minority languages (cf. Sherzer and Stolz 2003), judging from their first and second rank in terms of total numbers of speakers, they are indeed endangered. Consider, for instance, that central remnants such as Morelos Nahuatl or the Milpa Alta dialect studied by Whorf and others are moribund varieties (for references and discussion cf. Flores Farfán 2003). However, Nahuatl includes regions with high vitality such as the Balsas or the Huastec sub-regions in which Nahuatl has at least covert prestige, functional viability, and other less studied attributes such as diglossic reversals and language encroachment. To contribute to this less explored field of language resistance, survival, maintenance and retention, I will herein introduce instances of language retention in terms of language planning. Intervention efforts in the form of status, corpus and acquisition planning are better developed in situations that even when experiencing language shift, exhibit high ratios of retention

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 303

and loyalty (namely, Balsas Nahuatl and YM are excellent instances of still fairly viable languages). This is true in the face of a number of factors such as urbanization, geographical isolation, sub-regional categorizations, rates of migration and lack of institutional support, language demographics, ideologies, and local history, among others. All these and other types of possible complex power differentials and variable features configure the specific political economies of languages. This is to say that in one single language group or region we can find a diversity of often contradictory and complex situations, ranging from language retention and maintenance to dynamic forces that favor language shift (cf. Flores Farfán 2000). Contrary to some claims suggesting stable YM bilingualism, YM also experiences shift, most of all in the Maya Riviera, although it is a well-established case that illustrates language retention. More precisely, YM is vital in most of the fairly preserved Central varieties in the Quintana Roo region, although not at all in the Yucatan coasts, where it has practically disappeared. In this realm, the language maintenance and language shift continua includes at least two prototypes, ranging from indigenous monolingualism as an expression of retention, on the one hand, and Spanish monolingualism, which epitomizes the materialization of language shift, on the other. Nonetheless, the study of language maintenance and language shift continua involves a series of complex variables articulated at different junctures. At the national level it is possible to oppose the relatively high uniformity of YM against Nahuatl dialectalization and ultimate diversification, leading to the perception that there are different languages. From a dialectological perspective, YM can still be considered one and a single language with minor phonological and lexical variations across the Mexican states of Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo, the conglomerate of states that conforms the Yucatan Peninsula. In contrast, Nahuatl and several other indigenous languages are undergoing extreme dialectal compartmentalization and diversification, ultimately favoring language shift or at least the split into separate languages. Despite well-documented facts such as the pre-historic split of Nahuatl dialects into separate languages at least in 1000 AD, Aztec imperialists’ and colonial ideologies have considered Nahuatl a single language. This is the most popular view, even among academics up until today. However, nowadays Nahuatl includes an unspecified number of separate languages, as in the case of Veracruz (e.g., Mecayapan) as opposed to many other dialectal varieties; for instance, Guerrero (e.g., Oapan) or Tlaxcala (e.g., San Miguel Xaltipan) Nahuatl (see Flores Farfán et al. 2002). Nevertheless, scholars can find less clear examples of Nahuatl varie-

304 José Antonio Flores Farfán

ties, which could be identified as either regional dialects or social dialects of the same language; this is, of course, an extremely debatable issue, implying different political and ideological positions, which in turn render the development of precise and completely detached scientific criteria extremely difficult. Let us consider, for instance, the problem of defining “neutral” criteria to articulate concepts such as intelligibility with respect to the dialect / language continuum. Many other related problems include aspects such as the criteria that define a speaker of a language or the adequacy of the definitions, as manifested in the confrontation of structural versus sociolinguistic criteria. Questions related to specific parameters established with the intention of understanding what counts or not as a separate language, or as a speaker of a language are, in any case, strongly linked to the different ideological positions and contexts from which they derive. As I will suggest, this is especially true in language planning efforts, in which conceptualizations of language are inevitably tainted with political and ideological overtones regardless of how scientific the approach pretends to be. Let us turn to consider some of these issues in more detail with special reference to our case studies.

2. General problems of language planning in Mexico: Nahua illustrations In general, in the field of language planning there is a conflict between documentation versus intervention efforts, an opposition herein considered a false dilemma that we attempt to overcome in our project. The opposition between basic and applied research oftentimes entails conflict of interests and a series of contradictions, including different, dissonant perspectives on specific languages. Let us compare, for example, the scientific status, summarized by linguists in the interest attributed to an endangered language with an activist’s urge to vindicate his or her own language. Let us confront the positive view of a linguist on language in general against common stereotypes of speakers of endangered languages, who oftentimes view them as obstacles to economic well-being. Finally, let us consider the everyday bilingual usage of contact varieties versus purist views on language, characteristic of scientific approaches rendering biased linguistic (purist) descriptions (cf. Flores Farfán 2003). Even if the enthusiasm of the linguist over a specific language may be contagious for some speakers,

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 305

having a positive albeit indirect effect on the maintenance and re-evaluation of language, the clash of speakers’ perspectives with different research traditions is frequently also at stake. Again, let us recall for example the urge of some (or most?) speakers of minority populations to give up their languages as compared to the interest of a linguist to document them or the interest of a language planner to salvage moribund languages. My point of departure is the notion that, in one way or another, covertly or overtly, indirectly (as with basic research) or directly intended (as with language planning), all research traditions have an impact on the communities under scrutiny, illustrated by, for example, the impact of monolingual research traditions on the on-going bilingual situation of Mexican endangered languages. In addition, the effects of monolingual perspectives on indigenous languages in terms of favoring language shift should be considered. This is the case of the socio-linguistics of conflict, a relatively recent research tradition that can be traced to the 1980’s. Both the micro-sociolinguistic and macro-socio-linguistic approaches rely overwhelmingly on Spanish-oriented scholars to carry out research on indigenous languages, thus favoring Spanish penetration. The opposite and much older research tradition that has historically dominated linguistic research in Mexico (cf. Flores and López 1989; Flores Farfán 1999), namely linguistic anthropology, has focused almost exclusively on the indigenous tongue, discarding all contact phenomena, and thus favoring the investigation of more conservative varieties of the language. This approach has provoked a series of purist reactions, induced by received research methods such as elicitation, which minimizes the bilingual complexity of the communities and the differential uses of the language; at times, this method paradoxically contributes to language shift. The superimposition of such monolingual perspectives entails more dissonance than consonance and often antagonistic perspectives between speakers’ and researchers’ conceptualizations of language. Another example is the Babel ideology characteristic of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, representative of modern “missionary linguistics”, a well-rooted doctrine that exacerbates differences between dialects and conceives them as though they were distinct languages. Directly or indirectly, the Summer Institute of Linguistics promotes an individualist ideology, frequently confronted with the communal ways of socialization in indigenous culture, characteristic of Mesoamerican communities (e.g., the communal institution known as tequio or communal work). The Summer Institute of Linguistics’ exacerbation of differences between languages is

306 José Antonio Flores Farfán

clearly manifested in a number of instances; for example, Guarijio is supposed to have a separate language, Maculai. In contrast, speakers of Guarijio might conceive Maculai as a dialectal variety of a single tongue (or vice versa?). According to the Summer Institute of Linguistics’s method of counting languages, Nahuatl has up to 25 different categorizations, implying the existence of almost an equal number of different languages, rather than, or instead of, the possible existence of various regional or social dialects. This estimate stands out as an exaggeration if we take into account the studies dealing with relative degree of intelligibility. Moreover, according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Zapotec or Mixtec, which belong to the highly diversified Otomanguean family, has 57 and 51 different ‘languages’, respectively (for several similar examples, consult www.ethnologue.com and www.ethnologue.com/show_country_ bibl.asp?name=Mexico). Contrary to these figures, when confronted to speakers’ perspectives, a different perception emerges. The estimates on indigenous people also comprise fairly different figures, depending on the criterion or criteria the different agencies use to collect data. As suggested, two major institutions in Mexico are in charge of data collection: the INEGI and the INI. In passing, let us consider another example of the different ideological standpoints behind statistical figures: whereas the Mexican State only recognized 62 languages in the past administration (today a related source states there are up to 100 (CONACULTA 1998) while the Summer Institute of Linguistics states there are up to 275. (Official figures about the number of languages in the past three decades and the rate of growth, bilingualism, use in the home domain and age groups are provided in Cifuentes and Moctezuma, in this volume). In turn, in the academic realm, we can compare the explicit detachment of linguistics with regard to the linguistic community as postulated by Ladefoged (1995) versus the explicit commitment to speakers themselves of so-called responsible linguistics as suggested by Hale (1992). My own position conceives long-term research as a prerequisite to language intervention against exclusively political motivated initiatives, such as e.g. the Mexican State improvised praxis, which rarely recovers any in-depth research in the design or implementation of educational programs for indigenous populations. As suggested in this paper and elsewhere, research linked to intervention allows the consistent recreation of the Mesoamerican legacy against the ongoing history of assimilation of indigenous “intercultural” curricula.

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 307

3. Audio-visual materials Official schooling tends to deny the oral creative repertoire children bring from their homes and communities; consequently, as soon as they enroll in elementary school, they are presented with a superimposed written code. A more constructive pedagogical model would require early socialization in the mother tongue rather than a sudden confrontation with received written models (for a critique cf. Flores Farfán in press a). Our target approach is the recovery of local narratives in different media through a series of audiovisual materials in the form of at least bilingual books illustrated in amate ‘painted bark-wood paper’ by native artists together with the implementation of workshops including video shows in Nahuatl. This opens up the possibility for (re)appropriation and at least dissemination of culturallysensitive innovative materials. Corpus planning is based on “revitalizing” collaborative local genres such as riddles, which can be recreated according to the complementary abilities of the actors, rendering intercultural production teams. This approach prevents the exclusion or segregation of indigenous participation, which is the common – received official – approach to indigenous education. The integration of a multi-ethnic and multidisciplinary model contributes to the recreation of distinct artistic, technical, and cultural communicative competencies. I hereby introduce basic categories and concepts that orient the Proyecto de Revitalización, Mantenimiento y Desarrollo Lingüístico y Cultural or PRMDLC [Project of Revitalization, Maintenance and Linguistic and cultural Development Development Linguistic and Cultural Project]. I simultaneously introduce the revitalizing multilingual interactive corpus aimed at effectively reversing ongoing Nahuatl displacement (cf. Flores Farfán 2001). Along these lines we should raise the following question: How do we integrate research with intervention and intervention with research? Both spheres should meet in a productive cross-fertilization of fields, an interface we are looking into in the PRMDLC. The selection of terms already suggests the identification of different possibilities of language viability, which is actually the case in most of the communities under investigation; this does not only imply methodological questions, but also bring to consideration, first and foremost, specific economic, political, and ideological problems. As an illustration, let us turn to one of the instances introduced at the onset of this paper, namely, the case of Balsas Nahuas.

308 José Antonio Flores Farfán

4. Profile of Balsas Nahuas sociolinguistics In the brief description of the Balsas Nahuas situation that follows, a relatively favorable context for the development of a research-intervention effort is one of its outstanding characteristics. At least two forces concur to explain such positive context for language intervention. First, we can describe the Nahuas’ successful insertion of their own crafts in the touristoriented market, based on the launching of amate along with other crafts and art production (e.g., carved painted wood, masks, pottery, and other merchandises in the late 1960’s). The amate de historias is a pictographic genre that ‘tell stories’ in the local style of native representation of sociocultural life (cf. Amith 1995). An amate used in the intervention efforts briefly depicted here can be seen in full color in my article that appears in the Lingua Pax website (http://www.linguapax.org/) and which is recovered to illustrate native stories in the form of audio-books and other audiovisual materials (cf. Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a) in turn utilized in the PRDMLC workshops. The ‘amate’ is an interesting case of what can be called applied ethno-methodology, meaning that Nahua people have studied the tourist’s taste in order to transfer, adapt, and re-create their own cultural and pictographic legacy to the conditions of trade and commerce. In short, Balsas Nahuas have developed a culture of innovation and recreation of Nahuas ancestral legacy that has been swiftly integrated into the tourist-oriented market. The basic consequences of this state of affairs is that the production of crafts for the tourist-oriented market, instead of destroying Nahuas cultural and linguistic integrity, has tended to reinforce it. Due to the intense itinerant commerce found in most tourist resorts of the country, Balsas Nahuas have to develop functional competencies in Spanish and also in English; in this setting, Nahuatl also fulfills an important instrumental function, given that it is the language of commerce among the Balsas communities specialized in the production of some of the above-mentioned crafts (cf. Flores Farfán 1992, 1999). Indeed, Balsas Nahuas not only produce but also buy other crafts in communities with different although intelligible dialectal modalities with the purpose of painting and re-selling them in the touristoriented market. Such a context enhances a certain Nahuatl unity at least at the local level, preventing dialectal fragmentation and linguistic diversification. This entails at least a partial diglossic reversal, in which Balsas Nahuas communities require Nahuatl as a language of commerce, when they use it along with Spanish or English. In turn this suggests that the factors

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 309

that enhance language vitality are also jeopardized by strong external pressures, such as the rapid processes of urbanization and migration to English or Spanish monolingual settings. In this respect, as in many other indigenous communities, Nahuas also display high rates of migration associated with their linguistic status as reflected in specific expressions such as the expansion and degree of bilingualism, a phenomenon basically linked to the advance of Spanish. This is manifested in a wide variety of different types of speakers.

Map 1. Balsas Nahuas communities

Apart from diverse monolingual Spanish or Nahuatl speakers, different forms of bilingualism appear, including pseudo- and quasi-Nahuatl and Spanish speakers (cf. Flores Farfán 1998, 1999). Along with trading networks, such variety of situations and speakers manifests itself in different contexts. Ritual ties and religious devotion also require Nahuatl to fulfill a series of community functions. Balsas Nahuatl thus becomes an example of

310 José Antonio Flores Farfán

a language that presents all types of situations, including Nahuatl monolingualism and retention. Similar diglossic reversals such as the use of Nahuatl for political struggle have made it a ‘shibboleth’ in recent history, contributing to strengthen solidarity ties between the communities, at least in the beginning of a grassroots movement that emerged about a decade ago. Although today the conditions in which such Nahuas grassroots movement emerged require reconsideration, the successful opposition to a long planned dam in the Nahuas territory has also contributed to conceive Nahuatl and the amate as tools for political dissent and struggle (cf. Amith 1995, Flores Farfán 1999). In this context, a pilot intervention is carried out with the Balsas Nahuas communities in Guerrero, Mexico (See Map 1). A brief explanation of pilot intervention dynamics and first results follows.

5. Pilot intervention: materials, actions, and reflections Intercultural education is an emergent concept in Mexico. In our case it is conceived as a strategy to bridge the gap between basic and applied research issues; it is also conceived as a way of consolidating teams of local language and culture activists who work closely with experienced researchers in the production and dissemination of different types of audio-visual materials. With this purpose in mind, together with local actors, we have developed an alternative educational model based on the notion of coparticipatory methodology or co-authorships, on a horizontal rather than vertical approach to language planning, or what has been called a from-thebottom-up language planning approach (Hornberger 1997). Confronted with the State’s model, this approach includes recasting and recreating the local language as local culture without necessarily associating intervention with schools, formal education, or reading and writing as an exclusive task of the educational process (cf. McCarty 1998). This means that writing the language is not conceived as the one and only means to vindicate the mother tongue, a common external bias prevalent in the official approach to language planning. Because this approach is tainted with ethnocentrism, it reduces language planning to the production of an alphabet that even in and by itself is not accurately sustained (cf. Flores Farfán in press b). Needless to say, developing a grassroots ethno-methodological approach to language planning requires as a sine qua non condition the active participation and corpus appropriation of community members. Favoring elder children intergenerational transmission and reinsertion of

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 311

young speakers in the Nahuatl networks are indispensable practices that guarantee the possibility of linguistic continuity. In a first launching stage, motivating participation has included granting the economic and technical means to develop a high-quality multimedia corpus. Combining different abilities as represented by local speakers, the teams include an amate artist, Cleofas Ramírez Celestino, also a researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social or CIESAS [Center for Research and Higher Education in Social Anthropology] and this author. Together we have produced a series of books and other materials as tri-dimensional (3D) animation videos in the case of the Nahuatl (and also the YM) corpus (cf. Briceño Chel et al. 2003; Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2003).

5.1. Videos The series of videos started with Tlakwatsin. El tlacuache (‘The Opossum’), which narrates the legend of the indigenous opossum, the first marsupial from the New World known to Europeans, just as it is told today by Balsas Nahuas. The tlacuache is a famous and funny character present in several native Mexican cultures. A favorite trickster of Mesoamerican tradition, the name means ‘greedy guts, trickster with a sweet tooth’, where the Mexican Spanish word tlacuache comes from. As with other videos (for example, riddles, the story of the mermaid, in Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2003), the tlakwatsin video-film recovers the amate pictographic tradition in computer animation giving birth to its characters. Presented in trilingual Nahuatl-Spanish-English versions, it tells how tlakwatsin helps the sun and the moon – two children in search of their father – to get the fire they so much desired. Such a fantastic legend explains why tlakwatsin does not have hair on the tip of its tail. The tlakwatsin is the host of all the videos and other spaces for language and cultural revaluation (cf. http://www.kokone.com.mx). During the production of these materials, the task of turning passive speakers into active ones became an important goal partially accomplished by two young female speakers. The daughters of Ramírez Celestino participated in the audio production of the stories about the opossum, the mermaid, and the videos and tapes presenting the riddles. The process of re-acquiring Nahuatl actively for the production of the audio of these videos demonstrated that reversing language shift is feasible.

312 José Antonio Flores Farfán

Integrating intercultural teams to produce a multimedia corpus also entails developing strategies for corpus acquisition. The dissemination of these materials for local consumption is carried out through the development of basically two types of workshops. In one instance we invite the community members to participate in a show of the videos for children on occasions such as the Patron Saint’s festivity, although this is not a condition of the intervention effort. In these rapid intervention workshops we motivate the use of the indigenous language in prestigious everyday media such as television and computers, elevating the status of Nahuatl directly and spontaneously. Based on an inverse monolingualism strategy – whenever possible – the workshops are conducted exclusively in Nahuatl with the prompt intervention of the ever present trickster of all these stories, the opossum, introducing the above mentioned tri-dimensional videos on, for example, Nahuatl riddles. The dynamics of the workshops includes showing one or more of these videos to promote the language use in informal settings. The videos have functioned both as warm-up drills and as linguistic instruments to trigger interaction, proving to motivate more spontaneous participation. In turn, awarding presents in the form of audio-books to those children who paraphrase the stories or guess the riddles reinforces participation and favors corpus acquisition. At the end of this intervention that can last a few hours, every one wants to participate, and the materials are disseminated. About 5,000 tapes and 2,000 books have been distributed in communities whose mother tongue retention ranges from very high as in San Agustín Oapan to very low as in Xalitla, where Nahuatl is almost extinct. Even when books are not read (as it is often the case), they at least provide status to the language and contribute to destroy common biases reading that ‘indigenous languages have no grammar, cannot be written, are dialects, etc.’ The mere presence of the tape serves to mitigate negative attitudes, inasmuch as it is common to find audio sets in most households. The other type of workshop is a more extended effort in progress, spanning longer periods of intensive one-to-two months of five-to-eight hours daily workshops. In this space a team of native speakers, together with two researchers, collect life histories related to migration; these are in turn transcribed and analyzed in Nahuatl. This strategy opens the possibility for appropriation of the writing tool and reflection on the native structure by native speakers. It also enhances the possibility of discussing specific orthographic decisions at a community level. One of the greatest challenges of this workshop is the dissemination and use of all these materials at the

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 313

societal level, including the establishment of a social function for written Nahuatl, a goal we pursue at a more advanced stage.

5.2. Amates It should be emphasized that even when the primary intended audience of most materials is the indigenous group, this does not exclude a general audience. On the contrary, books and videos alike include at least a translation to Spanish and other languages (Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a, 1997), and also other indigenous tongues (cf. Briceño Chel et al. 2003). Moreover, for the first time, the present phase has also included the production of materials primarily aimed at urban Spanish-speaking children and young readers in the form of books on Nahua animals such as The Axolotl and a DVD on the The Opossum’s Somersaults. To give a more precise idea of this type of materials, a description of The Axolotl follows. In Mexican Spanish ajolote (< Nahuatl axolotl) literally means “water monster”. The axolotl (ambystoma mexicanum) is an amphibian of the urodela order that dwells in North America (from Canada to Mexico); it is well-known for its extraordinary condition of reproducing as a larva, a phenomenon known as neoteny. Like Nahuatl, the axolotl is an endangered species. It describes an animal said to have been born when the Aztec god, Xolotl, fearing his imminent sacrifice, threw himself into the water and was transformed into the amphibious creature we see today (See Amate 1). This sacred history, collected by the Franciscan Friar Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1589), the first and foremost Nahua scholar who emigrated to Mexico in the early sixteen century, tells that by way of immolation, two gods ventured to become the sun and the moon: Tecuciztecatl, a very pretentious and arrogant god, and Nanahuatzin, a very shy, ugly, leprous god. Tecuciztecatl was too fearful to initiate transformation and changed his mind, while Nanahuatzin sacrificed himself, becoming the sun. When Nanahuatzin arose as the sun and Tecuciztecatl as the moon, Tecuciztecatl shone as strong as Nanahuatzin. In this way there were two suns shining at the same time and with so much light that everyone was blinded. Another god hit Tecuciztecatl with a rabbit, leaving the moon as it is today (See Amate 2). And because both the sun and the moon stood still, the gods decided that their divine dead would create eternal movement, asking Ehecatl, the god of the wind, to sacrifice them. But there was another god, Xolotl, who attempted to escape from perishing, against the divine sacrifice

314 José Antonio Flores Farfán Amate No. 1

Amate No. 2

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 315

aimed at creating light and darkness, day and night, the eternal battle among the opposites. Xolotl was finally captured by Ehecatl in the atl “water”, becoming the famous ‘axolotl’, a pre-Hispanic delicacy considered the flesh of Xolotl himself (See Amate 3). Amate No. 3

6. Distribution of materials The materials produced so far have had a very good acceptance among a wider audience and have even been in the list of a very few basic works dealing with indigenous languages and cultures of national significance placed in the new system of community libraries by President Fox. The runs altogether amount up to a total of almost half a million copies, available nationwide in public schools (cf. e.g. Briceño Chel et al. 2003). The books that have been disseminated in the Balsas Nahuas communities and beyond also include Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003). This is to say that even when it has turned out to be useful to distinguish different targets in terms of different audiences including Nahuatl and Spanish-speaking populations, this does not mean that the materials are thought of as being targeted exclusively for a single sector of the popula-

316 José Antonio Flores Farfán

tion, but rather intend to reach a general public. Multilingual versions can be conceived as the possibility of developing a richer resource rather than confronting a problem to status language planning (cf. Ruiz 1984). In practice, this opposes a perspective that has tended to segregate or even ghettoize indigenous people by producing aberrant official texts “exclusive” for indigenous children. Ironically, these educational materials are calques of the mandatory textbooks books utilized at the non-indigenous elementary schools throughout the country and subordinate them to the Spanish structures in terms of the national curriculum, not to speak of the quality of the books utilized in indigenous schools. Subordination starts with the very fact that an oral language is written down, based on the Spanish alphabet; also with the calque of the morphological Spanish structure to present the division of words (e.g. writing down no amoch “my book” as two words, as in Spanish mi libro, against Nahuatl structure, in which it constitutes a single word), etc. (for details cf. Flores Farfán in press b).

6.1. Saasaanilli (Adivinanzas or Riddles) The materials produced by the collaborators of our project are based on the concept of horizontal research-intervention, which aims at bridging the gap between basic and applied research in conjunction with local actors. The implementation of such proposals attempts to recreate the immense linguistic and cultural Mesoamerican legacy specifically in the form of riddles and local tales. These ancestral genres help in the recovery of local models, which promote entertainment, joy, and (re)acquisition. Let us consider, for example, the riddles presented in some of our textbooks (cf. Flores Farfán 1996), a lively and productive genre whose use actually becomes an index of linguistic vitality in Balsas Nahuas communities and beyond. This is manifested in, for instance, the obsolescent status of riddles in communities such as Xalitla, where Nahuatl is at the brink of extinction. Spanish has become or is becoming the primary tongue in a number of similar communities, including Maxela, Tuliman, Chilacachapa and many others (see Map 1). For this reason, the cases of extremely advanced stages of language shift require the corresponding revitalizing-oriented intervention strategy, which recover the use of bilingualism; in turn, bilingualism serves as a vehicle to reintroduce, recover, and reactivate the use of the mother tongue. In such cases, riddles and other short oral texts prove to be extremely useful due to their concise, linguistically and culturally rich nature. My translations are

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 317

not absolutely literary, but they take into account Nahual morphosemantics. Consider the following riddle: Zazan tleino. Xoxouhqui xicaltzintli. Mumuchitl ontemi. Ilhuicatl.

Sacred bowl… Filled with popcorn, the stars are watching while we’re born. What is it? The sky.

This riddle is in Classical Nahuatl (CN), an extinct social, written, High literary variety of the sixteenth century, representing the speech of the elite that the Spanish invaders worked with in order to collect an extensive corpus of Nahuatl language and Nahua culture for their purposes of evangelization (for a discussion of the notion CN from a sociolinguistic point of view cf. Flores Farfán in press b), as part of the extensive materials that Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1950–1982) collected in Book VI of the Florentine Codex. Such extraordinary wealth of material available in CN still constitutes an under-recovered resource for language revitalization and development. One of our goals is to reintroduce CN riddles (cf. Flores Farfán 2002) in the form of coloring books and in the audio-books of modern (Balsas) Nahuatl videos (see Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2003). Even when CN is no longer spoken, the value of CN riddles and tongue twisters is considerable due to their joyful, concise and vital nature; upon careful attention, CN riddles are fully intelligible to speakers themselves, as witnessed by the author in a number of interventions with both Nahuatl speaking adults and children in the Balsas region. At the same time, CN riddles constitute a powerful symbolic resource as they are identified with the mythical Nahuatl de iksan, “the Nahuatl of the past”, enhancing the Nahuatl repertoire in a prestigious medium, the written form, which contributes to destroy often well rooted ideologies stating that Nahuatl “has no grammar, cannot be written, is a dialect”, etc. The pedagogical value of riddles as verbal art conveying a model with high educational potential to empower Nahuatl language use opposes an ethnocentric viewpoint that considers riddles a minor genre. These language games concisely capture and trigger cultural and linguistic reflexivity in a creative and stimulating manner, reasserting their continuity, not as folkloric or museum objects, but rather as retention nests which recreate the ethno-cultural and linguistic diversity, celebrating it on an everyday conversational basis. Simply stated, riddles constitute a local genre that is actually a favorite way of socializing children and reproducing everyday cul-

318 José Antonio Flores Farfán

tural constructions in more linguistically vital communities as San Agustín Oapan, in which we encounter Nahuatl monolingualism, one of the Nahuatl language and Nahuas' cultural bastions. Thus, the revitalization of riddles as tools of cultural and linguistic recreation fosters the process of socialization in the mother tongue. They introduce children to e.g. the local flora and fauna, allowing them to understand local ways of speaking, in which they play no minor role, as is conceived from a Western ethnocentric perspective. Riddles also convey a dynamic dyadic model that can overlap with other language games, which are used in the local flow of everyday conversations. From the perspective of speakers, riddles basically imply having a “speech contest” in which – while playing a game –individuals are identified as being skillful speakers of the language. In these and similar communities, riddles are not conceived exclusively as being a children's game, and for this reason, they cannot be completely separated from everyday conversations or other conversational genres, which form part of their cultural and linguistic repertoires. Finally, the inclusion of riddles represents an important intergenerational way of transmission of local language and culture and their potential for the PRMDLC, thus becomes obvious. Recreating riddles and other genre as tales in different media, including audio and high technology formats such as the tri-dimensional animation videos, have produced stimulating results in terms of corpus demand, which at the same time reinforces Nahuatl local use, simultaneously providing status and favoring corpus acquisition (see Ramírez Celestino and Flores Farfán 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 2003). This strategy is in consonance with the ethno-methodological local way of recreating “old” and “new” material culture, as it appears in riddles referring to contemporary objects, inexistent in pre-Hispanic times (see Adivinanza No. 1). This contemporary riddle, which is at the same time a tongue twister, plays with the coinage capability of Nahuatl, one of the first resources to vanish due to the pressure of Spanish; this resource incorporates components of the morphology and the lexicon, and ultimately creates a neologism. It is worth noting that this is a bilingual riddle, which puts together the Nahuatl recreation of the Spanish word as question and answer of the riddle sequence. As evidence of the continuity of these language games recreated in CN, consider, for instance, the riddle entitled ‘Nails’ (See Adivnanza No. 2), which also plays with the phonetic quality of a tongue twister. (Even when my translations are absolutely literary, they take into account Nahuatl morpho-semantics).

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 319

Adivinanza No. 1

Tsiintsiinkiriantsiintsoonkwaakwaa.

I have big eyes and long legs too. To bite the hair right off of you… What is it? Scissors

320 José Antonio Flores Farfán

Adivinanza No. 2

Zazan tleino. Matlactin tepatlactli, quimomamatimani. Tozti.

All the men. Carry them. Ten by ten. What is it? Nails.

Both CN and contemporary riddles are written in different orthographies. Needless to say, this alludes to the problem of devising written norms for the language that depart (or not) from Spanish, as suggested in the modern proposal that we utilize. Yet, a thorough discussion leading to community consensus on Nahuatl written form is an open chapter awaiting to be collectively written, a task that I can only suggest here.

7. Conclusion The PRMDLC opposes a colonial and national history of schooling as a bastion of Castilianization. Its proposal pursues to articulate basic and

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 321

applied research in different types of workshops, including those in which both children and adults participate. To develop an intercultural curricula in schools should not deny the importance of specific local oral and visual cultural imagination, superimposing the Roman alphabet, which after all is still a relative foreign code in indigenous communities. In this respect, our model is based on local oral narratives in the mother tongue and native art as the basic local means to reinforce the status and use of indigenous languages in high technology formats, detaching it from the school per se. This is not to say that reading and writing in indigenous languages is not important in the many tasks involved in reversing language shift, especially given the status attributed to a written language, a factor that exacerbates well-known stereotypes (e.g., ‘indigenous languages are broken, corrupted dialects’). To the contrary, our efforts are oriented to introducing it via most familiar community genres. Enabling the production of a series of both audio-visual and written materials in the form of, for example, audiobooks illustrated in native ways by native people, facilitates the acquisition and appropriation of the materials collectively produced. The future perspectives of the project in terms of its results include the challenge of socializing and creating contexts of use for the written form of the language, a goal that will certainly bring new problems, such as dealing with a standard Nahuatl orthography. I hope the future will prove that developing a from-the-bottom-up approach will become an asset rather than an academic fashion. Acknowledgement I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Margarita Hidalgo for her stimulating comments on the various drafts of this paper, as well as the most valuable suggestions of anonymous readers. As the old litany goes, any shortcoming or error is of course of my own responsibility. Support from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología grant # 33676-H is also gratefully acknowledged. References Amith, Jonathan 1995 La tradición del amate. Innovación y protesta en el arte mexicano. México: La Casa de las Imágenes.

322 José Antonio Flores Farfán Blanco, Gloria and José Antonio Flores Farfán 1999–2003 Kokone: Website for Children. http://www.kokone.com.mx Briceño Chel, Fidencio, Marcelo Jiménez Santos, José Antonio Flores Farfán et al. 2003 Na'at le Ba'ala Paalen. Adivinanzas mayas-yucatecas. Mexico: Artes de México and Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (also available in video). Comisión Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (CONACULTA) 1998 La diversidad cultural de México. Mexico: CONACULTA. Flores Farfán, José A. 1992 Sociolingüística del náhuatl. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. 1996 Za zan tleino. See Tosaasaanil. See Tosaasaanil. Adivinanzas nahuas ayer y hoy. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 26: 327–346. 1998 On the Spanish of the Nahuas. Hispanic Linguistics 10(1): 1–41. 1999 Cuatreros somos y toindioma hablamos. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. 2000 Transferencias náhuatl-español en el Balsas (Guerrero, México). Reflexiones sobre el desplazamiento y la resistencia lingüística en el náhuatl moderno. Amerindia 25: 87–106. 2001 Culture and language revitalization, maintenance, and development in Mexico. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152: 185–197. 2002 Zazan Tleino. Adivinanzas nahuas de ayer, hoy y siempre. Illustrations Cleofas Ramírez Celestino. Mexico: Artes de México and Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. 2003 Nahuatl purism: Between language innovation, maintenance and shift. In Purism in the Age of Globalization, Joseph Brincat et al (eds.), 281–313. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. in press a Towards an intercultural dialogue in and around the school in Mexico. Problems, reflections and new perspectives. In Dialogues In and Around Multicultural Schools, W. Herlitz and Robert Maier (eds.). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. in press b Classical Nahuatl: Unraveling its sociolinguistic complexity. In Altesprache, Thomas Stolz (ed). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Flores Farfán, José A., Refugio Nava Nava, Crisanto Bautista Cruz and Wilf Plum 2002 See Tosaasaaniltsiin, seee tosaasaaniltsiin. Adivinanzas mexicanas. México: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Centro de Investigaciones and Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Flores Farfán, José A. and Gerardo López 1989 A Sociolinguistic approach to Mexican multilingualism, Sociolinguistics 18: 33–40.

Culturally-sensitive materials for bilingual Nahuatl speakers 323 Hale, Kenneth 1992 Endangered language. Language 68(1):1–3. Hornberger, Nancy (ed.) 1997 Indigenous Literacies in the Americas. Language Planning from the Bottom up. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía y Estadística (INEGI). 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda, 2000. Mexico: INEGI. Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) 2002 Indicadores socioeconómicos de los pueblos indígenas de México. Mexico: INI. Ladefoged, Peter 1995 The Sounds of the World's Languages (Phonological Theory). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. McCarty, Teresa 1998 Schooling, resistance, and American Indian languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 132: 27–41. Ruiz, Richard 1984 Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8: 15–34. Ramírez Celestino, Cleofas and Flores Farfán, José Antonio 1995a Tlakwatsin. El tlacuache. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social and Ediciones Corunda (also in tape and video). 1995b See Tosaasaanil, See Tosaasaanil. Adivinanzas nahuas de hoy y siempre. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. (also in tape and video). 1996 Colorín color Nahuas. Adivina iluminando. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. 1997 Aalamatsin wan Tlatlaamani. La sirena y el pescador. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (also available in video). 2003 Axólotl. El ajolote. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social and Ediciones ERA. Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de 1950-1982 Florentine Codex. General History of the Things of New Spain. (Edited and translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble). Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research. Sherzer, Joel and Thomas Stolz (eds.) 2003 Minor Languages. Diversitas Linguarum 3, Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.

Chapter 11 Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas Dora Pellicer

Abstract In Mexico Spanish co-exists with more than sixty living indigenous languages, although the estimates vary, depending on the linguistic or demographic criteria of the sources (see Cifuentes and Moctezuma and Pellicer, et al. in this collection). Their speakers and their traditions survive a constant daily interaction with modernity, distributing their linguistic repertoires according to the range of alternative forms of labor and subsistence provided by the latter. Indigenous linguistic horizons are continually broadened into scenarios that overlap with a variety of cultural and social frontiers, interacting with multiple identities. This plural context is marked by socio-economic inequality in which bilingualism becomes an unavoidable necessity for the Amerindian population, while acting as a threat to the survival of their native languages. However, the weave of their communal and social networks is interspersed with niches of vitality in which the indigenous languages are able to thrive, surviving the cultural and linguistic plurality imposed by their speakers’ amplified horizons of social interaction. The aforementioned factors are considered in order to propose an ethnographic and sociolinguistic approach to the use of bilingual repertoire in two Mazahua-speaking peasant communities. Those communities are located a short distance from industrial zones where alternative forms of work are available, and they show a high index of rural-urban migration. By applying the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Fishman 1991), we are warned as to the gradual process of shift with respect to the Mazahua language and its contact with Spanish. However, the presence of other communitarian and generational variables, such as the interviews and commentaries about the metalinguistic awareness of bilingual speakers (Hymes 1974), allows us to confirm the persistence of numerous scenarios of use of the indigenous language, which maintains its vitality alongside the immersion of the Mazahua people in a cultural and linguistic plurality.

326 Dora Pellicer

1. Introduction The purpose of this article is to examine the threatened vitality of Mazahua within the context of a day-to-day interaction with Spanish. Located in the Mesoamerican culture area, this language belongs to the Otomi-Mazahua branch of the Otopamean family, whose two other branches are the Matlatzinca-Ocuiltec and the Pame-Chichimec. In actuality, the total number of Mazahuas above the age of five is 133,413.1 Most of them (85%) are distributed throughout ten counties in the Northwestern region of the state of Mexico. A small percentage (3.2%) live on the border between the state of Mexico and Michoacán, while many have moved away from the area entirely, drawn by the potential employment opportunities of the country’s urban areas, Mexico City being one of the principal magnets of migratory attraction for the Mazahuas (7.5%).2 In the first section I set forth tenets that justify both an ethnographic and socio-linguistic approach to linguistic minorities living within national states. The second section offers a survey of the historical background of the Mazahua language; in the third section, I use the parameters derived from the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) proposed by Fishman (1991) in order to assess the Mazahua bilingual situation. The final section captures the arguments of the Mazahua speakers themselves regarding linguistic contact. The purpose here is to account for their awareness of the different stages proposed in Fishman’s scale, through the source of reflection that Hymes (1974: 2) defined in folk linguistics as the “inquiry into the conception of language held by societies without institutional linguistics”. Due to the fact that I shall be dealing with bilingual speakers, whose mother tongue has been minorized for centuries in its social functions (see Pellicer et al. in this collection), while their second language reaches all formal and informal domains, two specific concepts need to be clarified here. To begin with, bilingualism is not limited to two differing linguistic codes, but to an entire set of social constructs which include an expanding labor market, the extension of social networks, and interaction with other cultures. The concept of minority as applied to the Mazahua people, although it is not defined in quantitative terms; instead, it reflects a social and historical process that is guided by the nature of political power. 2. Minorized languages and bilingualism There is a growing body of awareness regarding the fact that, for a wide variety of reasons (demographic, cultural, political, economic or other-

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 327

wise), millions of tongues now lack a ‘voice’ upon the globe’s linguistic scenario, reflecting a growing deterioration of linguistic diversity. From a range of particular perspectives and using various denominations, such as minority languages, endangered languages, or threatened languages, experts in the linguistic sciences have pointed out the fatal consequences of imbalances in the ecologies of languages (Mackey 1994; Bastardas 1996). Their historical and political roots have been traced to the nineteenth century nationalist trends which sought to consolidate the unity of states through the imposition of single, official languages (Heller 1999). Colonizing influences, which lead to the weakening of traditional languages, have also been noted (Wurm 1991). In like manner, urban expansions, which ostensibly reduce survival options for languages that are quantitatively a minority should be considered (Crystal 2002). Furthermore, the process of language shift caused by the socio-linguistic hegemony of a Big Brother, where languages submitted to his contact are unable to adequately protect the social space of its functions is, too, a major factor (Fishman 2001). I should add that none of the preceding interpretations regards bilingualism as a burden for linguistic minorities, simply due to the fact that a monolingual community that is entirely independent of the tongues that surround it is no longer a viable social option in our modern world. It is not bilingualism per se which threatens language, but the lack of equilibrium among languages, cultures, and societies.

3. Mexican indigenous languages (MIL) It is a well-known fact that Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL) have confronted any or all of the situations described above. They have been threatened by disruption and changes in terms of socio-cultural surroundings throughout a prolonged period of Spanish colonial domination, followed by a criollo independence3 in which linguistic uniformity – entailing the Hispanization of the Amerindian population – would be conceived as an essential foundation for national unity in the nineteenth century. This chimera contributed to the eradication of at least a dozen languages of pre-Hispanic origin and a 49% decline in indigenous language speaking population, while the status of Spanish as a national language was firmly consolidated (Cifuentes and Pellicer 1989). A twentieth-century acknowledgment and integration of Mexico’s mestizo (mixed-blood) society, which marked a rupture from the previous old world Hispanic ideals, retained however linguistic policies designed to

328 Dora Pellicer

maintain the use of Spanish as a requisite for the national participation of Amerindian peoples. Under such circumstances, the persistence of dozens of these languages on Mexican soil, as well as the expansion of bilingualism – Indian language / Spanish – cannot be explained as a result of official language policies, but along the socio-linguistic dynamics of communities of speakers. Their contact with scenarios of urban employment, with forms of industrialized production or the mass media, have given rise to the development of plural identities whose scope extends from the requirements of traditional rural existence to the demands of participation in a twentyfirst century industrialized milieu. It is here where bilingualism becomes the bridge that links the intimate community (family, neighborhood, village) with the impersonal society, that is, urban concentrations and industrialized cities (Fishman 1991: 6). When each language regularly fulfills cognitive, identity-related, communicative and ritual functions in clearly pre-determined social and political contexts, contact fosters a socio-linguistic situation known as diglossia (Fishman 1991: 85). However, diglossic functions are not easily materialized in situations where profound socio-cultural and socio-economic gaps exist between the participating languages, giving rise to very diverse linguistic profiles, as is the case between Spanish and the MIL. Spanish is the Big Brother here, an empowered language providing opportunities for employment and survival in Mexico’s congested urban labor markets, a stark contrast to the impoverished regions that sustain the indigenous intimate communities, which remain, nevertheless, the MIL’s locus of support.

4. The Mazahuas and their ancestral mother tongue The social history of the Mazahua people and their language is rather laconic. Orozco y Berra (1864) and Clavijero (1883), basing their research on the códices and colonial documents, described them as Otomi-speaking hunters, living under Aztec domination in the province of Mazahuacan. The Summa de visitas (Oliver Vega 1991: 128) indicates that this province, distributed between the Northeast of the State of Mexico and Michoacan, was divided into 13 municipalities with a total of 6,071 homes, inhabited by 29,502 people. A single printed colonial volume, the Doctrina y enseñanza de la lengua mazahua (Nágera Yanguas 1637), described briefly some linguistic traits of this indigenous language. This is particularly remarkable in view of the fact that during the first two centuries of the colo-

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 329

nial period several grammatical and religious texts – Artes, vocabularies, catechisms, confessionals and sermons – were written in Otomi, its sister language, and those written in Nahuatl amount to more than one hundred (Contreras García 1986). This discretional attitude towards Mexico’s indigenous languages was linked to the status of its speakers at the time of the Conquest, a status measured in terms of territorial and demographic expansion, as well as urban developments and political power. At the time of the independence from Spain, nineteenth-century scholars counted with this colonial heritage. The scant attention paid by historians and philologists to the Mazahua language, which some of them viewed as a dialect of Otomi, reflects the Mazahua’s modest role amongst the many Mesoamerican peoples.4 A linguistic interest in Mazahua did not properly arise until the appearance of studies in the field of Otopamean languages during the twentieth century. Although such studies continued to rely on the notion of a primary Otomi-Mazahua source, the differences between the two were also gradually acknowledged. At the same time, fundamental references for the reconstruction of Mazahua on the phonetic, phonological and morphological level were gradually established.5 Today, a reduced number of Mazahua speakers with access to higher education have produced a number of dictionaries and grammatical studies (Benítez Reyna, 2002); however, these do not as yet constitute a substantive contribution towards linguistic standardization. Apart from certain specialized works, their dissemination has been limited largely to the purposes of evangelization, through prayers and bibles, or with expectations of alphabetization, which have yet to find a niche within the Mazahua’s day-to-day existence (García García 1997). Despite the Mazahua’s marginalized historical role, in both absolute and relative numbers, this language occupies the 12th place among the 16 socalled “major” indigenous tongues. (See Cifuentes and Moctezuma, Table 4 in this collection). However, different data offered by the same source do not contribute to report an optimistic vision about its future. Mazahua also exhibits the second lowest growth rate and the second use in the home domain, while bilingualism at 94.5% occupies the second highest end of the scale (Cifuentes and Moctezuma Graph 7 in this collection). Nevertheless, as Crystal (2000) has pointed out, we must bear in mind that the population figures are generally quoted out of context. Given that quantitative data alone do not account for the micro-universe of languages, they do not necessarily depict the particular scenarios where people speak Mazahua. The enclaves of vitality of a language can only be acknowledged in light of the

330 Dora Pellicer

less measurable facts resulting from case studies (Romaine 1995). This is why we will focus on an ethnographic account of the bilingual situation within two small Mazahua villages – San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas – belonging to the county of Ixtlahuaca, located in the state of Mexico (See Map 1). These are twin villages not only in geographic terms, but also in terms of the family relationships that connect their inhabitants with the production and community work carried out collectively. The data collected for the third section of this paper is the result of two years of fieldwork (2000-2001) in these two villages.

Map 1. The location of Mazahua counties

4.1. The vitality of Mazahua in contact with Spanish The stages proposed along the GIDS scale (Fishman 1991) have been a useful guide to explain the situation of bilingualism that was observed during fieldwork. Numbers in the upper range of the GIDS scale imply a situation of extreme social weakness for a language, whereas lower numbers

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 331

indicate a growing linguistic strength. Consequently, Stage 8 describes a stage in which nothing but the linguistic vestiges of a language remain, while Stage 1 indicates the existence of full social functions–educational, occupational, governmental, health care, and others, in the corresponding national context. In an attempt to outline the complex socio-linguistic weave in the villages under study, Chart 1 integrates different variables. Firstly, the scale was distributed horizontally into two scenarios, corresponding to Fishman’s (1991) distinction between the intimate community (henceforth IC) and the impersonal society (henceforth IS). The former corresponds to the villages of San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas. The latter corresponds to Mexico City, where most Mazahua migrants are employed. Along the same horizontal axis, a generational scale distinguishes four age groups based on social relations, productive activity, and education. Within the intimate community of these two villages, the increase in life expectancy places the old folks (Fishman 1991: 91) into the group of over-60. This is a group without any formal education, whose members continue to labor within reduced plots of land, at least as allowed by their aging physical conditions. Adults between 50 and 60 are also peasants with no formal schooling whose work and social life are intimately linked to the local peer group. Though many of them may have been employed in the larger urban centers at some earlier point in their lives (Pellicer 1988), they now mostly reside in their communities of origin. Those Mazahuas between the ages of 50 and 35 make up a population who attended two or three years of elementary school. Some adults under 35, and most adolescents, have completed basic education, which in the last decade comes to include the lower high school. Although some of the young people who have had the opportunity to attend a technical training in the county are often hired for factory labor in the industrial zone of the state of Mexico, and remain in their villages of origin, most of them have to earn their living looking for jobs in Mexico City. In actuality, all children over 5 attend a rural school when their parents or grandparents live in their home villages, or an urban school when their elders work in the cities. In terms of educational attainment and rural-urban mobility, individuals under 35 constitute a single group in the GIDS Chart. The bulk of Mazahuas who work and live in Mexico City share the characteristics of the three latter age groups. This immigrant population allow us to compare the effects of the IS on the mother tongue. Secondly, it was likewise necessary to subdivide the work domain corresponding to Stage 3, in order to introduce the range of activities linked to

332 Dora Pellicer

it in both villages: farming and craftsmanship, communal tasks, and festivities and celebrations, in light of the fact that the latter are organized and carried out collaboratively by families, mayordomías6, and other indigenous organizations. Urban sources of employment have been also included due to the elevated rate of Mazahua rural-urban migration. Finally, I have grouped under Stage 8, the passive understanding of some lexical items and conversational routines that are retained by the youngest ones who no longer speak the language of their ancestors (See Chart 1). Chart 1. Stages of bilingualism in San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas

GIDS Stages

A. Intimate community

B. Impersonal society

San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas

Mexico City

Age groups (older to younger) +60 60+50 50+35 8. Mazahua conversational vestiges

-35

+60 60+50 50+35

S/m

7. Old folks conversations

M

M/S

S/M

6. Intergenerational transmission

M

S

S

S

-35

S/m S/M

S/m

S

S

S

5. Informal literacy

S

S

S

4. Lower education: public

S

S

S

S/M

S

S

S

S

S

3. Work: – Farm and craftsmanship M

M/S

S/M

S/m

– Communitarian work

M

M/S

S/M

S/m

– Market

M

M/S

S/M

S/m

– Fiestas

M

M/S

S/M

S /m

S/M

– closed immigrant network – open immigrant network 2. Media (radio)

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

1. Government

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

Key to language use: Mazahua (M); Spanish (S); Mazahua vestigial (m):  M = Mazahua dominantSpanish incipient   S/M = Spanish dominant/Mazahua diminished   S = Spanish dominant

M/S = Mazahua L1/Spanish L2 S/m = Spanish dominant/Mazahua vestigial

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 333

4.2. GIDS at first sight Chart 1 shows five categories of language use domains across the GIDS and along the different age groups in two scenarios: the IC and the IS. The trends of bilingualism in the horizontal axis show a continuum, which starts with Mazahua as the dominant language among the older folks (over 60); their Spanish is incipient in the IC. The end of the continuum shows the opposite pole, with Spanish as the only language used by Mazahua young adults, adolescents and children in the IS. The numbered stages of the GIDS in conjunction with the horizontal axis indicate, on the one hand, the range of situations in which Mazahua is shared with or threatened by Spanish. In particular, Stages 5, 4, 2 and 1 reveal situations marked by a total absence of the indigenous language, while Spanish assumes all the hegemonic functional loads. On the other hand, the numbered scale also reveals that the Mazahua language maintains a low level of linguistic vitality, diversified with respect to generations and distributed differently in the two scenarios, rural and urban (Stages 8, 7, 6). However, it is in those settings corresponding to the domains of work (Stage 3) that we find the highest concentration of Mazahua being used. The rate of literacy is low among adult Mazahuas, which explains the absence of informal Mazahua written practices at home (Stage 5). In this realm, the General Directorate for Indigenous Education (Dirección General de Educación Indígena), under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública), is in charge of those bilingual programs corresponding to Stage 4, in the IC, although they had yet to be regularly implemented in the two villages considered here at the time of research. In the IS all schooling is in Spanish for all ages. As it is the case with a broad range of MIL, their vitality pivots around oral transmission, but unfortunately Mazahua radio stations operated by the Instituto Nacional Indigenista have not yet reached Ixtlahuaca County. Therefore, Stage 2 in both the IC and the IS, remains an exclusive domain of Spanish. Stages of actual language use are accounted for in only 73 of the 104 possible cells in chart 1: 34 for the IC and 24 for the IS. The cells corresponding to the IC reveal that Mazahua is the language of communication in 17.6% of the described scenarios, while 37.6 % of these domains entail the monolingual use of Spanish with a corresponding 14.6 % of Mazahua L1 bilingualism. To this we must append 14.6% of Spanish-dominant bilingualism and another 14.6% of Mazahua recessive bilingualism. Additionally, there is a 14% of only-Spanish use with a vestigial level of Mazahua comprehension.

334 Dora Pellicer

The GIDS help to identify the space allocated by old folks to the ancestral language in Stage 3. Older adults (50-60) dominant in Mazahua use Spanish nonetheless as their second language (L2) when communicating with the younger generations. They do not have any impact in the maintenance of their mother tongue, and thus share Stages 3 and 7. Spanish prevails among adults between 35 and 50, whose Mazahua has entered into a process of functional recession and belong in Stage 7. Verbal interactions among speakers below the age of 35 are completely in Spanish. This group belongs in Stage 8, but is capable of recognizing a few conversational routines in the indigenous language. We observe a marked decrease along the GIDS as Mazahuas pass from the IC to the IS, where the old folks do not participate. Although the closed immigrant networks of the 50-to-60 years old adults keep the mother tongue alive in some bilingual spaces, their social functions are diminished in the heart of the Spanish-speaking urban scenarios. As can be seen in Chart 1, in the IS, Mazahua ceases to be the L1 within this age group, and its use is entirely displaced within the younger generations of immigrants. The 35-to-50 years old immigrants turn into a Spanish monolingual group with the exception of some few adults between 40-50 years old, who understand some vestiges of the mother tongue. The 24 cells corresponding to the IS reveal that the migrants to the city occupy a wide spectrum of activities (83%) in which Spanish monolingualism prevails, whereas only 12.5% of Spanish-dominant bilinguals have Mazahua as a recessive mother tongue and only 8.2% remember some vestiges of this language.7

5. Mazahua women at home: Linguistic and cultural plurality The conversations presented in the second section of the article are samples of recordings obtained during my encounters with female elders and adults in these villages, a segment of a population which plays an important role in the maintenance of Mazahua / Spanish bilingualism. Four of them, whom I first met in Mexico City, are migrant workers who gave me the opportunity to establish close contact with their families. The socioeconomic role played by Indian women contradicts a series of cultural stereotypes, including the notion that they occupy a marginal position in processes of aperture or cultural and linguistic change.8 The Mazahua informants from San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas, whose metalinguistic awareness towards the stages of bilingualism is explored at

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 335

the end, take part in a productive existence through a broad range of activities that involve bilingual situations. At the margin of any formal education in Spanish, they have developed a non-standard conversational competence in their second language (Pellicer 2001) and a plural linguistic awareness that allows them to take a stance before the identity conflicts that arise from language contact. Those who maintain their mother tongue within the social unity of the rural home are mostly peasants who live off the land and small-scale business at the local market or at home. Those who maintain it in an urban context earn a living mostly as artisans, street or market vendors, or as domestic help. In fact, these women have not lost contact with the rural homes and socio-cultural background but continue to form part of the family network, which benefits economically from the fruits of their labors in the city. (See Table 1). Table 1. Profile of Mazahua informants Name

Home village

Age

Schooling

Occupational activity

1.Chana (Ch)

San Juan de las Manzanas

60

None

Peasant

2.Antonia (A)

San Juan de las Manzanas

51

None

Local vendor

3.Soledad (S)

San Juan de las Manzanas

45

Second grade Elementary school

Peasant

4.Irene (I)

San Juan de las Manzanas

38

Third grade Elementary school

Market vendor (Mexico City)

5.Virginia (V)

San Ildefonso

58

None

Domestic help (Mexico City)

6.Lucía (L)

San Ildefonso

54

None

Peasant

7.Faustina (F)

San Ildefonso

52

First grade

Domestic help (Mexico City)

Elementary school 8.María (M)

San Ildefonso

48

Second grade Elementary school

Domestic help (Mexico City)

Indigenous households allow us to single out family spaces where one or more adults maintain the use of Mazahua, regardless of the fact that the younger members of the family no longer speak it (Fernández Ham 2000: 39–41). Each of the above female subjects is member of a Mazahua home (rural or urban). The precarious conditions of the fields tilled by the Maza-

336 Dora Pellicer

huas have given rise to extended families which share either a single home or a single plot of land which houses the homes of married offspring. This is the case with informants 1, 2, 3 and 6. In Mexico City, Mazahua women working as street or market vendors live with their families – husband and children – mostly in the ‘vecindades’ (crumbling tenements) of the older areas of ‘el centro’ (old downtown area), where they receive relatives coming as visitors from their villages. Domestic laborers who have lived for two or three decades with urban families, such as informants 5, 7 and 8, have now moved in to small apartments in vertically or horizontally integrated areas in the urban periphery.9 In both the downtown area and in the suburbs, these homes generally house marriages, or single mothers, often living together with their married children and grandchildren. These urban Indian homes are frequented over the weekend by Mazahua friends and relatives who reside in their employer’s home on weekdays. The Mazahua’s appropriation of urban patterns of culture has not entailed a total abandonment of rural traditions, in particular those that relate to reunions and family feasts.

6. Old folks’ conversation and conversational vestiges Older adults are of vital importance for the maintenance of Mazahua. They employ their mother tongue with people of all ages, especially due to their incipient grasp of Spanish, which is understandable in view of the fact that during the early decades of the twentieth century, Mazahua was the only language spoken at home. The memories of Chana, one of the informants, are transcribed in Conversation 1. [The following key is used for all transcriptions: first initials stand for the name of the participants; the letter I refers to the interviewer; […] stands for omitted fragments; (,) (..) (...) for pauses and silence and the parenthesis ( ) include explanatory indications when needed]. Conversation 1: During the Revolution Chana: (Ch) 1. 2. 3.

Ch:

En aquel tiempo, cuando la..la revolución, las lenguas de las indígenas, Este yo me acuerdo, que mi mamá no hablaba nada en español. Y entonces, aquel tiempo,

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 337 4. 5. 6. 7.

I: Ch:

8.

Por eso mi madre me me inculcó el, el mazahua Porque ella no habla el.. este castellano…¿o cómo se llama? Español Es español, pues…pero los indígenas le dicen el castellano [...] porque en San Juan de las Manzanas era puro mazahua.

[English version follows] 1.

Ch:

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I: Ch:

8

During that time, when th..the revolution the languages of the indigenous people, This… I remember, that my mom didn’t speak any Spanish. So then, at that time, for this reason My mother made me aware of the use of Mazahua with th… Because she didn’t speak Castilian, or how do you call it? Spanish S Spanish, then... but the Indians call it Castilian [...] Because in San Juan de las Manzanas there was only Mazahua

Nowadays, it is the old folks, such as Chana and her mother, who are the sole bearers of their mother tongue, which serves as an informal and natural vehicle for verbal interaction within the IC. Interaction between generations allows young people and children who use only Spanish to recognize certain vestiges of the language of their ancestors. These correspond to the most repetitive and ritualized conversational routines: greetings, farewells, blessings, orders, and scolding. Women who participated in this study revealed a full awareness of this level of competence in the Mazahua language, which they interpret in two ways: (a) to “understand Mazahua” indicates that the latter remains a functional tongue within the family; and (b) to “understand Mazahua” is the result of incomplete intergenerational transmission of the mother tongue. Conversation 2: They don’t speak it but they still understand it Chana (Ch) and Antonia (A) 1. 2. 3.

I: Ch:

Entonces, ¿el mazahua se usa? Sí porque sí hay gente que, que no lo habla, pero le entiende, le entiende. Ahí está Alberta, que no lo habla, pero lo entiende.

338 Dora Pellicer 4. 5. 6. 7.

I: A:

8. Ch: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Ajá. Ps sí, hay muchas personas que no lo hablan…pero sí lo entienden. Yo he visto eso. Muchas muchachas que así veo que sí entiende Cuando están hablando, pos oyen lo que están diciendo... están hablando, Porque mi hija, así, cuando le hablan así (en Mazahua): – Oyes hija, qué cosa dijo? Y.. sí… me lo dice ella… Y le digo: – ¿Le entendistes lo que dice tu abuela?, – Sí, sí, yo le entiendo todo, dice, nomás que no lo hablo. Pos lo aprendió porque como creció al lado de mi mamá siempre, Y ella no nos habla en español…pus l’entiende.

[English version follows] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I: Ch:

I: A:

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Ch

So, Mazahua, is it used? Yes, because there are a lot of people who, who don’t speak it but they understand it, they understand it. There’s Alberta, who doesn’t speak it but does understand it. Yeah. Well yeah, there are a lot of people that don’t speak it but they do understand it. When they’re speaking, well they hear what’s being said... they’re speaking, Because my daughter, when they talk to her this way (in Mazahua): – Hey, what did so-and-so say? And yeah…, she tells me… And then I say to her, Did you understand what your grandmother says? – Yes, I understand it all, she says, it’s just that I don’t speak it. Well she learned it because she grew up always being with my mother, and she never spoke to us in Spanish…so she understands it.

6.1. Work and ‘fiestas’ The rituals of work and feasting are significantly related to the forms of identity and solidarity that bond the inhabitants of San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas; this, in spite of the fact that the use of their mother tongue varies across generational lines. Among other things, community work is a collective activity inherited from their ancestors, preserved for

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 339

centuries alongside the techniques used by men, women and children to keep and maintain their communal fields: till, sowing and reaping. Trading in the large weekly market of the county, Ixtlahuaca, also fosters the maintenance of Mazahua lexicon, which is extensively applied in reference to edibles and produce. It is also a space for extensive verbal commercial interaction in the mother tongue of the older Mazahuas, which the younger generations hear and often understand while carrying out their tasks in Spanish. By the same token, the calendars of religious feasts commemorating the Patron Saint’s of each town or pilgrimages to sanctuaries have been celebrated for centuries, enhancing the maintenance of ancient Mazahua beliefs and rituals and encounters between people and languages. Conversation 3. San Ildefonso feast Antonia (A) Lucía (L) 1. 2. 3. 4.

I: L:

5. 6.

A:

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

A:

I: A: L: A: L:

14. 15. 16. A: 17. 18. L: 19.

Pa’nosotros la fiesta más grande es el 23 de Enero, el día que se festeja San Ildefonso. A mí me gusta mucho venir a esa fiesta. Ya ve, mis hijas bailan las danzas de aquí y las de San Juan de las Manzanas y luego pus ya usté vio bien bonita la procesión. Y los castillos ¿se acuerda? y luego la misa a media noche y al mediodía domingo ..y Y ¿cómo organizan toda esta fiesta? Pus todos ahí cooperando para la fiesta y todo... Todos, todo el pueblo coopera para la fiesta lo que quieran dar. Y... lo que más o menos les alcance ¿ no? Pa’ los organizadores. Pus por ejemplo las casas ahí que les toca pus hacen ‘el mole’[platillo típico] por ejemplo, si me toca pus hago mole y por allá otras casa por allá hacen mole también. Pus, si llega una visita de otro pueblo o que llega usté pus se le tengo que dar un taco o algo, fruta, refresco, cacahuatito.... ...Y, y entonces cuando empieza a beber los viejitos hacen relajo en puro Mazahua y risas... pus así es.

340 Dora Pellicer

[English version follows] 1.

A:

2. 3. 4.

I: L:

5. 6.

A:

7. 8. I: 9. A: 10. L: 11. 12. A: 13. L: 14. 15. 16. A: 17. 18. L: 19.

...to us the biggest party is on the 23rd of January, the day we celebrate San Ildefonso. I love to come to that feast whenever you invite me. You see, my daughters dance the dances from here and the ones that come from San Juan de las Manzanas, and you saw how beautiful the procession... And, and the fireworks… you remember? and then Mass at midnight and also on Sunday at noon… and... And how do you organize it all? Well, everybody contributes to the festivities and all... Everybody, the whole town contributes to the party whatever they want to give. And… whatever they can manage to give, right? For the ones organizing it. Well, for example there are those homes where they have to prepare ‘mole’ [a typical meal] for example, if I get asked to I prepare mole and over there other homes prepare also ‘mole’... ‘Cause, if a visitor from another town shows up, or it is you, well you’ve got to give you a taco or something, fruit, a soda, some peanuts… ...And and then when the elder men start to drink and start cutting up in Mazahua and laughter and all that... that’s the way it is...

Community celebrations are meeting places for the old folks, for whom such occasions provide an opportunity for Mazahua chatter among peers: an interchange of courtesies, extended narratives, complaints about economic hardships, memories of the past, jokes and laughter far into the night. The same can be said of family festivities, most of which derive from sacramental rituals such as baptisms, confirmations or marriages, which gather the extended family and other members of the community linked to them by their compadrazgo.10 Although the younger adults make little use of Mazahua, they understand and share the old folks’ chit-chat. Likewise,

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 341

during the fiesta, children and adolescents argue and joke in Spanish, while adults joke in Mazahua and scold the children in Mazahua.

6.2. Mazahua language shift The preceding optimistic perspectives cannot halt by themselves the process of Mazahua language shift in contact with Spanish. Minimizing the effects of subtractive bilingualism resulting from contact with Spanish would require, among other forms of support, systematic and functional intergenerational transmission in the mother tongue. Unfortunately, this stage is practically non-existent in San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas. Disruption in the use of Mazahua between mothers and their children appears in conversations between women of the first and second generations; the attitudes of the latter are related to an acceptance of the fact that they form part of a bilingual community. Conversation 4. Intergenerational transmission interrupted Faustina (F), Irene (Ir), and Maria (M) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

F:

Ir:

10. 11. 12. 13. M: 14.

Y entonces, ps nosotros..yo, yoo y mi hermana somos los que todavía hablamos el mazahua en la familia, Y este, la mamá de Braulia, En el pueblo, todavía hay personas que están grandes, que son de aquellas épocas todavía, que, todavía lo hablan, pero nada más… Pero ya los hijos que vienen ya no, lo dejan definitivamente Ahora la mamá…suponemos que también las mamases tienen la culpa, porque, porque ahora, como, como crecieron los padres, así deberían crecer los hijos enseñarles el, el, el mazahua, desde chicos, Y enseñarles también el español, pos de los dos.. así aprenden mejor y hablan más.

[English version follows] 1. 2.

F:

And so, well we, I, I, my sister and me are the ones in the family who still speak Mazahua,

342 Dora Pellicer 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ir: 19. 11. 12. 13. M: 14.

and um, Braulia’s mom. In the town there are still people that are older, that are still from the older days, that still speak it, but only them… but the children that come, they don’t anymore, they’ve left it behind for good. Yeah but the mom…let’s suppose that the moms are to blame, because, because now, as, as the parents were raised, that’s how the children should also be raised, teaching them Mazahua since they’re little. And also teach them Spanish, uh both of them… that way they learn better and speak more.

6.3. Education The social mobility expectations of Mazahua women acknowledge a fundamental role to lower public education, which is appreciated on a symbolic level in rural community life. The basic system of public education is seen as the scenario for multiple linguistic tasks. On the one hand, its role is to provide, in addition to Spanish, the Mazahua language knowledge that adults fail to provide at home. On the other hand, as they are not opposed to participation of their families in the migratory experience to the northern countries, they ask the school to be an English language transmitter for their children. Conversation 5. Multilingual schooling: a wishful thinking Virginia (V), Faustina (F) and Lucía (L) 1.

F:

2. 3.

L:

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

V:

F:

Yo he oído qu’en Toluca dan unas clases de mazahua..pero no sé en qué parte Ps es como darle.. una parte e..en mazahua y una parte en inglés pero el inglés y el mazahua no les dan nada, en los pueblos... puro el español... Suponemos que en algunos pueblitos de mazahuas... hay algunas maestras que sí saben mazahua y eso sería lo…lo bonito, que, donde es mazahua, l’escuela de…debería de darle, el español y el mazahua. Eso fuera lo mejor…digo yo,

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 343 9. 10 11. 12. 13. I: 14. V: 15. 16.

lo bonito sería que los niños o nietos, los que van creciendo, es que aprendieran el mazahua, aprendieran su idioma. porque, qué importa, que es como el inglés. a ver, ¿cómo, cómo aprenden e.. el inglés y no aprender el mazahua? Claro. Pos ái stá, así como se aprende el inglés, se aprende el mazahua, también nada más es querer, tener cabeza.

[English version follows] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

F: L:

V: F:

10 11. 12. 13. I: 14. V: 15. 16.

I’ve heard that in Toluca they teach Mazahua classes… but I don’t know where exactly… well it’s like giving…part of it in Mazahua and the other part in English but English and Mazahua don’t do anything for them, in their towns it’s all in Spanish. Let’s suppose that in some Mazahua towns there are teachers that do speak Mazahua. That would be the best, is what I say, and it would be good that the children and grandchildren, as they are growing up, that they learn Mazahua, that they learn their language. because, what’s the problem, it’s like English. I mean, how is it that they learn English but they don’t learn Mazahua? Of course. Well that’s it, just like English is learned, Mazahua should be learned too. It’s all about wanting to, having that in your head.

The fact that writing in Mazahua is still an incipient ability does not preclude the scarcely literate population from transmitting formally the indigenous language, whose presence and essence have been maintained for centuries at the oral level. If we bear in mind that the hegemony of writing tends to sacrifice, in the models of Western formal education, substantial aspects of non-literate cultures, the Mazahua proposal acquires a dimension that is not purely naïve. An educational panorama is proposed here which allows for the participation of two European languages based on written traditions – Spanish and English – alongside an Indian language that has no

344 Dora Pellicer

written tradition, but which is preserved in the archives of an oral culture. Consequently, the latter’s legitimization on the educational arena is not dependent on the conclusion of a process of standardization. The encroachment of English is, in fact, not that far-fetched, particularly in view of the economic support received by many families from migrant Mazahua workers in the Anglophone North American countries.

6.4. Intimate communities within the impersonal society: communicative and social networks Mazahuas are active participants in the migration process to urban work centers, which systematically attract migrants, particularly to Mexico City and its surrounding metropolitan areas, where nearly 10% of all Mazahua population can be found. The female sector of San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas makes up a large part of this movement to the city. In order to adjust themselves to the urban milieu, the Mazahuas count on two types of social networks: closed and opened. These are related to the density of the links among the members of a group (Milroy 1980). A close network is tightly linked to the internal members of the Mazahua community who maintain high density ties, i.e., family, friendship, job clusters, and others. The continuance of the rights and social obligations embedded in the intimate community strengthen the social cohesion that is required to face the demands of the impersonal society. This network is enlarged by Mazahuas coming from the eleven different counties in the state of Mexico (see Map 1) and allows us to postulate that the characteristics of the linguistic repertoire of migrants from San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas are similar to those found in the Mazahua community of the IS. The other network is open in that the Mazahuas maintain with external members of their speech community, i.e., city employees, landlords, public services personnel with whom Mazahuas must undergo a variety of face-toface interactions, all of which entail the mandatory use of Spanish. Following Fishman (1972: 24), one may argue that the repertoire of migrant Mazahuas is rooted both in actual verbal interaction – which is experienced in internal and external networks – and on reference networks that function as symbolic integration with the city culture and language. The former contributes to the maintenance of the Mazahua language among migrants older than 50, while the reference networks tend to use the sociolectal variety of urban Spanish known as español indígena (Pellicer 1992). The effects of

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 345

migration are perceived differently by Mazahuas, be it from the perspective of rural existence or from that of the migrants themselves. As for the former, urban employment contributes inevitably to a decrease of Mazahua use (Conversation 6). Conversation 6: Immigrants and subtractive bilingualism Soledad (S) 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

S:

Ahora, que ya crecieron los hijos, ya van, ya se van a México a trabajar, Ya dejan el mazahua, Ya dejan el mazahua, Y yo digo que hacen mal, porque yo digo que.. si con ese idioma crecieron, ¿por qué lo cambian?

[English version follows] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

S:

Now, the children have grown up, and they go, they go to Mexico (City) to work, and that’s how they change languages, they leave Mazahua behind, and I think they do wrong, because I say that...if they grew up with this language, why change it?

However, although the effects of an intense contact with Spanish are clearly reflected in the GIDS (see Chart 1), the urban social networks have enhanced the maintenance of bilingualism among the elders. In addition, the dynamics of migration towards Mexico City is characterized by a constant circular ‘rural-urban-rural’ mobility among Mazahua migrants, who regularly visit their hometowns, where they renew and strengthen family and community cohesion, as well as the use of their ancestral language. Conversation 7. Mazahua in the city Virginia (V) 1. 2.

V:

A mí no me da vergüenza hablar el mazahua. En el pueblo, mi mamá me habla en mazahua

346 Dora Pellicer 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

y yo le contesto en mazahua. Y me vine chica para acá (Ciudad de México) y no se me olvidó el mazahua… lo sigo hablando, y tengo una prima también, habla mucho conmigo el mazahua. Mi prima pos lo habla muy bien el Mazahua, también Yo cuando hablo por teléfono con ella ai’stamos hablando ella y yo. Luego, ya me dice las cosas y yo se las repito Y así, las dos…

[English version follows] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

V:

I’m not ashamed to speak Mazahua. In our town, my mom speaks to me in Mazahua and I respond to her in Mazahua, And I came here (Mexico City) when I was little and I haven’t forgotten Mazahua… I still speak it, and I have a cousin also, she speaks to me a lot in Mazahua. My cousin, well she speaks Mazahua real well, also there we are she and I talking on telephone, there we are she and I Then, she tells things to me, and I repeat them over and over to her. And this way we both do...

Language loyalty of Mazahuas residing in Mexico City translates into pragmatic solutions, such as speaking Mazahua on the phone or with relatives, while speaking Spanish as expected by employers and other city dwellers. In fact, the urban scenario does not seem to confirm a radical Mazahua language shift, for in the city, older women from the second generation reproduce cultural and linguistic niches within the context of their social networks allowing in this way the IC to survive within the IS.11

7. Conclusion On the one hand, this case study aids in the reconstruction along the GIDS of types and degrees of both vitality and disruption of Mazahua language in contact with Spanish. On the other hand, the folk linguistics perspective sheds light into the metalinguistic awareness of the adult female population with respect to the preferred language of interaction. The interpretation of

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 347

the GIDS presented in Chart 1 makes reference to the fact that Mazahua is a threatened language, which deserves to be treated under the assumptions of reverse language shifters (cf. Fishman 1991). Table 2, which sums up the bilingual situation by age groups and types of communities, shows that Spanish is pushing out the native indigenous language in such a way that the younger generations can solely count on Mexico’s dominant language among their linguistic repertoire (Hymes 1985). Table 2. Bilingualism/monolingualism among mazahuas Intimate community

Impersonal society

Age groups

Languages

GIDS Stages

Age groups

Languages

GIDS Stages

+50

M/S

3

+50

S/M

7

+35

S/M

7

+35

S/m

8

-35

S/m

8

-35

S

–

M/S = Mazahua dominant Spanish L2 S/M = Spanish dominant/Mazahua diminished S/m = Spanish dominant/Mazahua vestigial S = Spanish dominant

In Chart 1, stages linked to literacy, as the most instrumental in the tasks of reversing language shift are themselves the most dependent on Spanish. According to Fishman (1991), the development of literacy demands for the small-scale community-based attempts and not only for the standardization goals should be addressed to the public education system, i.e., grammars, dictionaries, and other language sources. In Mexico, more attention has been paid to bilingual school training and to the technicalities of language standardization than to a socialized literacy program stemming from the socio-cultural and identity functions of writing. The functions of writing can play a cohesive role for both literate and illiterate members of a linguistic community but demand the reinforcement of Mazahua language (as in Stage 6). In this way, elderly Mazahuas speakers could become aware of the role they play as oral transmitters of their mother tongue and as promoters of informal literacy (as in Stage 5) within the Mazahua oral culture. As for the oral texts transcribed in the final section of the article, they reveal an idiosyncratic view of linguistic diversity. By coming in contact with twenty-first century lifestyle and orientation – which differs greatly from that which sustains the traditional forms of Amerindian organization and interaction – Mazahua speakers have undergone a transformation in the evaluation of their linguistic repertoire. From the commemoration of a

348 Dora Pellicer

monolingual past in the Mazahua language to the two poles of the effects of migration, i.e., language shift and urban diglossia, the oral texts transcribed between the two extremes reveal that Mazahua women possess a clear awareness of the generational declines of their ancestral language (Hymes 1974). They tend to turn towards the obligations of the majority society and emphasize the role of education to integrate their children into the linguistic plurality that they seek to attain. In conjunction, these testimonies of folk linguistics involve two categories that are present in the field of ethnographic and social studies regarding language contact, albeit in an informal manner: shift and maintenance, revitalization and plurality. In the voice of Mazahua women, we can appreciate not only an awareness of unequal linguistic contact, but also a search for conciliation between different languages and cultures. Mazahua is the ancestral language that tells them from where they came and how far they can take it; Spanish is a vehicular language, which broadens the horizons of the IC, creating possibilities for integration into different labor cultures. To this dyad, we must sporadically add English, which makes an appearance upon the socio-linguistic scenario as an instrumental language, spoken in those contexts that act as a source of economic support for land and shared feasts. I contend that in those communities where language contact is extensive, speakers tend to develop plural identities, which seek conciliation through diversity. The re-arrangement of fundamental values is one of the factors that have allowed, in my view, certain linguistic minorities to maintain spaces of vitality throughout centuries of subordinate existence under a different tongue that fulfills most public and private functions of the IS. With an articulate search that can allow them to situate their own language alongside the languages imposed by labor participation in contemporary society, Mazahua people are managing to meld a resistance against leaving behind their right to be part of a modern plural world.

Notes 1. See Table 4 “Mexican indigenous languages and the national censuses: 19702000”, in Cifuentes and Moctezuma in this collection. 2. See Chart 2. Current geographic distribution of large and medium indigenous languages in Cifuentes and Moctezuma in this collection. 3. It was basically the nonconformity of the criollo population (i.e., those descendents of Spaniards born in Mexico) in light of the economic and social treatment that they received from the Spanish government, which fed the uprising

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 349

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

of the War for independence and led to its completion in 1821. Two examples of the underlying ideas of the movement of Independence are the Historia de la Revolución de la Nueva España by Dr. Servando Teresa de Mier Noriega y Guerra (1813) and Méjico y sus revoluciones by José María Luis Mora (1836). Towards the end of the eighteenth-century, Hervás (1777–1792) mentioned Mazahua as a dialect of Otomi, while nineteenth-century philologists such as Naxera (1845) and Pimentel (1874) did not pay special attention to it when compared to their interest for other Amerindian languages. Mazahua’s place within the reconstruction of the Otopame family was of particular interest to Soustelle (1937), Newman and Weitlaner (1950), Pike (1951), Spotts (1956) and Bartholomew (1975). Two more studies describe the Mazahua grammatical aspects: Amador (1976), and Stewart (1993). Knapp (1996) is responsible for an in-depth phonological investigation. More recently, the works of Lastra and Valiñas (2001), and Bartholomew (2001) have shown that while there are a high number of cognates between the two languages, ultimately they are mutually unintelligible, due to phonological changes hat have entirely different linguistic histories. A mayordomía is a social network of a reduced number of inhabitants of each village who manifest their interest in the maintenance of traditional celebrations. The mayordomos acquire rights and duties for organizing religious feasts and social and cultural community events. We should bear in mind that the notation of Spanish dominance does not indicate standard Spanish, but rather the frequency of use of this second tongue. In fact, this is a sociolectal variety of oral Spanish that has been conversationally appropriated by the adult Mazahuas. During the 1960’s, studies about incipient bilingualism among the indigenous population indicated that only one-fifth of the female population participated in this process (Diebold 1961). Two decades later, due to more favorable alternatives for the participation of the female indigenous population, studies described the development of adaptive strategies whose most immediate and accessible instrument was bilingualism (Pellicer 1988). The term ‘vecindades’, ‘el centro’, and “urban periphery” have been in use since the 1970’s among U.S. sociologists who have written about urban poor in Mexico City. An example of such terms is found in Susan Eckstein (1977: 48, 212, 216 and passim). Compadrazgo refers to a special sense of friendship, duties and obligations which is created amongst parents and godparents (compadres). Some of the Mazahuas that migrate from San Ildefonso and San Juan de las Manzanas have established contact with civil groups of migrants from other villages in the county of San Felipe del Progreso that lies to the west of Ixtlahuaca. In Mexico City they promote, among other things, self-sustenance in labor training and improved housing conditions. These groups were organized

350 Dora Pellicer after the earthquake of 1985, which seriously affected their work and living spaces in downtown Mexico City. Among these groups, the San Antonio Pueblo Nuevo Mazahua Organization has completed a recording of an oral document entitled Memoria de las mujeres que hablan mazahua (‘Memories of women who speak Mazahua’), and has directed the project Tres hilos para bordar (‘Three threads with which to embroider’). These activities bring together Mazahua artisans and street vendors from several counties located in the state of Mexico.

References Amador Hernández, Mariscela 1976 Gramática del mazahua de San Antonio Pueblo Nuevo. Bachelor’s degree linguistic project. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Bartholomew, Doris 2001 El mazahua primo hermano del otomí. IV Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames. Pachuca Hidalgo. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. 1975 Some morphophonemic rules in Mazahua. International Journal of American Linguistics 4 (41): 293–305. Bastardas i Boada, Albert 1996 Ecologia de les llengües. Barcelona. Ediciones Proa. Benítez Reyna, Rufino 2002 Vocabulario práctico bilingüe mazahua-español. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Cifuentes, Bárbara and Dora Pellicer 1989 Ideology, politics and national language: A study in the creation of a national language in 19th century Mexico. Sociolinguistics 18: 7–17. Clavijero, Francisco J. [1883] 1989 Historia antigua de México. Mexico. Porrúa. Contreras García, Irma 1986 Bibliografía sobre la castellanización de los grupos indígenas en la República Mexicana, siglos XVI al XX. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Crystal, David 2002 Language Death. New York: Cambridge University Press. Diario Oficial de la Federación 2003 Decreto que crea la Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas de México y Reforma la Fracción IV, del Artículo 7º de la Ley General de Educación. Mexico City, March 13.

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 351 Diebold, A. Richard, Jr. 1961 Incipient bilingualism Language 37: 97–112. Eckstein, Susan 1977 The Poverty of Revolution. The State and the Urban Poor in Mexico. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Fernández Ham, Patricia 2000 Hogares indígenas y su población In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México. Primer Informe. vol. 1, 39–41. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista and Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el desarrollo. Fishman, Joshua A. 1972 The Sociology of Language. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Language and Society. Rowley. MA.: Newbury House. 1991 Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2001 Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift. A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. García García, Lucina 1997 ¿Leer y escribir para qué? Uso y funciones de la lectoescritura en dos comunidades mazahuas. Un estudio desde la etnografía de la comunicación. Tesis de maestría. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Heller, Monica 1999 Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. London / New York: Longman. Hervás, Lorenzo de [1805]1982 Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. Hymes, Dell 1974 Introduction. Tradition and Paradigms. In Studies in the History of Linguistics, Dell Hymes (ed.), 1–38. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1985 Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) 2001 XII Censo general de población y vivienda 2000. Mexico: INEGI. Knapp Ring, Michael H. 1996 Fonología del mazahua. Tesis de licenciatura. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

352 Dora Pellicer Lastra, Yolanda and Leopoldo Valiñas 2001 Otomí y mazahua, ¿lenguas o dialectos? III Coloquio Mauricio Swadesh. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Mackey, William 1994 La ecología de las sociedades plurilingües. In ¿Un Estado una Lengua? La organización política de la diversidad lingüística, Albert Bastardas and Emili Boix (eds.), 26–54. Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro. Mier Noriega y Guerra, Servando Teresa de 1813 Historia de la Revolución de Nueva España. Londres: Imprenta de Guillermo Glindon. Milroy, Lesley 1980 Language and Social Networks. Baltimore: University Park Press. Mora, José María Luis 1856 Méjico y sus revoluciones. Paris: Librería de la Rosa. Nágera Yanguas, Diego de [1637] 1970 Doctrina y enseñanza de la lengua mazahua. Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México. Náxera, F. Manuel Crisóstomo 1845 Disertación sobre la lengua othomi. Mexico: Imprenta del Aguila. Newman, Stanley and Robert. Weitlaner 1950a Central Otomian I: Proto-Otomian reconstructions. International Journal of Anthropological Linguistics 16: 1–19. 1950b Central Otomian II: Primitive Central Otomian reconstuctions. International Journal of Anthropological Linguistics 16: 73–81. Oliver Vega, Beatriz Manuela 1991 Tributo y enconmienda entre los mazahuas del siglo XVI. Tesis de Maestría. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Orozco y Berra, Manuel 1864 Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. Mexico: Imprenta de J. M. Andrade y F. Escalante. Pellicer, Dora 1988 Las migrantes indígenas en la ciudad de México y el uso del español como segunda lengua. In Sociolingüística latinoamericana, Reiner E. Hamel, Yolanda Lastra and Héctor Muñoz (eds.), 147–169. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1992 Storytelling in Mazahua Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 96: 71–88. 2001 Narraciones mazahuas en español: composición y actuación. Antropológicas 20: 45–57.

Stages of bilingualism. Local conversational practices among Mazahuas 353 Pike, Eunice 1951 Tonemic-intonemic correlation in Mazahua (Otomi). International Journal of Anthropological Linguistics 17: 37–51. Pimentel, Francisco 1862 Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las lenguas indígenas de México. Mexico: Imprenta de Andrade y Escalante. Romaine, Suzanne 1995 Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Soustelle, Jacques [1937] 1993 La familia otomí-pame del México Central. Mexico. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Spotts, Hazel 1956 Some post-conquest changes in Mazahua. International Journal of Anthropological Linguistics 22: 208–211. Stewart, Donald 1993 Gramática del mazahua. Documento de trabajo. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Wurm, Stephen A. 1991 Language dead and disappearance: Causes and circumstances. In Endangered Languages, Robert H. Robins and Eugenius. M. Uhlembeck (eds.), 1–18. Oxford / New York: Berg.

Part IV. Conclusions

Chapter 12 Language policy. Past, present, and future Margarita Hidalgo Abstract This article synthesizes the language policy trends prevailing in Mexico from colonial times to the present. It offers a chronological outline of the promoters of specific projects and programs that shaped the linguistic realities in the political and socio-cultural scenario of each of the major historical periods that defined the Mexican nation: Colony, Independence, and Revolution. Two major innovations are introduced in the chronological outline: (1) a sub-period (ca.1524–ca.1580) distinguished by the works of the mendicant orders whose endeavors are comparable to substantial advances in reversing language shift. After this period (2) a major trend of language shift (1580–2000) is identified in the three aforementioned eras: Colony, Independence, and Revolution. The continual deterioration of the MIL occurred in spite of the various drifts that appear to support them. The result of language shift is clearly observed in the twentieth century when massive rates of bilingualism are clearly documented in the census registers. The prevailing trends of bilingual education are conducive, too, towards language shift and Spanish monolingualism. (3) A new era – inspired in the indigenous movement of 1994 – begins in 2003 with the passing of the Law on Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples. This Law is also comparable to the endeavors proposed by reversing language shift theory and praxis.

1. Introduction The purpose of this volume is to advance diverse proposals about the Mexican indigenous languages (henceforth MIL) in the context of the twentyfirst century. Language policy in Mexico, as in most countries, is consistent with the general trends that define the prevailing national policy. Reconstructed on the basis of reliable secondary sources, Charts 1, 2 and 3 show the general trends of language policy in Mexico. The outline serves to identify the three clearly demarcated historical periods since the times that the

358 Margarita Hidalgo

MIL came into contact with Spanish: Colony (1523–1821), Independence (1821–1921), and Revolution (1921–2000). An innovation introduced in this volume is the distinction of the colonial period in two main subperiods: Period one is characterized by the endeavors of the mendicant orders which recovered substantial components of the pre-Hispanic languages(s) and culture(s); in spite of being ephemeral, this sub-period – which I have termed herein the recovery mission – bequeaths major works of philology, history, and religion in and about MIL. Many of the dimensions that characterize reversing language shift in the twentieth century were present in this sub-period (ca.1524–1580), which was brusquely curtailed by the anti-humanist policies of the Spanish Empire. This occurred in the face of the humanist movement of the Renaissance, which elevated the vernacular languages to languages of culture and prestige. The humanists did not perceive at the time that the elevation of Spanish and other European languages to higher spheres of interaction was an effective mechanism that consummated the polarization between European and non-European languages. Sub-period two marks the beginning of language shift at the end of the sixteenth century and continues through the beginning of Independence. However, it can be ascertained that language shift has continued through the present time, given the historical and current proportions of the speakers of MIL and the patterns and domains of use (see my article “The multiple dimensions of language maintenance and language shift in colonial Mexico”, in this volume).

2. Language policy in New Spain Even prior to the 1519 voyage of Hernán Cortés to Mexican soil, the legislation promulgated for the expanded territories (Leyes de Burgos [1512]) required that the new subjects of the Crown accept a new language and a new religion. The Leyes de Burgos represented the early statutes that established a series of responsibilities of the encomenderos ( < encomienda [profit-oriented state made up of shares of land and urban property]) towards the Indians. The situation of indigenous peoples in the New World was being defined along the lines of a juridical and institutional process that validated the norms of the relationships between natives and nonnatives. The separation of the two groups was provoked at the moment of the early contact between Europeans and natives, and most importantly, by the perception that the former had about the latter. The thrust of the prob-

Language policy. Past, present, and future 359

lem was the manner in which Europeans “saw” and “knew” the indigenous, the way in which they were integrated cognitively in their ideological and referential system. The relationship with the Other was, then, the foundation of a new system of domination while its denial was the first and most fundamental violation of human rights. The relationship with the natives of the New World became a serious concern of the New Spanish authorities and turned into the juridical and institutional apparatus that would rule and regulate the relationships between the groups. The legal problem was addressed from two perspectives: the first represented the Council of the Indies and claimed the right to conquer. The second represented Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria and denied the power of the Pope over the infidels; the advocates of the latter position did not accept the universal jurisdiction of the Emperor (Stavenhagen 1988: 14–16). This controversy was the focus of attention of lettered men throughout the sixteenth century while the Spanish Crown was ambivalent towards their differing proclamations and viewpoints (Stavenhagen 1988: 17). One of the strongest and most articulate voices in this debate was that of Friar Bartolomé de las Casas (1474 or 1484–1566), first Archbishop of Chiapas and author of Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1542) and Apologética historia sumaria (1555–1559). Bartolomé de las Casas claimed that the Indians were mortals created by God. For this reason, they should bear human attributes such as reason, virtues, freedom, and should have, additionally, the right to live in a civil society where they could own estate and live under laws and legitimate governments. The Spanish Crown made limited concessions to the indigenous peoples and allowed them, to an extent, to maintain their own customs. The policy of the Crown was developed during the colony through various decrees, bills and ordinances, and is comprised in a single document known as Recopilación de Indias (1680), which remained almost unaltered since then (Stavenhagen 1988: 22). In the realm of language policy, the newly arrived officials of New Spain received three legal pronouncements mandating the teaching of Spanish to the native populations (1521–1565). The 1550 decree of Charles V was the most emphatic, but in view of the unsuspected diversity of the newly discovered territory, the series of mandates soon became impractical and paradoxical. In 1578, Philip II revoked the 1550 decree of Charles V and mandated that Nahuatl be taught as the “official language” because it was the most widely spread in New Spain. Five decrees succeeded supporting indigenous languages. Following these practical recommendations,

360 Margarita Hidalgo

Philip II declared Nahuatl the official language of New Spain, and by doing so, he laid the foundation to perpetuate the use of Indian languages by religious leaders. However, in 1634 Philip IV preferred to promote Spanish as the sole language of New Spain, while his successors reiterated the forceful mandate of Charles V (Brice Heath 1972: Chapter 2). The end of the colonial period points out the futility of language policy: only 35% of the population knew how to speak Spanish, and just 0.5% knew how to read and write the language of the ‘mother country’. If the effectiveness of language policy has to be evaluated, one has to admit that, due to its complexities and the caste system imposed on the indigenous populations, the language policy ‘program’ launched for the colonies simply failed. The contradictions between the policy of the Spanish Crown and the intense work of the recovery mission are glaring, but they are justified by the two major objectives of metropolitan policy: (1) to spread Spanish; (2) to spread the knowledge of the Christian doctrine. The latter was conducted steadily in MIL, but the hesitations of the Spanish authorities with respect to language policy can be interpreted as short-term tolerance (cf. Hidalgo 2001). In 1580, Phillip II ordered the confiscation of the encyclopedia on Mexican language and civilization, written with the support of the Seraphic Order. This despondent episode terminates the patronage of the recovery mission and puts in bold relief the feeble policies of the Spanish Crown with respect to language maintenance. In sum, because there was normally a conflict between theory and practice, legality versus implementation, and colonial reality versus capricious metropolitan ruling, the Crown alternated between proclaiming Spanish as the language of the Empire and advancing indigenous tongues as the instrument of conversion (Brice Heath 1972: 36). (See also Chart 1 based on Brice Heath 1972: Chapters 1–3).

3. The Independence The various endeavors of the leaders of the nineteenth century, which is distinguished by intense nationalism promoted by the descendants of the criollos, is outlined in Chart 2. It is interesting to note that among the proponents of language policies there were both liberal and conservative leaders; throughout this century the representatives of the dominant political trends sustained a vigorous confrontation on the following issues: the role of indigenous languages in the new independent nation; in education; and in the conformation of a new identity. One of the major achievements in

Language policy. Past, present, and future 361

this respect was the elimination of the colonial nomenclature assigned to non-European groups, as ethnic labels were intentionally omitted from decrees and constitutions; the only valid(ated) denomination in legislative matters was the unifying term ‘Mexican’. In contrast, the term ‘Indian’ was re-evaluated and vindicated because it was deemed necessary to acknowledge the ethno-linguistic diversity of the new nation, although such recognition did not necessarily undermine the notion of national unity (Cifuentes 1998: 220–221; Cifuentes 2002: 15–16). On the band of the liberals, Ignacio Ramírez distinguished himself for advancing some proposals that attempted to corroborate the rights of the indigenous peoples to selfdetermination in matters of language and education (Brice Heath 1972: 69– 71). The concept of “little nations” was not outlandish; on the contrary, it was a well-founded notion based on the reality of a newly independent nation that had dozens of peoples of different cultures and languages. Nonetheless, the period of Independence witnessed the disappearance of numerous autochthonous ethno-linguistic groups at the same time that a dramatic shift to the colonial language increased the numbers of individuals who claimed to speak Spanish. It is estimated that the year of the first official census (1895), an overwhelming majority (83%) of Mexicans appeared to be speakers of Spanish, while 16.6% claimed to speak an indigenous language (Cifuentes and Pellicer 1989). In addition, support through legislation, education, language academies, and the like made Spanish rise to the status of a national language (see Chart 2, based on Brice Heath: Chapter 4). However, the conflict between conservative and liberal orientations was so intense that the fate of MIL was not the major issue of concern for the rulers of Mexico, who around the mid-nineteenth century, began to debate the dilemma of hispanismo versus indigenismo. The resolution favored the established class of criollos, whose variety of Spanish was considered more valuable than any of the numerous indigenous tongues, as they were perceived as a threat to an incipient national unity. Language planning undertaken in the nineteenth century seems to be the determining factor impinging on the relative homogenization process observed in the twentieth century. With unusual lucidity and anticipation for the future, the nineteenth century Mexican criollos approached and resolved some of the problems pertaining to language planning, such as the legitimization of the Mexican variety of Spanish, the orthographic reforms to Peninsular Spanish, and the adoption of a Nahuatl-origin lexicon. As part of their language planning campaign, the criollo leaders addressed corpus planning by introducing a Diccionario de Mexicanismos and by creating

362 Margarita Hidalgo

the Mexican Academy of Language responsible for accepting new pronunciation and vocabulary choices, et cetera. (See García Icazbalceta [1898] 1969; Cifuentes 1994; and Chart 2). At the turn of this century of intense nationalism, Mexican Spanish came to represent the legitimization of a new identity with which new masses began to feel closely connected. The leaders of the new nation provided Mexicans with a new name and a new ethnicity, which was not only perceived as futuristic but became fully official and fully exploited in the twentieth century. In the view of the criollos, the Mexican mestizo, the current ‘official’ ethnia of the country, should be proud of speaking the variety of Mexican Spanish inherited from the nineteenth-century criollo elite. In the Mexican colony, reversing language shift started with vigorous support for the indigenous languages. It changed in favor of Spanish and has continued supporting Spanish to the extent that both researchers and the common person believe that the transplanted language is the national language or the language of the State par excellence. Although local legislations have favored Spanish in public education for all-Spanish speakers and speakers of MIL languages, the different versions of the Mexican Constitution have not proclaimed Spanish as the de jure national language. Its status as the de facto national language prevailing in all public and private domains, entitled to be used above all other immigrant or indigenous codes, is being challenged as a result of the new legislation approved in 2003.

4. The twentieth century Language maintenance campaigns and programs of bilingual education have been seemingly promoting the native tongues from around the late 1920’s to the present. The census data gathered throughout the twentieth century indicate that all MIL are losing ground to Spanish; the preference for Spanish is revealed in steady decreases of monolinguals and increases of bilinguals (cf. Cifuentes and Moctezuma in this volume). The ideals of the Mexican Revolution (1910–1921) were endorsed in nationalist practices extolling the indigenous past. Paradoxically, the fervent indigenist trend of the 1940’s accelerated a non-anticipated shift to Spanish. The language policy of the twentieth century was mostly oriented to promote various types of ‘bilingual education’. Until the late 1970s, bilingual education meant shift to Spanish through the direct method; in the past three decades, bilingual education has been better defined as the teaching of indigenous

Language policy. Past, present, and future 363

languages in transitional programs that would eventually lead students to learning reading and writing in Spanish. The programs of the twentieth century are guided and sponsored by national agencies that promoted a homogenous approach. The Dirección General de Educación Indígena was one of them (see Hidalgo 1994 and Chart 3). An impasse in the focus of language policy is observed at the very end of the century, when the nation had to confront an armed insurrection in the state of Chiapas (see my article “Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” in this volume). The most important change provoked by the Chiapas uprising has to do with the demands for autonomy. These demands are expressed in the San Andrés Larráinzar Accords (1996) drafted by the neo-zapatistas. It is clear that this document represented the turning point in national language policy because the San Andrés Larráinzar Accords raised the underlying problem since colonial times: the relationship between the indigenous peoples and the new authorities that were denying their existence (see Chart 4)

5. The twenty-first century The new legislation or the General Law on Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (2003) makes unprecedented concessions to demands that are pertinent to a change of policy. Reversing language shift may be feasible even within the framework of a centralized regime which has explored nonetheless those questions related to autonomous orientations, as the autonomy of the indigenous peoples may not be granted in the near future. The end of the twentieth century marks the end of the thoroughgoing policy of Hispanization. A new era begins in the present century with a positive change towards the recovery of MIL. The trajectory of the Law is rendered in the laborious work of Dora Pellicer et al. (in this volume), who documented the external facts and factors that guided legislators to propose, amend, and finally approve a bill of linguistic rights. In essence, this Law accommodates the claims of the indigenous peoples to have legal protection for their languages and diverse forms of expressions inherited from their ancestors. The modifications made to official policies and general attitudes towards indigenous groups are not only derived from the pressures exerted on the powers-that-be, but on the advancements effected in the field of the language sciences and sociolinguistics. The General Law includes the design of a sociolinguistic survey and a deadline to complete it. In addi-

364 Margarita Hidalgo

tion, the language of the Law is relatively similar to the language used in reversing language shift theory. It is then possible that in the new era, the endeavors to materialize reversing language shift might bear positive fruits. Moreover, the new Law legitimizes the endeavors of those groups and individuals committed to reversing language shift (cf. Pellicer et al. in this volume). For this reason, the Law will serve to regulate and monitor the actions of the agents involved in the reversal or even the agents who might be willing and ready to undermine reversing language shift. Several agents have emerged in the past decade ranging from radical sympathizers of the EZLN to moderate organizations claiming linguistic rights and rights to bilingual- bicultural education and even researchers with renewed perspectives (see Pellicer et al.; Flores Farfán; Pfeiler and Zámišová; and Messing and Rockwell, in this volume). 6. Centralization vs. local initiatives In recent times, those groups that claim rights to autonomy may not see the advantages of centralization: if the policy is the same for all groups, in theory, all groups should receive proportional assistance and resources in order to develop maintenance programs. The major disadvantage of a centralized system is that it has the power to obstruct local initiatives. It seems, however, that the issue of autonomy has come to the surface in the context of the neo-zapatista uprising, and that such event has become part of history. Therefore, a regression to indulgent policies facilitated by governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, or individuals is unlikely. In fact, both the remembrance of the neo-apatista uprising and the enforcement of the General Law of 2003 can act together to prevent major deterrents to a centralized policy of reversing language shift. (For discussion about the meaning of autonomy, see my article “Socio-historical determinants in the survival of Mexican indigenous languages” in this volume; for examples of local initiatives in the US context, see Daniel Althoff's article in this volume). 7. What else is new? Ethnicity and ethnic awareness The discourse on ethnicity and ethnic awareness has ensued in Mexico since the 1980’s but has materialized in specific actions since 1994, as a direct result of the neo-zapatista uprising. For instance, the effects of trans-

Language policy. Past, present, and future 365

national migration and the consciousness-raising efforts of indigenous associations in both Baja California and California (e.g., Assembly of the Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional) have been thoroughly documented, and are not accidental. Ethnicity is better articulated in the Northern and Southern Mexican frontiers. As a case in point, the indigenous groups, particularly Zapotecs and Mixtecs, have made a reflection on ethnic identity resulting from their experience in international migration. The transnational approach highlights the ability of migrants to construct a social space across national boundaries. This experience has three conceptual implications: (a) ethnicity is construed by social agents which are part of the prevailing social order; (b) ethnicity is acted in the framework of capital and nation-state; (c) the understanding of ethnicity makes individuals closer to the awareness of the new conditions of transnational existence (Velasco Ortiz 2002: 21–22). Ethnicity is expressed in everyday practices or in a narrative discourse that articulates an ideological image of the acknowledged traditions. The discourse of the ethnic agents is not improvised; its strategy derives primarily from the experience of transnationality and transnational identity, a process defined in the light of regional markets. Transnationalism refers to the lives of migrants who cross the border and synthesize two societies in a social field. In this way, migrants become the re-negotiators of the cultural boundaries they confront (national, ethnic, racial, or linguistic) while the international labor markets and the official policy of migration control operate as means of trans-nationalization of the indigenous from Oaxaca, who amount to 200,000 in the Californias (cf. Velasco Ortiz 2002). The recreation of ethnicity in the urban areas of Baja California and California help understand the process of ethnic identity in the face of globalization. In sum, the expression of ethnicity has been reinforced and encouraged by the protestation of the indigenous from Chiapas.

8. Past, present, and future or the conjuration of Fray Bartolomé de las Casas As a result of the debate over linguistic rights, the name and works of the principal organizer of the movement in defense of the Indians resuscitated in the twentieth century. It seems that the advance in matters of language legislation is confirming the truth of Las Casas’ doctrines, i.e., that life is transforming his ‘utopian’ ideals into reality. According to Keen (1998), Bartolomé de las Casas was not only a master of the Scholastic method of

366 Margarita Hidalgo

disputation, but a synthesizer of all the key elements of the Rousseauian system. Las Casas and Rousseau had in common the belief in the natural freedom and equality of men. As the pioneer of social humanism, Las Casas was concerned with the problems of war, poverty, and social injustice; as a result, he made a contribution to the renovation of European thought, a theory of cultural evolution which considered mankind as one and capable of advancing along the road to civilization “provided that the method that is proper and natural to man is used: namely, love and gentleness and kindness” (in Keen 1998: 60). His method enabled him to examine the customs and beliefs of indigenous peoples within the framework of their own culture. From his conception of humans as naturally free and rational beings stemmed his democratic principles on self-determination, which were developed in his short essay De regia potestate (1560). Known in Europe for the subversive tone, the book was denounced to the Inquisition and was not published in Spain but in Frankfurt in 1571 (cf. Keen 1998). “The Lascasian doctrine of self-determination influenced European political thought and action during the Renaissance and the centuries that followed” (Keen 1998: 60). The Lascasian school of thought is the most influential legacy in the post-modern scenario of cultural and linguistic diversity. Las Casas, like Bernardino de Sahagún and many other prominent thinkers of the Mexican colony, generated their own philosophical positions and methodological instruments through the amalgamation of Western and non-Western values. Mexico proved to be a fertile ground that provided inspiration, knowledge of diverse cultures, awareness of the existence of countless languages, and eccentric religions that did not fit the patterns and practices known in the Christian world. In the attempts to understand what they had found, the representatives of the Mexican mission first made the cultures converge and later deliver them to the globalized world of the Renaissance.

9. Globalization and reversing language shift In this manner, they paved the way for the modern and post-modern forms of globalization: the globalization of the mainstream coming from the First World countries and represented by their dependence on high technology, the hyper-status of the English language, international trade, and a global market of consumption that is glaring in the largest urban centers (e.g., New York, Paris or Mexico City). In contrast, alternate globalization –

Language policy. Past, present, and future 367

surfacing primarily in the Third World or peripheral areas of the First World – is exemplified in the emergence of diversities such as those claimed by women, indigenous groups, immigrants, or marginalized individuals. Alternate forms of globalization facilitate the definition of independent identities, which appears to be one of the traits of the post-modern world, one that characterizes the dawn of the twenty-first century. The Mexican immersion in these two globalizing fashions is neither new nor incidental: it is instead the result of Mexico’s strategic position, where culture and language contact(s) constantly interact in dynamic ways. The challenge forced upon individuals and nations engaged in any of these forms of globalization should lead them in the direction of multiculturalism, a process that is easier to understand than its logical complement: multilingualism. The former appeals to the common individual; the latter enervates those who have not thought of the consequences of living with linguistic diversity. Getting over and above the Babel Tower or the Babel ideology poses the major question of the real confrontation between mainstream globalization and alternate globalization. In the Mexican scenario, the “clash of globalizations” is not vehement, as the historical experience serves to palliate the shockwaves made by contact; in addition, the seasoning of the US Mexican Diaspora facilitates the understanding of globalizing tendencies be they from the center or from the periphery. In sum, the language policy of the twenty-first century will be shaped by the events of the 1990’s; it will include the trends of the early twentyfirst century and will take into consideration the demands of the indigenous groups. This volume has the merit of exploring the multiple dimensions of language maintenance and shift in the past and present Mexican scenario, which in itself generates enriching situations conducive to making language policy proposals. These proposals are based on the assessment of realistic tasks, which should be developed by the agents of change. The demands of the neo-zapatistas for maintenance programs of bilingual and intercultural education are reasonable solutions to deter a more pronounced language shift among all ethno-linguistic groups. Development of regional or national programs for the dissemination of indigenous languages in public domains is, too, a realistic goal. Furthermore, development of authentic materials that recapture the ethno-linguistic heritage of a group in question is not an impossible dream. Finally, the General Law on Linguistic Rights directly and indirectly approaches these issues. If the recommendations of the Law are not closely followed, then indigenous groups may be willing and able to (re)act according to the proposals put forward by the San

368 Margarita Hidalgo

Andrés Larráinzar Accords of 1996. They actually are the back-up plan which was reneged on by the official representatives of the Mexican Establishment. To conclude, the specific and general language policy plans should focus on attempts to recover the indigenous heritage with the expressed intention of reversing language shift and with specific goals of (re)allocation of sufficient resources to the most damaged languages. Ideally, the most deteriorated Stages of the MIL should be repaired and (re)situated to the next higher or more developed Stage along the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale or any other kind of model that aids in the determination or assessment of historical damages.

References Brice Heath, Shirley 1972 Telling Tongues: Language Policy in Mexico. From Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers College Cifuentes, Bárbara 1994 Las lenguas amerindias y la conformación de una lengua nacional en México en el siglo XIX. Language Problems and Language Planning 18(3): 208–222. 1998 Letras sobre voces. Multilingüismo a través de la historia. México: Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones Superiores en Antropología Social. 2002 Lenguas para un pasado, huella de una nación. Los estudios sobre lenguas indígenas de México en el siglo XIX. Mexico: Comisión Nacional de la Cultura y las Artes and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Bárbara Cifuentes and Dora Pellicer 1989 Ideology, politics and national language: A study in the creation of a national language in 19th century Mexico. Sociolinguistics 18: 7–17. García Icazbalceta, Joaquín [1898] 1969 Obras. New York: Benjamin Franklin. [1876] 1969 La Academia Mexicana correspondiente a la española. In his Obras 6: 117–151. [1898] 1969 Provincialismos Mexicanos. In his Obras 6: 69–97. Hidalgo, Margarita 1994 Bilingual education, nationalism and ethnicity in Mexico: From theory to practice. In Margarita Hidalgo (ed.), Mexico’s Language Policy and Diversity. Language Problems and Language Planning. 18(3): 185–207.

Language policy. Past, present, and future 369 Sociolinguistic stratification in New Spain. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 55–78. Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI) 2000 Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México: 1996–1997. Mexico: INI (2 vols.). 2000 Los Acuerdos de San Andrés Larráinzar. In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de México: 1996–1997, INI (ed.), 779–806. Mexico: INI, vol. 2. Keen, Benjamin 1998 The legacy of Bartolomé de Las Casas. In his Essays in the Intellectual History of Colonial Latin America, 57–69. Boulder: Westview Press. León-Portilla, Miguel 1995 La flecha en el blanco. Francisco Tenamaztle y Bartolomé de las Casas en lucha por los derechos de los indígenas (1541–1556). Mexico: Diana. Stavenhagen, Rodolfo 1988 Derecho indígena y derechos humanos en América Latina. Mexico: El Colegio de México and Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. Velasco Ortiz, Laura 2002 El regreso de la comunidad: migración indígena y agentes étnicos. Los mixtecos en la frontera México-Estados Unidos. Mexico City and Tijuana: El Colegio de México and El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. 2001

King Ferdinand

Charles V

Charles V Philip II

Philip II

Philip III Philip III Philip III

Philip IV

Date

1512

1542

1550

1565

1570 1574 1578 1580

1599

1603

1618

1627

Mandate

There should be university courses of the most important Indian languages.

Monolingual Spanish-speaking priests should not be in charge of missions.

Only those who know Indian languages should teach religion.

Priests in charge of Indians should learn Indian languages.

Revoked his father’s mandate; Nahuatl should be the official language because it was the language most widely spread in New Spain.

Missionaries should learn the language(s) of each group of Indians under their charge.

Teach Spanish to all in order to eliminate linguistic barriers.

Missionaries should teach Indians Spanish and the Catholic faith. This would protect them from abuse and exploitation.

Leyes de Burgos. Indians in charge of encomenderos should learn Spanish and the Catholic faith.

Chart 1. Language policy in New Spain

Appendix I

Positive (but temporary) for Nahuatl and Otomi

It caused animosity between Spaniards and criollos.

Same as above

Some priests learned few but were unable to learn all of them.

Missionaries begin to teach Nahuatl.

Missionaries begin to teach Nahuatl.

Ineffective

Missionaries taught Latin, learned Indian languages, and taught both using field techniques.

This requerimiento was impossible.

Results

370 Margarita Hidalgo

Philip IV

Charles II Charles II Charles III Charles III Charles III

1634

1686

1691

1774

1776

1778

Same as above

Same as above

Secondary schools for Indians to promote native tongues State mandates that all lessons be taught in Spanish. Latin, Nahuatl, Tarascan and Otomí should be taught as “additional classical” languages. Foundation of an Academy of Language that would preserve the purity of Castilian and describe the languages of Mexico.

1830-1833

1835

Project

Spanish Royal Academy

Liberal nationalism

Spirit of recently independent nation

Philosophical and/or ideological foundation

Ordered the construction of a school for the Indian nobility.

Results

Former member of Madrid’s Royal Academy

Effective though the Comisión del Plan de Estudios

Nahuatl was taught.

Results

Same as above

Same as above

Without response

Without response

Without response

Without response

José María Luis Mora and Valentín Gómez Farías

Juan Rodríguez Puebla, First Indianist

Creole/Mexican or foreign promoter

Reiterates the issues covered in his orders of 1686 and specifies his plans for Indian schools.

Previous law should be effective immediately.

1824 Federal Constitution

Date

Mandate Following the mandate of 1550, Spanish should be promoted as the sole language of New Spain. This would bring Indians under control of Spanish officials.

Chart 2. Language policy in the 19th Century

King

Date

Chart 1. Language policy in New Spain (continued)

Language policy. Past, present, and future 371

Project Teaching of the national tongue through the public education system. Legal revival of the Academy of Language

Legitimization of “little nations”, recognition of self determination in matters of language and education

Bilingual Education in Indian villages

Description of Mexican Indian languages

Foundation of Normal School

Public Education for the Integration of the Indian Bureau of Anthropology and Regional Populations National integral education in ten indigenous zones.

Date

1842

1856

1857 (Federal Constitution)

1862-1867

1875

1887

1889

1917 (Federal Constitution)

Chart 2. Language policy in the 19th Century (continued)

Trend of cultural relativism is disregarded.

Nationalistic spirit of the new Revolution

Conservative nationalist creoles Positivism (Comte and Spencer)

Descriptive-comparative philology. Humboldtian linguistics. Unconscious search of national roots.

Emperor’s personal sympathy for exotic cultures.

Radical sentiments of nationalism among government officials

Conservative nationalist creoles

Conservative nationalist creoles

Philosophical and/or ideological foundation

Manuel Gamio vs. Franz Boas

Joaquín Baranda and Justo Sierra

Francisco Pimentel

Maximilian I Archiduke of Hapsburg

Ignacio Ramírez “El Nigromante”.

Antonio López de Santa Ana

Antonio López de Santa Ana

Creole/Mexican or foreign promoter

Teotihuacan Project completed

None

Results

372 Margarita Hidalgo

Expanded /additive bilingualism for Indians. They learn to read and write in Spanish through the use of mother tongue.

1939

1940

Third Inter-American Conference on Education and Social Science Research

President Cárdenas

President Cárdenas, Townsend et al.

Indians learned through the “natural” method.

First Inter-American Congress

Promotion of bilingualism through the bilingual method

1937

Summer Institute of “Scientific” Study of Indian Languages

Scientific indigenismo

Practice of bilingual education

1934–1936

Incipient trend of cultural relativism

3594 federal rural schools in which Spanish was taught through the direct method.

3594 federal rural schools in which Spanish was taught through the direct method.

Indians continued to learn Spanish through the “natural” method.

Institute of Linguistic Studies

1933

Nationalistic spirit of the Revolution

Moisés Saenz and Rafael Ramírez

Use of direct methods of language of instruction

Applied anthropology.

House of the Indian student would provide instruction in Spanish

1926

Nationalistic spirit of the Revolution

José Vasconcelos

Results

Emancipation.

Department. of Indian Corporation

1925-30

Hispanophilia

“Moral authority” of the classics

Mexican and/or foreign promoter

Alphabets, dictionaries, and recordings of Indian languages

Incorporation of the Indian through a national school system

1921

Philosophical and/or ideological foundation

First Assembly of Philologists and linguists Language research

Project

Date

Chart 3. Bilingual education in the 20th century

Language policy. Past, present, and future 373

Participatory Indianism

Bilingual-bicultural curriculum

1970-1980

1990

Ethno-development

Recovery of rights of language

Ethnicity and ethnic revivalism

Liberation of internally “colonized” communities

De-centralization

Applied Anthropology and Applied Linguistics

1970

Endorsement of bilingual education

1963

Social Science Research

Denunciation of internal colonialism

Evaluation of the bilingual method

1952-56

UNESCO: Teaching through the mother tongue

1963

Promotion of bilingual education

1951

Bilingual education Linguistic research

Adoption of moderate cultural relativism

Literacy campaigns Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Creation of Regional Centers

Incipient recognition of regional diversity

Philosophical and/or ideological foundation

Cultural Missions

Project

1948

1943-1946

Date

Chart 3. Bilingual education in the 20th century (continued)

Same as above

Secretaría de Educación Pública Dirección General de Educación Indígena

P.González Casanova, Jr.

Morris Swadesh

UNESCO and Jaime Torres Bodet

Jaime Torres Bodet

Mexican and/or foreign promoter

Abundant research on MIL, teaching of indigenous and programs of bilingualbicultural education

Indians continued to learn Spanish through the “natural” method.

Support and continuation of the bilingual method

Indians continued to learn Spanish through the bilingual method.

Use of bilingual textbooks

Results

374 Margarita Hidalgo

Autonomy of Mexican indigenous peoples Sociolinguistic survey

2003

Project

1996

Date

Mexican and/or foreign promoter

Results

General Law om Linguistic Rights of the Instituto Nacional de Indigenous Peoples Lenguas Indígenas (INALI)

Anticipated support for the development of the “national indigenous languages”

San Andrés Larráinzar Accords or SALA Ejército Zapatista de Autonomous programs of Liberación Nacional or bilingual education EZLN or EZ

Philosophical and/or ideological foundation

Chart 4. Diverse approaches to language policy and bilingual education

Language policy. Past, present, and future 375

Index

accepted diversity, 130 adivinanzas, 316, 317–320 Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo, 6, 195, 202 alphabetization, 22, 147, 329 Althoff, Daniel, 17, 364 amates, 23, 301, 307, 308, 313–315 American Indian nations, 176 Amerindian languages, 68, 139 peoples, 328 Amerindian words. See also Nahuatl words, Nahuatlisms and Tainisms Apologética historia sumaria, 359 autonomy, 13, 119, 120, 173, 176, 363, 364 Aztec civilization, 8, 29, 54 Empire, 5, 55, 58, 92 nobility, 39, 60 people, 92, 93 warriors, 54, 93 Babel ideology, 305, 376 Babel Tower, 73, 367 bilingual community, 341 bilingual education, 147, 181, 362, 364, 367, 373–375 in Chiapas, 115, 119 in Guerrero, 320–321 in Tlaxcala, 255, 257, 258 in Yucatan, 287–294 bilingualism, 98, 144, 326, 328, 330 and migration, 225 and monolingualism, 204 conscious, 22, 293, 295 coordinated, 290 diglossic, 285

instrumental, 285 integrative, 285 recessive, 333 societal, 233 bilingualization, 192, 193, 229, 241 Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo, 48, 49, 55, 89, 90, 91 Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias, 359 Brice Heath, Shirley, 79, 97, 101, 360, 361 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 173, 178 castellanización, 18, 20, 203, 258, 259, 320 Catholic Church, 67, 133, 193 Cherokee, 174 Chicasaw, 174 Chocktaw, 174 Christianization, 45, 57, 103 Cifuentes, Bárbara, 18, 47, 58, 79, 101, 139, 196, 361, 362 and Dora Pellicer, 96, 327, 361 and José Luis Moctezuma, 78, 96, 139, 140, 283, 306, 329, 362 Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, 114 clash of civilizations, 54–57, 102 clash of globalizations, 367 Códice Florentino, 39, 40 Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación (COCOPA), 15, 133, 134 Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo (CONAFE), 20, 22, 281, 286, 287, 289, 290, 291, 296, 297 conversational routines, 334, 337 Cortés, Hernán, 92, 100, 358

378 Index Creek, 175 criollos, 9, 33, 39, 42, 46, 47, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 360, 361, 362 Cruz, Sor Juana Inés de la, 9, 30, 31, 44-45, 70–75 cultura propia, 10, 89, 90, 117 cultural democracy, 5, 119, 120 cultural semantics, 7, 34 Declaración Universal de los Derechos Lingüísticos de Barcelona (1996), 14 democracia comunitaria, 114 demographic trends, 94–99 diglossia, 5, 26, 285, 328 diglossic reversals, 302, 308, 310 Diario Oficial de la Federación, 16, 156, 162, 164–165 Díaz del Castillo, Bernal, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 Dirección General de Educación Indígena (DGEI), 20, 21, 22, 253, 258, 259, 281, 287, 363 Doctrina y enseñanza de la lengua mazahua, 328 Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZNL), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 112, 114, 132–135, 167, 168 encomenderos, 359 English, 130, 308, 309, 342, 343, 366 ethnic groups Balsas Nahuas, 307–310 Choles, 105 Mayas, 234 Mayos, 209, 234 Mazahuas, 24–25, 234, 326, 331–334, 336, 339, 342, 344, 345, 339, 346–348 Mixtecs, 20, 209, 365 Nahuas, 23, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 309 Native American(s), 187, 188

Otomis, 220, 226 Tepehuas, 220 Tlapanecs, 220 Tojolobales, 105 Triques, 209 Tzeltales, 105 Tzotziles, 105 Zapotecs, 20, 209, 365 Ethnolinguistic groups (EG), 205, 231–233 Egyptian civilization, 71 Egyptian pyramids, 73 Five Civilized Tribes, 174–175 Fishman, Joshua A., 3, 4, 5, 12, 46, 69, 80, 88, 132, 145, 250, 252, 268, 271, 285, 286, 295, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 344, 347 Florentine Codex, 40, 317 Flores Farfán, José Antonio, 23, 252 forbidden diversity, 130 Fox Quesada, Vicente, 135, 172, 177, 179, 314 Franciscan(s), 31, 56, 62, 57, 100 General Law, 167, 363, General Law on Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13, 14, 127–128, 132, 136, 164–165, 167–170, 179–186, 363 globalization, 12, 367 alternate, 366, 367 and the Iberian expansion, 7 and the Renaissance, 7 mainstream, 7, 366, 367 Golden Age, 8, 71, 76 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), 3, 4, 5, 24, 29, 33, 40, 42, 46, 47, 50, 119, 252, 325, 326, 330, 331, 333, 334, 345, 347, 368 Stages of the GIDS,

Index 379 Stage 9 (or substratum), 47, 48, 50 Stage 8, 4, 5, 48, 331, 332, 333, 334 Stage 7, 4, 5, 252, 333 Stage 6, 4, 5, 33, 46, 47, 70, 252, 333 Stage 5, 4, 5, 252, 333, 347 Stage 4ab, 4, 5, 252, 333 Stage 3, 4, 5, 334 Stage 2, 4, 5, 33, 39, 42, 47, 70, 333 Stage 1, 4, 5, 40, 119, 331, 333 Great Tenochtitlan, 6, 55, 100 Hale, Kenneth, 306 Hidalgo, Margarita, 12, 76, 143, 266, 360 Hill, Jane, 251, 257, 266, 275, 285 and Kenneth Hill, 250, 251, 257, 271, 296 Historia Eclesiásticai indiana, 31, 64 Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España, 8, 40, 61– 63 Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, 31, 33 human rights and linguistic rights, 130–132, 359 Hymes, Dell, 325, 326, 347, 348 ignored diversity, 130 Imperial Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, 39, 60, 64, 78 impersonal society (IS), 328, 331, 333, 346 Indianization, 3, 6, 31, external, 32, 36, 37, 58 internal, 32, 36, 38, 58 indicators of language maintenance and shift, 191, 236–241 indigenismo, 192, 202, 203, 361 indigenous home(s), 204, 205 Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual

Education (IIBE), 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294 indigenous linguistic diversity, 197 intervention, 23, 304, 308, 316 Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI), 169, 172, 192, 206, 282, 302, 306 Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI), 136, 145, 149, 172, 205, 302, 306 Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI), 16, 20, 115, 145, 149, 169 intergenerational transmision of the mother tongue, 286, 337, 341 interpreters and translators, 115, 348 intervention, 306, 312 intimate community (IC), 328, 331, 333, 344, 346 Jesuitic synchretism, 70, 71 justice in the MIL, 149 journalism, 77–78 Kircher, Athanasius, 71, 72 Ladefoged, Peter, 306 language attitudes, 9, 119 language loyalty, 303, 346 language maintenance, 25, 26, 69, 88, 101, 241, 242, 286, 303, 339, 344, 360, 362 language maintenance and shift, 59, 68, 81, 87, 88, 89, 91, 97, 98, 120, 192, 193, 206, 235, 295, 303, 348, 367 languge policy, 8, 89, 357, 358, 359, 360, 363, 367, 370–372 language shift, 4, 10, 59, 66, 67, 88, 89, 94, 100, 101, 117, 120, 205, 206, 263, 302, 305, 327, 348, 357, 361, 367 Large Indigenous Languages (LIL),

380 Index 18, 212–216, 217, 220, 221, 222 las Casas, Bartolomé de, 26, 82, 365–366 Lastra, Yolanda, 37, 139, 145 Latin, 39, 59, 67, 68, 103 legal neologisms and terminologies, 148 legal proceedings, 148 Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas, 17, 128, 129, 138, 145–151 Leyes de Burgos, 13, 358 Liberation theology movement, 119 linguistic diversity, 130, 181, 197, 347 linguistic rights, 130, 131, 150, 176, 181, 185, 186, 187 linguistic vitality, 205, 242, 316, 329, 330, 333 literacy, 103, 333, 347 Lockhart, James, 37, 38, 41, 56, 57, 58, 95, 101 Malintzi region, 250, 252, 253, 272 Malintzin, 92, 93, 94 Manrique, Leonardo, 139, 140 McCaa, Robert, 94–96 Mendieta, Jerónimo de, 31, 32, 40 Mesoamerican area, 54, 55,56, 207 civilization, 7, 10, 49, 89–92, 102, 381 languages, 49, 56, 87, 88, 101, peoples, 10, 54, 57, 89–91, 105, 329 mestizaje(s), 6, 7, 12, 56, 203, 327 mestizo(s), 33, 42, 46, 47, 48, 96 metalinguistic awareness, 146, 334, 346 Mexican colony, 56, 58, 69, 71, 75, 366 Mexican Constitution, 11, 15, 135, 172, 362

Mexican indigenous languages (MIL), 5, 8, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 53, 58, 69, 78, 79, 80, 97, 120, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 169, 191, 193, 196, 197, 199–201, 205, 206–207, 327, 357, 358, 364, 368 and indicators, 219–234 and SIL, 227–229 and the mass media, 149–150 classifications, 158–160, 161, 199–201 families (or phyla), 218 geographic distribution and permanence, 219–224 Mexican states, 194 Aguascalientes, 209, 211 Baja California Norte, 20, 208, 209, 365 Baja California Sur, 208, 209 Campeche, 105, 109, 207, 208, 211, 212, 220, 226, 282, 292 Chiapas, 11, 12, 26, 104, 105– 110, 112, 113, 115, 116– 117, 119, 120, 167, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226, 227 Chihuahua, 114, 207 Coahuila, 205 Colima, 208 Durango, 105, 207 Federal District, 209, 212 Guanajuato, 206 Guerrero, 23, 105, 207, 209, 211, 220, 226, 227 Hidalgo, 207, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226 Jalisco, 105, 208 Mexico, 207, 211, 212, 220 Mexico City, 207, 209, 212, 226 Michoacán, 207, 211, 212, 220 Morelos, 207, 212

Index 381 Nayarit, 207 Nuevo Leon, 208 Oaxaca, 105, 109, 117, 207, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226, 227 Puebla, 207, 211, 212, 220, 226 Queretaro, 207, 212, 220 Quintana Roo, 105, 109, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226, 282 San Luis Potosi, 105, 207, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226 Sinaloa, 105, 207, 208, 209 Sonora, 207, 208, 209 Tabasco, 105, 207, 209, 211, 212 Tamaulipas, 208 Tlaxcala, 92, 207, 208, 211, 212 263, 272 Veracruz, 117, 207, 209, 211, 212, 220, 226 Yucatan, 105, 109, 117, 207, 208, 209, 211, 226, 282, 283, 284, 286, 295, 296 Zacatecas, 209, 211, 365 Moctezuma, José Luis, 194 Molina, Alonso de, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 59, 67, 78 mother tongue, 147, 286, 302, 307, 310, 312, 318, 321, 328, 331, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 345 multilingualism, 192, 193, 195, 206 multiple deprivation, 104, 116 Muscogee (Creek), 175 Nahuatlisms, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 50, 74 Nahuatl words, 32, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 314, 315 nationalism, 6, 80, 242 national indigenous language(s), 24, 146, 181, 182, 183 Native American(s), 187, 188

Native American language survival, 189 Native American Languages Act of 1990, 170, 171, 176, 177, 178, 187–190 Native American Languages Act of 1992, 178 neo-zapatista(s), 12, 13, 113, 114, 364, 365, 367 New Spain, 6, 7, 46, 59, 70, 79, 195, 359 New World, 7, 9, 13, 29, 30 36, 42, 57, 60, 64, 77, 358, 350 Palafox y Mendoza, Juan, 6, 30 Parodi, Claudia, 6, 33, 58, 70, 74, 143 Paz, Octavio, 70–75 Pellicer, Dora, 14, 24, 25, 102–103, 335 Pfeiler, Barbara, 22, 285, 286, 331 primary sources, 155 private and public domains, 150 Program of Educational Assistance to the Indigenous Population (PEAIP), 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297 Proyecto de Revitalización, Mantenimiento y Desarrollo Lingüístico y Cultural (PRMDLC), 307, 308, 318, 320 Ramírez Celestino, Cleofas, 308, 311, 315, 317, 318 Recopilación de Indias, 359 recovery mission, 58, 120, 360 Relaciones geográficas, 64 Renaissance, 7, 59, 67, 71, 358, 366 Republic of Christ, 60 repúblicas de indios, 171 resistance, 103, 109, 119, 120 riddles, 23, 307, 316, 317–320

382 Index reversing language shift (RLS), 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 25, 26, 49, 53, 55, 58, 59, 69, 88, 272, 311, 321, 347, 357, 358, 362, 363, 364, 366, 368 reversing language shifters, 59, 79, 81, 250, 347 Ricard, Robert, 100, 101 Romanized indigenous languages, 102, 103 Ruiz, Samuel, 111, 113 Sahagún, Bernardino de, 6, 8, 59– 66, 67, 78, 314, 317 San Andrés Larráinzar Accords (SALA), (1996), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 114, 115, 119, 133, 134, 136, 149, 314, 363, 368 Second Vatican Council, 111 semantic extension(s), 35–38 Seraphic Order, 8, 62, 360 Serrano, Enrique, 205 Sigüenza y Góngora, Carlos, 31, 43 Sistema Nacional de Indicadores para la Población Indígena, 192, 205 Small Indigenous Languages (SMIL), 18, 219 social change, 116 socialized literacy, 347 socio-historical determinants, 116, 120 sociolinguistic census, 183, 185, 363 socio-religious movements, 89, 103, 104, 105, 113, 120 Spanish language, 9, 14, 24, 30, 32, 33, 42, 44, 55, 58, 68, 69, 70, 76, 77, 100, 103, 140, 143, 144, 146, 150, 180, 195, 202, 203, 205, 252, 296, 302, 309, 316, 318, 320, 327, 328, 333, 334, 336, 339, 342, 344, 348, 360, 361, 362

Speakers of indigenous languages (SIL), 18, 97, 98, 109, 110, 117, 192, 193, 195, 197, 201, 202, 203–204, 205, 207–210, 211, 219–226, 227–229, 230, 231, 233–235, 241 Sub-Commander Marcos, 114 Substratum. See also. GIDS, Stage 9 Summa de visitas, 328 survival, 57, 87, 89, 92, 94, 98, 105, 112, 116, 120 Swadesh, Mauricio, 139 syncretism, 104 Tainisms, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 42 Teotihuacan, 73 Tenochtitlan, 93, 120, 170 tribal governments, 176 Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights of Barcelona (1996), 132 US States, 18, 20, 174, 175, 178, 301, 365 US Mexican diaspora, 367 Valdés, Luz María, 97, 110, 193 videos, 23, 307, 311 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana, 31, 37 Western civilization, 53, 71, 89, 195 workshops, 307, 312 X(ish) language, 4, 5, 6, 48, 50, 55, 58 Y(ish) language, 4, 48, 49, 50, 55 Zámišová, Lenka, 22, 285, 286 Zapatista National Liberation Army, 112, 167, 168 zapatista uprising, 108, 273 Zapatistas, 133, 134