spanish in contact with indigenous tongues. changing the tide in favor of the heritage languages

1

Spanish in contact with indigenous languages:

Changing the tide in favor of the heritage languages

José Antonio Flores Farfán

Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social

In this chapter some of the principal effects of indigenous languages on Spanish and vice versa will be

discussed, including contact varieties from Nahuatl and Maya (Yucatec), together with (monolingual)

Mexican Spanish varieties. Reviewing these selected illustrations raises brings about a number of

issues. These include a reflection on the variable nature of languages against an ethnocentric idea of a

single abstract entity called (e.g. the Spanish, Nahuatl or Maya) “language”, which after all stems from

one-sided (e.g. monolingual) approaches to linguistic phenomena. Such diverse configuration of

Spanish and indigenous languages allows a characterization of different varieties in their social,

ideological and political realms. In this sense, contact effects will be treated in a holistic way,

suggesting closing the gap between different realms of the social and the linguistic analysis, including a

critique of previous reductionist (linguistic) approaches as well as considering its implications from an

actors’ perspective and their educational possibilities for (e.g. Mexican) society as a whole.

Introduction

Although presenting high indexes of bi and multilingualism, in Mexico contact studies are in a

marginal, underdeveloped situation. This is due to a number of reasons. For instance, historically, there

was never a real need of a pidgin or the development of a Creole1 in the history of Mexican

multilingualism. In fact, there were a couple of lingua francae in Prehispanic times, outstandingly

Nahuatl, still in use as a lingua franca up to the 18th century. In modern times, at least since the

inception of the Mexican nation, a monolingual ideology has been threatening the existence of Mexican

linguistic diversity. Ever since, the inroads of Spanish have been changing the multilingual ethos that

prevailed before Spanish invasion (and even in colonial times). Even when contact studies are few, they

include very important works, mostly referred to Mexicano (i.e. NNahuatl: e.g. Hill and Hill 1986;

1 There is only one Creole language in Mexico, Seminol, which was not developed in Mexico but rather is the result of

Afro-American immigration to the country escaping from slavery in the US. It is telling that this language has not received

any attention from Mexican scholars.

2

Karttunen and Lockhart 1976; Lockhart 1992) and to a lesser extend Yucatec Maya (Karttunen 1985),

which have open key queries to understand the future of endangered languages, such as language

syncretism, maintenance, resistance and shift (cf. Hill and Hill 1986, Hill 1993).

Spanish in contact with indigenous languages includes a number of different varieties, ranging from

bilinguals’ to monolinguals’ speech. Efforts to capture this complexity exist in the form of a theory of

different contact phases which present specific characteristic features, yet referred exclusively to

indigenous languages. At least 3 phases have been postulated to understand language contact history

(cf. Lockhart 1992). In a nut shell, when compared to 16th century and colonial Nahuatl, contemporary

Nahuatl is characterized by a stage in which there isdemonstrating a wealth of (socio) linguistic

changes, including among others blurring a series of ddistinctions as (well known) as the early leveling

of the plural form to all nouns (i.e. not exclusively limiting plural to animated entities as in Prehispanic

and early colonial Nahuatl. e.g. te-meh “stones”), the recent blurring of possessive absolutive and

absolutive possessive paradigms (no-kone-w vs. no-kone-tl, “my son”); the shift from polysynthetic to

analytic forms of the language (n-axka-w vs. in de newa, “this is mine, my property” together with

incorporating a series of Spanish phonemes to the Nahuatl phonology substituting Nahuatl ones (e.g.

nemi-n vs. nemi-ʔ “they live”), not to speak of massive borrowing and extensive code switching (for

more details see example (1) and Flores Farfán 1999, 20082). Moreover, there is a rich continuum

between bilinguals and monolingual Spanish varieties3. Analyzing these varieties entails a number of

implications in terms of research and so-called applied issues. Thus contact history between indigenous

people and Spanish invaders is expressed in a series of continua between bilingual and monolingual

varieties of e.g. Spanish, Nahuatl or Maya, with different degrees of integration of for instance morpho-

phonological and lexical items. Different ideologies revolving around such contact varieties abound. O,

outstandingly common perspectives as purism which condemn contact variability frequently arise.,

which Iin the case of the heritage languages, in general such ideologies haves favored language shift

(cf. Hill and Hill 1986: passim; Flores Farfán 2009).

Against such perspective, in this chapter the actual educational possibilities carried out by such rich and

diverse variability, stemming from the influence of indigenous languages on e.g. the hegemonic

2 One of the few existing contact linguistics works in Mexico, including the analysis of indigenous Spanish refers to

Hñahñu (Otomi) is Hekking and Bakker (1999). 3 Since there are very few published works available in English or even Spanish regarding such varieties, most of all

indigenous Spanish varieties, I provide an appendix with some of the most important features of Nahuas’ Spanish and their

origin.

Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva


Con formato: Fuente: Negrita, Cursiva

Con formato: Fuente: Negrita










Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos)

Con formato: Fuente: 10 pto




3

languages, specifically Spanish,will be highlighted. For this purpose, after reviewing some of the main

contact effects of indigenous languages on Spanish, I will discuss some educational materials we have

developed to revaluate the influence of Nahuatl on Mexican Spanish, specifically a DVD and a book

entitled Las Machincuepas del Tlacuache “The Opossum’s Somersaults” (see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drzu0eT8wUk)

Spanish in contact with indigenous languages

What effects havehas Spanish produced on indigenous languages? It is indeed possible to point to a

typology of languages in terms of their contact effects, ranging from cases in which indigenous

languages have very few (early) borrowings from Spanish yet nativized: horse, sheep, etc.) such as

Sierra Totonac, situations in which Spanish has almost not influenced or its influence is only starting to

be felt in the language (e.g. Seri or even monolingual varieties of several indigenous languages such as

Nahuatl, Maya or Totonac) to cases in which heavy or massive impact of Spanish on (almost extinct)

specific varieties is attested (for an illustration see example 1), passing through several bilingual

varieties. In a context of permanent endangerment, these very different situations can be organized as

continuum of survival and shift which pose a series of dilemmas, as those that have been appropriately

described as a syncretic project (Hill and Hill 1986).

In general contact phenomena have been interpreted from a one-sided approach, reducing theirits

complexity to one stream of the maintenance–shift continuum, most of all emphasizing obsolescence

and shift against the survival possibilities also posed by the syncretic project. Speakers do find ways to

give continuity to their endangered languages, developing strategies in which Spanish has not always

had a negative impact on their languages (cf. Hill 1983); as an illustration, consider the bilingual pairs

that have emerged in Balsas Nahuatl with borrowings such as kristiano “one of us, person” vs.

kiixtiano, “stranger, foreigner, exploiter” (stemming from cristiano “Christian”); michiin “edible fish”

vs. peskaadoh “carved craft in the form of a painted fish for the tourist market” (derived from pescado

“fish”), xaaxayaakatl “ritual mask” maskarah “carved painted mask for the tourist market” (which

comes from máscara “mask”), chieempoh “village time” tiempoh “city time” (derived from tiempo

“time”), etc. Yet, as we will see the impact of Spanish on Nahuatl or Maya (or in general on endangered

languages) is much higher quantitatively and qualitatively speaking than the other way around.

Linguistic characteristics of Spanish in contact with Nahuatl

Nahuatl is the most documented language of the American continent. Its legacy is comparable with any




Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drzu0eT8wUk

4

of the planet’s classical heritages. Therefore, it has been possible to reconstruct the history of contact

between Nahuatl and Spanish with sufficient systematicity, especially in terms of the influence that

Spanish has had on Nahuatl in the different stages of their long mutual contact (cf. among others

Karttunen and Lockhart 1976, Lockhart 1992, Flores Farfán 1999, 2008).4

The most outstanding characteristics of this contact have also left a clear cut mark on Mexican Spanish,

having an outstanding impact on the lexical ambit and also playing a role in other levels of the

linguistic analysis in monolingual varieties of Mexican Spanish, outstandingly in central Mexico, not to

speak of indigenous speakers’ Spanish. From a synchronic point of view, the influence of Spanish on

Nahuatl is stronger in the most Hispanized varieties of Nahuatl, producing highly syncretic varieties of

the language. This can reach up to 50% in terms of different types of loans, resembling a mixed

language, as illustrated by the following example in which massive borrowing from Spanish into

Nahuatl is attested (Flores Farfán 1999: 141)

(1) paisanos de aqui tinochimeh. a ve tiwaalaweh de Copalillo sitio de cabecera municipal neke

neechilis oome información e tahameh pan dia veintitrés veinticuatro de ne otii. ootiinenkeh o

puerto de Zihuatanejo que see compromiso titlaalikeh pa reuniones anteriores de que... lema

nodifundiroska que iipan lugares kampa tipian gente como partido waan como organización

campesina ugose kwakon otiakeh oke waan dirigentes de más de trescientos comerciantes...

nochi see acuerdo de que timoreuniroskeh pan iipuestos kitlaaliskia mantas solo de que

neextlatlaaliniaya see mapa no…martes mas bien waallase compañeros Chilpancingo iiwan

noche tinmamakaskeh propaganda no sé si naan naan kipian Consejo para welis mas

teechapoyaroske, ya no kitokeh de que de acuerdo kidifundiroskeh kiteeemachtiskeh iika

gringos iika mexicanos con fines de semana... tan de vacaciones pero gringos después de

vacaciones normales de nikaan México waalloweh hasta en... puerto como Zihutane. por esa

parte meechinformaroa de que no difundiroskia yehun dee. o problema nikaan nikaan de un

dee. ribera de río Balsas. seke cosas tlen keno nimeechilis paisanos. tahameh nepan

tomunicipio ee kipiakeh dificultades ee normales de de elecciones iipan

comunidades...kimateh xuun katka para...comisarios. sin embargo ee como por ese lado

tahameh ti de kse partidos de oposición el perrete iiwan eh por otro lado de me seke comisarios

4 Spanish materials are highlighted in black. The situation in which this text is produced is in the context of the struggle

against a hydroelectric dam that the Nahuas were able to successfully arrest. The discourse revolves around the political

solidarity that another regional indigenous organization lends to the Balsas Nahuas’ opposition to the hydroelectric dam (cf.

Flores Farfán 1999).

5

del pri kinekia ¿verda? kinekia cas peewaskia iigente iipan iipan puestos de comisarías.

Another much less studied subject is that of bilingual and even monolingual Nahuas’ Spanish and of

indigenous people in general, in this case at all levels of linguistic analysis (see nevertheless Flores

Farfán 1998, 1999). As we will see, it is important to distinguish between different contact varieties as

well as the intensity of contact phenomena among different groups within Mexican society.

The The phonological phenomenaphenomena of Nahuatl that are most problematic to a Spanish-

speaker are /λ/ (orthographically tl), /¢/ (orthographically ts in modern Nahuatl, tz in classical and

colonial Nahuatl), and the glottal stop /ʔ/ (orthographically written as ' in modern writing, rarely written

as h in ancient documents, baptized by missionaries as a saltillo “little jump”), /š/, and vowel length. In

colonial times, these phenomena have only been systematically noted by Carochi (1979).

We will briefly analyze the evolution of these phones in the history of the configuration of so-called

Mexican Spanish. Before going into details, we reiterate that it is important to clearly distinguish

different varieties of “Mexican” Spanish, such as the inter-languages of speakers for whom Spanish is a

second language, mostly indigenous people, in contrast to speakers of monolingual Spanish varieties in

different regions of the country. Due to the extensiveness of this subject, I will only provide a few

selected examples from this enormous and almost unexplored diversity. In the first place, let us

consider the influence of Nahuatl on Mexican Spanish.

One of the earliest records of Spanish-speaking in contact with Nahuatl, which extends to

contemporary Mexican Spanish speakers, referring to the use of /λ/, is provided in Luces del Otomí,

published in the 19th Century:

El [nombre] Otomí, que dan los españoles, parece ser el mismo que dan los mexicanos, aunque

diminuto o mutilado. Es la razón de que los españoles no pronuncian con perfección todos los

términos mexicanos, principalmente los que tienen la partícula tl… Y así se advierte… en la

palabra flor… xochitl…xuchil. Y esto puede haber acaecido [con la palabra otomí] que diciendo

el mexicano Otomitl, el castellano haya dicho Otomí (Anónimo, 1893:6).5

This is a marginal but significant mention of the use of /λ/ in terms of a phonological substitution: /λ/

5 The [name] Otomí, that the Spanish provide, seems to be the same as that provided by the Mexicans, although

diminutive or mutilated. This is the reason why the Spanish do not pronounce all the Mexican terms perfectly,

mainly those that have the particle tl… And thus it is noted… in the word flower… xochitl… xuchil. And this

could have occurred [with the word Otomí] that while the Mexican would say Otomitl, the Castilian would say

Otomí (Anonymous, 1893:6). (my translation).

6

for /l/.6 The other option is its complete omission, as suggested with the word otomí. Both forms

(especially the former) are still used by Mexican Spanish speakers to a greater or lesser extent. Another

possibility is where the phoneme /λ/ unbinds into two segments, technically a dephonologization,

resulting from the phonotactics of groups that are allowed in Spanish. In this sense, historically, most of

the Mexicanisms that are integrated into Mexican Spanish reinterpret the final segment /λ/ in terms of

an open syllable: -te: tomate, aguacate, chocolate, petate, metate, amate, etc., Moreover, even other

Nahuatl final segments are also at times reinterpreted as the open syllable -te, over-generalizing this

strategy, as in Nahuatl chan-tli which becomes chan-te “house”, another well integrated loan in

Mexican Spanish. On the other hand, λ is at times reinterpreted as the secuence /kl/, of course a

common consonant cluster in Spanish, as in clavo “nail”, etc. For example, the food combination of

corn cake stuffed with among other edible things black beans or broad beans called tlacoyo is

sometimes articulated as clacoyo. Notice that it is especially true in initial position where /λ/ is

produced closer to its articulation in Nahuatl, as in the last example (tlacoyo), or in locatives such as

Tlalpan. As can be observed, even though the reinterpretation of /λ/ as /kl/ can be produced in initial

position, it is typically words in Nahuatl that end in –tli that are more subject to this. For example, the

most common form of articulating the Nahuatl word /iskwinλi/, “Mexican dog” (for more details see

below), in Mexican Spanish is escuincle, meaning “child”. Chile chipoctli becomes chipocle or sandal

cactli becomes cacle, even though these two examples could also be interpreted as a substitution,

which in any case produces the same result in terms of a group of consonants that is allowed in

Spanish.

It is possible that /λ/ already forms part of the repertoire of Mexican Spanish varieties from Mexico

City, or at least is more integrated to the articulatory manner of the Mexican way of speaking,

popularly known as chilango (Mexico City dweller), compared to the peninsular (i.e. Spaniards) forms

of speaking, for example, from Madrid, of whoseich inhabitants find it very hard to pronounce words

such as Tlatelolco – a neighbourhood in Mexico City.

Another phenomenon presented in the ways of speaking in Mexico City that involves /λ/, and which is

produced especially among the middle – mainly intellectual – class, is its voicing in final position,

which is inonexistent in Nahuatl. It is common to hear this overcorrection with regard to this segment

6 By the way, it is interesting noticing that in certain varieties in which Nahuatl is reaching the brink of

extinction, this phonological substitution is being deployed by Nahuatl speakers, getting Nahuatl closer to

Spanish --- a clear index of language shift (cf. Flores Farfán 2008).

7

on the radio, when the announcer says that a concert will be held in the sala Netzahualcoyotl. As

suggested by this example, the overcorrection is extended to /s/ that becomes /¢/, “ts”, and so instead of

the word in Nahuatl, pronounced as /nesa:walko:yoλ/ (with the final voiceless λ) “fasting coyote”

(name of the famous poet from Texcoco from the pre-Hispanic era), we have /ne¢awalkoyoλ/ (with /¢/

and the final voiced /λ/) and of course no vowel length whatsoever.

With regard to /¢/, apart from the overcorrection mentioned earlier, the most recurring phenomenon is

its phonological substitution; /¢/ /č/: /ma:¢inkwepa/ /mačinkwepa/ “somersault, pirouette”, /malin¢i:/

/malinče/ “la Malinche (the interpreter of Cortés)”.

It has also been suggested that the retention and reinforcement of the final sibilant –s is influenced by

Nahuatl, once again in Mexican Spanish of central Mexico (Lipski 1994). Mexican Spanish is seseante

(the Castilian phonemes /s/ and /θ/ are both pronounced as [s]). This could have been partially

reinforced by the inexistence of such phonological opposition in Nahuatl; i.e., the contrast between /θ/

and /s/.

It is also considered that /š/ has become integrated into Mexican Spanish, though only in the form of

loans, as in “xoloizcuintle o xoloescuintle o xoloescuincle o soloescuincle o soloescuintle (from the

Nahuatl word xoloitzcuintli, literally= “monster-dog”, from Xolotl “monster” + itzcuintli “dog”)

PRONOUNC. The x is pronounced as /š/. Mute pre-colonial dog, having no hair”.7 Note that in this

quotation, the first forms that are enlisted are those with /š/, which is rather the least frequent form in

other cases of initial /š/ in Nahuatl, as in Xochimilco, “field of flowers”, the floating gardens in Mexico

City, generally pronounced as /sočimilko/. An example in which the palatal form /š/ contrasts with /s/ is

/ šola/ “place name”: /sola/ “alone”, even though this is a marginal example. All in all, unlike this

situation, from a historical viewpoint and compared to peninsular or Latin American Spanish, it can be

said that both /λ/ and /š/ have been gradually integrated into the repertoire of Mexican Spanish, or

rather, varieties of Mexican Spanish, since this is not the same as, for example, the Spanish spoken in

Yucatan, of which we will speak briefly later on (cf. Lipski 2005).

MORPHOSYNTAX

When compared to the influence of Spanish on Nahuatl, not much can be said about the influence of

7 Gómez de Silva (2001) http:www.academia.org.mx/dicmex.php. In the sake of space, quotes are presented in English ---

all translations are mine.

8

Nahuatl on Spanish in this field, especially when compared to the influence of Spanish on Nahuatl, as

example (1) suggests. This reflects significantly the asymmetry of the effects in one or other direction,

a mirror of the dilemma posed by the Mexicano syncretic project in terms of language retention or shift

(Hill and Hill 1986). In other words, Spanish has had an impact at all levels of the linguistic analysis of

Nahuatl, notably yet not exclusively in highly Hispanized varieties; from phonology, with the

emergence of new phonological distinctions such as voice: kimaka “gives” vs. kimaga “hits”; and the

loss of other phonological distinctions, such as vowel length or specific phonemes, such as the glottal

stop as witnessed also in the morphology, for example, in terms of the convergence of the Nahuatl

pluralizer with the Spanish one: nemi-n instead of nemi-h “they live” substituting the glottal stop, the

adoption of the Castilian agentive suffix substituting the Nahuatl one: tlawaank-ero for tlawaan-ketl

“drunkard”, and even affecting the formerly obligatory clear cut distinction between the absolutive and

the possessive nominal markers: no-konee-tl for no-konee-w “my son”. In the case of morphosyntax, a

change from a polysynthetic structure to a more analytical one is confirmed (e.g. kal-itik shifts to itik

kahli “inside the house”). Among other phenomena, at the pragmatic level we witness the emergence of

salutations copied from Spanish, the borrowing of all types of functional particles, and the extensive

presence of code-switching and mixing. With regard to lexicon, it is not only massively borrowed

(recall example 1), but complete subsystems have been displaced, such as the twentieth based numeral

system, of which only glimmers remain, giving way to the Castilian decimal numeral system as in most

Mesoamerican languages (for a detailed analysis of the contemporary contact Nahuatl situation cf.

Flores Farfán, 1999, 2000a, 2007a, 2008).

In contrast, the influence of Nahuatl on Spanish is practically limited to the lexicon, and through it, to

some morpho-phonological features, speaking of course of the Mexican Spanish standard monolingual

varieties. The morphological influence of Nahuatl on Spanish is related to the reinforcement or

predilection of certain lexical forms or trends that are more often used in Mexican Spanish, such as the

diminutive form, a use probably reinforced by the Nahuatl diminutive -tsiin. For example, without

denying the Latin origin of forms such as chico (small), in Mexico, the use of the word chiquito might

have a close relationship to the Nahuatl word tsitsiikitoon, “small, little, child”.

It has also been suggested that the retention and reinforcement of the final sibilant –s is influenced by

Nahuatl, once again in Mexican Spanish of central Mexico (Lipski 1994). Mexican Spanish is seseante

(the Castilian phonemes /s/ and /θ/ are both pronounced as [s]). This could have been partially

reinforced by the inexistence of such phonological opposition in Nahuatl; i.e., the contrast between /θ/

9

and /s/. Since these phenomena are relatively well-known in the literature concerning Spanish in

general and Mexican Spanish in particular, I will not dwell upon them here. Instead, I will present the

less approached elements, particularly those pertaining to Spanish in contact with indigenous

languages.8 In what follows, I will presentintroduce an approach to the lexicon, in which I explore

conflicting interpretations of the etymology of the word gachupín in Mexican Spanish, which from a

monolingual perspective is attributed to Spanish (or vice versa only to Nahuatl). As we will see, the

origin of gachupin has at least a concurrent Nahua contribution and it is better understood when

appealing to a bilingual or syncretic approach, which is after all the point of view of the actor, at least

historically speaking.

LEXICON

Stating that the contribution of Nahuatl – and many other indigenous languages, notably Maya in the

case of Spanish spoken in Yucatan – to the shaping of American Spanish is limited mostly to the

lexicon must not be interpreted as if its contribution is minor or unimportant. On the contrary, the

presence of indigenous lexicon not only provides a sui generis physiognomy to American dialectal

varieties, but through it, other characteristic features have been added, like those succinctly reviewed in

the case of the phonology of Mexican Spanish, not to mention what it represents in terms of

sociolinguistic identity and conscience of ethnic differentiation and social class, among other non

minor facts.

In what follows, I will present an example that should be explained as part of a Nahuatl-Spanish

converging origin, an effect of bilingualism. Stemming from a monolingual perspective, the word

gachupín is a lexical item not recognized as a loan from Nahuatl by the main gatekeepers of Spanish,

the Real Academia Española (RAE).9 According to the Academia Mexicana de la Lengua: “gachupín,

gachupina. (From the Americanism cachupín a Spaniard who settles in America or from the Spanish

word cachopo “hollow or dried trunk”, from the word cacho, “broken pot: piece”.) m. and f. pejor.

Spanish”.10 The etymology provided by the RAE website does not coincide with the previous version:

8 In this sense, given that the pronominal system of Mexican Spanish, as far as I can see, has no relationship whatsoever

with contact, I will not deal with it. Mexican Spanish uses the familiar form of addressing tu, contrary to the more formal

pronoun usted. In some regions of Chiapas, and apparently also in Tabasco, people use the form of addressing vos. While

students are still being taught the form vosotros, in practice, ustedes is used for all cases of second person plural. 9 For other examples of converging interpretations of other loans from Nahuatl into Spanish and vice versa, cf. Flores

Farfán (2006). 10 http://www.academia.org.mx/dicmex.php

10

“cachupín, na. (From the dim. Port. cachopo, child). m y f. pejor. colloq. Am. A Spaniard who settles

in America”.11

The first case speaks of two possibilities, either it comes from the Americanism (Mexicanism?)

cachupin or from the Spanish cachopo, from cacho, “broken pot, piece”, whereas the RAE establishes

that it simply comes from Portuguese (!) cachopo.

Notice that neither entry explains the voicing of the voiceless velar plosive /k/, a voicing that could

have been exerted by a Spanish speaker or even a Nahuatl-Spanish bilingual speaker as an

overcorrection. On the other hand, the indistinctness of the Spanish phonemes /o/ and /u/ is probably

derived from the treatment they receive in Nahuatl, i.e., as allophones, a phenomenon very well

documented in the literature on Nahuatl-Spanish contact (cf. e.g. Karttunen and Lockhart 1976 and

Infra). If you search for the word gachupín at the RAE website, it will redirect you to cachupín, with

the voiceless plosive, and that is where the word’s presumed origin is posted: “gachupín, na. m. and f.

Derog. Cuba. Hond. and Mex. Cachupín”.12

In Mexico, it is gachupín and never cachopín, a form on which only the official dictionary insists,

probably so as to make its etymology more credible.13 Curiously, the devoicing that occurs in cachupín

would be typical of a Nahuatl-speaker – recall that in Nahuatl, the voiced/voiceless opposition is a

recent phonological innovation induced by Spanish, as illustrated in passing in the morphosyntax

section (also cf. Flores Farfán, 1999, 2000a, 2007a). This is an indication that at least partially supports

the idea of gachupín being a double loan, as suggested by Karttunen and Lockhart (1976) and

Karttunen (1983). Moreover, Karttunen and Lockhart (1976) find gachupín as a loan in a text from the

mid 18th Century. In a note (1976:138) in which they mention Lucas Alamán, a historian from the 19th

Century, they suggest a plausible Nahuatl origin, based on which they postulate the idea of a double

loan. As a matter of fact, this explanation seems to be much more likely than that provided by the RAE:

the voicing could have been produced by Spanish-speakers, in addition to imposing the already

presented substitution of /¢/ by /č/, resulting in gachupín, originally derived from /kak.’¢o.pi:.nia:/ lit.

“to prod, prick with cacles ‘shoes, boots’”, from cactli, “sandals” by extension, shoes, footwear and

/¢o.’pi:.nia:/ [tzopinia], “to prick, pique”; that is, to prod or pique with shoes or boots (which can be

11 http:///buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=cachupín. 12 Although the form gachupín also appears in the website. (cf.

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=gachipín). 13 cachopín. 1. m. Disus. A Spaniard who settles in America. http://buscon.rae.es/drael/

SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=gachipín

11

combined with spurs)”, something that the Spanish probably did to the indigenous people, for example,

based on the encomienda, a semi-slavery institution on which the Spaniards based the exploitation of

indigenous populations. In Molina (1970 [1571]:153), a colonial friar who produced the most

outstanding lexical Nahuatl 16th century dictionary we find: “Tzopinia.nite.punçar a otro…” “to prick,

pique someone”. The Castilian section of this source states: “Punçador…tetzopiniani…” “Prickler” In

Karttunen’s (1983:19) Nahuatl dictionary, the word is also attributed a plausible Nahuatl origin, for

historical reasons as well as the viability of its phonological adaptation from Nahuatl to Spanish, as we

have also maintained with the elements expressed here.

The RAE ignores all these sources, together with the dictionary of Mexicanisms of Francisco

Santamaría (2000:541), in which he also profusely documents the Nahuatl origin of gachupín, which he

identifies in much older documents than those suggested by Karttunen and Lockhart (1976), going back

to the 16th Century and passing through the 17th Century (Santamaría, 2000: 542; cf. Alatorre 1992).

Let me stress the possibility that forms that are analogical from a point of view of phonetic homophony

and semantics, concur to provide validity and strength to a specific use, which I assume is the case of

the word in question. For this purpose I return to the word gacho, which seems to me a clear example

of the case in point. From an actors’ centered perspective, it can be related to gachupín, as with

agachar (to cower), which is where supposedly the Mexicanism gacho comes from, according to both

the RAE and the Academia Mexicana de la Lengua, respectively: “gacho,cha. (Related to cowering).

5. Adj. Mex. Bad, nasty, unpleasant”14; “gacho, gacha. (From the Spanish gacho “bent, crooked”, from

the verb agachar “to bend, contract”.) adj. Bad, ugly, unpleasant. |bien gacho. loc. Very unpleasant.||

¡qué gacho! Loc. How nasty!”15

Why is the word gacho only used in Mexico to refer to something bad or unpleasant? One concurring

possibility is that it is, in fact, related to gachupín, apocopate, given that the Spaniards were not

precisely seen in good light in their history with the Mexican population. But at the same time, the

word could have had the same meaning or an analogous one by independent routes, as suggested by the

official sources. We can say that the two possibilities, as in other cases that I have presented for Nahuatl

elsewhere, are concurrent, consonant with a bilingual approach. I claim that this type of explanation is

much richer, closer to the complexity of these matters, and therefore agrees more with the history of

Nahuatl-Spanish bilingualism (cf. Flores Farfán 1998, 1999, 2000a, 2006, 2007a) and their

14 http:///buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=cachupín. 15 http://www.academia.org.mx/dicmex.php

12

contemporary syncretic realities (cf. Hill and Hill 1986, Hill 1991).

Some linguistic characteristics of Spanish in contact with Maya

Consider that a couple of generations ago –at the time of my grandparents—it was pretty common to

have Maya nannies (one of my grandparents had Maya as his first and the other as his 2nd language).

This trend has being swiftly changing, a clear index of the advance of Spanish together with Maya

urbanization and migration. I will not go into the influence of Spanish on Maya here (for a discussion

of such topic see Karttunen 1985), which as a whole seems less than that of the hegemonic language on

Nahuatl. Yet Nahuatl has had more influence on the overall picture, i.e. on Mexican Spanish in the face

of other national varieties. Typologically we could argue that since Maya, in contrast to Nahuatl, has a

combined morphological but most of all an analytic structure it converges and does not conflict

morpho-syntactically with Spanish. The impact is rather to be found in losses of lexicon and classifiers,

most typically among young people.

All in all, Yucatec Maya is the language that has had more influence on regional monolinguals’

varieties of all the country’s indigenous languages, competing with varieties that also have a strong

impact on National varieties of Spanish, notably the case of Paraguayan and Andean Spanish (cf.

Palacios Alcaine 2005a, 2005b; Cerrón-Palomino 2003). As suggested, we should make a clear

distinction between different varieties of the language, both on a national level as within these varieties.

Therefore, it is appropriate to speak of Mexican Spanish and distinguish it from Yucatec Spanish, and

within it, to speak of Yucatec Spanish in a substratum vs. an adstratum situation; that is, distinguish the

monolingual varieties from the bilingual ones, even when one nurtures each other, a practice that is not

well established in the respective studies (cf. Lope Blanch 1987). For instance, Mexican Spanish is

identified with the “prestige” variety of the country, defined as the language of the media, high written

literature, as the “standard” central varieties of the Mexican Received Pronunciation (which are also in

contact with Yucatec Spanish via television and the radio among other ambits).

Some examples of the need for the distinction between monolingual and bilingual speech are provided

by Lipski (2005:123-24), although with no explanation of their origin: “Bilingual Yucatecs can use the

redundant possessive in constructions such as me dieron un golpe en mi cabeza (I received a strike to

my head), te cortaste tu dedo (you cut your finger)… su papá de Pedro (his father of Pedro)”. Yet,

according to my observations and introspection as a Spanish Yucatec speaker, the redundant possessive

is probably one of the features that has gone beyond bilinguals’ speech and reached at least some

13

Spanish monolingual varieties, especially the most colloquial ones. As in many other Mesoamerican

indigenous languages, the redundant possessive is repeated, like in the expression from modern

Nahuatl i-chaan de no-nan “my mom’s house” (lit. her house of my mother). These structures have

become stronger due to their use by bilinguals, at times having an effect on monolingual varieties,

either of Mexican or Yucatec Spanish, as in the case in point.

In the case of Yucatan, Lope Blanch (1987) acknowledges the adstratum situation that prevails in the

peninsula, along with what he calls a pronounced polymorphism and originality in the phonetic

realization that acknowledges the influence of Yucatec Maya. Yet, he declares that preference must be

given to “systematic” (sic, read systemic) explanations, fairly telling not only of a specific Hispanic

centered approach which considers the lexical vitality of Maya in Yucatec Spanish as “exotic” (1987:

8), but also of a close knit language perspective, which implies a linguistics without speakers.

The Maya phonemes that are more problematic for a Spanish-speaker are the series of glottalized

segments (orthographically represented as '), and the glottal stop itself, as well as vowel length and its

tone system. There is still a lack of systematic studies that account for the effects of these

characteristics on monolingual as well as Maya bilingual Spanish, especially the latter varieties and its

features. The studies conducted by Lope Blanch (1987) constitute revealing advances on the subject at

issue. I will sum up his conclusions here, so as to introduce some novel aspects for the development of

future research. In other words, introducing few albeit key clarifications will allow us to continue

advancing with a better and greater understanding of the aforementioned varieties of Yucatec Spanish,

which I cannot exhaust here.

It is precisely through the lexicon that Maya characteristic sounds have entered regional Spanish, and

this justifies granting them a joint treatment. Yucatec Spanish allows segments considered as “exotic”

in all positions; for instance, in final positions, which in varieties of standard Spanish are prohibited,

notably –m: Voy del Colóm a la colonia Alemám por el pam “I’m on my way from the Colon [ice

cream shop] to the Aleman [a Merida’s neighbourhood] to fetch bread”. This is the only Maya

phonological segment (in final position) that is presented in Spanish words. Otherwise, similar “exotic”

executions entail loans: huach “the last, the one from the house (referring to alcoholic beverages at a

canteen)”, xix “crumbs, leftovers”, xtup “the smallest of the family, youngest child” (xocoyote in

Mexican Spanish; i.e., from central Mexico). The vitality of Maya lexicon in Yucatec Spanish is thus a

fact. It is expressed not only by the preference that its speakers have for Maya words, in contrast with

the “normal” (“standard”) forms of Spanish, but also by their non-literal, pragmatic, versatile usages.

14

For example, the word xix, although literally refers to the “leftovers, residues” of food or beverage, can

also be applied to other situations: se pasó con el ultimo xix del semáforo, “he took advantage of the xix

of the green traffic light; i.e. he drove through the last glint of amber traffic light, almost red.”

Even though the analysis of the influence of glottalization and of the glottal stop itself entails a

significant advance in explaining aspirated and full-fledged stops’ articulations, respectively,

characteristic of the series of plosives in Yucatec Spanish, once again it is necessary to distinguish

between features of monolingual from those of bilingual Yucatec Spanish. Lope Blanch’s (1987)

research includes both varieties without making a clear distinction, producing a homogenizing effect of

the differences, which exist in practice and cry out for a separate treatment. In this sense, cases that are

considered marginal can be attributed to the Spanish of bilinguals. For example, devoicing the voiced

plosives constitutes phenomena due to the impact of indigenous language on Spanish as a second

language; i.e. constitutes part of bilinguals’ speech, specifically a phenomenon of under-differentiation

of the voiced: voiceless opposition, not productively exploited in Maya languages. For example, in

Tzotzil, a Maya language spoken in the state of Chiapas, such forms are also established, such as

supcomandante Marcos (one of the main leaders and port parole of the Zapatista movement). Other

phenomena that are likewise produced in Yucatec and Tzotzil, are the dephonologization of the palatal

nasal, with the crucial difference that in Tzeltal it is restricted to bilinguals, whereas in Yucatec it has

passed the threshold of monolingual Spanish speakers, which makes it so unique, going from niño to

ninio “boy”.

Regarding the two forms in which polymorphism can occur according to Lope Blanch (1987:14), it is

necessary to rank, if not discard, the second one, and analyze in depth the hierarchal relationship and

mutual determination into which he subdivides the first: conditioned polymorphism vs. free

polymorphism. The first distinction, in turn, is subdivided into historical and linguistic. A deeper

analysis will probably reveal that the lexical variation between forms such as xtup, xtupito, tup, tupito

“youngest child”, includes not only historical and linguistic aspects, but is first and foremost sensitive

to sociolinguistic features such as type of interlocutor, interactional context, degree of bilingualism and

of course sociolinguistic competence. In this specific case, as probably in several others, the differences

might be productively established as a speaker continuum, ranging from a more Maya (quasi)

monolingual (xtup) to a Spanish monolingual one (tup, tupito). This suggests that although such

differences can be plotted on an individual level, they do not depend on the speaker’s will, thus as with

free variation, no such thing as free polymorphism exists. In this sense, syncretic forms such as tulish-e

15

“dragonfly”, mulish-e “curly”, which have a final epenthesis to reproduce the Spanish pattern of the

open syllable, thus avoiding prohibited final consonants in standard Spanish, actually constitute the

least common form. It remains to be determined what type of speakers use these forms (if at all!) and in

which contexts. As a Yucatec native speaker and a linguist, I suspect these forms were obtained via

elicitation, corresponding to induced lexicon with middle upper class Spanish speakers with which the

author probably had more contact.

The idea that systemic explanations must prevail constitutes a dogma in practice. In my opinion, this

stems from a Hispanic-centrism that is hard to sustain in situations of intense contact, linked to

sociolinguistic over-determinations that award a high value to the adstratum language, as in the case we

are dealing with. For instance, stating that the influence of Maya on Yucatec Spanish is “limited,

weak”; i.e., marginal, secondary, to understand its evolution, contradicts the empirical evidence, not

only considering the volume and preference for lexicon of Maya origin and its impact on the phonetics

that prevail in Yucatec Spanish, but also its influence on other analytic levels, such as semantics, in

which the system has been partially reorganized according to the semantic nature of specific Maya

verbs. Consider for instance no lo busqué “I couldn’t find it” (lit. “I didn’t look for it”, in Maya there is

only one verb for “to look for” and “to find”) –an expression only found in Yucatec Spanish. Even

though these types of elements do not allow speaking of the emergence of a semi-Creole, in some ways

they resemble one, as they imply a partial reorganization of the linguistic system according to the

adstratum language, no matter how minimal it may be. Although it is important to search for

complementary, concurrent explanations, in the sense that there may be internal forces in Spanish that

could allow to shed some light on the presence of a phenomenon such as final -m, the “indirect, weak,

limited” influence is rather the one that stems from the internal Spanish drift, contrary to what Lope

Blanch sustains in several passages of his work (1987:32-47, 59 & passim), probably due to his own

Hispanic (monolingual) voice and consequent ideology and biases. In this sense, it becomes clear that

academic work is also submitted to power and ideological relationships, which are better captured

considering a translinguistic approach to language (cf. Hill and Hill 1986).

All this suggests that there is still a need to develop not only a methodology that considers the specific

weight of forces involved in the emergence of a specific phenomenon, but also deconstructing different

antagonistic voices at work in the production of academic (or other) voices, as part of the ecology of

discourses in its entirety. For instance, against the reductionist Lope Blanch’s and followers idea of a

prevailing systemic explanation, the phonotactic reinterpretation of the alveolar nasal [n] as a bilabial

16

[m], which could have originated in Maya, and later on entered to Spanish through bilinguals’ speech

and finally adopted by monolinguals, is most of all due to matters of sociolinguistic order, as acts of

identity in terms of speakers’ differentiation from other Spanish varieties (i.e. Spaniard and Central

Mexico varieties). This would have led to the consequent weakening of the standard forms and its

contiguous “romance” (Romance)” (i.e. Yucatec Spanish). Limiting the explanation to “internal” or

even “external” linguistic forces constitutes an explanation which denies speakers’ agency in the

configuration of their own specific varieties and looks to impose one single solipsist voice for

phenomena which require complex and rich approaches closer to much more ‘realistic’ focuses on

languages. Deconstructing such monolingual voices has a series of implications, including debating

descriptive, analytical and applied issues, as advanced in this chapter, not to speak of its political

implications. Let me provide another example, regarding the use of the clitics in Spanish, as conceived

and treated from different points of view which often times entail antagonistic voices, contradicting

each other.

Investigating clitics in Spanish

The use of clitics lo and le in Mexican Spanish neatly differentiate Mexican from other national

varieties of Spanish (e.g. Madrid Spanish). For instance, consider the Mexican Spanish typical

colloquial forms óra-le “Ok, yeah, wow!” quiúbo-le “What’s up?”, ánda-le “come on!, alright!, OK,

let’s go!”, hijo-le “Jesus!, Oh-oh!”, etc. Against purist approaches which consider these uses

“barbarisms” or bad usages, López Austin (1989) has convincingly established the Nahuatl origin of

these forms. The author actually suggests an explanation along the lines favored by the convergence of

Spanish dative form –le with Nahuatl exhortative ones, composed with the interjection cue-le!, such as

in tlayecue-le! Hurry up! As López Austin mentions, it is likely that the Spaniards used –le as an

emphatic form, as in trabája-le!, dá-le, Work!, péga-le! Hit it!, to give orders to indigenous people, in

which –le is attached to verbs marking an indirect object and producing an emphatic effect. Under the

influence and identification with Nahuatl interjections, it was later on extended to the above mentioned

forms with different interjectional, exhortative or desiderative functions, contributing to the wealth of

expressive resources of the Mexican Spanish variety and the reinforcement of its identity.

Even when the Nahuatlism cuele! Get lost! or the syncretic form axcale (equivalent to órale, but with

the Nahuatl form axcan “now, today”) have probably become obsolete, the use of the abovementioned

forms is still robust in Mexico’s (mostly central) Spanish varieties, in which as suggested (and

insistently denied or at least undermined by unilateral Hispanic viewpoints) Nahuatl has modulated its

17

diversity. If historically the influence of Nahuatl or other indigenous languages on Spanish has been the

condemnatory target of the Hispanic scholarly tradition, the situation of indigenous Spanish ---not to

mention indigenous languages themselves--- is even more highly stigmatized and their varieties

correspond to what is considered the ‘lowest’, most ‘vulgar’ forms of speech in Spanish. Take for

example the use of the accusative clitic lo in indigenous Spanish (Nahuatl but also in several other

indigenous groups such as Totonac, Hñahñu and Maya), summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Different functions of lo in indigenous (Nahuatl) Spanish

_____________________________________________

AC DAT PRO ART

LO LE TE/SE EL

LO LO LO LO

_________________________________________________

Respective examples are:

(2) ¿Lo quieres café? Do you want coffee? (AC) instead of the standard form ¿Quieres café?

(3) Lo da Juan “He gives it to Juan” (DAT) instead of the standard form Le da a Juan

(4) Lo vinieron traer Juan “They brought it to Juan” (PRO) instead of the standard form Vinieron a

traérselo a Juan

(5) Pero por lo momento “For the time being” instead of the standard form Pero por el momento

Contrary to Spanish and English which are pro-drop languages, notice that Nahuatl (and several other

Mesoamerican languages) obligatorily marks object in the verb, a fact that explains the replica to which

transitive Spanish verbs are submitted to, anchoring it to lo as the replica object (for one of the few

discussions of this phenomena see Hill 1987 and Flores Farfán 1999: 187-193). There are a number of

multi-vocal focuses regarding this issue. We have already alluded to the prescriptive condemnatory

gate keepers’ view which simply considers such uses a plain error, calling it loismo, defined as the use

of the AC instead of the DAT, as in (3). From a totally different perspective, that of the actor and not

any more of a (biased) observer, the focus is on the performative attitude, which basically pursues to

achieve illocutionary success. Thus while such forms as Usted los haces pescados? Do you (H) carve

18

(IT) fish? is considered perfectly valid from speakers’ usage, who point to a specific speech act (a

directive), the Hispanic academic gate keeper ---who by the way can become quite influential regarding

the lay man--- would consider such forms ungrammatical or rather as we have done explain it as an

unconscious effect of Nahuatl on Spanish; i.e., a consequence of language contact.

It is almost exclusively the Nahua (or as suggested several other indigenous (e.g. Maya) speakers) who

use the redundant clitic. Yet some Spanish indigenous monolinguals ironically present several such

Nahuatl traces in their Spanish ethnolects. This is an almost uninvestigated topic, raising several

queries dealing not only with Nahuas’ (or in general indigenous Spanish), but also the question of the

role and contribution of Nahuatl to Mexican monolingual Spanish varieties at this level, to which we

have only alluded to here. In any case, it remains to be determined to which extend this has had an

influence on monolingual Spanish-speaking varieties.

A final example will enable us to vindicate a multi-vocal approach to language, as has been developed

by Hill & Hill (1986) and among other works in Hill (1993). This refers to the lexical form maaskeh (or

its variants maaskih, maasih, maaseh, or even simply mas in Malinche Mexicano, Hill and Hill 1986:

181) ‘notwithstanding, no matter that, although’ in Mexicano. As I have depicted elsewhere (Flores

Farfán, 1998), maaskeh is a clear example of convergence between adversative forms in Nahuatl and

Spanish, stemming from Nahuatl sixteen century māciuhqui which in turn probably converged with the

old Spanish expression manque expressed in contemporary forms such as (por) mas que ‘no matter

how much…’. Let us stress that this interpretation neatly corresponds to the perspective and usage of

the Mexicano speaker; i.e., a bilingual one, against unilateral viewpoints which consider it deriving

from one single origin. Due to Hill and Hill (1986: 180) suggestions, I have been able to reach such

conclusion in the abovementioned works:

The adversative conjunction mas ‘but, although, even’ is very common in Malinche Mexicano,

but we have not heard it in Spanish. Mas often appears with que or qui … The source of this

element, māzqui/ māzque may be an example of syncretism between this form and a Spanish

word. Suárez (1977) takes this form to be from Spanish. However, Classical Mexicano had a

closely similar form, māciuhqui ‘nonetheless, anyhow’, and the coincidence between this form

and Spanish mas que, in nearly the same meaning, may have led speakers to merge the two

forms.

Notice that even when the Hills did not register maaskeh in use in local Spanish, in fact Mexicano

speakers in the Balsas region, especially in female speech from conservative Mexicano communities,

such as San Agustin Oapan, use it:

19

(6) Esa mujer es chilapeña maaskeh esté viviendo aquí “That lady is from Chilapa [a City away of the

Balsas region], no matter she’s living here [in San Agustin Oapan]”

The use in (6) as well as the profuse use of maaskeh for instance in Nahuatl riddles or as a leaving

taking courtesy rule suggests that the form is more Nahuatl than Spanish; yet, one cannot deny its

analogous function in Spanish, which bilinguals ‘naturally’ concur with their native form. Its vitality is

so crystal clear that it is calqued when Balsas Nahuas greet each other in Spanish while leaving an

interactional scene. When leaving in Balsas Nahuatl one says (7.1) and replies with (7.2):

(7.1) ye niaw “I’m leaving”

(7.2) maaskeh teh “Goodbye”

Notice that the literal translation of maskeh teh into Spanish is aunque pues, a loan translation which

Balsas Nahuas directly replicate when speaking Spanish. Apart from such robust usages, consider the

ideological maneuvers which these forms entail when judged from the position of a (racist) Mestizo,

who could point to the use of indigenous aunque pues as an impolite form which defines indigenous

people rudeness, lack of “education” or “culture”, stressing his-her indifference for the use of polite

courtesy rules. From such ideological standpoints covert racism is also more commonly indirectly

expressed, while mocking indigenous ways of speaking, similar to those judgments associated to

“junk” or “mock Spanish” as depicted in Hill (1995). These conclusions have not only research

implications, but also applied ones. Let us now turn to consider some practical implications of these

and similar issues.

Building strategies for the defense of endangered languages

Consider some implications that such basic research entails not only of and for the field of (contact)

sociolinguistics (such as the use of no le aunque “it doesn’t matter” in Mexican especially rural and

indigenous Spanish, which is probably related to the above discussion regarding both –le and

maaskeh). Think for example of the need to develop an intercultural intervention which would

contribute to solve the potential interethnic misunderstandings nurturing conflicts that as suggested

such usages convey, together with the educational resources that knowing the characteristics of

indigenous or Mexican Spanish entail. For instance, at least part of a course for teaching indigenous

languages could be designed for Spanish-speaking students of e.g. Nahuatl as a second language, or for

indigenous bilinguals, emphasizing features such as the obligation to mark object in the Nahuatl

transitive verb (or the restriction to possess kinship terminology or distinguish different paradigms for

20

the absolutive and the possessive, among many other facts). Based on this knowledge, it is predictable

that Spanish or English speaking students would drop object following their own native linguistic pro-

drop pattern, producing forms such as –kwa tlaxkahli instead of ki-kwa tlaxkahli, “(s)he eats tortilla”, a

fact to which the instructor would call his-her attention in order to start acquiring a native (e.g. Nahuatl

or Maya, etc:) competence.

Together with becoming an effective pedagogical tool this type of reflection would also allow starting

to dignify such marginal, still highly stigmatized varieties, which by the way are only beginning to be

vindicated in the literature in the form of literary works, a fact that could also be pinpointed to potential

learners of these languages --- even favoring more analyses and development of these types of

productions.16

As we have seen, received monolingual approaches have obscured the origin of a series of words in

Mexican Spanish which are not well established or are a matter of debate, including pulque, “Drinking

(maguey) sap”, taco “taco”, gachupín “Spaniard”, machincuepa “somersault” and many others.

Another most obvious educational implication sustained on this diversity includes reflecting on such

integrated indigenous lexicon (outstandingly Nahuatl) in Mexican Spanish varieties, including famous

words also present in English (tomato, avocado, tamale, taco). We have already worked and are facing

the practical facet of this knowledge in the form of among other things a book and a DVD, entitled the

Machincuepas del Tlacuache “The opossum somersaults”. This product combines live image and

animation in the form of opossum’s cartoons in which selected Nahuatl names of the Mexico City

metro are depicted and played around with, instigating viewers’ curiosity and interest, looking to attract

a wide audiences’ attention. The basic idea is that in an enjoyable way viewers build upon preexisting

words already integrated in their Mexican Spanish repertoire, such as numerous names in maps of cities

in Mexico, especially in Central Mexico (visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drzu0eT8wUk).

The Tlacuache “Big eater, the opossum”, is one of the most important Mesoamerican tricksters, the

host of the Machincuepas and other products we are working with. It is a Mesoamerican marsupial with

several varieties, which represents the Mesoamerican Prometheus, since (s)he was responsible for

donating fire to humanity. Its name derives from tla-kwaa “(s)he eats something” and –tsiin, the

honorific, affective diminutive suffix, turned into –che (recall that Nahuatl /¢/ becomes Spanish//č/).

Thus elaborating upon the actors’ own linguistic competence, Mexican users, especially children, are

16 One of the few works that productively exploit indigenous Spanish in literary works is Arguedas (2001) for Peruvian

Spanish and Subcomandante Marcos and Taibo (2005) for the case of Mayas’ Spanish.


21

invited to actively reflect on the lexicon which they use on an everyday basis, opening a viewpoint in

which their own repertoire is conceived as an opportunity to approximate and reflect on a knowledge at

the same time so close but yet so far. In this sense, with these materials the user is made aware for

instance that Nahuatl /¢/ becomes Spanish//č/ and that (s)he can reconstruct the original form of the

word applying a very simple, at hand methodology. Thus tepa-che “indigenous sap made of pineapple”

becomes tepatsiin, nan-che, “type of edible fruit”, becomes nantsiin, etc., etc.

The same is true for /λ/, a segment that as we have seen becomes an open syllable when entering

Spanish; the inverse route, reaching the indigenous language, is what the user is invited to stroll

through: toma-te: toma-tl “tomato”, aguaca-te : awaka-tl “avocado”, etc., alongside explaining with

somersaults on the syllables that Nahuatl stress is on the penultimate syllable, with such words as

Chapultépec, Cuitláhuac, Xochimílco, all metro stations which meaning our trickster deciphers.

Together with these joyful brief invitations, with which we hope to inspire curiosity on the side of the

user, short but very powerful Nahuatl texts are introduced in the Tlacuache’s tour through the metro

guts, such as tongue twisters-riddles and a short song in Nahuatl:

Otlica tecuatica ca titotecunia

When along the way you go, it will bite and make you fall!

Ya tiawe compañero tipaxiaalo te Maria, oome yehuaalootsiin waan tonaali, Santa Maria

Guadalupe

“We are leaving companion, we are strolling te Maria, two venerable rounds and one day, [Virgin]

Holly Mary Guadalupe!”

A project oriented to revaluate this legacy through such initiatives should be developed of course with

mainstream Spanish speakers as well as with the Nahuas (or other indigenous populations) themselves,

a project we have been working with for over a decade (see Flores Farfán forthcoming). Recall that it is

indigenous people that have to learn Spanish (or English!), not the other way around, a unidirectional

inter-culturality that the production of such materials looks to overcome while at the same time

vindicating .endangered languages at the indigenous community level.

Concluding remarks

It is important to emphasize that unilateral positions that bet on a single explanation, much less

translated into sterile polemics in the sense of opposing a Hispanic tradition vs. an Indigenous one for

the aforementioned phenomena, have inhibited the development of a methodology for understanding

22

the hierarchies of concurring forces, as I have suggested here and elsewhere. Thus, for example, in the

case of performing the series of plosives in Yucatec Spanish without fricativization, as full plosives, the

concurrence of the effect of the adstratum – the presence of the glottal stop that brakes the fricative

articulations of the plosives, re-syllabification and links - can be postulated along with an internal

development detonated by that same adstratum effect, together with the archaistic conservatism of

Mexican Spanish, and particularly of the Yucatec Peninsula (cf. Lope Blanch 1987:91) where the

overall sociolinguistic determinations not considered in such works play an outstanding role.

Opposing the multiple forces which in practice play a role in the configuration of specific phenomena

is partially responsible for the poor advancement of the state of the art in contact studies, at least in

Mexico, which still require more and better investigations, not to speak of its applied implications,

expressed in a huge vacuum in this respect to which I have briefly refer to, exploring links between so

called “basic” and “applied” research. In other words, opposing ideologies revolving around contact

Spanish have inhibited the advancement of contact studies, not even scratching the surface of its

applied issues (a similar situation is reported for countries such as Perú, cf. Cerrón Palomino 2003).

This has also implied the lack of a clear methodology to unravel the specific weight of internal-external

forces in the configuration of such phenomena. A concurrent rather than a one-sided approach is much

more realistic for language contact studies.

As suggested, critically reviewing such one sided approaches, allows developing a perspective which

goes beyond monolingual conceptions of language, often linked to purism (Hill and Hill 1986: passim),

especially in the case of endangered languages. In turn this allows debating the concept of language

itself, developing a more realistic approach to specific “languages” in terms of varieties, sensitive to all

types of contextual determinations, closer to an actor’s perspective approach, a phrasing which seems

much more appropriate to unravel the complexity of the syncretic project and it’s dilemmas as the Hills

and I following them have try to suggest in this contribution.

References

Anónimo. 1893. Luces del idioma otomí o gramática del idioma que hablan los indios otomíes en la

República Mexicana, México, Imprenta del Gobierno.

Alatorre, Antonio. 1992. “Historia de la palabra gachupín” in E. Luna Traill (ed.), Scripta philologica

in honorem Juan M. Lope Blanch a los 40 años de docencia en la UNAM y a los 65 años de

vida. II: Lingüística española e Iberoamericana, México, UNAM: 275-302.

23

Arguedas, José María 2001. El Zorro de Arriba y e Zorro de Abajo. Lima, Horizonte.

Carochi, Horacio. 1983. Arte de la Lengua Mexicana: con la declaración de los adverbios della.

México, UNAM-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales.

Cerrón, Palomino. 2003. Castellano andino. Aspectos sociolingüísticos, pedagógicos y gramaticales.

Lima, Fondo Editorial PUCP.

Flores Farfán José Antonio (forthcoming) “Keeping the fire alive. A decade of language revitalization

in Mexico” to appear in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 212, Small

Languages and Small Languages Communities 69 (November 2011).

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. Flores Farfán, José Antonio. Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2009. Variación,

ideologías y purismo lingüístico. El caso del mexicano o náhuatl. México: CIESAS.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2008. The Hispanisation of Modern Nahuatl Varieties. En Stolz et al.

(eds.) Hispanisation. The Impact of Spanish on the Lexicon and Grammar of the Indigenous

Languages of Austronesia and the Americas. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 27-48.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2007a. “Buenas prácticas en la revitalización de lenguas”, en Martina

Schrader- Kniffki y Laura Morgenthaler García (eds.), La Romania en interacción: entre

historia, contacto y política. Ensayos en homenaje a Klaus Zimmermann. Frankfurt, Madrid:

Vervuert, Iberoamericana: 675-689.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2006. “La Malinche: portavoz de dos mundos”. Estudios de Cultura

Náhuatl 37: 119-139.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2000a.“Transferencias náhuatl-español en el Balsas. Reflexiones sobre el

desplazamiento y la resistencia lingüística en el náhuatl moderno”. Amerindia 25: 87-106.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 1999. Cuatreros Somos y Toindioma Hablamos. Contactos y Conflictos

Con formato: Fuente: Sin Cursiva

24

entre el Náhuatl y el Español en el Sur de México. México: CIESAS.

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 1998. “On the Spanish of the Nahuas”, Hispanic Linguistics, 10/1: 1-41.

Hill, Jane H. 1993. “Spanish in the Indigenous Languages of Mesoamerica and the Southwest: Beyond

Stage Theory to the Dynamic of Incorporation and Resistance”, in Southwest Journal of

Linguistics, vol. 12: 87-108.

Hill, Jane H. 1992. “’Today there is no respect’. Nostalgia ‘respect’ and oppositional discourse in

Mexicano (Nahuatl)”, Pragmatics 2: 263-280.

Hill, Jane H. 1995. "Junk Spanish, Covert Racism, and the (Leaky) Boundary between Public and

Private Spheres." Pragmatics 5: 197-212.

Hill, Jane H. 1991. “In Neca gobierno de Puebla: Mexicano penetrations of the Mexican state”. In

Indians, Nation-States and Culture, Greg Urban and Joel Sherzer (eds.). Austin, TX: University

of Texas Press: 72-94.

Hill, Jane H. 1987. “Spanish as a pronominal argument language: the Spanish interlanguage of

Mexicano speakers”, en Coyote Papers, No.6: 68-87.

Hill, Jane H. and Kenneth H. 1986. Speaking Mexicano. Dynamics of a Syncretic Language in Central

Mexico, Tucson, the University of Arizona Press.

Karttunen, Frances. 1985. Nahuatl and Maya in contact with Spanish, Texas Linguistic Forum 26,

University of Texas, Department of Linguistics. Austin: 1-135.

Karttunen, Frances.1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Karttunen, Frances and James Lockhart. 1976. Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact

Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Lipski, John. 2005. El español de América: los contactos bilingües, Historia de la lengua española,

Barcelona, Ariel:1117-1138.

Lipski, John. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York, Longman.

Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas after the conquest. A social and Cultural History of the Indians of

25

Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford University Press.

López Austin, Alfredo. 1989. Sobre el origen del falso dativo -le del español de México, Anales de

Antropología, 26, UNAM, México: 407-416.

Lope Blanch, Juan M. 1987. Estudios sobre el español de Yucatán, México, UNAM.

Molina, Fray Alonso de. 1970 [1571]. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y

castellana. Edición facsimilar. México D.F.: Editorial Porrúa.

Palacios Alcaine, Azucena. 2005a. “Lenguas en contacto en Paraguay: español y guaraní” , en Carmen

Ferrero Pino y Nilsa Lasso-von Lan (eds.), Variedades lingüísticas y lenguas en contacto en el

mundo de habla hispana, Ed. 1st. Books Library, Bloomington, Books Library: 35-43.

Palacios Alcaine, Azucena. 2005b. “La influencia del quichua en el español andino ecuatoriano”, en

Carmen Ferrero Pino y Nilsa Lasso-von Lan (eds.); Variedades lingüísticas y lenguas en

contacto en el mundo de habla hispana, Bloomington, Books Library: 44-52.

Santamaría, Francisco. 2000. Diccionario de mexicanismos. México, Porrúa.

Suárez, Jorge A. 1977. “La influencia del español en la estructura gramatical del náhuatl”. Anuario de

Letras 15, México, UNAM-Centro de Lingüística Hispánica: 115-164.

Subcomandante Marcos and Paco Ignacio Taibo II. 2005. Muertos Incómodos. México, Joaquín Mortiz.

Websites

http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/jaff/multimedia.html

http://www.academia.org.mx/dicmex.php

http:///buscon.rae.es/draeI/


Appendix

Main Characteristics of Nahuas’ Spanish

Phonological features

[o ~ u]: cumu tipubres for como tipobres “Since we are poor” (these vowels are

allophones in Nahuatl)

Con formato: Centrado



Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva, Inglés

(Estados Unidos)



(Estados Unidos)





http://www.ciesas.edu.mx/jaff/multimedia.html

http://www.academia.org.mx/dicmex.php


26

[γ ~ k]: amiko for amigo “Friend” (under-differentiation of the voice : voiceless

Spanish distinction since Nahuatl originally does not make this distinction)

Míyel for Miguel (substitution) “Michael”

Límoon for limón (nativization) “lemon”, méloon for melón “melon”

Anke for aunque “although, no matter” (there are no diphthongs allowed in the

Nahuatl syllable) regunion for reunión “meeting” quilavo for clavo “nail”

polatano (polan) for plátano “banana” (epenthesis)

Morpho-syntactic-semantic replicas from Nahuatl into Spanish

cien peso for cien peso-s “100 pesos” (numerals already pluralize in Nahuatl)

no soy de acuerdo for no estoy de acuerdo, “I don’t agree”

(there’s only one verb for ser and estar, like in English)

su-s problema for su problema “their problem” (Nahuatl has in- as the third plural

possessive and does not require concordance)

su-s casa for su casa “their house”, (Nahuatl in-kal); su-s mole, su-s atole for su

mole, su atole “their mole, their atole”

¿usted los vendes pescados? for ¿usted vende pescados? “Do you sell fish?”

(Nahuatl ti-k-tlanamaka peskaados?)

you-OBJECT-sell

el costumbre for la costumbre (no gender distinction)

“the tradition”

el violinist-o for el violinista “the violinist” (there are no violinist females either)

un mula for una mula “a mule” derived from the double loan see “one”, which has

become an indefinite article in Nahuatl, as in see chichi “a dog”)

está queriendo mujer for quiere casarse

“He wants to get married”

Derived from kine-tok siwaatl

want-PROGRESSIVE female

díselo Juan for díselo a Juan “Tell Juan” (no prepositions: deletion)

¿Qué haces a Holanda? for ¿Qué haces en Holanda?

“What are you doing in Holland” (alternation of prepositions)

LOISMO (redundant use of the clitic lo, considered the most vulgar form by the RAE)

yo lo conozco su hija for yo conozco a su hija

“I know her daugther”

lo platicó nada más a Cesar for le platicó nada más a César

“He only talked to Cesar”

los vas a ir poniendo las botas for te vas a ir poniendote las botas

“You are going to put your boots on”

por lo momento… for por el momento

“For the time being”

aunque pues for adiós

“Good bye” (derived form maaske teh, a leaving taking courtesy rule)

escuchar for entender, comprender

“listen, understand” (derived from –kaki one single verb for such verbs in English

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...


Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva, Español

(México)Con formato: Sin viñetas ni numeración

Con formato ...


Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...


Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...


Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

Con formato ...

27

and Spanish)

como no escuchan nada de español for no entienden el español

“She doesn’t understand any Spanish”.

Nahuas’ Spanish is also rich in ARCHAISMS, for instance:

barreta “sowing instrument”

culantro for cilantro“coriander”

de presto for rápido “quick, fast”

moza, mozo for novia, novio “girl friend, boy friend”

silleta for silla “chair”






Con formato: Fuente: Negrita, Inglés

(Estados Unidos)Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos)







(Estados Unidos)



(Estados Unidos)



(Estados Unidos)



(Estados Unidos)





Con formato: Sangría: Izquierda: 0 cm,

Primera línea: 0 cm

spanish in contact with indigenous tongues. changing the tide in favor of the heritage languages

Documents