Workshop: Amerindian Languages in Contact Situations: Spanish-American Perspectives

Organizers: Karen Dakin (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

Natalie Operstein (California State University, Fullerton) Claudia Parodi (University of California, Los Angeles)

Call for Papers

The linguistic situations in present-day Spanish America have been shaped to a considerable extent by the long-term contact among the indigenous languages and cultures, which has resulted in profound consequences for the participating languages. Although many of the possible lexical, phonological, and structural commonalities among these languages have been explored in prior literature (cf. Campbell, Kaufman, and Smith Stark 1986 and Smith Stark 1994 for Mesoamerica), there are no more recent comparable attempts at a study of the relevant areal traits. Detailed studies placing the structural features of individual languages within their areal contexts are also lacking, as are attempts to place the areal linguistic adaptations within the wider context of human ecology, in the sense proposed by Hill (1978), in sharp contrast with the amount of attention that continues to be received by linguistic areas located in other areas of the world, such as the Balkans, Ethiopia, or Southeast Asia.

Another important factor for the history of contact in the area is that since the early sixteenth century, the indigenous languages have been in close contact with Spanish. This proximity has left a profound imprint on the languages, changing each in a variety of ways that range from influences on lexicon and phonology to impact on diverse levels of the languages’ morphology, syntax, and discourse. In the process, regional Spanish, including the national varieties of Latin American Spanish, has undergone a number of changes as well.

Finally, reconstruction of linguistic and cultural histories of individual languages is greatly aided by the study of loanword adaptations. By studying phonetic, structural, and semantic changes in the borrowed words, it is possible to trace not only the direction of borrowing and source languages but also the relative chronology of borrowing (linguistic stratigraphy in the sense of Andersen 2003) and the type and nature of past contacts. Inferences drawn from a careful study of loanwords are especially important in the case of unwritten languages and those that only recently have begun to be written, including most languages of Hispano-America.

The proposed workshop will combine these research threads by focusing on the diachronic aspects of language contact in Spanish America. Its principal goals are to spark an interest in further study of the possible areal traits, especially as they relate to the wider issue of area-level human adaptations; to highlight the importance of contact-induced changes observable in these areas for contact and diachronic linguistics more generally; to contribute to the study of linguistic stratigraphy; and to provide a context for a meaningful dialogue between students of the indigenous languages and those of Spanish. In addition, the workshop seeks to bring together scholars from different language backgrounds, linguistic traditions, and theoretical orientations with the aim of fostering collaborative research on these complex areas.

References Andersen, Henning, ed. 2003. Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Meso-America as a Linguistic Area. Language 62: 530-558.

Hill, Jane H. 1978. Language Contact Systems and Human Adaptations. Journal of Anthropological Research 34: 1-26.

Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1994. Mesoamerican Calques. Carolyn J. MacKay and Verónica

Vázquez, eds. Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, 15-50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Morning Session

9:00-9:10 Opening remarks

9:10-9:30 Carácterísticas gramaticales del español de hablantes bilingües

lacandón y mazahua Sergio Ibañez Cerda (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mèxico), Israel Martínez-Corripio (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia), Armando Mora-Bustos (Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana- Iztapalapa)

9:30-9:50 El sistema de alineamiento del español en contacto con otomí Glenda Lizárraga (Colegio de México)

9:50-10:10 Historical review of loans in Chichimec (c.1767-2012) Yolanda Lastra (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

10:10-10:30 Prosodic adaptation in loanwords from Spanish to Zapotec Francisco Arellanes Arellanes (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Mario E. Chávez Peón (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social-DF), Mario Hernández Luna (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia), Miriam Itzel Manzano Corona (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia), Sofía Gabriela Morales Camacho (Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa), Rosa María Rojas Torres (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas), Anders Stallemo (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Carlos De Jesús Wagner Oviedo (Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia), Victoria Esthefanía Zárate Girón (Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa)

10:30-11:00

Coffee break

11:00-11:20 Subordination in Zoque: native patterns with Spanish Means

Jan Terje Faarlund (University of Oslo) 11:20-11:40 Evidence from Spanish-Huastec contact in the sixteenth century attested

in the Doctrina Christiana en la lengua guasteca Lucero Meléndez (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

11:40-12:00 The impact of language contact on Nahuatl couplets Mercedes Montes de Oca (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

12:00-12:20

Diachronic and synchronic contact phenomena: Spanish borrowing and code-switching in Yurakaré Sonja Gipper (University of Cologne)

12:20-12:30 General discussion, if time permits

12:30-1:30

Lunch break

Afternoon Session

1:30-1:50 Diffusion of words for ‘dog’ as a diagnostic of language contact zones in the Americas Søren Wichmann (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) Matthias Pache (Leiden University Center for Linguistics)

1:50-2:10 The Mochica language and its possible external relations Rita Eloranta (Leiden University Center for Linguistics)

2:10-2:30 The Chibchan language family and possible links with Mesoamerican and South American languages Matthias Pache (Leiden University Center for Linguistics)

2:30-2:50 The linguistic evidence for the sound [l] in Muysca Diana Giraldo (Universitetet i Bergen)

2:50-3:00

General discussion, if time permits

3:00-3:30

Coffee break

3:30-3:50 The prehistory of Resígaro contact with Bora. A case study on the dynamics of Amazonian linguistics areas Frank Seifart (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)

3:50-4:10 Western and central Nahuatl dialects: possible influences from contact with Cora, Huichol and Tepehuan Karen Dakin (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

4:10-4:30 Spanish loanwords in Amerindian languages and their implications for the reconstruction of the pronunciation of Spanish Claudia Parodi (University of California, Los Angeles)

4:30-4:50 Impact of language contact on the rate of phonological change: a case study from Zapotec in contact with Spanish Natalie Operstein (California State University, Fullerton)

4:50-5:00 General discussion, if time permits

5:00-

Reception

CARACTERÍSTICAS GRAMATICALES DEL ESPAÑOL DE HABLANTES BILINGÜES LACANDÓN

Y MAZHUA

Israel Martínez Corripio (ENAH) Sergio Ibáñez Cerda (UNAM)

Armando Mora-Bustos (UAM-I) amora@xanum.uam.mx El objetivo de este trabajo es dar cuenta de algunas características gramaticales de las variantes del español hablado por bilingües mazahuas y lacandones. El mazahua es una lengua del la familia otomangue del grupo otopame, mientras que el lacandón del sur es una lengua maya. Si bien las lenguas involucradas en este estudio, las dos originarias de México, pertenecen a familias lingüísticas diferentes, aquí asumimos que ambas, en función de sus particulares características estructurales, afectan algunas propiedades lingüísticas del español usado como segunda lengua por hablantes cuya lengua materna son estas lenguas. Así, por ejemplo, la falta de concordancia entre el numeral y el nominal de (1a) está relacionada con el hecho de que en mazahua la pluralidad se marca con una palabra independiente. Igualmente, el adjunto octubre en (1b), aparece sin la ‘esperada’ preposición en, ya que el mazahua no tiene estas unidades gramaticales. (1) a. A los once año de edad, mi papá me dijo… b. Me puse bien mala, empecé octubre Por su parte, el lacandón del sur es una lengua de marcación en el núcleo, en la cual si los argumentos de un verbo aparecen de forma explícita no requieren de una marca de caso que muestre su rol gramatical, de esta forma en el ejemplo (2) la frase nominal mi compañero aparece sin la marca a, que en uso canónico marca los objetos animados en español. (2) y que le dice tú mataste mi compañero En general, la investigación propuesta permitirá conocer cuáles son algunos de los fenómenos de interferencia gramatical más comunes que se dan en hablantes bilingües de español cuya lengua materna es el mazahua o el lacandón. BIBLIOGRAFÍA. Bartholomew, D. 1965. The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Unpublished Thesis

Dissertation. Chicago University. Illinois. Bergqvist, Henrik G. 2008. Temporal Reference in Lakandon Maya: Speaker-and Event-

Perspectives. PhD. Thesis. London, UK: University of London. Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Meso-America as a

Linguistic Area. Language 62: 530-558.Hardman de Bautista. 1982. "The mutual influence of Spanish and the Andean languages". Word 33 (1-2): 143-157.

Hofling, Charles A. 2000. Itzaj Maya Grammar. The University of Utha Press.

Hofling, Charles A . 2006. “A sketch of the History of the Verbal Complex in Yukatekan Mayan Languages”. International Journal of American Linguistics. 72 (3): 367 - 96.

Lope Blanch, Juan M.1968. El español de América. Madrid: Ediciones Alcalá. Lope Blanch, Juan M. 1972. "La influencia del sustrato en la fonética del español de

México", en Estudios sobre el español de México 94. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Muysken, Pieter.1979. "La mezcla de quechua y castellano. El caso de la 'media lengua' en el Ecuador." Lexis 3(1): 41-56.

Nardi, Ricardo.1976-7. "Lenguas en contacto: el sustrato quechua en el noroeste argentino." Filología (Buenos Aires) 17-18: 131-150. Quant, Inés A. de y José Miguel Irigoyen.1980. Interferencia guaraní en la morfosintaxis y

léxico del español subestándard de Resistencia. Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina: Universidad Nacional del Nordeste.

Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1994. “Mesoamerican Calques”, en Carolyn J. MacKay and Verónica Vázquez (eds.) Investigaciones lingüísticas en mesoamérica, 15-50. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Stewart, Donald. ms. 1966. Borrador de la gramática del mazahua. Correcciones y comentarios. Doris Bartholomew. México: ILV.

Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Gene- tic Linguistics. Berkeley / Los Ángeles / Londres: University of California Press, 1988.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. Languages in Contact. La Haya: Mouton & Co. Zamora, Juan Clemente. 1982. "Amerindian loanwords in general and local varieties of American Spanish". Word 33 (1-2): 159-169. Zamora Salamanca, Francisco José. 1985. La influencia de los contactos interétnicos e

inter- lingüísticos en la problemática de estandarización de lenguas. Planteamientos teóricos y análisis de tipologías. Valladolid: tesis doctoral inédita.

1

EL SISTEMA DE ALINEAMIENTO DEL ESPAÑOL EN CONTACTO CON OTOMÍ Glenda Zoé Lizárraga Navarro

El Colegio de México El objetivo de este trabajo es describir el sistema pronominal átono de tercera persona en hablantes bilingües de español-otomí de la comunidad de Pueblo Nuevo, municipio de Acambay, Estado de México. Se mostrará que el clítico lo corresponde gramaticalmente a una marca verbal de objeto, que en el nivel semántico corresponde a un participante tema (T), paciente (P) o recipiente (R) (cf. Dryer, 1986; Haspelmath, 2005; Malchukov et al., 2007), como se muestra en (1). (1) a. Mi esposa, por ejemplo, lo mandaron a Querétaro y después lo iban a mandar a Puebla(Emilio B.) b. A: Juan ordeñó a la vaca. ¿Qué le hizo Juan a la vaca? B: lo está sacando su leche (Catarina L.) c. La imagen en la iglesia pus lo tienen mucha fe (Victoriana P.) En (1a) el clítico lo codifica al participante P mi esposa; en (1b), el clítico exhibe anafóricamente al participante R la vaca, mientras que el participante P, su leche, no aparece marcado en el verbo de forma clítica. De manera similar en (1c), aunque se trata de una construcción con verbo ligero, el clítico codifica en el verbo al participante R la imagen. En términos generales, aquí se ilustra que lo en el español de los bilingües únicamente marca en el verbo un participante. El alineamiento que exhiben los verbos ditransitivos es neutral (Haspelmath 2005), es decir, T, P y R se codifican con la misma forma clítica lo (T=P=R). La estructura del sistema pronominal átono de la variedad de español objeto de análisis tiene características similares a las lenguas de objeto primario (Dryer 1986); esto es, el clítico lo codifica al objeto directo de las oraciones transitivas de la misma forma que al objeto indirecto de las ditransitivas. En este sistema, producto del bilingüismo, no hay una marca que diferencie formalmente al objeto directo del indirecto. La variación en el sistema de pronombres átonos de esta variedad de español obedece a un proceso de cambio en curso motivado por el contacto con el otomí, donde el español es la lengua receptora de las estructuras lingüísticas de esta lengua mesoamericana. Bibliografía CAMPBELL, L., T. KAUFMAN & T. C. SMITH-STARK (1986). Mesoamerica as a linguistic area.

Language, 62 (3): 530-570. DRYER, M. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 62: 808-45. HASPELMATH, M. (2005). Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic

Discovery 3, 1: 1-21 (http://linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu/). LABOV, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic

change.Language Variation and Change, 2: 205-254. MALCHUKOV, A., M. HASPELMATH & B. COMRIE (2010). Ditransitive constructions: A

typological overview. En A. Malchukov, M Haspelmath & B. Comrie (eds). Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton: 1-64.

PALACIOS ALCAINE, A. (2005). Aspectos teóricos y metodológicos del contacto de lenguas: el sistema pronominal del español en áreas de contacto con lenguas amerindias. En V. Noll, K. Zimmermann & I. Neumann-Holzschuh (eds.). El español en América:

2

Aspectos teóricos, particularidades, contactos. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana: 63-94.

PALANCAR, ENRIQUE L. 2009. Gramática y textos del hnöñhö. Otomí de San Ildefonso Tultepec, Querétaro. México: Plaza y Valdés.

Historical Review of Loans in Chichimec (c. 1767-2012)

Yolanda Lastra Colegio de México

Chichimec is an Otopamean language that has been in contact with Spanish since the sixteenth century. The contact with speakers of Spanish was not friendly. Jesuit missionaries tried conversion, but Chichimecs fled to the mountains whenever possible. With Mexican independence, the relationship with mestizo speakers continued being distant. Things began to improve after the impoverished and hungry group was given land in the 30’s by President Cardenas. Ever since, it has been easier for Chichimecs to get jobs. Many older men and most young people are bilingual now, but the degree of proficiency in Spanish varies according to age and former opportunities. The language apparently was not documented by the Jesuits, or it may be that due to their having been expelled from Mexico in 1767, there are no extant publications or manuscripts. A Franciscan friar, fray Juan Guadalupe Soriano prepared a short vocabulary of the language (before 1767) (Lastra 2012). González Casanova (1930) published another vocabulary, subsequently Jaime de Angulo contributed a very valuable sketch of the language in IJAL (1932), and Soustelle (1937) based his work on Angulo’s. Moisés Romero wrote a phonology (1958) and a vocabulary (1966). In 1958 I began working intermittently on the language. If one compares the language as it was in the 30’s with my 1958 data there do not seem to be any significant changes. But if the early data are compared with the present-day language, there have been changes in phonology, grammar and lexicon (Lastra 2012, 2011, 2005). The quantity of loans does not seem to increase if one examines texts such as stories or life histories, but it does in conversations and in the elicitation of certain vocabulary items. Descriptive terminology or circumlocutions are also common. These items and the loans themselves will be presented in the paper with reference to the age of the speakers and the date of occurrence.

References Angulo, Jaime de 1932 The Chichimeco language (Central Mexico). International Journal of American Linguistics 7: 153-194. González Casanova, Pablo 1930 Un vocabulario chichimeca. XXIII Congreso de Americanistas, Nueva York, pp.

918-925. Lastra, Yolanda 2004 Caracterización del chichimeco jonaz: la posesión. Universos I: 61-80.

2011 Dos cambios fonológicos en curso en chichimeco. Realismo en el análisis de corpus orales. Pedro Martín Butragueño (ed.). México: CELL, El Colegio de México, pp.83-92.

2012 Tratado del Arte y unión de los idiomas otomí y pame; vocabularios de los

idiomas pame, otomí, mexicano y jonaz por fray Juan Guadalupe Soriano, paleografiado y editado por Yolanda Lastra; estudio crítico por Doris Bartholomew y Yolanda Lastra; vocabularios comparativos de pame por Heidi Chemin, Leonardo Manrique y Carlo Antonio Castro; vocabularios comparativos de otomí y chichimeco por Yolanda Lastra. México : IIA-UNAM

Romero Castillo, Moisés 1957-58. Los fonemas del chichimeco jonaz. Anales del Instituto Nacional de

Antropología e Historia 11: 288-299. 1966. Vocabulario chichimeco. Summa Anthropologica en homenaje a Roberto J.

Weitlaner, 501-32, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Soriano, fray Juan Guadalupe 2012 [1767] Tratado del Arte y unión de los idiomas otomí y pame; vocabularios de los

idiomas pame, otomí, mexicano y jonaz. México: IIA-UNAM Soustelle, Jacques 1937 La famille otomi-pame du Mexique Central. Travaux et Mémoires de l’Institut

d’Ethnologie, Paris.

Prosodic adaptation in loanwords from Spanish to Zapotec FRANCISCO ARELLANES ARELLANES1

MARIO E. CHÁVEZ PEÓN2 MARIO HERNÁNDEZ LUNA3

MIRIAM ITZEL MANZANO CORONA3 SOFÍA GABRIELA MORALES CAMACHO4

ROSA MARÍA ROJAS TORRES5 ANDERS STALLEMO1

CARLOS DE JESÚS WAGNER OVIEDO3 VICTORIA ESTHEFANÍA ZÁRATE GIRÓN4

In current Zapotecan varieties with a strong preference for monosyllabic words, loanwords from Spanish tend to undergo a prosodic adaptation: although the hispanic word might be polysyllabic, the loanword in Zapotecan is reduced to only one syllable. Usually the stressed syllable is preserved and the consonant of the post-tonic syllable is resyllabified as coda. See the following Tierra Blanca (Valley Zapotec) Zapotec data: (1) Prosodic adaptation in loanwords: monosyllables Hispanic name Loanword Gloss

[k ] [a.

These loanwords are proper instances of Iambic Feet (Kager 2006). In Proto-Zapotec, the typical phonological word was equivalent to a Trochaic Foot, and more specifically, a weak-strong disyllable (cf. the protoforms reconstructed by Fernández de Miranda (1995), López Cruz & Smith Stark (1995), among others). This prosodic structure is preserved in the most conservative varieties, where the post-tonic vowel is normally preserved, as in Isthmust Zapotec (cf. Pickett 2006 [1965]: 106) and Santiago Sochiapan Zapotec (Morales Camacho & Zárate Girón 2012). In (2) lexical forms of Santiago Sochiapan Zapotec (a conservative variety) and Tierra Blanca Zapotec (an innovative variety) are compared in relation to Proto-Zapotec forms. (2) Preservation and loss of post-tonic vowels in modern varieties of Zapotec: Proto-Zapotec Santiago Sochiapan6 Tierra Blanca Gloss 1s.sa1] 1.za1] o2p.pa2] 21. a1] i As expected, in the varieties that preserve the post-tonic vowel of Proto-Zapotec, we find that in loanwords this vowel is also preserved. This is precisely what can be observed in Santiago Sochiapan Zapotec (Arellanes et al. 2012): 1 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2 Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (Unidad-DF). 3 Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 4 Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa. 5 Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas. 6 Tones in Santiago Sochiapan Zapotec are represented with superscripted numbers, following the oriental tradition (Cf. Yip 2002). This is due to the fact that it is one of the few varieties of modern Zapotec with three levels of tones, and not two like the majority.

(3) Prosodic adaptation in loanwords: disyllables Hispanic name Loanwords Gloss .to] 2 .to3] n23.no1] 23t.ta1 ] ] 2s.sa1 ] In these conservative varieties, as in Proto-Zapotec, the typical phonological words are trochaic feet as opposed to what happens in varieties such as Tierra Blanca. In the present work we analyze the factors that determine the prosodic form of the loanwords in five Zapotec varieties: Santa Ana del Valle, San Lucas Quiaviní and Tierra Blanca (Valley Zapotec); Santo Domingo de Morelos (Southern Highlands Zapotec) and Santiago Sochiapan, Veracruz (Northern Highlands Zapotec). References

ARELLANES, FRANCISCO, ELVIA SOFÍA MEJÍA MURO, SOFÍA GABRIELA MORALES CAMACHO y VICTORIA ESTHEFANÍA ZÁRATE GIRON

Ponencia presentada en el IX Coloquio de Lingüística en la ENAH. México, DF, 25-27 de abril de 2012. F MIRANDA, M . (1995). El protozapoteco

KAGER, RENÉ The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-227. LÓPEZ CRUZ, AUSENCIA y THOMAS SMITH STARK

Vitalidad e influencia de las lenguas indígenas en Latinoamérica. México: UNAM, IIFL, pp. 294-341. MORALES CAMACHO, SOFÍA y ZÁRATE GIRÓN, VICTORIA

Coloquio sobre . Oaxaca, 20-22 de abril de 2012.

PICKETT, VELMA (2006 [1965]). Vocabulario zapoteco del Istmo. Español-zapoteco y zapoteco-español. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Quinta edición electrónica [http://www.sil.org/mexico/zapoteca/istmo/S003c-VocZapIstmoEd5-zai.pdf].

Subordination in Zoque: native patterns with Spanish means

JAN TERJE FAARLUND

University of Oslo

The Zoque language, spoken in Chiapas, Mexico, exhibits various degrees of subordination

and internal clause cohesion: simple juxtapostion, coordination by means of a conjunction,

subordination with native or Spanish complementizers (the latter mainly in the informal

spoken register), and relativized or “participial” constructions, which are the ones with the

strongest morphosyntactic cohesion, and which are not based on a Spanish pattern.

There has been a certain Spanish influence in parts of the grammar of subordination, mainly

in terms of lexical items, but it is not possible to say that this influence has lead to a higher

degree of grammatical cohesion. The Spanish influence on Zoque dependent clause

constructions has not significantly changed already existing patterns. With the exception of

the conjunction i ‘and’ (from the Spanish y), which had no equivalent in the precolonial

language, the influence is limited to expanding the inventory of complementizer words.

One interesting example of an indigenous clause type which survives unaffected by Spanish

influence, is relative clauses, which are formed by adding the relativizer -pä to the finite verb.

Zoque is an ergative language; the ergative case is marked with the clitic element -‘is, while

the absolutive case is zero marked. When either the head noun (and the whole relative

construction) or the relativized phrase is in the ergative, a confusing pattern of case marking

details can be observed: an ergative head noun may or may not be marked ergative, and the

ergative may even be marked on the relativizer added to the verb. This contradicting pattern

can be resolved if we assume that Zoque combines internal and external relativization.

Relative clauses of both types, as well as similar adverbial clauses, exhibit the strongest

degree of clause cohesion. A weaker degree is represented by complementizer clauses, some

of which are introduced by complementizers borrowed from Spanish. Thus it seems that a

weaker cohesion type has become more prevalent in the language under the influence of

Spanish.

Evidence from Spanish-Huastec contact in sixteenth century attested in the Doctrina Christiana en la lengua guasteca

Lucero Meléndez Guadarrama Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Abstract The aim of this paper is to present some preliminary results of the analysis of two grammatical aspects of XVI century Huastec, a language registered in the early colonial document entitled Doctrina Christiana en la lengua guasteca (Cruz de la, 1571): first, I will explore the hypothesis that the non-typical SVO basic word order in Mayan languages, but attested in modern variants of Huastec (Edmonson, 1988; Meléndez, 2011) was introduced as a structural loan from Spanish since XVIth century. On the other hand, I will present the morphological strategies used to introduce Catholic loanwords from Spanish into Huastec such as “baptism”, “sin”, “feith”, etc. Last, I will show that the Spanish lexical borrowings were not registered by De la Cruz as phonologically assimilated into Huastec but rather given as Spanish words in the Huastec text. The document studied here was written by Fray Juan de la Cruz and published in Mexico City in the year 1571 and it has had very little attention from Huastec scholars (Ochoa 1995; Meléndez, in press). The language registered is an essential link to understanding the diachronic processes of Huastec. Huastec is a Mayan language spoken in the present-day states of Veracruz and San Luis Potosí, México. References CRUZ, Juan de la. 1571. Doctrina cristiana en la lengua Guasteca, con la lengua castellana. México: Impresa en Casa de Pedro Ocharte. EDMONSON, Barbara. 1988. A descriptive grammar of Huastec (potosin dialect). Ann arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Internacional. MELÉNDEZ, Lucero. 2011."Sintaxis y morfología de las marcas de persona y número sujeto en lenguas huastecas de San Luis Potosí" in Morúa, Carmen and Gerardo López Cruz “Estudios morfológicos, sintácticos, semánticos y de lingüística aplicada” Volumen 3. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. ISBN 978-607-8158-43-0. Pág. 143-166. MELÉNDEZ, Lucero. In press. "Descripción de la fuente y la lengua en el Documento Doctrina Christiana en la lengua huasteca, año de 1571" to appear en Memorias del I Coloquio de Lenguas y Culturas Coloniales, edited by Beatriz Arias, IIFL-UNAM OCHOA, Ángela. 1995. "La Doctrina Cristiana en lengua Guasteca (1571) de fray Juan de la Cruz. Primicias de un análisis", Amerindia: Revue d'ethnolinguistique Amérindienne, núms. 19/20, 121-128.

The impact of language contact in Nahuatl couplets

Mercedes Montes de Oca IIFL, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Nahuatl Couplets were a distinctive feature of institutional discourses delivered in ritual practices of inhabitants of Central Mexico in the XVI century. In Colonial times, couplets were employed in religious and legal texts, so they became distinctive features of two of the most important registers, evangelization and administrative Nahuatl.

This presentation deals with the way in which contact with Spanish influenced the structure and meaning of new couplets in the discursive context of the Colonial period. There are several structural patterns of Nahuatl couplets that can be accounted for by influence from Spanish such as:

• couplets formed by two borrowed lexemes:

Yn Angelome yhuan yn Sanctome (Gante 1553, 143r) ‘the angels and the saints’

• couplets with a Nahuatl lexeme and a Spanish lexeme which are coreferential:

y notestamento y notzonquizcatlanequiliz (Cline & León Portilla 1984, p.17) ‘my testament my last will’

• calques forming couplets:

Yn taniman yhuan yn tonacayo (Gante 1553, 44r) ‘our soul and our flesh’ The analysis will also deal with the semantics of couplets and the modification of the character of couplets as native discourse markers.

References

Gante Pedro de. 1553- 1982. Doctrina Christiana en Lengua Mexicana. México: Centro de Estudios Históricos Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, editorial JUS.

Cline, S. L., and Miguel León-Portilla, eds. 1984. The Testaments of Culhuacan version en línea http://www.history.ucsb.edu/cline/testaments_of_culhuacan.

Diachronic and synchronic contact phenomena: Spanish borrowing and code-switching in Yurakaré

Sonja Gipper, University of Cologne

This paper investigates Spanish loans and code-switching in Yurakaré (unclassified, Central Bolivia) as evidence for diachronic and synchronic contact phenomena.Yurakaréis an endangered language, despite a relatively high number of around 2.000 speakers. Most children do not acquire active competence in Yurakaré any longer, resulting in an ongoingshift from Yurakaré to Spanish. Most adult speakers of Yurakaré are bilingual in Yurakaré and Spanish. Yurakaré has been borrowing from Spanish since the beginning of contact, when bilingualism was still rare.Different layers (seeAndersen 2003) of loan words can be distinguished based on their phonological adaptations, with older Spanish loans usually being adapted to Yurakaré phonology (van Gijn et al. 2010: 253). The semantic domains of the borrowed words can furthermore provide evidence for the nature of the contact situation and the degree of bilingualism.While loan words can help us to establish hypotheses about past contact situations, code-switching between Yurakaré and Spanish offers clues for current developments of the contact.Code-switchingis used especially by younger Yurakaré speakers for certain communicative effects and is one potential source for new loan words and other contact phenomena (see e.g. Thomason 2001: 131-7).In this paper, different layers of contact phenomena are identified and correlated with past and present contact situations through an investigation of the use of loans and code-switching in Yurakaré conversations. It is argued that the increasing degree of Yurakaré-Spanish bilingualismcan be conceptualized as a gradual adaptive strategy after Hill (1978) to changing social circumstances and communicative needs.At the areal level, bilingualism with Spanish is widespread in Amazonia, where Spanishserves as a lingua franca between different groups.Therefore, bilingualism with Spanish canbe considered anadaptation at the areal level in the sense of Hill (1978), encompassing much of Spanish-speaking Amazonia. However, this situation of bilingualism is unstable due to the increasing dominance of Spanish in most groups, leading to language endangerment and a decrease in linguistic diversity in the area (see e.g. Aikhenvald 2002).

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002.Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andersen, Henning. 2003.Introduction. Henning Andersen, ed. Language contacts in prehistory: Studies in stratigraphy, 1-10. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

van Gijn, Rik, Vincent Hirtzel, and Sonja Gipper. 2010. Updating and loss of color terminology in Yurakaré: An interdisciplinary point of view. Language and Communication 30:240-264.

Hill, Jane H. 1978. Language contact systems and human adaptations. Journal of Anthropological Research 34: 1-26.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Diffusion of words for 'dog' as a diagnostic of language contact zones in the Americas

Søren Wichmann Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Leipzig, Germany

Matthias Pache Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

Leiden, The Netherlands

The large lexical database of the Automated Similarity Judgment Program(ASJP) of

Wichmann et al. (2012) contains 40-item lists of basic vocabulary for well over one half of

the world's languages, one of the items on list being 'dog'. The lexical items included in the

list were chosen as diagnostic of genealogical relations, but as an unanticipated result of

inspecting the distribution of the different lexical items it turns out that 'dog' terms are

additionally good indicators of language contact, since they are often borrowed (genealogical

stability and borrowability are not each other's inverse, since several factors other than

borrowability contribute to the lowering of genealogical stability; so words for one and the

same concept can at the same time be relatively stable and relatively often diffused, cf.

Holman et al. 2008).

The ASJP database contains data from a little over one thousand doculects from the

Americas. Around 14% of these have a word for 'dog' which is either diffused or borrowed.

This figure does not include borrowings of Spanish perro or Portuguese cachorro; it would

increase to 15% if these were included. Unravelling the directions of borrowings is usually

fairly straightforward, but it presupposes at least preliminary reconstructions of proto-forms

referring to 'dog'. Case studies show that initial use of the 'dog' diagnostic may lead to

unexpected cases of language contact situations for which the evidence increases when more

data is brought into consideration. For instance, Huastec (a Mayan language) appears to have

borrowed sul 'dog' from the Atakapa language of the U.S. Southeast (which has the form sul).

Evidence for the proposed direction of borrowing is that a form like sul does not reconstruct

to deeper levels of the Mayan family. An inspection of the totality of lexical data available

additionally suggests that Atakapauk 'shell, oyster' is the origin of Huastecuk-ul 'mussel, clam'

and that Atakapa, in turn, borrowed wal 'fan' from Mayan. Dogs, shells, and fans are all

culturally important items, and indicate that the specific contact situation related to trade

across the Gulf of Mexico.

The paper will provide an overview of all contact zones suggested by diffusionally

diagnostic 'dog' terms, and will single out a few of the zones for more in-depth case studies.

The Mochica language and its possible external relations

Rita Eloranta University of Leiden

Mochica is considered, for the time being, an extinct linguistic isolate language of the

northern coastal area of Peru. The Mochica language, also known in the literature by the

names of Yunga, Yunka, Muchik or Chimu, has been documented since Colonial times. The

oldest preserved evidences of Mochica texts created by missionaries date back to the

seventeenth century (Oré 1604; De la Carrera y Daza 1644).

The Mochica language, spoken until the second half of the twentieth century, constitutes

an enigma for the Amerindian Linguistics when being compared to the surrounding

languages spoken in the region due to its highly unusual typological features. Mochica

particularities, numeral classifiers, recurrent use of passive constructions, personal reference

markers and lexical similarities are among the features which seem to be reminiscent of the

Mayan languages in Mesoamerica (Stark 1968; Adelaar & Muysken 2007 [2004]).

Whereas some of the proposals made in this respect certainly need to be reconsidered, it

is evident that some parallels exist between Mochica and Mesoamerican languages. The aim

of this communication is to critically and briefly discuss some of Stark’s proposals and to

present intermediate results of an ongoing research project that seeks to define the genetic

position of the Mochica language and establish its possible early relations with Mesoamerica.

References

Adelaar, Willem F.H. and Pieter Muysken (2007 [2004]): The Languages of the Andes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrera, Fernando de la (1644): El Arte de la LengvaYvnga de los valles del Obispado de Truxillo del Peru, con vnConfessonario, y todas las Oraciones Christianas, traducidas en la lengua, y otras cosas, Lima: Joseph Contreras.

Carrera, Fernando de la (1880 [1644]): Arte de la lengua yunga de los valles del Obispado de Trujillo con un confesonario y todas las oraciones cristianas y otras cosas, autor el beneficiado D. Fernando de la Carrera. Reeimpreso en Lima. Lima: Imp. Liberal

Oré, Luis Jerónimo (1607): Rituale, SevManvalePervanvm, Naples: IacobumCarlinum, & ConstantinumVitalem Stark, Louisa (1968): MayanAffinities with Yunga of Peru, New York: NY University.

The Chibchan language family and possible links with Mesoamerican and Andean languages

Matthias Pache Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

Leiden, The Netherlands

Much ink has been spilled over the linguistic diversity in the Americas, and the grouping of the many

indigenous languages spoken in both continents is still a matter of controversial debate. A major

question in this regard refers to the existence of possible links between languages spoken in

Mesoamerica and in South America. One of the most intriguing language groups in this context is

Chibchan, spoken today in a territory from eastern Colombiato eastern Honduras. The existence of

Chibchan is probably of a considerable time depth in the Isthmo-Colombian area. More than many

other Amerindian languages or language families, Chibchan has been connected with several very

different languages or language families in Mesoamerica and South America, including Misumalpan

languages, Lenca, Tarascan, Warao, Yanomama, Nambikwara, Kamsá, Mochica, Atacameño and

Huarpean languages. However, except for Misumalpan and Lenca, evidence for external links has

remained rather inconclusive. The talk will consider some of the proposals that have been made so far,

discussing further possible approaches to be used in order to investigate the external relations of

Chibchan, for instance, shared innovations in the function of morphological elements.

The linguistic evidence of the sound [l] in Muysca

Diana Andrea GiraldoGallego PhD student

Universitetet i Bergen

Muysca, Mosca or Chibcha was one of the languages spoken in Colombia and its extinction

occurred during the 18th century. Muysca was the ‘lengua general’ of the New Kingdom of

Granada and during the Colonial period it had the same status as Quechua in Peru,Náhuatl

in Mexico, and Huetar in Costa Rica.Some of the borrowings and possible borrowings from

Muysca into Spanish are produced with the alveolar lateral approximant [l], a sound which

is not included in the phonemic inventory of Muysca proposed byConstenla Umaña (1984),

and González de Pérez (2006). Muysca borrowings as well asother linguistic evidences,

may suggestthe sound [l] as a possible dialectal feature in Muysca:

- Borrowing and possible borrowing evidence: balú/baluy, chicalá, chila, chile/chilada and

chulo.

- Genetic evidence: the loanword balú/baluy (Erythrina edulis) is genetic related with other

languages of the Chibchan family: huetar: poró, guatuso: /po:loki: ~ po:loŋ/, cabécar:

/boɺo/, bribri: /boɺō/, boruca /bɾukra/, térraba: /ɸɾu/. Thereconstructed proto-form

is/*boɾo/(Constenla Umaña, 1984: 15, cited by Quesada Pacheco, 1996: 196)or /*bolo / (ubi

supra).

- Documentation evidence: some borrowings from Spanish into Muysca appearwith <l> in

Spanish-Muysca vocabularies, catechisms and grammar texts that were written during the

Colonial period: ‘danzar de españoles’ ‹lanzarbquysqua›, ‘danzantes’ ‹lanzarquiscá› (Ms

2922, fol. 37r), ‘flautatañer’ ‹flautabcusqua› (Ms 2922, fol. 51r), ‘calenturatener’

‹calenturachahacasucune› (Ms 2922, fol. 28r). It seems to be that grammariansregistered

the way Spanish words were adapted in Muysca: <d> and <l> were adapted as <r>raga

‘daga’, bora ‘bola’, <d> was adapted also as <l>: lanzar ‘danzar’; and <l> as <l>:

calentura, calzas, calzones, cielo, flauta, libro, libra, pelota, plaza, pueblo, tabla, vela.

Those possible adaptations can only be explained if in Muysca the sound [l] had been its

closer phonetic equivalent.

- Onomastic evidence: there are toponymslocated in the ancient Muysca territory (Falchetti

y Plazas de Nieto, 1973: 39) with this sound: Sesquilé, Tilatá, Lotavita, Lijacá, Chicalá,

Ubalá, Gachalá; and anthroponyms: Lupagita, Fulacipa.

According to those linguistic evidences, the alveolar lateral approximant can be determined

as a possible dialectal feature in Muysca.

References

Anónimo. (Sin data). Gramática, confesonario y vocabulario en lengua mosca. Manuscrito

II/2922. Madrid: Real Biblioteca del Palacio Real (Sin publicar).

Constenla Umaña, A. (1984). Los fonemas del muisca. Estudios de lingüística chibcha,

Tomo III, 65-111.

Falchetti, A. M., & Plazas de Nieto, C. (1973). El territorio de los muiscas a la llegada de

losespañoles. Cuadernos de Antropología 1. págs. 39-65.

GiraldoGallego, D. A. (In press).Préstamos léxicos del muysca al español y su evidencia

lingüística histórica: el sonido [l] en el muysca.

González de Pérez, M. S. (2006). Aproximación al sistema fonético-fonológico de la lengua

muisca. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Quesada Pacheco, M. Á. (1996). Los huetares: historia, lengua, etnografía y tradición

oral.Cartago: Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica.

The prehistory of Resígaro contact with Bora. A case study on the dynamics of Amazonian linguistics areas

Frank Seifart

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology This paper describes contact-induced changes in Resígaro (Arawakan) under the

influence of unrelated Bora, as a case study on the development of a linguistic and

cultural area in the Northwest Amazon. Resígaro borrowed massively suffixes and

function words, including entire paradigms of number and noun class suffixes, as well as

suffixes for dative case, augmentative and a few others, while lexical borrowing is

limited to about 5% of basic vocabulary. Using - albeit scarce - historical documentation

of Bora and Resígaro in word lists from the early 19th century until the early 20th

century, it is argued that most contact-induced changes took place over 200 years ago,

before a certain sound change occurred in Bora. From the material Resígaro borrowed, it

can be deduced that Resígaros were newcomers in the area, where they experienced a

pressure to culturally assimilate (borrowing of terms of local culture, flora, and fauna)

and became widely bilingual in Bora (allowing for morphological borrowing). The

ceremonial exchange systems exercised by Boras and other groups in the area favoured

the maintenance of Resígaro (instead of shift) and inhibited the influx of more loanwords,

since vocabulary is emblematic of linguistic identity.

Western and central Nahuatl dialects: Possible influences from contact with Cora, Huichol and Tepehuan

Karen Dakin

Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas,

UNAM, Mexico, DF, MEXICO dakin@unam.mx

There are a number of important isoglosses in Nahuatl dialectology that in simplified terms, divide an Eastern group (which includes also “Central Guerrero)”, that probably moved out of the Nahuatl homeland area at an early date, and the rest of the Nahuatl dialects, classified as Western and Central, and spoken by populations that either originated in or moved into the Western area and also moved, probably in the post-Classic period, south into the Valle of Mexico and surrounding areas. In this paper I will discuss the possibility that certain features shared only by the Western and Central areas may be the result of longer continued contact with other Uto-Aztecan languages in the west of Mexico, in particular, Huichol, Cora and Tepehuan. For example, the presence of the o:= preclitic to mark past tense in those Nahuatl dialects appears to correspond to a wa- prefix in Cora and Huichol, which is reflected in Tepiman languages in general as ga.Another feature may be the correspondence of Nahuatl initial ye- to Cora hï-, the reflexes of proto-Uto-Aztecan *pï > Corachol-Western/Central Nahuatl hï, which then became ye- in Western and Central dialects. These contrast with the Eastern dialects, where apparently the initial h- from pUA *p was lost completely before ï, so that pï- ‘bean’ >e-tl(and e-l) in Eastern Nahuatl, but to yetl elsewhere. Although there is a certain amount of variation reflected in the distribution of some of the ‘Western/Central’ features to the Eastern dialects, it islimited. For example theo:= is found in very limited syntactic constructions in some Eastern dialects, and their use probably reflects the influence of the Mexican or Aztec empire that controlled a large territory that included some of the Eastern dialects as well. At the same time, as pointed out by Canger (1988), some of the Eastern features are found in colonial Nahuatl sources, for example, Molina’s Vocabulario … (1571) and the likely explanation for that is that as well as the more recent Mexican and immigrant groups that had risen to power there, Mexico-Tenochtitlan included an older Eastern population that in the 16th centurystill retained some more archaic Eastern features.

References Canger, Una. 1988. "Nahuatl dialectology: A survey and some suggestions”, International Journal of American Linguistics. 54. 1. 28-72. Molina, fray Alonso de. 1571. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana. [Reimpreso en Leipzig, 1880; Puebla, 1910; edición facsímile, Madrid, Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1944; edición facsímile, México, Porrúa, S. A, 1970. 4™ edición, 1970. ]. México, D. F.

Spanish loanwords in Amerindian languages and their implications for the reconstruction of the pronunciation of Spanish

Claudia Parodi

University of California, Los Angeles Spanish loanwords in Amerindian languages such as Aimará, Guajiro, Huastec, Nahuatl and others allow determining which Spanish dialects were in contact with indigenous languages during the earliest stages of the colonization in the Americas. By examining such loanwords, in this paper I show that there is evidence of contact with the main Spanish dialects: Old Castilian, Andalusian and the recently formed Spanish koine in the New World. Lexical loanwords from Spanish have been adapted in these languages by using sounds that were very close to the original from the acoustic and the articulatory points of view. Thus, for example, Amerindian languages that were in contact with the Old Castilian dialect speakers during the sixteenth century have borrowed words such as limones ‘lemons’ or silla ‘chair’ whose final or initial /s/ was an alveolar voiceless fricative sound [ś] in Castilian Spanish, as [limóne∫] and [∫íla], with a post-alveolar, fricative, voiceless sound /∫/, which is very close to the original Old Castilian apico-alveolar /ś/. However, American Indian language speakers that were in contact with Andalusian dialect speakers before they aspirated /s/, have borrowed the first word as [limónes] and the second as [síla], with a dental, fricative, voiceless [s]. This alternation shows that Amerindian speakers –whose languages have /s/ and /∫/– were in contact with Spanish speakers that spoke at least two different dialects: Castilian Spanish and Andalusian Spanish. The Hispanisms of Amerindian languages, then, put into question – as other researchers such as Lipski (1994) or Parodi (1995) have previously done – the “Andalucista” theory of Latin American Spanish, which claims that most – if not all – Spanish speakers that came to the Americas were either from Andalusia or spoke an Andalusian dialect, mainly from Seville. In fact, Amerindian languages not only provide evidence that confirms that several varieties of Spanish were spoken in the Americas in Colonial times, but that a koiné was created early in the Americas. This also proves that koines can be formed in one generation, as Trudgill (1986) has suggested.

Impact of language contact on the rate of phonological change: A case study from Zapotec in contact with Spanish

Natalie Operstein

California State University, Fullerton It is well accepted that language contact may accelerate the rate of change in the participating languages. A relevant distinction that may be drawn here is between changes that are directly induced by contact – such as the introduction of new lexical items and phonological patterns – and language-internal changes that pick up pace as a consequence of the contact. This paper focuses on the problem of acceleration, in contact situations, of language changes of the second kind, focusing on the changing consonant inventories of two closely related Mesoamerican languages, Zaniza Zapotec (ZZ) and Texmelucan Zapotec (TZ).

Since early sixteenth century, both ZZ and TZ have been in ever-closer contact with Spanish, which has resulted in their acquiring a large number of Spanish loanwords. The process of borrowing has continued to this day and shows an increasing degree of tolerance towards Spanish grammar and phonemics, correlating with the growing degree of bilingualism in the Zapotec-speaking communities. For instance, while the earlier borrowings were adjusted to the native phonological patterns and did not interfere with native grammatical structures, more recent loans include not only unadapted elements of Spanish phonology, such as the phoneme /f/, consonant clusters and polysyllabic words, but also display greater semantic and grammatical variety. Based on changes in the phonological system of Spanish since early sixteenth century, and depending on the presence of certain diagnostic sounds in the borrowed words, a significant number of Spanish loanwords can be separated into up to three chronological layers in these languages. After becoming part of the native lexicon, some of these borrowings underwent phonological changes in common with native vocabulary. Taking advantage of these facts, and using the relative chronology of Spanish borrowings as its main tool, this paper attempts to determine the pre-contact consonant inventories of ZZ and TZ in order to separate changes undergone by the consonantal systems of these languages into pre- and post-conquest.

One of the main findings is the fact that the consonant inventory of ZZ has undergone quantitatively and qualitatively more changes after the beginning of ZZ’s contact with Spanish – during the span of approximately 500 years – than during the approximately 1,000 years of its evolution from Proto-Zapotec. Differences in the rates of pre- and post-conquest phonological changes in ZZ may be explained by changes to the sociolinguistic profile of the community, including its network structure, in the aftermath of contact with an alien language and culture. Another finding is that the consonant inventory of TZ is not only more conservative overall, but also has undergone fewer changes since the onset of contact with Spanish than that of ZZ. Differences in the rate of phonological change between two closely related Zapotec varieties require an explanation, and it is tentatively suggested here that the differentiating factors may include community size and its degree of language maintenance; thus, according to the most recent census (INEGI 2010), the town of San Lorenzo Texmelucan has approximately 7,000 residents, 85% of whom are Zapotec speakers, while the town of Santa María Zaniza has approximately 2,000 residents, only 21% of whom speak Zapotec. Other factors may include the communities’ sociolinguistic profiles as well as their attitudes toward language maintenance, change, and shift.