Language Planning and Policy in Latin America: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1 LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY Series Editors: Dr Richard B. Bald...

Author: Richard Baldauf | Robert Kaplan

224 downloads 1781 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1

LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY Series Editors: Dr Richard B. Baldauf Jr., University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Professor Robert B. Kaplan, University of Southern California, USA Other Books in the Series Language Planning and Policy in Africa, Vol. 1: Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf Jr. (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Pacific, Vol. 1: Fiji, The Philippines and Vanuatu Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan (eds) Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy Anthony J. Liddicoat (ed.) Other Books of Interest Directions in Applied Linguistics Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William G. Eggington, William Grabe and Vaidehi Ramanathan (eds) English in Africa: After the Cold War Alamin M. Mazrui Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges Herman M. Batibo Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival Denis Cunningham, D.E. Ingram and Kenneth Sumbuk (eds) Language in Jewish Society: Towards a New Understanding John Myhill Language Planning: From Practice to Theory Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf Jr. (eds) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo Peter Backhaus Minority Language Media: Concepts, Critiques and Case Studies Mike Cormack and Niamh Hourigan Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes David Lasagabaster and Ángel Huguet (eds) Politeness in Europe Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds) The Defence of French: A Language in Crisis? Robin Adamson Urban Multilingualism in Europe Guus Extra and Kutlay Yagmur (eds) Where East Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast Dennis Kurzon

For more details of these or any other of our publications, please contact: Multilingual Matters, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, BS21 7HH, England http://www.multilingual-matters.com

LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1 Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay Edited by

Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD Clevedon • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Language Planning and Policy in Latin America/Edited by Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan. Language Planning and Policy. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Language planning–Latin America. 2. Language policy–Latin America. I. Baldauf, Richard B. II. Kaplan, Robert B. P40.5.L352L295 2007 306.44'98– dc22 2007006873 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84769-006-7 (hbk) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2007 Richard B. Baldauf Jr., Robert B. Kaplan and the authors of individual chapters. The articles in this book also appear in the journal of Current Issues in Language Planning, Vol. 2: 1 (2001), Vol. 3: 4 (2002) and Vol. 7: 4 (2006). All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Archetype-IT Ltd (http://www.archetype-it.com). Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press Ltd.

Contents Series Overview Language Policy and Planning in Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay: Some Common Issues Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan Language Planning and Policy in Ecuador Kendall King and Marleen Haboud Ecuadorian Indigenous Language and Education Policy and Practice: Recent Challenges and Advances Marleen Haboud and Kendall King Language Planning in Mexico Roland Terborg, Laura Garcia Landa and Pauline Moore Language Planning and Policy in Paraguay Shaw N. Gynan The Language Situation in Paraguay: An Update Shaw N. Gynan Biographical Notes on Contributors

v

1

6 39

105 115 218 284 302

Series Overview Since 1998 when the first polity studies on Language Policy and Planning – addressing the language situation in a particular polity – were published in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25* polity studies (and one issue on Chinese character modernisation) have been published there and between 2000 and 2006 in Current Issues in Language Planning. These studies have all addressed, to a greater or lesser extent, 22 common questions or issues (Appendix A), thus giving them some degree of consistency. However, we are keenly aware that these studies have been published in the order in which they were completed. While such an arrangement is reasonable for journal publication, the result does not serve the needs of area specialists nor are the various monographs easily accessible to the wider public. As the number of available polity studies has grown, we have planned to update (where necessary) and republish these studies in coherent areal volumes. The first such volume was concerned with Africa, both because a significant number of studies has become available and because Africa constitutes an area that is significantly under-represented in the language planning literature and yet is marked by extremely interesting language policy and planning issues. In the first areal volume, we reprinted four polity studies – Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa – as: Language Planning and Policy in Africa, Vol. 1: Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa (2004). We hope that the first areal volume has served the needs of specialists more effectively. It is our intent to continue to publish other areal volumes as sufficient studies are completed. We will continue to do so in the hope that such volumes will be of interest to areal scholars and others involved in some way in language policies and language planning in geographically coherent regions. We have already been able to produce three areal volumes in addition to Africa 1 and the four areal volumes presently in print cover 13 polities: Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden (2005) Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf Jr. (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Europe, Vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland (2006) Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan (eds) Language Planning and Policy in the Pacific, Vol. 1: Fiji, the Philippines and Vanuatu (2006) Richard B. Baldauf Jr. and Robert B. Kaplan (eds) This volume – Latin America 1 – is another such volume: Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay The areas in which we are planning to produce additional volumes, and some of the polities that may be included are: 1

la-2.indd 1

26/04/2007 11:32:13

2


Europe, including The Baltic States, Cyprus, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg; Asia, including Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Japan, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan; Africa, including Algeria, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. In the mean time, we will continue to bring out Current Issues in Language Planning, adding to the list of polities available for inclusion in areal volumes. At this point, we cannot predict the intervals over which such volumes will appear, since those intervals will be defined by the ability of contributors to complete work on already contracted polity studies.

Assumptions Relating to Polity Studies We have made a number of assumptions about the nature of language policy and planning that have influenced the nature of the studies presented. First, we do not believe that there is, yet, a broader and more coherent paradigm to address the complex questions of language policy/planning development. On the other hand, we do believe that the collection of a large body of more or less comparable data and the careful analysis of that data will give rise to a more coherent paradigm. Therefore, in soliciting the polity studies, we have asked each of the contributors to address some two-dozen questions (to the extent that such questions were pertinent to each particular polity); the questions were offered as suggestions of topics that might be covered. (See Appendix A.) Some contributors have followed the questions rather closely; others have been more independent in approaching the task. It should be obvious that, in framing those questions, we were moving from a perhaps inchoate notion of an underlying theory. The reality that our notion was inchoate becomes clear in each of the polity studies. Second, we have sought to find authors who had an intimate involvement with the language planning and policy decisions made in the polity they were writing about; i.e., we were looking for insider knowledge and perspectives about the polities. However, as insiders are part of the process, they may find it difficult to take the part of the ‘other’ – to be critical of that process. But it is not necessary or even appropriate that they should be – this can be left to others. As Pennycook (1998: 126) argues: One of the lessons we need to draw from this account of colonial language policy [i.e., Hong Kong] is that, in order to make sense of language policies we need to understand both their location historically and their location contextually. What I mean by this is that we can not assume that the promotion of local languages instead of a dominant language, or the promotion of a dominant language at the expense of a local language, are in themselves good or bad. Too often we view these things through the lenses of liberalism, pluralism or anti-imperialism, without understanding the actual location of such policies. While some authors do take a critical stance, or one based on a theoretical approach to the data, many of the studies are primarily descriptive, bringing

la-2.indd 2

26/04/2007 11:32:13

3

Series Overview

together and revealing, we hope, the nature of the language development experience in the particular polity. We believe this is a valuable contribution to the theoretical/paradigmatic development of the field. As interesting and challenging as it may be to provide a priori descriptions of the nature of the field (e.g., language management, language rights, linguistic imperialism) based on partial data – nor have we been completely immune from this ourselves (e.g., Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003, Chapter 12) – we believe the development of a sufficient data base is an important prerequisite for paradigm development. Furthermore, the paradigm on the basis of which language policy and planning has conventionally been undertaken may be inadequate to the task. Much more is involved in developing successful language policy than is commonly recognised or acknowledged. Language policy development is a highly political activity. Given its political nature, traditional linguistic research is necessary, but not in itself sufficient, and the publication of scholarly studies in academic journals is really only the first step in the process. Indeed, scholarly research itself may need to be expanded, to consider not only the language at issue but also the social landscape in which that language exists. A critical step in policy development involves making research evidence understandable to the lay public; research scholars are not generally the ideal messengers in this context (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2007).

An Invitation to Contribute We welcome additional polity contributions. Our views on a number of the issues can be found in Kaplan and Baldauf (1997); sample polity monographs have appeared in the extant issues of Current Issues in Language Planning and in the volumes in this series. Interested authors should contact the editors, present a proposal for a monograph, and provide a sample list of references. It is also useful to provide a brief biographical note, indicating the extent of any personal involvement in language planning activities in the polity proposed for study as well as any relevant research/publication in LPP. All contributions should, of course, be original, unpublished works. We expect to work closely with contributors during the preparation of monographs. All monographs will, of course, be reviewed for quality, completeness, accuracy, and style. Experience suggests that co-authored contributions may be very successful, but we want to stress that we are seeking a unified monograph on the polity, not an edited compilation of various authors’ efforts. Questions may be addressed to either of us. Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. [email protected]

Robert B. Kaplan [email protected]

Note *Polities in print include: 1. Algeria, 2. Botswana, 3. Cote d’Ivoire, 4. Czech Republic, 5. Ecuador, 6. European Union, 7. Fiji, 8. Finland, 9. Hungary, 10. Ireland, 11. Italy, 12. Malawi, 13. Mexico, 14. Mozambique, 15. Nepal, 16. Nigeria, 17. North Ireland, 18. Paraguay, 19. The Philippines, 20. South Africa, 21. Sweden, 22. Taiwan, 23. Tunisia, 24. Vanuatu, and 25. Zimbabwe. A 26th monograph on Chinese Character Modernisation is also available.

la-2.indd 3

26/04/2007 11:32:13

4


References Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2007) Language policy spread: Learning from health and social policy models. Language Problems & Language Planning 31 (2), in press. Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2003) Language and Language-in-Education Planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997) Language Planning From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (1998) English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London and New York: Routledge.

APPENDIX A Part I: The Language Profile of . . . 1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

Name and briefly describe the national/official language(s) (de jure or de facto). Name and describe the major minority language(s). Name and describe the lesser minority language(s) (include ‘dialects’, pidgins, creoles and other important aspects of language variation); the definition of minority language/dialect/pidgin will need to be discussed in terms of the sociolinguistic context. Name and describe the major religious language(s); In some polities religious languages and/or missionary policies have had a major impact on the language situation and provide de facto language planning. In some contexts religion has been a vehicle for introducing exogenous languages while in other cases it has served to promote indigenous languages. Name and describe the major language(s) of literacy, assuming that it is/ they are not one of those described above. Provide a table indicating the number of speakers of each of the above languages, what percentage of the population they constitute and whether those speakers are largely urban or rural. Where appropriate, provide a map(s) showing the distribution of speakers, key cities and other features referenced in the text.

Part II: Language Spread 8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

la-2.indd 4

Specify which languages are taught through the educational system, to whom they are taught, when they are taught and for how long they are taught. Discuss the objectives of language education and the methods of assessment to determine that the objectives are met. To the extent possible, trace the historical development of the policies/ practices identified in items 8 and 9 (may be integrated with 8/9). Name and discuss the major media language(s) and the distribution of media by socio-economic class, ethnic group, urban/rural distinction (including the historical context where possible). For minority language, note the extent that any literature is (has been) available in the language. How has immigration effected language distribution and what measures are in place to cater for learning the national language(s) and/or to support the use of immigrant languages.

26/04/2007 11:32:13

Series Overview

5

Part III: Language Policy and Planning 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

Describe any language planning legislation, policy or implementation that is currently in place. Describe any literacy planning legislation, policy or implementation that is currently in place. To the extent possible, trace the historical development of the policies/ practices identified in items 13 and 14 (may be integrated with these items). Describe and discuss any language planning agencies/organisations operating in the polity (both formal and informal). Describe and discuss any regional/international influences affecting language planning and policy in the polity (include any external language promotion efforts). To the extent possible, trace the historical development of the policies/ practices identified in items 16 and 17 (may be integrated with these items).

Part IV: Language Maintenance and Prospects 19. 20.

21. 22.

la-2.indd 5

Describe and discuss intergenerational transmission of the major language(s); (is this changing over time?). Describe and discuss the probabilities of language death among any of the languages/language varieties in the polity, any language revival efforts as well as any emerging pidgins or creoles. Add anything you wish to clarify about the language situation and its probable direction of change over the next generation or two. Add pertinent references/bibliography and any necessary appendices (e.g., a general plan of the educational system to clarify the answers to questions 8, 9 and 14).

26/04/2007 11:32:13

Language Policy and Planning in Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay: Some Common Issues Richard B. Baldauf Jr. Associate Professor of TESOL, School of Education, University of Queensland, QLD 4072 Australia Robert B. Kaplan Professor Emeritus, Applied Linguistics, University of Southern California Mailing Address: PO Box 577, Port Angeles, WA 98362 USA

Introduction This volume brings together three language policy and planning studies related to Latin America1. (See the ‘Series Overview’ for a more general discussion of the nature of the series, Appendix A for the 22 questions each study set out to address, and Kaplan et al. (2000) for a discussion of the underlying concepts for the studies themselves.) In this paper, rather than trying to provide a thorough introductory summary of the material covered in these studies, we will want to draw out and discuss some of the more general issues raised by these studies; we will provide enough summary to position those general issues. Although Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay do not represent a neat geographic cluster, they do have several things in common: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

they are all in Latin America; they all have Spanish as their official national language; they all have significant numbers of long ignored indigenous languages; they all have made recent attempts to correct the situation regarding indigenous languages; they all have experienced internal and external migration; they all demonstrate significant urbanisation; they all have experienced substantial emigration; they all have experienced difficulty in gathering accurate demographic data; they all suffer from the dearth of qualified teachers of indigenous languages; they all suffer from administrative complications and resource shortages; they all suffer from conflicting ideologies concerning the suitability of indigenous languages for school contexts; they all suffer from disparate definitions and interpretations of interculturalism and bilingualism; they all experienced religious conversion into Christianity – particularly into Catholicism. Missionary work had a huge effect on the socio-genesis 6

la-3.indd 6

26/04/2007 12:02:27

Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay: Some Common Issues

7

of languages. This is not to say that, prior to colonialism and Christianity, there were no indigenous languages, but rather to suggest that some contemporary ways of thinking and imagining indigenous languages have their origins in Christianity and literacy; • they all have recently experienced greater recognition and respect for the languages, cultures and linguistic rights of indigenous groups, but • they all have experienced a significant gap between policy and rhetoric on the one hand and reality on the other. As Sánchez and Dueñas (2002) point out, the arrival of Spanish and its subsequent teaching in Latin America was not a policy of the King of Spain and his legislators, i.e., there was no early language spread policy, but rather as there were a large number of small languages that were spread over small territories, except for Quechua, Spanish became the administrative lingua franca and was increasingly used as a powerful tool for the expansion of the Christian religion. It has been estimated that by the end of the 17th century, about 200 years after the arrival of the colonisers, much of the indigenous population could understand Castilian. This linguistic homogeneity also served the Libertadores well in the 18th century when they united to break away from Spain, forming independent states, but these new Spanish-speaking elites then reinforced its use, rather than adopting an indigenous identity. Except perhaps in Paraguay, it is only more recently that indigenous languages, education and language rights have become issues. This emphasis is reflected in the studies listed in the ‘further references’ section of this paper. The three following sketches illustrate the importance of these common issues in the language situations of the several polities examined in this volume.

Ecuador The Republic of Ecuador sits on the equator on the northwest coast of South America, limited by Colombia on the north and by Peru on the south and east. It is one of the smallest countries in Latin America, occupying some 272,045 sq. km., and supporting a population of slightly more than twelve million (12,616,102). It is divided into three major geographic regions: la Costa (the Coast), la Sierra (the Highlands) and the Oriente (the Amazon Basin), each marked by indigenous groups that together characterise Ecuador as a multilingual, multiethnic and multicultural country. In addition to Spanish, roughly a dozen indigenous languages are spoken. Shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards, the Incas had conquered the Highlands and a portion of the Coast imposing their language, Quichua, on the other groups in those regions. Ecuador’s history as a Spanish colony began in 1532. Spanish became the de facto official language of Ecuador, and the existing socio-political and socio-economic systems were restructured and modeled after Spain. At independence (1830) the new national government aimed to assimilate the indigenous population into mainstream society, to the detriment of indigenous identity and culture; indeed, the government proposed to eradicate all trace of Indianness and to Christianise the Indians so that they might learn how to develop political reasoning in order to permit them to participate in building the nation. Despite the strenuous efforts of the government, even after

la-3.indd 7

26/04/2007 12:02:28

8


more than four hundred years of contact with Spanish under hugely unfavorable circumstances, many of the Indian languages have survived. The largest part of the population is currently made up of mestizos (individuals of mixed indigenous and Spanish heritage) and indigenous people. The so-called whites, most of whom are descendants from Spanish settlers, constitute around 10 per cent of the total population; however, they have exercised – since the 1532 conquest of the country by the Spaniards – and they continue to exercise – political and economic power, defining national Ecuadorian culture in terms of the country’s Hispanic heritage. The middle class consists largely of mestizos and less well-off whites – individuals occupying positions in administration, in the military, or in the professions and smaller businesses. Anxious to distance themselves from the lower class, the members of the middle class have traditionally identified with upperclass values and traditions. The Indians, as well as the Afro-Ecuadorians (whose ancestors were brought to the country as slaves during the Spanish period) occupy the bottom of the social hierarchy. Thus, although Ecuador can be defined by its geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity, historically the dominant tone was set through the Hispanic heritage and the Spanish language, but the linguistic and cultural differences among the indigenous groups has persisted. There appear to be five themes marking the contemporary language situation: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

the dynamic and shifting relationships between languages and their speakers; the continued loss of indigenous languages and the on-going transition towards Spanish monolingualism; the continually, and at times rapidly, shifting politics and practices concerning language and education; the long-standing gaps between official policy and rhetoric concerning indigenous populations and languages on the one hand, and implementation of programs to meet those goals on the other, and the dramatic expansion of indigenous power in recent decades, coupled with unexpected sociopolitical changes which make the linguistic situation unpredictable.

In order to explore these themes, the numbers and location of speakers, and the current status of Ecuador’s indigenous languages must be examined. The role of internal and external migration and the difficulty of gathering accurate demographic data constitute critical problems. The issue of language spread, focusing on language and education, constitutes an improbable solution; i.e., the significant steps taken toward intercultural bilingual education in recent years and the challenges faced in implementing these programs. A focus on language policy and planning highlights the informal nature of planning and policy in Ecuador – e.g., the multiple indirect channels of planning, including adult education programs, publishing, mass media, and religion. The prospects of language maintenance (i.e., the lesser-known grassroots efforts to revitalise Quichua and other indigenous languages) as well as the most recent unprecedented shifts that have placed a sector of the indigenous population in positions of relative power have had an impact on language maintenance. Since terminology invariably requires local interpretation, all languages in

la-3.indd 8

26/04/2007 12:02:28


9

Ecuador (other than Spanish) are ambiguously defined as ‘minority languages,’ a term that may potentially refer either to a numerical minority or to a less powerful population that may in fact constitute a numerical majority. Furthermore, the languages spoken in the Andean and Amazonian regions may be referred to as ‘native’, ‘autochthonous’, ‘vernacular’, ‘indigenous’, ‘unofficial’, ‘oppressed’ and ‘substandard,’ but to confuse the matter further, the term minoritised (instead of minority) has been introduced in order to underline the unbalanced sociolinguistic contact situation (and outcomes) in which dominant and subordinate relations are more important than numbers. It is, in addition, important to clarify the terms Indian (indio), black (negro), and nationality (nacionalidad); in recent years, Indian and Afro-Ecuadorian organisations have chosen to use such formally stigmatised terms as indio and negro as symbols of self-recognition, empowerment, and pride. Indian people and organisations see themselves as ‘nationalities’ to convey their common history and their quest for self-determination. Nationalities are recognised to extend beyond state boundaries; i.e., Quichua speakers recognise their nationality with fellow speakers from such other Andean countries as Peru and Bolivia. This practice generated official concern regarding the meaning differences between ‘nation’ and ‘nationality,’ i.e., Article 83 of the 1998 Constitution states that the term nationality has been chosen by the Indian people, and that acceptance of the term does not imply detachment from the rest of the country, the Ecuadorian state being defined as ‘one and indivisible.’ Adding to the somewhat confused and confusing state of affairs, the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador claims that at least 40 to 45 per cent of the total population of the country is indigenous, while other studies maintain that 25 to 30 per cent is indigenous, and even more conservative estimates drop the estimate to 15 per cent or even 5.3 per cent. In short, there is no general consensus concerning the number of speakers of different languages, the number of indigenous groups, or even the location of some of the groups, and official demographic estimates differ widely depending on the source.

Quichua Although a number of indigenous languages are spoken in Ecuador, Quichua is recognised both implicitly and explicitly as the predominant Indian language. The reformed Constitution of 1979 (Art. 1) recognised both Quichua and the other indigenous languages as part of the country’s cultural heritage, thus giving them the status of national languages. Despite the fact that Quichua is the most widely spoken indigenous language in South America, the total number of Quichua speakers is unknown; it is estimated at eight million for all of South America (Argentina 120,000; Bolivia 1,594,000; Brazil 700; Colombia 4,402; Ecuador 2,233,000; Peru 4,402,023); however, estimates of the Ecuadorian Quichua population display great variation, depending on the criteria of Indianness and the methodological procedures used by the researchers. The result is a wildly fluctuating estimate, ranging from 340,000 to 2,000,000. Ecuador, like most Latin American countries, has high rates of rural-urban internal migration; urban areas are home to 62.7 per cent of the country’s popula-

la-3.indd 9

26/04/2007 12:02:28

10


tion; rural areas lose between one and three per cent of their population to urban migration every decade. Within urban contexts, there are no obvious methods for determining the ethnic affiliation of any one individual or for discriminating between one’s ethnic identification and one’s language knowledge. The linguistic and sociolinguistic situation of Quichua varies considerably by region, having been shaped by long-standing contact with both Spanish and other indigenous languages. Quichua continues to play a public, strategic role in the country; politicians use Quichua to gain votes; some religious organisations use it to increase members; and national television stations employ it to create sophisticated tourist-oriented advertisements. For native speakers, Quichua continues to be an important means of intra-communal communication and organisation and an effective tool of empowerment vis-à-vis the dominant society. National Indian movements in Ecuador have raised consciousness of Quichua’s presence, using the language as a symbol of indigenous permanence and resistance. The highly political nature of speaking Quichua and of identifying oneself as a Quichua speaker has complicated the process of gathering accurate demographic data.

Other Indigenous Languages Social scientists disagree on the total number of languages and ethnic groups in Ecuador; despite these discrepancies, such academic institutions devoted to the study of Indian nationalities as Universidad Politécnica Salesiana tend to recognise twelve different languages and ethnic nationalities. Linguistic and sociolinguistic information concerning Coastal and Amazonian languages is scarce and highly variable depending on the sources and the researchers. The language situation may be summarised as: Region

Province

Nationality

Language

Coast

Esmeraldas

Awa

Awapit

Esmeraldas

Enbera

Epera Pedede

Esmeraldas

Chachi

Cha’palaachi

Pichincha

Tsachila

Tsafiqui

Highlands All Andean provinces except Carchi

Quichua

Runa Shimi/Quichua

Amazon

Sucumbíos

A’i (Cofán)

Aìngae

Sucumbíos

Siona-Secoya

Paicoca

Sucumbíos

Siona

Paicoca

Sucumbíos

Secoya

Paicoca

Pastaza

Wao (Huao)

Waotededo (Huao Tiriro)

All Amazonian provinces

Quichua

Runa Shimi/Quichua

Pastaza, Morona and Zamora Shuar – Achuar

Shuar Chicham

Pastaza, Morona

Achuar

Achuar/Shuar

Napo

Tetete

Morona

Zaparo

Kayapi or Zápara*

*only 5 to 10 speakers

la-3.indd 10

26/04/2007 12:02:28


11

In addition to the indigenous languages, there are also a number of newer varieties, developed as the result of intense language contact. The best documented of these is media lengua (‘half language’), characterised by Quichua morphosyntax and massive Spanish relexification. Scholars suggest that media lengua is a type of interlanguage used by Quichua speakers as a mechanism to facilitate their shift towards Spanish. A different variety appears to be a relatively stable and coherent semi-creole, used as a linguistic strategy to adapt to a diglossic environment, having an important extralinguistic role as a means of resistance on the part of the minoritised speakers towards cultural assimilation and linguistic shift. In addition to the three most visible population groups (the indigenous population; the individuals of direct European origin; and the large group of mestizos whose ancestry is rooted in both populations), there are also immigrants in Ecuador who have arrived more recently from other regions. Such groups are Spanish-dominant or Spanish-monolingual. By far the most significant and most visible of these other immigrant populations are Afro-Ecuadorians. Population numbers are uncertain, ranging from 25 per cent to 3 per cent. Afro-Ecuadorians reside largely in the northwestern coastal regions of the country, with smaller numbers in the highland Chota Valley. In addition, in Ecuador, as in most South American countries, there are small numbers of immigrants from other continents; e.g., a significant number of Catalan-speaking families in Quito who have founded La Casa Catalana (‘The Catalan House’), where about 100 families meet weekly. There are also individuals of Jewish and Arabic descent, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese immigrants, and immigrants from neighboring Andean countries, especially from Colombia. While immigration has not had a significant impact on national demographics, emigration has, as thousands of Ecuadorians have left for either permanent or temporary residence in the United States or Europe. There are currently estimated to be 260,000 documented Ecuadorians officially living in the United States, and many more remain undocumented and uncounted. The Ecuadorian government estimates that 500,000 people, four per cent of the total population, left Ecuador in 1999 and 2000 alone and as the update to the monograph indicates, the out migration has significantly increased, significantly impacting the Ecuadorian economy: remittances from family members working abroad are projected at US$1 billion annually, placing them behind oil exports, the country’s leading source of foreign capital, according to the newly created Office for Ecuadorians Abroad In sum, Ecuador is a multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural country whose society has faced a series of abrupt socioeconomic, cultural, and political changes during the last three decades, affecting both the way people use and conceive of their languages, and the way official institutions have approached and regulated them. Overall, the decline and increased endangerment of Ecuador’s indigenous languages remains apparent. This phenomenon is largely due to the fact that, even though new rights have been recognised and new laws favoring the indigenous people have been developed, the implementation of such laws has been less than complete. The complexity of this situation is particularly clear in the case of education. Education is compulsory for all Ecuadorians; students must attend six years

la-3.indd 11

26/04/2007 12:02:28

12


of primary school from age six to twelve, and then three years of basic secondary education (middle school) from age twelve to fifteen. Students then have the option of attending an additional three years of high school to earn their high school degree, and subsequently of going on to attend a technical institute or one of twenty-nine universities in the country. Although education is compulsory in theory, in practice only 50 per cent of the population completes six years of primary school, and of those who enrol in secondary education, 50 per cent fail to graduate. Rates of school participation and school completion have varied widely across regional, ethnic, gender, and socio-economic groups. Ecuadorian children’s school experiences vary widely not only in terms of the amount of time spent in school, but also in the types of schools they attend; roughly 20 per cent of primary and secondary schools in the country are privately run. Private institutions are also far more common in urban areas, where roughly one-third of schools are not state sponsored. For most students in the country, education is conducted through the medium of Spanish and is oriented towards Spanish or Hispanic culture. None of the indigenous languages are taught to non-indigenous Spanish-speakers; in contrast, all indigenous students must learn Spanish as a second language, and in many cases they are educated exclusively through the medium of Spanish. In 1994, the Board of Education, as part of reforms to the Law of Education, agreed to include some topics related to the indigenous peoples in the national curriculum, but these topics have neither been properly developed nor included as regular areas of the curriculum within the Hispanic public school programs. Furthermore, because indigenous schooling is limited to primary education, indigenous students who wish to continue with their education beyond sixth grade must do so in Hispanic secondary schools. Bilingual education in Ecuador can loosely be classified into two general types: the first group – aimed at students who are monolingual speakers of Spanish – offer English (or less commonly, French or another European language) as a foreign language, in some cases using it as a medium of instruction. These programs tend to be designed for – and in many instances are only available to – students from upper-middle and upper class backgrounds. English being a language of high social status and economic advancement, such schools facilitate elite closure (i.e., competence in English simultaneously signals elite status and is accessible only to elites). The second group is aimed at students who are dominant or monolingual in an indigenous language, and who need to acquire Spanish as a second language; these programs are designed as vehicles for providing meaningful instruction and literacy training in students’ first language, prior to (or concomitant with) their transition to Spanish – typically part of the national indigenous intercultural bilingual education system. Critics of these so-called ‘maintenance’ programs point out that, despite some use of students’ first language in the early grades, the programs overwhelmingly tend to be oriented towards transition to Spanish, and hence to promote a subtractive form of bilingualism. While Spanish is the primary language of instruction, foreign language instruction – especially English – also occurs in both elementary and secondary schools. In many secondary schools English is a mandatory subject, and private institutions are incorporating English into the curriculum even earlier, not only as a subject, but also as a medium. In addition to English, such other languages

la-3.indd 12

26/04/2007 12:02:28


13

as French, German or Italian are taught. German and French especially are used as the main means of instruction in some international schools. Foreign language instruction is not limited to private schools, however; in 1992, under an agreement between the British and Ecuadorian governments, a new project, CRADLE (Curriculum Reform Aimed at the Development of the Learning of English) came into effect. The stated goal of this program in all Ecuadorian public and missionary schools is to help Ecuadorian high school students acquire English in order to have better opportunities in the future, reflecting the growing place of English in both urban and rural Ecuadorian society. Despite the substantial linguistic and ethnic diversity of the country, Spanish has traditionally been the primary medium of instruction in all schools. However, due to significant shifts in education and language policy during the 1980s, use of indigenous languages in education now has a firm legal footing. Intercultural bilingual education rests on three legislative and executive decisions. The first legislation enacted to support indigenous language use in education was Decree No. 000529 of January 12, 1981, mandating bilingual, intercultural education in predominantly indigenous zones for primary and secondary education; i.e., instruction to be imparted in Spanish and Quichua (or the group’s indigenous language). The second anchor for bilingual education lies in the Ecuadorian 1983 Constitution; Article 27 provided that the educational systems in predominantly indigenous zones is required to use Quichua (or the community language) as the primary language of education and Spanish as the language of intercultural relations. Five years later, the third legal administrative structure was implemented to support these legislative decisions and meaningful use of indigenous languages in education – a dedicated administrative office within the national educational system came into being. Dirección Nacional de Educación Indígena Intercultural Bilingüe (DINEIIB) was charged with organising and administering schools in areas where more than half the population consists of indigenous people. DINEIIB’s mandate is extensive, and its responsibilities include: • developing pedagogical materials; • promoting the unified standard of various indigenous languages; • coordinating regional directorates in each of the country’s twenty-two provinces; • implementing and evaluating health, environmental, and community education programs, and • providing all in-service and pre-service teacher training. The radical shift in policy that made indigenous language education possible was the result of national and international pressures on the Ecuadorian government; the matter needs to be considered in light of similar shifts in neighboring Andean countries. Some language planning and policy research on Ecuadorian bilingual education policy was conceived in terms of an earlier model; more recent analysis is based on better models. Three shifts in policy are generally viewed not as politically neutral technocratic solutions to language problems, but as

la-3.indd 13

26/04/2007 12:02:28

14


the result of negotiations and compromises, and as embedded in larger debates concerning identity, ethnicity, and conceptions of nation-state. More precisely, the Ecuadorian case must be viewed in light of three related currents: 1. 2.

3.

the global trend towards greater acceptance of minority language rights; the regional shift across the Andean nations towards greater recognition of the plurilinguistic, pluricultural and pluriethnic nature of these nationstates, and, the political shifts resulting from the expansion of identity-based political organisations in Ecuador and the concomitantly greater articulation of indigenous rights within the country.

‘Globalisation’ and the process of cultural erosion that it implies may be characterised as forces that further endanger ‘small’ languages and cultures. The greater availability and aggressive marketing of dominant-language media, services, and goods potentially promotes such languages as English and simultaneously undermines the use and status of minority languages. Globalisation can be both a constructive and a destructive phenomenon. The movement towards greater recognition of minority language rights reflects a trend that unites and positively impacts the climate for language and education policy. Various national and international declarations have given greater emphasis to the obligation of states to create favorable conditions enabling persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs. Concomitant with these trends in international law is greater collaboration among indigenous groups across state boundaries, and with that, increased awareness of similar struggles across a wide range of contexts. There are more than a dozen international organisations working to promote endangered languages and to support indigenous people. Through these and other vehicles, various indigenous groups are increasingly in contact with each other even across considerable distances. Such global trends toward indigenous collaboration and greater international recognition of minority language rights form an important part of the context in Ecuador as they are interwoven with currents of change in the Andes; i.e., Peru and Bolivia – two of Ecuador’s neighbours – also have seen substantial shifts in language education policy. Ecuador, however, has never had a clearly articulated, comprehensive policy for dealing with its Indian people. Until recently, the country has dealt with the question of indigenous peoples by ignoring their existence, a strategy that is, in effect, a policy of integration.

Mexico Introduction The Estados Unidos Mexicanos is situated partly on the North American continent and partly constitutes a part of Central America. Mexico covers 1,972,550 sq. km. (761,600 sq. mi.) and has a population of 103,088,021 inhabitants, of whom approximately 20 million live in the capital city. Spanish is the de facto official language of Mexico, and the existing socio-political and socioeconomic systems define national culture in terms of the country’s Hispanic

la-3.indd 14

26/04/2007 12:02:28


15

heritage. However, although Mexico is the world’s largest Spanish speaking nation, there is some ambivalence and relatively little linguistic study about its national variety. Social inequality is a part of everyday life, and the division between rural and urban regions is notorious. In some areas, modern services may be readily available, while in others, not far away, electricity, running water and sanitation facilities may be lacking. The population may be generally divided into three strata: indigentes [extremely poor], pobres no indigentes [poor but not extremely poor] and no pobres [not poor]. Research shows that in 2004, 41,260,000 persons were ‘very poor’, 43,737000 persons were ‘poor’ and only 19,142,000 could be considered ‘not poor’ – i.e., members of the middle-class. Census data consistently show a high correlation between concentrations of speakers of indigenous languages and poverty and marginalisation. One result of the degree of poverty is continuous illegal migration on a massive scale from Mexico to the United States. Other related issues are guerilla activities, general insecurity, organised crime and corruption. Nevertheless, in contrast with other countries in the region, the Mexican political system has been relatively stable in recent decades; thus, the Mexican political system may be defined as a functioning democracy based on an effective constitution. However, on careful examination, things in Mexico do not appear quite so rosy; for over 70 years, up to the elections in June 2000, a single party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) had captured the Mexican Government, despite persistent rumors of electoral fraud. Freedom of the press exists, but it is not unheard of for a reporter to be involved in a fatal road accident. In the provinces there is a history of mass shootings of peasants by soldiers and paramilitary groups. This description of the main socio-political characteristics of present day Mexico provides the background necessary to understand how language policy and planning decisions have emerged and helps to understand some of the typical local idiosyncrasies that continue to surface. History When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, there were two dominant cultures: (1) the Mexica or Aztec empire in central Mexico reaching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and (2) the Mayan civilisation reaching from Honduras in the south to the states of Chiapas and the Yucatan in the north. Such other important cultures as the Toltecs, or earlier the Olmecs, had already died out by the time the Spanish arrived. The capital of the Aztec empire was Mexico Tenochtitlan, covering part of the territory of the present day capital, Mexico City. The Aztec empire was formed through a series of alliances with peoples from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, but amongst these different groups some (e.g., Tlaxcalans to the east) were dissatisfied with the central power. While the Mayans had not achieved the degree of political unity that the Aztecs had, both were highly developed civilisations, leaving behind an impressive archaeological record. The Aztec Empire included diverse groups of people who spoke different languages and had distinct cultures. Among these cultures, the most important were the Mixtecs, the Zapotecs (who built Monte Alban), and the Totonacs (from the state of Veracruz who build El Tajin with its famous Pyramid of the Niches). The

la-3.indd 15

26/04/2007 12:02:29

16


people in the northern part of Mexico were nomadic and, hence, their cultures did not produce lasting physical evidence. After the European discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492, the Spaniards arrived, attracted to the land, its peoples, and the potential to exploit them. From the late 15th century, the Spanish conquest began with the islands in the Caribbean – Cuba and Hispaniola. Between 1519–1521 CE Mexico was conquered by Hernán Cortez who had been living in Cuba for 15 years; from there, he started out with a relatively small force of Spanish soldiers, sailing along the Yucatan Peninsula and arriving at the site of the present-day port of Veracruz on his way to Mexico Tenochtitlan. He was able to conquer the whole empire with this small number of soldiers because he was able to arrange an alliance with the Tlaxcalans, but Cortez had the added advantage of the communicable diseases that the Spanish brought with them wiping out on the order of 90 per cent of the population. The Spaniards were attracted to the wealth of the country, especially in the parts where great civilisations existed, but not to the uninhabited areas or areas where nomadic populations subsisted. Between 1540 and 1549 waves of immigrants from Europe came to the viceroyalty of New Spain, but interest waned after the conquest of Peru. During the first half of the century after the conquest, the indigenous population was decimated by disease; estimates put the Mexican population at approximately 25.3 million in 1519, 16.8 million in 1523, 2.6 million in 1548, 1.3 million in 1695 and 1 million in 1705. This stunning decrease in indigenous population at the end of the 16th century led to the extinction of more than a hundred languages. During the 300 years of colonial rule, some areas were never militarily occupied, but most were converted to Christianity by Catholic missionaries. The insurrections of Hidalgo and Allende in 1810 were the first popular revolutionary movements of importance in Hispanic America. In 1821 Mexico won its independence from Spain. In the following decades conflicts of internal and external origin took place; in 1836, the inhabitants of Texas won independence from Mexico. (See the various reports of the defense of the Alamo in presentday San Antonio, Texas.) In 1845 Texas was annexed by the United States, and the US government sent troops into these territories. This aggression led Mexico to defend its territory, an act that led to armed conflict between Mexico and the United States lasting from 1846 to 1848. In the ‘Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo’ ending the war, Mexico lost the Northern part of its territory to the United States. The two institutions that enjoyed the greatest legal privileges – i.e., the army and the Catholic Church – were considered responsible for Mexico’s military defeat, marking the beginning of the debilitation of the church during the liberal revolution between 1855 and 1876 and resulting in the contemporary situation in which the government is secular although the majority of the population is Catholic. In 1862, French troops invaded the country with the help of Mexican conservatives who imposed the Hapsburg Maximilian as emperor. The French domination ended in 1867 with the execution of Maximilian. Despite these drastic changes in governance, mainstream politics remained more conservative than might have been expected. In 1877 Porfirio Díaz, a war hero of the French Intervention, was elected president; his government endured for the ensuing 30 years since he was reelected several times until a win produced by

la-3.indd 16

26/04/2007 12:02:29


17

undeniable electoral fraud in 1910 caused public outcry, leading to the Mexican Revolution in 1911 which put an effective end to the Profirian dictatorship. From 1911 to 1920 Mexico was torn by civil war. During this period – i.e., from 1911 through 1916 – the U.S. sent troops into Mexico on two occasions, early on capturing Vera Cruz and later seeking bandits in the northwest of Mexico with an expeditionary force under General John Pershing. Sporadic conflict continued into the early thirties when the country began to stabilise under the presidency of Cárdenas (1934 to 1940), a member of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) that subsequently governed Mexico for more than 70 years. On January 1, 1994 the Zapatista Army of National Liberation took control of the main municipalities of southern Chiapas, an action coinciding with the beginning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the USA, Canada and Mexico, widely perceived to encourage social inequality and to bring little benefit to the poorer sectors of the country. The element of surprise gave the Zapatistas an advantage over the Mexican Army, in spite of their inferior weapons. This uprising was led by several indigenous groups in Chiapas, in particular the Tzotzils and Tzeltals who are the most numerous ethnic groups in that state. Armed combat only lasted twelve days since the population pressed for negotiation between the rebels and the government. Moreover, 1994 was an election year. A year later Mexico became a member of the WTO, making the government even more conscious of its image abroad. The governing PRI was in danger of losing its position, while the Zapatistas received increasing sympathy from national and international movements. Both parties agreed to enter into negotiations, which were overseen by the Commission for Agreement and Pacification, an ad hoc legislative body. The talks resulted in the San Andres Accord, introducing most importantly the topic of Indigenous languages and education into discussions at a national level. The PRI won the elections again, and then the new administration with President Ernesto Zedillo in 1995 opted to surround the region with troops, leaving the Zapatistas no military option. Since then, talks have broken off and the Zapatistas have carried out actions that received global attention, but have failed to force the government to comply with its demands. However, since the Zapatista uprising, attention has been increasingly focused on authentic ethnic groups throughout the country. After days of fighting, negotiations eventually led to an armistice, but some indigenous groups in this region remain armed. Opinions certainly differ about the results of this insurrection, but there is no doubt that the events of 1994 had a profound effect on emerging language policy. Before the Zapatista uprising, indigenous languages were scarcely mentioned in Mexican newspapers; this changed dramatically after January 1, 1994. Language In Mexico, Spanish is the de facto official language of the government and the first language of 90 per cent of the population. (Spanish is also an international language – the official language of 21 countries and the 1st language of more than 300,000,000 speakers.) It is Mexico’s national language because of its historic and legislative functions and because it acts as a lingua franca for indigenous language speakers. Recently, the indigenous languages were also recognised as national languages because of their historic origins before the time of the Spanish conquest. All national

la-3.indd 17

26/04/2007 12:02:29

18


languages are part of the national patrimony, and are considered to enjoy equal rights of usage, diffusion and development. The General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People, effective from March 2003, in Article 4 established basic rights for indigenous languages. In general, it is possible to recognise the Spanish varieties of people from different South American countries as well as regional dialects within polities. Mexican Spanish as a variety may have deviated from the European forms as soon as the 18th century. Six Spanish dialectal areas may be distinguished in Mexico: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

The first area is comprised of the states of Baja California Sud, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and part of Tamaulipas, all north of the Tropic of Cancer, can be separated from other areas by such linguistic features as the pronunciation of ‘y’ in words like ‘amarillo’ (yellow), pronounced ‘armario’. The second dialectal area includes the states: Mexico, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Queretaro, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, Aguascalientes and Zaxatecas, including the highlands of Veracruz, Michoacan, Colima, Jalisco, Colima, and Nayarit. Within this region Colima, Jalisco and Nayarit show a trend toward forming a new group. The third area is composed of the southern states of Morelos, Guerreo and Oaxaca. Little data exists about the Spanish language in these states. It appears to be similar to the varieties spoken around the Gulf of Mexico but has received greater influence from indigenous languages. The fourth area lies around the Gulf of Mexico, comprised of the lowlands of Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche and parts of Tamaulipas. One of the bestknown phenomena here is the aspiration of some consonants that might be compared to varieties spoken around the Antilles and Cuba. The fifth dialectical area includes the Yucatan and Quintana Roo. A glottal stop typical of Yucatan Mayan but unknown in Spanish is used. The sixth area, Chiapas, seems to bear greater similarity to Central American dialects than to Mexican dialects of Spanish.

Indigenous languages have been designated national languages in the 2003 Mexican constitution. However, they are also minority languages because only a small percentage of the Mexican population speaks any one of them. It has been estimated that more than 100 languages and dialects were spoken when the Spanish came to Mexico. A linguistic mosaic consists of different types of the more than 60 different languages that are still spoken in Mexico; some, like Nahuatl, are agglutinative; some, like Chinanteco, are isolating; some, like Oto-manguean, are tonal, and some, like the majority of the Mayan languages, are ergative. During the second half of the 16th century, Catholic missionaries learned some of the indigenous languages and attempted extensive studies, since it was assumed that knowledge of some languages would facilitate their work; i.e., the missionaries regarded expertise in indigenous languages as an indispensable tool for missionary work. Although missionaries are credited with using and promoting local languages for religious and evangelical purposes, they tend to interpret what constituted local languages very broadly. Many prayer books and catechisms in indigenous languages were produced; unfortunately, the early

la-3.indd 18

26/04/2007 12:02:29


19

written grammars were developed on the patterns of Latin and Spanish, and therefore failed to capture accurately the structure of many languages. Furthermore, the lack of homogeneity in spelling suggests that standard orthographies were not developed. Collections of grammar, structure and vocabulary that subsequently developed into lexicography were the key preoccupations of scholarly descriptions of indigenous languages, hence the notion ‘bringing grammar and structure to the languages.’ The label descriptive tradition is potentially misleading because what was being described in the early studies of indigenous languages were the varieties of those languages which the missionaries themselves spoke, rather than what was spoken by indigenous people. There appear to be two major minority languages – at least in numerical terms – in Mexico: Nahuatl (belongs to the Yuto-Aztecan family) and Yucatec Mayan (belongs to the Mayan family); in 2004, there were 1,448,936 registered speakers of Nahuatl and 800,291 registered speakers of Yucatec Mayan. Next in terms of numbers are Zapotec with 452,887 speakers and Mixtec with 446,236 speakers. Zapotec and Mixteco are only spoken in Oaxaca while Nahuatl is spoken in the states of Guerrero, Puebla, Morelos, Veracruz, Michoacán, Hidalgo and Nayarit. The Yucatan Mayan speaking population is distributed over the Yucatan peninsula, including the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo. In a linguistic ecology as complicated as that of Mexico, language policy depends on classification and definition; that is, which variant forms of a language are to be considered independent languages and which are perceived to be dialects. There have been many attempts to identify the language families and the individual languages represented in the Mexican linguistic ecology; the number of families cited has ranged from 20 to 11 to 7 (18 sub-families and 59 languages) with the last perhaps being the most accurate. Recently proposed changes in language names have added to the confusion; many Indigenous groups have chosen to rename their languages with a lexical item retrieved from or created in the original language. There are only 28 languages with more than 10,000 speakers. In purely practical terms, language planning (i.e., language maintenance programs) efforts should perhaps concentrate on these languages. Indigenous languages remain strong in rural areas where communities tend to be poor, isolated and live in an agricultural economy. As public transportation is scarce or non-existent in these communities, it is difficult for these indigenous people to leave and make outside contacts, and it is difficult for outsiders to enter these communities, except for the few communities located along main roads or railway lines. While this isolation is supportive of indigenous language maintenance, it condemns these people to lives of poverty and isolation from society as a whole. In any case, the increasing use of technology (i.e., the introduction of mobile phones) may make integration into the wider community harder to avoid. Some situations cannot be truly defined as rural. Speakers also live in urban or peri-urban areas or in communities in the urban centre. In all regions with a high density of speakers of indigenous languages it is normal to find indigenous languages in urban centres. In Mexico City, there are different barrios where speakers of an indigenous language may cluster, but most of these people are

la-3.indd 19

26/04/2007 12:02:29

20


also speakers of Spanish; there are few barrios distinguished by the use of some particular indigenous language. Not all speakers of indigenous languages in urban centres are originally from those centres. Migration toward the nearest town from rural areas is common and in most cities there are indigenous communities. Many are even nonresident and only go there to work. Tourist resorts, like Cancun on the Caribbean coast, attract seasonal workers from indigenous villages. There are even Mexican indigenous communities in Los Angeles, California. Most Mexicans (c. 90%) are Roman Catholics; c. 7 per cent are Protestants, and those who do not profess any religion constitute about 3.5 per cent. Latin was the formal language of the Catholic Church and was used in most religious rituals, but after Vatican II (1962–1965) languages other than Latin were permitted. Consequently, Spanish (the peninsular form of Spanish rather than the Mexican form) became the religious language in the most important Catholic ritual, the mass. Indigenous groups sometimes follow a sort of mélange of different, nonmonotheistic religions overlaid with more recent Christian practices. People may pray to a god or a spirit. The Summer Institute of Linguistics has created writing systems to translate the Bible into local languages as a vehicle for introducing Protestantism into indigenous communities. In some ways this has given rise to a polemical debate; the SIL has been accused of changing the indigenous culture, but at the same time the local language was used in religious rites. Protestant groups (e.g., Mormons and Presbyterians) caused schisms in small communities, and converts no longer participated in traditional religious ceremonies. Although missionaries sometimes encouraged the use of Yucatan Mayan, the profound divisions created in community life might be prejudicial to the maintenance of the indigenous language. The ‘Maestros Cantores’ celebrated the mass during the Mayan revolution because there were no priests. Generally, the priests were ‘White’ and consequently were part of the Mayans’ enemies. The Maestros Cantores sang religious chants in Spanish and Latin when they were acting as priests, a practice that is still continued in the east of Yucatan and in the North of Quintana Roo. Another interesting case occurs among the Yaqui who moved to Hermosillo, the capital of Sonora. These people have largely adopted the Spanish language, but they still celebrate ceremonies of Yaqui origin. Especially during Holy Week they participate in a dance that represents the fight between a deer and a coyote; the language used during this dance is Yaqui, a religious language for these people. In general, the determination of what language is to be used for what religious purpose is rather complex, varying from place to place. Rites related to local religions are often celebrated in indigenous languages. From a historical perspective, Mexican language policy with respect to minority languages falls into three main approaches: Incorporation, Integration and Participation. Policies of incorporation are typically policies formulated by the non-indigenous population and defined as unilateral, unidirectional and having a single goal – the assimilation of indigenous people into the nation as a whole. Policies of integration develop from the understanding that education alone is necessary but not sufficient to assimilate indigenous peoples into national life so that educational policy must be enhanced with actions designed to stimulate social and cultural development. Governmental attention to the indigenous sector

la-3.indd 20

26/04/2007 12:02:29


21

of the population was oriented to corrective action, especially with regard to land rights. Both incorporation and integration were clearly paternalistic policies; i.e., the indigenous people were treated as children who needed to be guided toward correct decisions. Policy making of the third type, participation, creates a space in which government may act; the indigenous communities and NGOs are all actively engaged. Relations between the various agencies involved become multilateral and multidirectional and pursue a number of different goals. Rather than seeking to replace indigenous belief systems, the goal is to attain the full potential of the combined cosmo-vision, including the promotion of bilingual and bicultural school programs, the tolerance of traditional medicine and the exploration of alternative models for agricultural and handicraft production. Ideally, policymaking with regard to the indigenous population of Mexico now operates in the third approach to participation. While there is some evidence that this may be so, there is also evidence that the state authorities find this approach difficult to rationalise and, hence, to manage. Historically, policy development may be divided into four parts: pre-Hispanic Mexico, colonial New Spain, post-independence Mexico and contemporary activities, since each of these periods might be said to be characterised by generic language policies. The pre-Hispanic period may be said to constitute the linguistic domination of the Mexicas, with some pockets of resistance. The colonial period – which ends when independence from Spain was achieved – is marked by the conflict between the Castellanisation policy of the Crown and the evangelisation policies of the Church, resulting in the establishment of the hegemony of Spanish, despite official declarations to the contrary. Finally, present day approaches to literacy development both at school and through adult education move toward less paternalistic policies and more supportive legislation due to internal and external pressure from various agencies and organisations. Pre-Hispanic Mexico The language situation in pre-colonial times, dominated by the Mexicas whose efficient introduction of Nahuatl or Mexica as a lingua franca for commerce and jurisprudence and as the official language of culture, the arts and the education of the elite is amply documented. Their success included the relocation of conquered peoples to language areas outside their original speech community and the implantation of Nahuatl-speakers in areas where other languages were spoken. This fragmentation of speech communities resulted in the spread of Nahuatl far beyond its traditional territory. Nahuatl-speakers also exercised their linguistic power over the subjugated peoples by naming their languages, in some instances using derogatory terms (e.g., Chontal (outsider), Popolaca (incomprehensible language), Totonaca (rustic)). With regard to corpus planning, the Council of Arts and Sciences, located in Texcoco, acted as a sort of language academy promoting the linguistic arts and exemplifying the ‘purest’ form of Nahuatl. Colonial Times in New Spain Royal decrees, on the whole, openly favored Castellanisation, conflating the learning of Spanish with education and evangelisation. This belief notwithstanding, it is probably not true that the representatives of the Crown believed

la-3.indd 21

26/04/2007 12:02:29

22


the indigenous languages to be unsophisticated or primitive, especially during the first century of colonisation when a romantic view of the native was widely held. In fact, during this period some of the most important grammars and dictionaries of Nahuátl (as well as of P’urepecha, Zapotec and Mixtec) were produced. The official Crown policy – Castellanisation – was maintained fairly consistently throughout the period of colonisation as is evidenced by the frequent Royal decrees to teach Spanish and to exclude those who could not speak Spanish from government positions. Nonetheless, these decrees fell upon deaf ears amongst the missionaries whose linguistic practices were heavily influenced by the Pentecostal tradition. The mendicant orders believed that true understanding of the word of God could only be achieved in the speaker’s first language. This belief, coupled to economic facts and the shortage of Spanish speakers, made Castellanisation an impractical policy and contributed to the fact that on achieving independence an estimated 80 per cent of the population still spoke indigenous languages. The Republic One would be inclined to assume that winning independence from Spain, given the demographic characteristics of the speech community, would in fact benefit the speakers of indigenous languages. However, within the first 50 years of independence, Spanish went from being a minority language spoken by around 10 per cent of the population to being the recognised first language of about 70 per cent. How this was actually achieved is open to debate; however, it seems clear that, confronted with a fragmented and linguistically diverse population, it was preferable from the perspective of the new liberal mestizo leaders to impose a one-language/one-nation ideology, persisting even into the present time, creating the irony of the political and economic break from Spain while simultaneously embracing the Spanish language. As a consequence, oppression, exploitation, illiteracy and landlessness prevailed among those who chose not to conform to the national culture – conditions of misery and ignorance that the indigenous population suffered were not seen as the result of the oppressive system, but rather as the natural condition of the indigenous people. Communal lands were divided and redistributed to individual owners. The ultimate objective was the assimilation of the indigenous people to ‘civilisation’ – a clear case of paternalism. While most of the policies prevailing throughout this period were assimilationist, there were, essentially, two different approaches to achieving Castellanisation among the indigenous population. The direct approach maintained that literacy training should begin directly in Spanish with no reference whatsoever to the learner’s first language – a view held by early heads of the national Ministry of Education. The second approach maintained that Castellanisation was best served by an initial period of literacy training in the first language and that the literacy skills achieved should be applied later to reading and writing in Spanish. This approach found support from social anthropologists and linguists. Language policy in Mexico was a feather in the wind of political change. In postcolonial Mexico there has been no language policy as such, merely economic policies with linguistic side effects. The six-year periods of any particular government are never sufficient to achieve success. The history

la-3.indd 22

26/04/2007 12:02:29


23

of colonial Mexico shows that it is important not to underestimate the power of agents of change at a micro level in the implementation of wider planning activities. The Present The five hundredth anniversary of the discovery of the Americas in 1992 brought about a re-evaluation of the relationship between the Old World and the New. In Mexico, this translated into a renewed interest in the destiny of the indigenous people, who had in any case become increasingly active in politics at a local level since the early 1980s with the formation of civil associations for the protection of human rights and cultural development. Amid the fervor of ethnic revival, a revision of constitutional articles 4 and 27 was enacted and published in January 1992, officially recognising the multilingual and multicultural character of modern Mexico and placing the responsibility for language preservation and maintenance on governmental agencies. Although there was no specific provision for the obligatory introduction of state-level legislation to enable the constitutional initiative, between January 1992 and August 2001 twelve states passed specific laws on the recognition of rights for the indigenous peoples within their territories. (In addition to these twelve, four states had previously introduced specific legislation with regard to the linguistic and social rights of indigenous peoples.) However, legislation will not necessarily lead to changed circumstances for minority language groups without a corresponding change in the attitudes of the wider society. The San Andrés Accord The San Andrés Accord is the result of a series of meetings held at the beginning of 1996. The document meshes proposals from the federal government and the Ejército Zapatista de la Liberación Nacional (EZLN), through the mediation of COCOPA – a legislative body called The Commission for Harmony and Pacification. The aim was the construction of a new relationship between the indigenous peoples, the wider society and the State; the agreements were called ‘propuestas conjuntas’ (joint proposals) to indicate that the federal government intended to consult with the EZLN on constitutional reforms. The central proposal should have ended the traditionally asymmetric relationship of the indigenous groups with mainstream society – a relationship marked by subordination, inequality, discrimination, poverty, exploitation and political exclusion. The proposed jurisdictional framework contemplates the recognition of both individual and collective rights in the Constitution of the Rights of Indigenous Groups. The rights to be recognised include: • Political: the recognition of an inclusive government and the introduction of more appropriate forms of election to authority. • Judicial: the exercise of internal normative systems for issues such as the election of authorities, the forms of justice to correct failures and self-determination with regard to internal conflicts. • Social: the decision on more appropriate forms of social organisation. • Economic: the decision on the appropriate organisation for work, for enjoying one’s own resources as well as to increase productivity, employment and self-sustaining economic practices in indigenous pueblos.

la-3.indd 23

26/04/2007 12:02:29

24


• Cultural: the decision to guarantee the maintenance of the indigenous cultures. The Agreements and Joint Proposals that the Members agreed to are: • The recognition of the indigenous people in the Constitution and the right to self-determination within the constitutional framework of autonomy. • The expansion of participation and political representation. • The recognition of political, economic, social and cultural rights. • The guarantee of access of the indigenous pueblos to the justice of the state, its jurisdiction, and the recognition of the internal systems of the pueblos. • The promotion of cultural manifestations of indigenous pueblos. • The protection of educational services and approval and respect for traditional leaders. • The satisfaction of basic needs. • The promotion of productivity and employment. • The protection of migrant indigenous peoples. The new relationship called for a profound reform of the state, a new social pact in which the autonomy of the indigenous peoples is respected in such a way that the programs and projects offered by the State promote the active participation of indigenous people in local government. Instead of the anticipated reappraisal of the social role and increased autonomy, a further constitutional reform was introduced in August 2001. The most controversial part of this reform was the relocation of the fourth article’s recognition of multilingualism and multiculturalism in an extensively redrafted article 2 including the assignment of responsibilities for language and environmental preservation. Indigenous groups around the country almost unanimously rejected the proposed reform, drawing international attention to the matter. Perhaps in part to assuage the public outcry, a new law was introduced in 2003 – the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People. Despite its shortcomings, this law is clearly the single most significant language policy in the recent history of Mexico. The General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People The GLLRIP, enacted in 2003, protects the linguistic rights of indigenous individuals and indigenous communities, as well as promoting the use and development of indigenous languages. In the articles in the first section of the General Law, the equal status of both indigenous languages and Spanish is recognised. Article 3 states that the indigenous languages represent the principal expressions of the pluricultural composition of the Mexican nation. Article 7 avows that indigenous languages are valid and equal to Spanish for use in any matter and activity of a public nature. The second section addresses the rights of language speakers in Mexico. Article 9 states that it is the right of all Mexicans to communicate in their first language without restriction in the public or private sector and in social, economic, political, cultural, and religious activities. Article 10 guarantees the right of access of indigenous communities to the judicial power of the State. Article 11 stipulates that indigenous populations are

la-3.indd 24

26/04/2007 12:02:29


25

to have access to compulsory bilingual and intercultural education and to an educational system that respects the dignity and identity of people independent of their language. Moreover, the middle and higher educational levels must foment interculturality, multilingualism, and respect for diversity and linguistic rights in their institutions. The inhabitants and institutions of the pueblos and of indigenous communities will be jointly responsible for seeing to it that the objectives of the law are carried out, and that the inhabitants will participate actively in the teaching of languages in a manner appropriate to the community and region. The strategies needed to accomplish educational and linguistic objectives are stipulated in section 3 which states that the plans and programs of the nation, the states and the municipalities will protect, preserve, promote and develop diverse national indigenous languages through the participation of the indigenous people and their communities. Included in programs of study for basic and normal education are the origin and evolution of national indigenous languages and their contributions to the national culture. Section 3 also states that public and private education to encourage interculturality, multilingualism and respect for linguistic diversity in order to contribute to the preservation, study and development of national indigenous languages and their literatures. Article 6 of this section stipulates that teachers involved in basic bilingual education in indigenous communities speak and write the language of the location and know the culture of the indigenous people they are working with. In section 4, Article 14 creates the National Institute for Indigenous Languages as a decentralised organ of the Federal Public Administration under the direction of the Secretary of Public Education. The purpose of the Institute is to promote, preserve and develop indigenous languages. The Institute shall pursue these objectives: • To design strategies and instruments for the development of indigenous languages nationally, • To promote programs, projects and actions which stimulate knowledge of the national cultures and indigenous languages, • To extend the social domain of national indigenous languages and access to indigenous language learning opportunities, • To study the preservation, knowledge and appreciation of indigenous languages in public places and through the media, • To establish programs to certify and accredit bilingual professionals and technicians, • To promote the production of grammars, to standardise the written form and to promote reading and writing in indigenous languages. This section also requires the Institute to be instrumental in researching linguistic diversity in Mexico and to help the National Census Commission with the design of methodology necessary to carry out this task more reliably. The language of this section can be seen as an attempt to overcome persistent problems with regard to the enumeration of the official number of languages and the numbers of speakers of each, since it is probable that more sensitive questions in the census might uncover more useful and reliable information. Article 16 names the representatives who are to make up the governing body of the Institute, including representatives from schools, institutes of

la-3.indd 25

26/04/2007 12:02:30

26


higher education and indigenous universities in addition to the Secretaries of Education, of the Treasury, of Public Credit, of Social Development and of Communication and Transportation. The composition of this body has become a bone of contention – particularly with regard to a perceived over-representation of State authorities; opponents rather require that the representatives should be native speakers of the indigenous languages they are to represent.

Mexican Summary Notwithstanding the discontent with the limitations of legislation to alter social reality, the general law and the subsequent state level legislation intended to implement its provisions constitute an important step towards encouraging the active participation of indigenous peoples at all levels of Mexican society. It is no longer unanimously believed that, in order to have a voice, it is necessary to conform to the social practices and structures of the majority. Those who work in the Institute hold professional qualifications in linguistics and applied linguistics and are well known and respected in their fields. Despite some positive indications that conditions for indigenous people and their languages are improving, it is also true that the assimilation of indigenous peoples into mainstream society is advancing inexorably: 1. 2. 3.

4.

The monolingual indigenous population is decreasing, while the number of indigenous Spanish bilinguals is increasing. The indigenous migration to urban centres is now more likely to be permanent rather than temporary. The discourse spaces available to bilinguals do not favour the use of indigenous languages, and new spaces are not being created to encourage their use. Many indigenous parents are no longer teaching the native language to their children.

All the indicators offer little hope for the efforts to preserve indigenous languages. On the contrary, both internal and external pressures confound the maintenance of indigenous languages in contemporary Mexico. Internally, Spanish is the only language that is consistently spoken and understood throughout the entire country; hence, the ability to use Spanish communicatively brings important socioeconomic benefits. The use of indigenous languages and customs is regarded as outmoded and obsolete; the pressure to discard the ‘outmoded and obsolete’ is encountered directly daily in the workplace and indirectly from the younger generation attending schools in which indigenous peoples are underrepresented and subjected to discrimination. These same children return to their homes and practice such discrimination directly against their own parents and grandparents. The language situation in Mexico represents a highly heterogeneous panorama with many contrasts and contradictions; however, language planning in Mexico is slowly acquiring some degree of continuity despite changes in the political arena. The most important progress can be seen in the context of indigenous languages. The new law on indigenous language rights (which elevates indigenous languages to the status of national languages) and the foundation of the

la-3.indd 26

26/04/2007 12:02:30


27

National Institute for Indigenous Languages (which provide a framework for the coordination of actions to promote minority language maintenance) are important developments. Be that as it may, many problems will be encountered in the future, and extensive surveys based in ethnography of communication are essential to success. Mexican society usually considers the learning of foreign languages as an additional economic and cultural value. It will nevertheless be important for the government to promote additive plurilinguism. It will be essential for the media, the schools and families to support the learning of languages, based on a clearer understanding of the purposes these languages serve. To inform the specific language needs in the various language communities, research at the macro, meso and micro level will be needed in order to design appropriate syllabi. Moreover, it would be advantageous to have documented case studies of locally designed programs and their results. The construction of national and local language policies requires academic networks to cover all aspects of foreign language teaching which would help to counterbalance the prevailing centralist view of education. Spanish as a school subject is sadly underdeveloped due to the lack of trained teaching staff. University teachers commonly complain that undergraduate writing skills in Spanish are insufficient. While important initiatives have been taken in the field of foreign and Spanish language teaching, there is no ecological vision of the interactions between Spanish and international languages and between Spanish and the many indigenous languages. Thus, the enactment of new law and the creation of an important new institute constitute significant steps along the road toward a rational national language policy, these steps have not yet approached the popular attitudes about language and about language learning and teaching. While much remains to be done, the initial steps must be applauded, but the time has not yet come when Mexico can claim ‘mission accomplished.’ Paraguay Since 1992, the Republic of Paraguay has had two official languages: Spanish and Guarani; the 1992 constitution is actually written in Guarani. Guarani has survived despite formal language policy favoring the spread of Spanish since Paraguay’s colonial period. Cultural, socioeconomic and political forces have been more significant contributors to the current language situation. Historically, in the absence of formal language planning, informal and covert efforts explain the vitality of Paraguayan Guarani. However, Spanish is the de facto language of government and serves as the primary official language. In 1992, Spanish was spoken by c. 2.3 million people in Paraguay, and c. 90 per cent of those people lived in households in which Guarani was also spoken. (Guarani is presently spoken by c. 3.6 million people in Paraguay.) Paraguayan Spanish differs to some extent phonologically and morphologically from Castilian (peninsular) and other Latin American varieties. Paraguayan Guarani belongs to the Tupi-Guarani family. That family is scattered over a vast area from the Paranapanema River in Brazil to the River Plate that flows between contemporary Uruguay and Argentina and from the Atlantic to the foothills of the Andes – not a polity in the contemporary sense but marked by a significant ethnolinguistic unity. In the 16th century, it is estimated that there were probably

la-3.indd 27

26/04/2007 12:02:30

28


c. 2 million speakers. Europeans were slow to understand the extent of the linguistic ecology they had entered. Paraguayan Guarani is distinct from indigenous varieties of Guarani, primarily because of lexical influence from Spanish. Convergence of Guarani with Spanish is certainly a factor, but it may not be as deep as some scholars have claimed; structural features of Paraguayan Guarani that originate in the Spanish superstrate have strong symbolic significance and tend to complicate corpus planning. The history of language planning in Paraguay can be roughly divided into six periods. The first (1537–1768) shows that much of the credit for the survival of Guarani can be attributed to the Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries; the Jesuit order (founded in 1540) sent missionaries to Paraguay in 1587; encouraged by the Spanish governor of the territory, they established a system of missions that by 1630 covered 150,000 square miles between the Paraná and Uruguay rivers. The system reached its greatest population in 1732. The Jesuits opposed teaching Spanish and implementing the encomienda policy to the Guarani population and tried to establish a Christian community literate in Guarani. The encomienda policy of the Crown (based on the Law of the Indies which required that the Indians were to be protected and taught religion for which they were required to pay tribute) granted land and Indians to certain Spaniards; the Indians being poor, tribute was not available, so labour replaced tribute, and that resulted in slavery. The order for the establishment of the encomienda policy was put into practice in 1556, and the outcome was the settlement of the seminomadic Guarani in villages. This quasi-urban revolution actually favoured the maintenance of the Guarani language. In 1642, the Crown authorised arming the Indians to protect the missions against cross border raids by slavers from Brazil. By 1768, the Jesuits’ ‘utopian Republic’ came to an end when the Crown expelled the Jesuits from Paraguay. In the second period (1811–1869), only 43 years after the expulsion of the Jesuits, Spain lost Paraguay when José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia declared independence on 18 June 1811, and had himself elected dictator in October 1814. He was recognised as the protector of the Guarani, and he confiscated land from the upper class and leased the land to the peasants under the condition that they plant what the government ordered. Francia died in 1840, having created a repressive government that required a network of spies. The old elites had been eliminated and the peasantry was devoted to Francia. Francia persecuted the Spanish elite and largely drove them into exile. While he had no formal language policy, there was no spread of Spanish in schools and the media because no schools were built and the press was sharply curtailed. Carlos Antonio López whose policies essentially continued the crude egalitarianism of the previous government succeeded Francia. López was succeeded by his son Mariscal who fought the War of the Triple Alliance (Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, 1864–1870) that left Paraguay in ruins. The Spanish-speaking elite was almost completely annihilated, leaving the rural monolingual (Guaranispeaking) population intact. The third period (1869–1940) brought back the exiles from Argentina, but a much more liberal group, influenced by John Locke, Adam Smith and JeanJacques Rousseau, in 1870 created a new constitution based on a U.S. model. Juan Batista Gill was elected president, but by 1877 he was overthrown by a

la-3.indd 28

26/04/2007 12:02:30


29

revolt led by General Bernardino Caballero who ruled from 1880 to 1886. His major contribution was to ban Guarani from the schools. Because the state was bankrupt, the General sold off vast government holdings to foreign investors who created virtual fiefdoms. In 1887, liberals reasserted themselves and ruled from 1902 to 1922 and again from 1924 to 1936 (during that Chaco War 1928–1935). The fourth period (1936–1954) is marked by rapid changes in the power structure. At the end of the Chaco War, nationalists demanded social reform. On 17 February 1936, Rafael Franco assumed power in a coup. In May 1936, the expropriation of some 200,000 hectares in the large landed estates was legalised, and the land was resold on easy terms to 10,000 peasant families. In 1937, Mariscal Estigarribia led a revolt that returned liberals to power. In 1940, nationalists enacted a new constitution, which authorised a Council of State based on Mussolini’s government in Italy. When Estigarribia was killed in a plane crash, General Higinio Morinigo assumed power and established a dictatorship. The General allowed the creation of a Guarani-speaking storm trooper organisation. In 1947, the coalition led by the General collapsed and civil war broke out. Rebels under the leadership of Natalicio González gained control of the army and of the country, resulting yet again in the flight of the educated Spanish-speaking segment of the population. González won the presidency in 1948. Felipe Molas López led yet another coup in 1950. López was replaced later that year by Federico Chaves. In August 1954 Chaves resigned, and Alfredo Stroesser – running unopposed – was elected to the presidency. Clearly, this period was marked by extreme civil unrest and wide swings in the power structure. The fifth period (1954–1989) is, essentially, the 35-year dictatorship of Stroesser. He retained power for the long period by dividing cabinet posts among the various political factions. His patronage of the rural peasantry was similar in effect to the government-backed Jesuit administration of the mission-based empire, Francia’s expropriation of land for farmers, and the re-expropriation of land for farmers in the 1940s. The consistent pattern of economic policy favouring rural Guarani-speakers in return for their political loyalty helps to explain the survival of Guarani in Paraguay and the lack of success of the Communist movement that expanded throughout Latin America at the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s. Stroesser’s agrarian reform of rural Paraguay had the linguistic effect of strengthening rural Guarani monolingualism and arresting the increase of bilingualism. There was no formal language policy, and Stroesser’s policy was not based in liberal democratic ideals; rather it grew out of political expediency. Education was not expanded, and therefore the spread of Spanish was arrested. The sixth and most recent period (1989–the present) is marked by the fall of Stroesser (in an internal coup in 1989) and the emergence of a policy of national bilingualism. The early years of this period was marked by as much volatility as was the preceding period, but with the important difference that bilingualism in Guarani and Spanish has been openly embraced as a symbol of national identity. The initial Spanish community in Paraguay was very small and entirely male; even as late as 1544, the population of Spaniards in Asunción (founded 1537) was

la-3.indd 29

26/04/2007 12:02:30

30


only c. 600. Guarani men gave women to these new settlers, and accepted these men by conferring the title tovaja (brother-in-law) on them. Spanish-Guarani language contact probably occurred sporadically even before the founding of Asunción. The remote location of Asunción and the preponderance of Guarani speakers probably overwhelmed the Spanish speakers culturally and linguistically; over the ensuing years, the indigenous population was severely reduced by war, slavery, mistreatment, and disease. From the outset of the Spanish incursion into Guarani territory, the Spanish established their political and military hegemony in the name of the Spanish Crown and the Catholic God. In addition to Spanish, Portuguese (spoken in neighbouring Brazil) was, in 1992, spoken as a first language by 134,639 individuals (c. 3%) in Paraguay – the total population of Paraguay was estimated at 5.5 million in 2000, c, 4,143,000 according to the 1992 census, since most other population figures in the study are based on the 1992 census. Also, there are 38,000 speakers of Plautdietsch in small isolated Mennonite communities. Seventeen indigenous languages other than Paraguayan Guarani are spoken in Paraguay. However, the numbers are small; only c. 1.6 per cent of the Paraguayan population would be of indigenous ethnolinguistic identity. These minor indigenous languages belong to at least four families. In all the reports of numbers of speakers, there are various claims by various groups, and the numbers cannot be taken at face value. The largest is the Tupi-Guarani family accounting for c. 25,000 individuals. This family essentially includes four languages: Avá Katú Eté (c. 7,000), Mbyá (c. 4,750), Pai-Tavyterá (c. 8,000), Chiriguano (c. 2,000); other smaller groups – e.g., Aché (c. 292) – are present. The Mascoian family, with c. 15,000 speakers, is the second largest group; it includes Angaité (c.1,700), Guaná (c. 500), Lengua (c. 9,500), Sanapaná (c. 1,000) and Toba-Maskoy (c. 2,000). The Mataco-Guaicurú family is the third; it includes Manjuy (c. 500), Maká (c. 1,050), Nivaclé (c. 8,000). The Zamucoan family is the smallest of the Paraguayan families; it includes Ayoreo (c. 800) and Chamacoco (c. 900). In the late 16th century, Franciscans and Jesuits translated the Bible and Catechism into Guarani and wrote grammars and dictionaries of the language. The Jesuit mission system of the early 17th century was managed in Guarani cleansed of indigenous lexicon, though the term Tupi – the name of a minor god of thunder – was borrowed by the Jesuits to refer to the Judeo-Christian deity, and Tupi-Sy (The Virgin Mary) to refer to the mother of Tupi. Spanish and Guarani are still the major languages of religion, though Spanish predominates in urban areas. Spanish is also the major language of literacy and of literacy education, and is used almost exclusively in higher education (except for a doctoral program in Guarani at the National University). However, as the orthography has been simplified, the status of written Guarani has improved significantly over the past quarter century, undergoing a revival. The language is used in radio and television, in dramas, in special sections in national newspapers, in dictionaries of technical terminology and in the names of streets and on business signs. As of 1994, the objective of language education at the elementary level is to achieve universal ‘coordinate bilingualism’ in Spanish and Guarani. This goal is far from being achieved. Since 1998, the Ministry of Education and Culture has been decentralised and consequently has limited authority, but it provides

la-3.indd 30

26/04/2007 12:02:30


31

all textbooks and money for salaries, receives all grades and therefore may deny certification to any district failing to implement at least some level of instruction in Guarani. Guarani instruction is available in the great majority of public schools. However, the Guarani-speaking population is plagued by the characteristics of poor populations everywhere; i.e., parents are less likely to be literate, take less interest in school activities, and their children are more likely to be tired, hungry and sick. The rural/urban divide is as sharp in Paraguay as it is in the other polities in this study. As the teaching of Guarani has been unsuccessful, so too has that part of the program intended to facilitate the spread of Spanish. Formal language planning did not occur in Paraguay until the end of the 20th century. The period following the fall of the Stroesser administration is one of historic significance for language planning because the first agency specifically charged with coordinating activity in status, corpus and acquisition planning was created. While the nationalistic quasi-socialist state of the Stroesser years and those of his predecessors was instrumental in the survival of Guarani, the democratising trends and the forces of economic globalisation may in fact threaten its future. The debate over bilingual education in Paraguay has the same practical and political dimensions apparent in other language contact situations in Latin America and elsewhere. An analysis of Paraguayan bilingualism, on first glance, seemed to reflect stable national bilingualism, but closer examination suggests that the strong urban/rural divide complicates the matter. The rural population presents a pattern of increasing Guarani vitality. Research suggests that Guarani monolingualism will remain vital even while Spanish increases at high rates. The future of the smaller indigenous languages is not so clear. A language policy more protective of indigenous languages in general is necessary to ensure the survival and continuing evolution of indigenous populations. There is, however, every indication that the polity will not abandon the language that has come to symbolise Paraguay’s uniqueness as a nation. A government that includes all people will support bilingual education for all children; a language policy that safeguards the linguistic rights of all is instrumental to (and derives from) a commitment to the physical and economic well being of Paraguay’s youth.

Conclusions This overview of the major issues presented in the three monographs contained in this volume suggests that they provide powerful accounts of language change and development in each of their polities, and that a number of language planning-related issues are clearly illustrated. First, there has until very recently been a dearth of formal language planning in these polities. While language planning and policy (LPP) frameworks like those provided by Kaplan and Baldauf (2003) and others have outlined LPP as a formal process, these studies highlight the more informal nature of much of LPP. (See, Baldauf (2005) for a more general contextual discussion or Baldauf (1994) and Eggington (2002) for more specific discussions of covert or unplanned LPP.) These studies show that many of the changes that occur to languages are unplanned or covert. The paucity of formal policy documents

la-3.indd 31

26/04/2007 12:02:30

32


and decisions makes it very clear that much language change is unplanned in the formal sense, but rather occurs in the context of other events. This highlights the second issue, that of agency. Language planning is not just a linguistic process, but is strongly influenced by individuals, each with their own agendas (see, e.g., Baldauf & Kaplan 2003). While these language-related agendas may be formal, they often are informal (e.g., Strossner, in Paraguay), relating to some other political or social agenda. Third, the impacts on language are happening at a variety of different levels – the macro, the meso and the micro. While LPP has traditionally concentrated on the former –indeed this series of studies tends to focus on the macro – the latter has become of particular interest in the recent academic literature (see, e.g., Micro language policy, an issue of Current Issues in Language Planning 2006, 7(2–3) with an overview by Baldauf (2006)). The update, by Haboud and King (this volume) to their Ecuador monograph, indicates that when there is inaction at the national level, there are still actions that can be taken by groups and individuals to further LPP in particular local circumstances. A fourth impact is that of the macro political, social and economic processes, and most recently the impact of globalisation and in the linguistic sphere, world English. Many language-related decisions are made based on economic, social and political factors. Initially, the political power of the Spanish State and its Christianising mission had an enormous impact on what languages were used for what purposes. In this volume, Paraguay provides the most dramatic example of how politics and language are linked. More recently, the increasing power of trade blocs (e.g., NAFTA and MERCOSUR, see further references) and their language related agendas provide a further example. Finally, the studies indicate that the increasing need for the world language, English (Brutt-Griffler, 2005), is also influencing what languages are taught to whom in these polities. What this suggests, as we argued in the overview section of this series, is that the paradigm on the basis of which language policy and planning has conventionally been undertaken may be inadequate to the task. Much more is involved in developing successful language policy than is commonly recognised or acknowledged. As these studies demonstrate, language policy development is a highly political activity. Given its political nature, traditional linguistic research is necessary, but not in itself sufficient, and the publication of scholarly studies in academic journals is really only the first step in the process. Indeed, scholarly research itself may need to be expanded, to consider not only the language at issue but also to encompass the social landscape in which that language exists – something these studies try to do. A critical step in policy development involves making research evidence understandable to the lay public; research scholars are not generally the ideal messengers in this context (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2007). Hopefully, the studies in this volume go some small way to contributing to this objective. Note 1. The studies in this volume were previously published as follows: King, K. A. and Haboud, M. (2005) Language planning and policy in Ecuador. Current Issues in Language Planning 3 (4), 379–424; Terborg, R., García Landa, L. and Moore, P. (2006) Language Planning in Mexico. Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (4), 415–518; Gynan, S. N. (2001) Language planning and policy in Paraguay. Current Issues in Language Planning 2 (1), 53–118.

la-3.indd 32

26/04/2007 12:02:30


33

References Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1994) ‘Unplanned’ language policy and planning. In W. Grabe et al. (eds) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14 (pp. 82–89). New York: Cambridge University Press. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2005) Language planning and policy research: An overview. In E Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 957–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2006) Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in an ecological context. Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (2–3), 147–170. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. and Kaplan, R. B. (2003) Language policy decisions and power: Who are the actors? In P. Ryan and R. Terborg (eds) Language: Issues of Inequality (pp. 19–40). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: A Study of Its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Eggington, W. G. (2002) Unplanned language planning. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 404–415). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997) Language Planning From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2003) Language and Language-in-Education Planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kaplan, R. B. and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2007) Language policy spread: Learning from health and social policy models. Language Problems & Language Planning 31 (2), in press. Kaplan, R. B., Baldauf, R. B., Jr., Liddicoat, A. J., Bryant, P., Barbaux, M.-T. and Pütz, M. (2000) Current issues in language planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 1 (2), 135–144. Sánchez, A. and Dueñas, M. (2002) Language planning in the Spanish-speaking world. Current Issues in Language Planning 3 (3), 280–305.

Further Reading Ecuador Arguello, F. M. (1986) Adult literacy campaigns in a multilingual country: Official vs. indigenous languages. In N. Schweda-Nicholson and R. J. Di Pietro (eds) Languages in the International Perspective (pp. 41–55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Calvache, R. (1987) Primer seminario taller para la unificacion de alfabetos Awa [The first workshop seminar devoted to the unification of Awa alphabets]. Glotta 2 (2), 43–46. Coronel Molina, S. M. (2002) Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Language Policy 1 (2), 204–207. Gomez Font, A. (1998). El manual de Espanol urgente de EFE [The EFE manual of urgent Spanish]. Chasqui 62 (June), 48–52. Guitarte, G. L. and Quintero, R. T. (1974) Linguistic correctness and the role of the academies in Latin America. In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in Language Planning (pp. 315–368). The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Hornberger, N. H. (1998) Language policy and ideological paradox: A comparative look at bilingual intercultural education policy and practice in three Andean countries. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 419395, 46 pp. Hornberger, N. H. (2001) Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility: Andean language-in-education policy and practice and its relevance for South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 19 (3–4), 215–230. Hornberger, N. H. and King, K. A. (1996) Bringing the language forward: School-based initiatives for Quechua language revitalization in Ecuador and Bolivia. In N. H. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 299–319). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hornberger, N. H. and King, K. A. (1996) Language revitalisation in the Andes: Can the schools reverse language shift? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17 (6), 427–441.

la-3.indd 33

26/04/2007 12:02:30

34


Hornberger, N. H. and King, K. A. (1998) Authenticity and unification in Quechua language planning. Language, Culture and Curriculum 11 (3), 390–410. Hornberger, N. H. and Skilton Sylvester, E. (2000) Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language and Education, 14 (2), 96–122. King, K. A. (1994) Acquisition planning, ethnic discourse, and the Ecuadorian nationstate. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 10 (1), 33–46. King, K. A. (1999) Language revitalisation processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Language and Education 13 (1), 17–37. Quilis Sanz, M. J. (2002) Les Academies de la langue espagnole [Academies of the Spanish Language]. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 28 (1–2), 187–199. Trillos Amaya, M. (1988) Segundo seminario-taller para la unificacion de alfabetos Awa [The second seminar-workshop for the unification of Awa Alphabets]. Glotta 3 (2), 48–50.

Mexico Anonymous. (1993) Programa de lenguas y literatura indigenas 1993 [Indigenous languages and literature program 1993]. America Indigena 32 (supplement), 129–133. Adelaar, W. F. H. (2000) Politicas linguisticas en Mexico [Linguistic policy in Mexico]. International Journal of American Linguistics 66 (2), 266–269. Althoff, D. (1994) Afro-Mestizo speech from Costa Chica, Guerrero: From Cuaji to Cuijla. Language Problems & Language Planning 18 (3), 242–256. Arizpe, E. (1994) Whose Spanish? Language and literature in the secondary school in Mexico. In M. Hayhoe and S. Parker (eds) Who Owns English? (pp. 53–61). Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Aubague, L. (1986) Les Strategies de resistance des langues precolombiennes au Mexique [Resistance strategies of pre-Columbian languages in Mexico]. Langages 83, 111–116. Bernard, H. R. (1996) Language preservation and publishing. In N. H. Hornberger (ed.), Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 139– 156). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bravo Ahuja, G. R. de (1983) Aspectos sociolinguisticos de la politica linguistica de Mexico [Scoiolinguistic aspects of language planning in Mexico]. In J. Fernandez-Sevilla, H. Lopez Morales, J. A. d. Molina, A. Quilis, G. Salvador and E. Alvar (eds) Philologica Hispaniensia in Honorem Manuel Alvar, I: Dialectologia (pp. 119–130). Madrid: Gredos. Bravo Ahuja, G. R. de (1992) The process of bilingualism in a multiethnic context. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 96, 45–52. Campuzano Volpe, L. (2003) Experiences from the first workshop on the redaction of ethnic content in O’dam (Tepehuan): Stories for children. Revista Latina de Pensamiento y Lenguaje y Neuropsychologia Latina 12 (1), 11–19. Canger, U. (1994) A book in an unwritten language. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27 (1), 79–89. Chamoreau, C., Martinet, A., and Campagnolo, H. (1996) Le plurilinguisme: une realite mexicaine [Multilingualism: A Mexican reality]. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 22–23 (3–4/1–2), 63–68. Cifuentes, B. (1992) Language policy in Mexico. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 96, 9–17. Cifuentes, B. (1994). Las lenguas amerinda y la conformacion de la lengua nacional en Mexico en el siglo XIX [The Amerindian languages and the creation of a national Mexican language in the nineteenth century] Language Problems & Language Planning 18 (3), 208–222. Cifuentes, B., and Pellicer, D. (1989) Ideology, politics and national language: A study in the creation of a national language in 19th century Mexico. Sociolinguistics 18 (1–2), 7–17. Coronado Suzan, G. (1992) Educacion bilingue en Mexico: propositos y realidades. [Bilingual education in Mexico: Intentions and realities] International Journal of the Sociology of Language 96, 53–70. Drake, D. M. (1978) Bilingual education programs for Indian children in Mexico. Modern Language Journal 62 (5–6), 239–248.

la-3.indd 34

26/04/2007 12:02:30


35

Fernandez Lagunes, X., Paniagua, S. J., Encarnacion Arenas, Q. and Encarnacion Arenas, H. (1987) Situacion linguistica en el norte de Veracruz [The linguistic situation in Northern Veracruz]. America Indigena 47 (4), 685–688. Flores Farfan, J. A. (2001) Culture and language revitalization, maintenance, and development in Mexico: The Nahua Alto Balsas communities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152, 185–197. Freedson, M., and Perez Perez, E. E. (1995) Educacion bilingue-bicultural y modernizacion en Los Altos de Chiapas [Bilingual and bicultural education and modernization in the highlands of Chiapas]. America Indigena 55 (1–2), 383–424. Gonzalez Ventura, J. L. (1996) Experiences in the development of a writing system for Nuu Savi. In N. H. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 157–169). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Guitarte, G. L., and Quintero, R. T. (1974) Linguistic correctness and the role of the academies in Latin America. In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in Language Planning (pp. 315–368). The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Gutierrez, M. J. (1994) La influencia de ‘los de abajo’ en tres procesos de cambio linguistico en el espanol de Morelia, Michoacan [The impact of ‘the underclass’ in three processes of linguistic change in the Spanish of Morelia, Michoacan]. Language Problems & Language Planning 18 (3), 257–269. Guzman Betancourt, I. (1995) La politica linguistica de la Compania de Jesus en Nueva Espana [The linguistic policy of the Company of Jesus in New Spain]. Revista Latina de Pensamiento y Lenguaje 2 (2B), 381–390. Hamel, R. E. (1986) La politica del lenguaje y el conflicto interetnico. Problemas de investigacion sociolinguistica [Language policy and the interethnic conflict. Sociolinguistic research issues]. Escritos 1 (2), 7–36. Hamel, R. E. (1992) Interner Sprachkolonialismus in Mexiko. Die Minorisierung von Indianersprachen in der Alltagskommunikation [Internal language colonialism in Mexico. Minoritization of Indian languages in daily communication]. LiLi, Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 22 (85), 116–149. Hamel, R. E. (1995) Conflictos entre lenguas y derechos linguisticos: perspectivas de analisis sociolinguistico [Language conflict and linguistic human rights: A sociolinguistic framework]. Alteridades 5 (10), 79–88. Hamel, R. E. (1995) Derechos linguisticos como derechos humanos: debates y perspectivas [Linguistic rights as human rights: Debates and perspectives]. Alteridades 5 (10), 11–23. Hamel, R. E. (1997) Language conflict and language shift: A sociolinguistic framework for linguistic human rights. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127, 105–134. Hidalgo, M. (1994) Bilingual education, nationalism and ethnicity in Mexico: From theory to practice. Language Problems & Language Planning 18 (3), 185–207. Hidalgo, M. (1996) A profile of language issues in contemporary Mexico. In A. Roca and J. B. Jensen (eds) Spanish in Contact: Issues in Bilingualism (pp. 45–72). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Hidalgo, M. (2001) Historia de los pueblos indigenas de Mexico. Letras sobre voces. Multilinguismo a traves de la historia [History of the indigenous towns of Mexico. Letters over words. Multilingualism across history]. Language Problems & Language Planning 25 (2), 201–207. Lastra de Suarez, Y. (1978) Bilingualism in Mexico. In J. E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Martinez Casas, M. R. (1998) Los avatares de las politicas linguisticas en Mexico [The avatars of linguistic policies in Mexico]. Revista Latina de Pensamiento y Lenguaje 6 (2), 1–19. Mena Ledesma, P. (1999) Actitudes linguisticas e ideologias educativas [Linguistic attitudes and educative ideologies]. Alteridades 9 (17), 51–70. Morren, R. C. (1992) Educacion bilingue: ¿Cual idioma primero? [Bilingual education: Which language should be first? Winak: Boletin Intercultural 8 (1–4), 43–57. Morris, M. A. (2003) Effects of North American integration on linguistic diversity. In

la-3.indd 35

26/04/2007 12:02:30

36


J. Maurais and M. A. Morris (eds) Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 143–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muntzel, M. C. (1987) Una experiencia mexicana: el ocuilteco [A Mexican experience: Ocuilteco]. America Indigena 47 (4), 607–613. Muntzel, M. C. and Perez Gonzalez, B. (1987) Panorama general de las lenguas indigenas [General overview of the indigenous languages]. America Indigena 47 (4), 571–605. Nahmad Sitton, S. (1998) Derechos linguisticos de los pueblos indigenas de Mexico [Linguistic rights of the indigenous pueblos of Mexico]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 132, 143–161. Ortiz Gomez, F. (1995) Los mayahablantes y los derechos humanos [Maya speakers and human rights]. Winak: Boletin Intercultural 11 (1–4), 55–67. Paciotto, C. (2004) Language policy, indigenous languages and the village school: A study of bilingual education for the Tarahumara of Northern Mexico. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7 (6), 529–548. Patthey, G. G. (1989) Mexican language policy. New Language Planning Newsletter 3 (3), 1–6. Pecheur, J. (1999) Retour aux sources pour un nouveau depart: Entretien avec le comite d’organisation [Return to the sources for a new start. An interview with the organizational committee]. Francais dans le Monde 304 (May-June), 15. Podesta, R. (1991) ¿Contribuye la educacion mexicana en la vitalizacion de las lenguas indigenas? Analisis de experiencias educativas en comunidades nahuatlatas del Estado de Puebla [Does Mexican education contribute to the revitalization of indigenous languages? An analysis of educative experiments in Nahuatl communities in the State of Puebla]. Escritos 7 (Jan-June), 131–146. Quilis Sanz, M. J. (2002) Les Academies de la langue espagnole [Academies of the Spanish language]. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 28 (1–2), 187–199. Rall, D. (1999) Sprachpolitik Deutsch in Lateinamerika [German language policies in Latin America]. In A. Raasch (ed.) Deutsch und Andere Fremdsprachen-International LanderBerichte-Sprachenpolitische Analysen-Anregungen [German and Other Foreign Languages-International State Reports-Language Policy Analyses-Suggestions] (pp. 87–92). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Rolstad, K. (2001–2002) Language death in central Mexico: The decline of Nahuatl and the New bilingual maintenance programs. The Bilingual Review/La revista bilingue 26 (1), 3–18. Sacerdoti, G. (1976) Lingua e lingue nel messico [Language and Languages in Mexico]. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 5 (3), 579–594. Sagi-Vela Gonzalez, A., and Thiemer-Sachse, U. (2005) The names of the Ayuuk [Ayuuk Ja’ay] or Mixe, Oaxaca, Mexico. Anthropos 100 (1), 151–171. Salinas Pedraza, J. (1996) Saving and strengthening indigenous Mexican languages: The CELIAC experience. In N. H. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 171–187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sanchez, A. (1992) Politica de difusion del espanol [Spanish language-spread policy]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 95, 51–69. Sanchez Azuara, G. (1987) Campana para revertir el mestizaje de las lenguas indigenas de Mexico [Campaign to reverse the process of contamination among Mexican indigenous languages]. America Indigena 47 (4), 671–673. Schrader-Kniffki, M. (2004) Language policy from the top and the bottom. The case of Oaxaca, Mexico. Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana 2 (1(3)), 193–217. Schumann, O. (1992) Situacion linguistica en la frontera sur [The linguistic situation of the southern frontier]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 96, 89–95. Stiles, N. (1983) Mexico and the ethnolinguist experiment. Incorporated Linguist 22 (4), 205–206. Suarez, J. A. (1983) The Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tujab, G. (1987) La politica de revitalizacion de las lenguas mayas [The politics of Mayan language revitalization]. America Indigena 47 (3), 535–545. Wagner, L. (2001) Malintzin: Bilinguismo y alfabetizacion en la Sierra de Tlaxcala (Mexico)

la-3.indd 36

26/04/2007 12:02:31


37

[Malintzin: Bilingualism and literacy in Sierra de Tlaxcala (Mexico)]. Language Problems & Language Planning 25 (2), 185–187. Weller, G. (1986) Guerrero: A pilot study for the decision-making process on language policy in Mexico. In N. Schweda-Nicholson and R. J. Di Pietro (eds) Languages in the International Perspective (pp. 255–273). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Zimmermann, K. (2004) El contacto de las lenguas amerindias con el espanol en Mexico [The Contact between Amerindian languages and Spanish in Mexico]. Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana 2 (2(4)), 19–39.

Paraguay Chareille, S. (2003) Planificacion linguistica y constitucion de un bloque regional: el caso del Mercosur (Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay y Uruguay) y de Chile [Language planning and the constitution of a regional bloc: The case of Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) and Chile]. Language Problems & Language Planning 27 (1), 63–70. Choi, J. K. (2004) La planificacion linguistica y la revivificacion del guarani en el Paraguay: Comparacion, evaluacion e implicacion [Language planning and language spread of Guarani in Paraguay: Comparison, evaluation, and implication]. Language Problems & Language Planning 28 (3), 241–259. Corvalan, G. (1976) El bilinguismo en el Paraguay: Caracteristicas y evolucion [Bilingualism in Paraguay: Characteristics and evolution]. Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 13 (37), 7–35. Corvalan, G. (1977) Avances en el estudio del bilinguismo en el Paraguay [Advances in the study of bilingualism in Paraguay]. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8 (2), 16–17. Corvalan, G. (1981) El bilinguismo en la educacion en el Paraguay: ¿es creativo u opresivo? [Bilingualism in education in Paraguay: Is it creative or oppressive?] Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 18 (52), 179–200. Corvalan, G. (1984) Education in the mother tongue and educational achievement in Paraguay. Prospects 14 (1), 95–106. Corvalan, G. (1998) La educacion escolar bilingue del Paraguay. Avances y desafios [Bilingual school education in Paraguay. Advances and challenges]. Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 35 (103), 101–118. Corvalan, G. (2000) Consideraciones para las politicas linguisticas del Paraguay [Considerations for linguistic policies in Paraguay]. Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 37 (109), 137–153. Engelbrecht, G., and Ortiz, L. (1983) Guarani literacy in Paraguay. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 42, 53–67. Gynan, S. N. (2001) Paraguayan language policy and the future of Guarani. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 20 (1), 151–165. Hamel, R. E. (2003) Regional blocks as a barrier against English hegemony? The language policy of Mercosur in South America. In J. Maurais and M. A. Morris (eds) Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 111–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Melia, B. (1974) Bibliografia sobre el ‘bilinguismo’ del Paraguay [A bibliography on bilingualism in Paraguay]. Estudios Paraguayos 2 (2), 73–82. Munoz Cruz, H. (2003) The Guarani-speaking modality, or the improbable transition from social bilingualism to scholastic bilingualism in Paraguay. Signos Literarios y Linguisticos 5 (1), 185–213. Pic Gillard, C. (2000) La transformacion de un pais plurilingue en un pais bilingue. Un caso ejemplar: El Paraguay [The transformation of a plurilingual country within a bilingual country. A case example: Paraguay]. Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 37 (109), 155–183. Rodriguez-Alcala, C. (2002) La langue comme probleme urbain: le guarani a la campagne et dans l’espace public de la ville. [Language as an urban problem: Guarani in the countryside and in the public space of the city] Langage et Societe 101 (Sept), 55–97. Rodriguez-Alcala, C. (2004) The imaginary construction of the Paraguayan nation by discourse on Guarani as a national language. Cahiers de l’ ILSL, 17, 171–189.

la-3.indd 37

26/04/2007 12:02:31

38


Rubin, J. (1968) Bilingual usage in Paraguay. In J. Fishman (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Rubin, J. (1968) Language education in Paraguay. In J. A. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (eds) Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: Wiley. Rubin, J. (1978) Toward bilingual education for Paraguay. In J. E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schmidt, C. (1999) Deutsch in Paraguay [German in Paraguay]. In A. Raasch (ed.) Deutsch und Andere Fremdsprachen-International LanderBerichte-Sprachenpolitische Analysen-Anregungen [German and Other Foreign Languages-International State Reports-Language Policy Analyses-Suggestions] (pp. 235–237). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Stark, L. R. (1983) Alphabets and national policy: The case of Guarani. In A. W. Miracle, Jr., R. L. Blakely and N. C. England (eds) Bilingualism: Social Issues and Policy Implications (pp. 70–83). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

la-3.indd 38

26/04/2007 12:02:31

Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen

CIP 033

Language Planning and Policy in Ecuador Kendall A. King Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics, Washington DC, USA

Marleen Haboud Department of Linguistics, Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, 12 de Octubre y Carrión, Quito, Ecuador. Colegio de Artes Liberales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Campus Cumbayá, Cumbayá, Ecuador This monograph presents up-to-date information concerning language planning and policy in Ecuador, highlighting the country’s cultural and linguistic diversity, historical context, current sociolinguistic situation and possible directions for the future. Taking into account Ecuador’s particular sociopolitical conditions, it aims to provide a comprehensive review of language policies and planning, as well as educational policies and programmes involving use of minoritised languages in media, education, religion and public official spaces. This monograph also underlines some of the challenges non-official languages confront vis à vis the dominant society, allowing for a better understanding of the dynamics of indigenous languages and organisations in Ecuador and the Andes.

Keywords: Ecuador, language planning, education, Andes, indigenous languages, Quechua

Introduction The Republic of Ecuador, which sits on the equator on the north west coast of South America, is limited by Colombia on the north and by Peru on the south and east (see Figure 1). The population of 12,156,608 occupies a territory of 256,370 km2 (96,579.39 miles2) (INEC, 2001), constituting one of the smallest countries in Latin America. The history of the country has been profoundly influenced by the existence of three major geographic regions: la Costa (the Coast /S/), la Sierra (the Highlands /S/) and the Oriente (the Amazon Basin /S/),1 and by the presence of indigenous groups in each of these regions, which together characterise Ecuador as a multilingual, multiethnic and multicultural country. In addition to Spanish, roughly a dozen indigenous languages are spoken. Shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards, the Highlands and a portion of the Coast were conquered by the Incas, who imposed their language, Quechua, on the groups residing in those regions. Ecuador’s history as a Spanish colony began in 1532. Soon after the Spanish conquest, Spanish became the de facto official language of Ecuador, and the existing sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems were restructured and modelled after those in Spain (Guevara, 1972). With independence from Spain, the new national Government aimed to assimilate the indigenous population into mainstream society, albeit to the detriment of indigenous identity and culture. In 1830, for instance, the Government proposed to eradicate all trace of Indianness and ‘to Christianize the Indians in order to help them learn how to develop a political reasoning that could help them participate in the construction of the nation’ (Martinez, 1995: 46). However, even after more than 500 years of contact under hugely unfavourable circumstances, many of the Indian languages have survived to the present day. 39 Language Planning and Policy in Ecuador

E:\Stephen Cracknell\Mes documents\cilp\latin-america\la-4-ventura8.vp 02 March 2007 16:56:14

CIP 033


40

CIP 033


Figure 1 Map of Ecuador Source: Adapted from: http://www.worldrover.com/country/ecuador_main.html

At present, the great part of the population is made up of mestizos (individuals of mixed indigenous and Spanish heritage) and indigenous people. The so-called ‘whites’, most of them descendants from Spanish settlers, constitute around 10% of the total population; they have, however, exercised political and economic power since the conquest of the country by the Spaniards early in the 16th century. This group traditionally has defined national Ecuadorian culture in terms of the country’s Hispanic heritage. The middle class is largely made up of mestizos and less well-off whites, who occupy positions in administration, the military, or in the professions and smaller businesses. Anxious to distance themselves from the lower class, the middle class has traditionally identified with upper-class values and traditions. Indian people, as well as the Afroecuadorian population, whose ancestors were brought to the country as slaves during the Spanish conquest, occupy the bottom rung of the social hierarchy. Thus,

E:\Stephen Cracknell\Mes documents\cilp\latin-america\la-4-ventura8.vp 27 April 2007 10:03:58


CIP 033

Language Planning and Policy in Ecuador

41

although Ecuador can be defined by its geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity, the dominant tone has historically been set by the Hispanic heritage and the Spanish language; however, the linguistic and cultural differences among the native groups have persisted until now. Framed by Ecuador’s historical context and present sociopolitical situation, this monograph focuses on the indigenous languages of Ecuador and their longstanding contact with the dominant society. More specifically, this monograph presents the current status of language policy and language planning in Ecuador, and provides an overview of language-use patterns in public and private contexts in the country. This overview highlights five themes: (1) the dynamic and shifting relationships between languages and their speakers; (2) the continued loss of indigenous languages and the ongoing transition towards Spanish monolingualism; (3) the continually, and at times rapidly, shifting politics and practices concerning language and education; (4) the longstanding gaps between official policy and rhetoric concerning indigenous populations and languages on the one hand, and implementation of programmes to meet those goals on the other; and (5) the dramatic expansion of indigenous power in recent decades, coupled with unexpected sociopolitical changes which make the linguistic situation unpredictable. This monograph consists of four sections. In the first, we provide a general overview of the language profile of Ecuador, including numbers and location of speakers, and the current status of Ecuador’s indigenous languages. We highlight the role of internal and external migration and discuss the difficulty of gathering accurate demographic data. Next, we turn to the issue of language spread, focusing on language and education. This section discusses the significant steps towards intercultural bilingual education that have taken place in recent years and the challenges faced in implementing these programmes. In the following section, we focus on language policy and planning, highlighting the informal nature of planning and policy in Ecuador, as well as the multiple indirect channels of planning in the country, including adult education programmes, publishing, mass media, and religion. In the fourth and final section, we discuss the prospects of language maintenance and point to some of the lesser-known grassroots efforts to revitalise Quichua and other indigenous languages of the country. We conclude the monograph with a recapitulation and brief analysis of the most recent changes in the country that have placed a sector of the indigenous population in positions of relative power. We briefly discuss possible outcomes of these unprecedented shifts in power and their impact on language maintenance.

Overview: Languages and Speakers Terms and definitions All languages in Ecuador other than Spanish are considered ‘minority languages’. However, this term is ambiguous as it potentially refers either to a numerical minority or to less powerful speakers who may in fact constitute a numerical majority (see Haboud, 1998; Wiley, 1996). The non-Spanish languages spoken in the Andean and Amazonian regions are referred to as ‘native’, ‘autochthonous’, ‘vernacular’, ‘indigenous’, ‘unofficial’, ‘oppressed’ and ‘sub-


Morona


*only 5 to 10 speakers Source: Adapted from Haboud, 1999

Tetete Zaparo

Napo

Kayapi or Zápara*

N/A

N/A

(1991) 2000

Achuar/Shuar

(1981) 32,000

(1976–1981) 14,000

Achuar

Runa Shimi/Quichua

(1987) 800

N/A

N/A

(1981) 290

(1987) 400

(1976–1987) 1,405,000

(1987) 1800

(1987) 5000

(1986) ‘many’

N/A

N/A

5000

40,000

30,000

600

N/A

N/A

1000

800

3,000,000

2000

4000

N/A

1600

N/A

N/A

N/A

50,000

N/A

1300

250

150–200

N/A

650

2,000,000

2000

8000

60

3500

190

N/A

N/A

37,492

N/A

1927

N/A

N/A

846

635

621,517

1020

8040

N/A

3221

CONAIE, Montaluisa, PRODEPINE 1998 1998–2001 1989

Population size by source and date SIL (dates vary)

Pastaza, Morona

Quichua

All Amazonian provinces

Waotededo (Huao Tiriro)

Paicoca

Paicoca

Paicoca

Aìngae

Runa Shimi/Quichua

Tsa’fiqui

Cha’palaachi

Epera Pedede

Awapi’t

Language

Pastaza, Morona and Zamora Shuar–Achuar Shuar Chicham

Secoya Wao (Huao)

Siona

Sucumbíos

Pastaza

Siona-Secoya

Sucumbíos

Sucumbíos

A’i (Cofán)

Sucumbíos

Tsachila

Pichincha

Amazon

Chachi

Esmeraldas Quichua

Enbera

Esmeraldas

Highlands All Andean provinces except Carchi

Awa

Esmeraldas

Coast

Nationality

Province

Region

Table 1 Indigenous groups in Ecuador


42



CIP 033


43

standard’ (see Albó, 1979: 310–11). Haboud (1998, 2001c) has suggested the use of the term minoritised instead of minority in order to underline the unbalanced sociolinguistic contact situation (and outcomes) in which dominant and subordinate relations are more important than numbers. Following this argument, we have chosen to use ‘minoritised’ instead of ‘minority’ here. In the analysis of minoritised languages in Ecuador, it is also important to clarify the terms Indian (indio /S/), black (negro /S/), and nationality (nacionalidad /S/). In recent years, Indian and Afroecuadorian organisations have chosen to use formally stigmatised terms such as indio and negro as symbols of self-recognition, empowerment, and pride vis à vis the official discourse. Indian people and Indian organisations view themselves as ‘nationalities’ in order to convey their common history and quest for self-determination. Nationalities are recognised beyond state boundaries; for instance, Quichua speakers recognise their nationality with fellow speakers from other Andean countries such as Peru or Bolivia. This has generated official concern regarding the differences between ‘nation’ and ‘nationality’; to address this issue, the 1998 Constitution (Art 83) clearly states that the term nationality has been chosen by the Indian people, and that acceptance of the term does not imply detachment from the rest of the country: ‘The indigenous peoples, self-defined as nationalities with ancestral roots, and the black or Afroecuadorian peoples, are part of the Ecuadorian State, which is one and indivisible’ (emphasis ours). The terms ‘Indian’ and ‘indigenous’ on the one hand, and ‘nationalities’, ‘groups’, and ‘people(s)’ on the other, will be used here as synonyms. In Ecuador, there is no general consensus concerning the number of speakers of different languages, the number of indigenous groups, or even the location of some of the groups, and official demographic estimates differ depending on the source (see Table 1). The Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador / S/ (CONAIE)) claims that at least 40–45% of the total population of the country (12,156,608) is indigenous (INEC, 2001; SIISE, 2002b). Other studies maintain that 25–30% of the population is indigenous (Chiodi, 1990), while more conservative figures drop to 15% (Ortiz, 1992) or even 5.3% (PRODEPINE, 2002a). These discrepancies largely result from the lack of precise data collection methods and the rejection by indigenous people of the national census as biased. This lack of general demographic information characterises Quichua, the most widely spoken indigenous language of Ecuador, as well as other indigenous languages of the country with much smaller numbers of speakers. Quichua Quichua, usually known in most regions outside of Ecuador as Quechua,2 is spoken to a greater or lesser extent in the Andean countries of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina (see King & Hornberger, in press, for an overview of Quechua linguistic and sociolinguistic research). In Ecuador, Quichua is spoken in nine of the ten highland provinces and in the Amazon Basin to the east of the Andean mountain range. Although the word Quichua is in general use in Ecuador, older speakers in the Central Provinces of Cotopaxi and Tungurahua, and in the province of Loja in the south, still refer to the language as inga. A similar


44

Language Planning and Policy in the Pacific, Vol. 1

Carchi Esmeraldas Imbabura 6XFXPEĎRV

Pichincha 1DSR Manabi

Orelana

/RV 5LRV Guayas

%ROLYDU

&RWRSD[L Tungurahua R

D]

U ER

Pastaza

LP

&K

Cañar

0RUHQD6DQWLDJR

Azuay (O2UR /RMD

Zamara Chinchipe

Figure 2 Map of Ecuador by province Source: Adapted from SIISE, 2002b

denomination is used in Colombia (see Hornberger and Coronel-Molina, in press). In political arenas, national and local Indian organisations tend to use the Quichua term, runasimi or runashimi (‘human language’ /Q/), to underline the importance and strength of the language and its speakers within a space of political controversy. In the same vein, Amazon Quichua people have rejected all the names that mistakenly have been used to label them and their languages (e.g. Quijos, Alamas Yumbos) and have chosen to identify themselves as Runas (‘people’ or ‘person’ /Q/) (Guerrero, 2001). Significantly, the word runa continues to be used by non-indigenous, Spanish-speaking Ecuadorians to connote ‘poor’, ‘bad quality’, or ‘cheap’ (Haboud, in press). Ecuadorian Quichua has two main varieties: highland Quichua and lowland Quichua. Highland Quichua consists of three sub-varieties: (1) Northern (found in the provinces of Imbabura and Pichincha); (2) Central (provinces of Cotopaxi,

la-4figs.indd 44

27/04/2007 10:05:35


45

Figure 3 Distribution of Quichua population along the Ecuadorian provinces* Source: Haboud 2003 *Note that the map shows demographic tendencies, with darker provinces having traditionally greater numbers of Quichuas. The migrant Quichua population is not represented here.

Tungurahua, Bolivar and Chimborazo); and (3) Southern (Cañar, Azuay and Loja). Lowland Quichua is further divided into three sub-varieties: (1) Bobonaza (province of Pastaza); (2) Tena (Napo); and (3) Limoncocha (Orellana). (See Figures 2 and 3 for province map and location of Quichua speakers.) Each of these varieties is still in use (Haboud, in press). Quichua is recognised both implicitly and explicitly as the predominant Indian language in the country. The reformed Constitution of 1979 (Art. 1) recognised both Quichua and the other indigenous languages of Ecuador as a part of the country’s cultural heritage, thus giving them the status of national languages: ‘Spanish is the official language. Quichua and the other aboriginal languages are recognised as integral parts of the national culture.’

la-4figs.indd 45

27/04/2007 10:05:36

2002

PRODEPINE


Source: Adapted from Haboud, 1999

1990

1998

Montaluisa

Census

1987

Knapp

1998

1986

Board of Education

1998

1981–2

Córdova (316 questionnaires)

Haboud

1950

Census (older than 6 years old)

CONAIE

Year

Source

12,646,095 (Projections)

9,648.189

9,648,189 (1990 census)

11,180,514

11,180,514

8,395,344

8,179,510

7,180,775

3,202,757

Total Ecuadorian population

Table 2 Estimates of Ecuadorian Quichua population


621,517

340,000

2,000,000 (includes different levels of bilingualism)

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,360,107 (based on projections of 1950 census)

2,000,000

900,000

444,000

Total number of Quichua speakers

0.49%

0.35%

20.72%

26.83%

17.88%

16.2%

24.4%

12.53%

2.4%

As a percentage of the total population

46



CIP 033


47

Despite the fact that Quechua is the most widely spoken indigenous language in South America, the total number of Quechua speakers is unknown. Parker (1963) and Cerrón-Palomino (1987) estimate eight million for all of South America (Argentina 120,000; Brazil 700; Colombia 4402; Bolivia 1,594,000; Peru 4,402,023) and 2,233,000 for Ecuador. Estimates concerning the Ecuadorian Quichua population display equally great variation depending on the criteria of Indianness and the methodological procedures used by the researchers. For instance, some of the major sociolinguistic studies developed during the 1970s and 1980s used a limited number of interviews or non-Indian interviewers. Others were only based upon census projections or were specific to a single geographic area (cf. Büttner, 1993; Córdova, 1987; Floyd, 2002; Haboud, 1991; Moya, 1979). The widely fluctuating estimates (between 340,000 and 3,000,000) of Ecuador’s Quichua population are evident in Table 2. As can be seen, demographic information concerning the Quichua population (and the Indian population in general) in urban Ecuador is inadequate. Ecuador, like most Latin American countries, has high rates of rural–urban internal migration. Presently, urban areas are home to 62.7% of the country’s population (CEPAR, 2001; United Nations, 1996, in Katz, 2000: 4). Rural areas lose between 1–3% of their population to urban migration every decade (see Haboud, in press). Within these new urban contexts, there are no obvious methods for determining the ethnic affiliation of any one individual and for discriminating between one’s ethnic identification and language knowledge. Still, recent local studies suggested that, by February 2002, there would be 350,000 indigenous people and 120 Indian organisations in the capital city of Quito (El Hoy, February, 2002), an estimate which is slightly higher than that of the official 1990 census regarding the indigenous population of the entire country (340,000). The linguistic and sociolinguistic situation of Quichua varies considerably by region, having been shaped by longstanding contact with both Spanish and indigenous languages (Hornberger and Coronel-Molina, in press). As an example, Moreno Yánez (1976: 97 in Garcés, 1999: 44) and González Suárez (1970 [1892]) illustrate how, during the colonial period, Quichua was used by the church to evangelise, educate and pacify the Indian population and by the Spanish conquistadores to consolidate their conquest and facilitate their commercial activities (see also Haboud, 1998; Niño-Murcia, 1988). At the same time, Quichua was used by the Indian people as the primary means of communication. Espejo, one of the mestizo leaders of the independence movement who strongly defended Indian identity, argued that use of Spanish only ‘would facilitate vertical communication, but most of all, would eliminate all forms of cultural resistance so that they [the Indian people] would become fully conquered . . . and would lose all elements of their identity’ (Ramón, 1993: 220, in Garcés, 1999: 43). Quichua continues to play a public, strategic role in the country. Politicians use Quichua to gain votes; some religious organisations use it to increase members; and national television stations employ it to create sophisticated tourist-oriented advertisements. For native speakers, Quichua continues to be an important means of intra-communal communication and organisation and an effective tool of empowerment vis à vis the dominant society (see Haboud, in press). National Indian movements in Ecuador have raised consciousness of


CIP 033


48


Quichua’s presence in the country, using the language as a symbol of indigenous permanence and resistance. Indeed, the language has been publicly and strategically used during national and local uprisings (Ibarra Illanez, 1992). The highly political nature of speaking Quichua and of identifying oneself as a Quichua speaker has complicated the process of gathering accurate demographic data. As these issues are critical for understanding the current situation within the country, as well as the prospects of language loss and revitalisation, these challenges are addressed directly in the following section. Demographic assessments As noted previously, demographic information about minoritised languages and people in Ecuador remains limited and inaccurate (see Table 2), posing serious difficulties for planners, politicians, social scientists and educators. Such ambiguity is largely rooted in conceptual and methodological disagreements in determining the boundaries of an ethnic group. As an example, the most recent national census (November, 2001) included one question about spoken language(s) (number 5, ¿Cuál es el idioma o lengua que habla? What language do you speak? /S/) and one about race and ethnic background (number 6, ¿Cómo se considera: ¿indígena, negro (Afro-ecuatoriano) mestizo, mulato, blanco u otro? How do you conceive of yourself: Indigenous, Black (Afro-Ecuadorian), mestizo, mulato, white or other? /S/) (INEC, 2001). Census interviewers publicly reported the difficulties and disagreements that members of the same family had in labelling their ethnic background. The main criterion was the respondents’ individual perceptions of their own skin colour. Given the drastic changes that indigenous peoples and organisations have experienced during recent decades (including, for instance, greater awareness of ethnic identities, and the positive and powerful images of indigenous cultural groups) and their political impact in the country, self-reports by speakers are highly variable. Santiago Ortega (census interviewer, personal communication, November 2001; July 2002) has argued that it would be naïve to place much confidence in these self-reported affiliations. The 1990 census was also problematic and thus less than accurate. One major problem was that Indian organisations organised a boycott of the census in 1990 as part of the largest ever indigenous uprising in Ecuador (La reafirmación indígena, n.d.). In addition, analysis of final report of the 1990 census shows serious conceptual flaws. For instance, población indígena ecuatoriana (Ecuadorian indigenous population /S/), and población que habla una lengua nativa (Ecuadorian indigenous population that speaks a native language /S/) are treated as synonyms. More generally, social scientists working in peasant and Indian communities argue that the ‘Ecuadorian censuses have not provided us with appropriate means of understanding the linguistic geography of Ecuador . . . It is thanks to the census that the portrait of the Ecuadorian population has been dramatically bleached’ (Fernando Ortega, personal communication, August 2002). A related difficulty in determining the ethnic affiliation and linguistic competence of any one person is related to geography and migration. Given that Indian and Afroecuadorian people have traditionally inhabited rural areas, there is a tendency to confuse ruralness with Indianness and blackness. However, over the



CIP 033


49

last 30 years there has been large-scale rural-urban immigration. Thirty percent of the population lived in urban areas in 1950; by 2002 this percentage was 70. Due to the general tendency to relate urbanity with mestizo identity, those indigenous persons who have migrated are often viewed as mestizos (see SIISE, 2002a). This tendency thus automatically excludes people residing in urban areas, as well as black or indigenous people who have achieved a higher socioeconomic position. This perspective also reinforces the relationships among ethnic group, poverty, low status, and discrimination that favours language shift, loss and death (see SIISE, 2002b). It is imperative that appropriate census techniques be developed that can measure the impact of these contextual factors on the ethnic, cultural and linguistic recognition of groups and individuals (Ortiz, 1992). Social scientists also disagree on the total number of languages and ethnic groups in Ecuador. Data from several official and non-official sources vary from 8 to 12 groups (see CONAIE, 1989; Garcés & Alvarez, 1997; Moya, 1997; Vries, 1988). A possible explanation for these discrepancies rests with the fact that some indigenous groups have similar cultural and linguistic characteristics, and that groups with very small numbers are often not taken into account. For instance, this is the case of the Epera and Záparo nationalities on the Coast and the Amazonian, respectively (see CONAIE, 1989; Moya, 1997). Similarly, other groups might be counted as separate or unified. This is illustrated by lowland Amazonian groups such as Siona and Secoya, or Shuar and Achuar, grouped separately or together depending on the researchers’ criteria and interests. In contrast, Quichua people from the Highlands and the Amazon Basin are sometimes considered to be two different groups based upon geographic location or dialectal variation (Grimes, 1999; Vries, 1988). In spite of these discrepancies, academic institutions devoted to the study of Indian nationalities such as Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (Salesian Polytechnic University /S/), based on Garcés and Alvarez (1997) tend to recognise 12 different languages and ethnic nationalities, each of which is briefly described in the following section. Other indigenous languages in Ecuador Linguistic and sociolinguistic information concerning Coastal and Amazonian languages is scarce and highly variable depending on the sources and the researchers. Based on the most recent available data, this section offers a brief description of the languages spoken in these regions.

Coastal languages The existing languages of the Coastal region of Ecuador are Awapi’t or Awa Coaiquer; Cha’palaachi or Chachi; Tsa’fiki or Colorado; and Epera Pedede. The first three are believed to belong to the Barbacoan language group; Epera Pedede is classified as a Chibchan language. Glottochronological studies suggest that in 50 BC, the Cha’palaachi-Tsachila and Awa Coaiquer (Awap’it) split into two languages from a common ancestor (Stark, 1985). Until the 1750s, the Tsachila people were separated in two groups: (1) Yumbos who lived in the Central Highlands, and (2) Tsachilas, around Santo Domingo, where they presently reside (Ventura, 1995). The economic situation of all these nationalities greatly varies depending on their contact with outsiders, access to productive land and basic services, and their relationship with the dominant society.



50

CIP 033


Awapi’t (North Barbacoan) is spoken by the Awa people (also known as Awa Coaiquer, Cuaiquer, Cuayuer, Kwaiker or Coayquer), who live in the northwestern region between the coastal province of Esmeraldas and the highland provinces of Carchi and Imbabura. There are about 3500 Awas in Ecuador and about 10,000 in Colombia. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) claim that in many areas the Awa are increasingly monolingual in Spanish, with only 5–10% of the population being able to communicate in Awapi’t. Cha’palaachi (Chapalachee) (South Barbacoan) is spoken by the Chachi people. This nationality lives in the tropical forest along three rivers: Cayapas, Canandé, and Muisne in the province of Esmeraldas (Krainer, 1999; Vitadello, 1988). Demographic figures fluctuate between 4000 and 8000 (Krainer, 1999; Moya, 1997; Vitadello, 1988). Programa de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (1998) (Development Programme for Indigenous and Black People of Ecuador /S/ (PRODEPINE)) reported 8040 Chachis in 1998 (3951 men and 4089 women), distributed across 29 communities. In spite of the increasing number of literacy programmes offered only in Spanish, Vitadello (1988: vii) reports the Cha’palaachi language is still spoken by all the members of Chachi communities, as they have been able to maintain their language and culture in part due to their isolation. Tsa’fiki (Tsa’fiqui) (South Barbacoan) is the language of the Tsachilas (commonly known as Colorados), who live in the tropical forest in the province of Pichincha. Alfonso Aguavil, one of the Tsachila leaders (personal communication, June 2002) reports that there are about 2000 Tsachilas distributed in seven different communities. Most of the Tsachilas are bilingual in Tsa’fiki and Spanish. They own productive land sufficient for subsistence, which slows the trend towards urban migration. The Tsachilas are well known in the country and abroad for their famous shamans who operate an alternative medicine school. They also attempt to sell their own crops in markets of bigger cities to obtain better prices. Ventura (1995) notes the Spanish chronicles referred to the Tsachila people as brave warriors who defended their territories from the Spaniards. Epera Pedede (macro-Chibchan) is the language of about 60 Epera (Embera or Enbena) people who live in the province of Esmeraldas (Montaluisa, 1998). This group migrated from Colombia, where there are about 30,000 people according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Grimes, 1999). This estimate differs widely from Montaluisa’s (1998) data, which suggest 60 speakers in Ecuador, 2000 in Colombia and 8000 in Panama.

Amazonian languages According to the 1990 National Census, 20.8% (120,000) of the total population of the Amazonian region (576,748) is indigenous. They are grouped in different nationalities, each with its own language (Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico, 1998). The languages spoken in this region represent the major South American language families: Chibchan, Western Tucanoan, Jivaroan, Quechuamaran, and Zaparoan. One language remains unclassified. (See Figure 4 for overview of location of ethnic groups in Ecuadorian Amazon.) A’ingae is spoken by the A’i (Cofán) nationality located along the Colombian-Ecuadorian border in the province of Sucumbíos. They are distributed along three rivers: Aguarico, San Miguel, and Guamués. SIL (2002) reports 400


51


SucumbÍos

Napo

Orelana

Pastaza

Morena Santiago

Zamara Chichipe

A’ingae Achuar Shiwiar Quichua Shuar Chicham Siona, Secoya Waotededo Zápara, Kayapi Main City

Figure 4 Indigenous groups in the Ecuadorian lowlands Source: Haboud, 2003

Cofán people in Ecuador while other organisations maintain that there are only 342 (74 families), most of them Aìngae-Spanish bilingual (Telecentros, 1998). With the oil boom starting in the 1960s, their territory became the centre of oil production for the Texaco-Gulf Corporation with the support of the Ecuadorian Government. This was the beginning of a 20-year multibillion dollar oil industry dominated by foreign companies. During this period, many lowland Quichuas were driven out of their territories by mestizo settlers and they moved into the Cofán region, which started a process of Quichuisation among the Cofán people. This, along with the presence of missionaries, settlers, and oil companies, has put the Cofán language and culture in danger (Mirzayan, 1997). The Western-Tucanoan language group has two or three representatives, Siona, Secoya, and Tetete, depending on the criteria chosen. The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) reported only two speakers of Tetete in the 1970s, and it is now considered an extinct language. As for the Siona and Secoya

la-4figs.indd 51

04/05/2007 11:52:38


52

CIP 033


people, different sources list them as one or two separate groups. Their languages are mutually intelligible and are considered to be two dialects of Paicoca (CONAIE, 1989). Mirzayan (1997) comments that in the 1630s the Sionas were located along the upper Putumayo River, while the Secoya lived in a different region. It seems that the groups became interrelated due to post-colonial contact and extensive intermarriage. At present, both live near the Cuyabeno River in the province of Sucumbios. The number of speakers is uncertain. CONAIE (1989) reports 1000 Siona-Secoya people, while the Program Redes Comunitarias (Community Nets /S/) mentions 330 (78 families) (Telecentros, 1998). Vickers (1989), based on extensive fieldwork in the Siona-Secoya territory, projects the death of this language in the years to come as Spanish is the first language of most of the children. Two Jivaroan languages sharing a common ancestor are spoken in the Ecuadorian Amazonian region: Shuar Chicham and Achuar Shiwiar. Although some anthropologists and linguists refer to the Achuar language and people as a part of the Shuar nationality and the Shuar language (Shuar Chicham) (CONAIE, 1989; Mejeant, 2001), we will treat them separately. There are in fact important lexical differences between Shuar Chicham and Achuar, and researchers have described significant differences that have developed in terms of their languages and their social organisation, in part due to their separation resulting from the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro between Ecuador and Peru in 1942 (Mejeant, 2001). ECORAE, for instance, presents Shuar, Achuar, and Shiwiar as three different ethnic groups (Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico, 1998). Located in the foothills of the Andean mountains, mainly in the province of Morona Santiago, the Shuar nationality is the second largest nationality in the Amazon Basin. Estimations of their population fluctuate between 40,000 and 45,000 people. The Shuar are well known in the country and abroad due to their highly organised Federación de Centros Shuar (Federation of Shuar Centres /S/) founded in 1964. This organisation is one of the oldest and most successful Indian organisations in South America (Hendricks, 1991; Salazar, 1981). The Achuar people are closely related to the Shuar, and they share the same geographical area and many of the same customs and traditions (Becker, 1998). There are about 2000 Achuars in Ecuador and 2500 in Peru. Prior to the 1970s, Achuar were mostly monolingual in their native language (Mirzayan, 1997), but then the Shuar Federation established bilingual Spanish-Shuar schools in the Achuar territory, which resulted in a new generation of bilingual Shuar-Spanish children. In addition to Shuar and Spanish, many Achuar and Shuar people also speak Quichua, which is spreading along the Amazon basin. Zápara or Kayapi is the only Zaparoan language in Ecuador. The Záparo people live near the Curaray River in the northern part of the Pastaza province. The Vice-President of CONAIE noted that, in the year 1680, there were about 10,000 Záparos (Mejeant, 2001). In 1941 they were separated due to the controversies between Peru and Ecuador. Presently, there are about 114 in Ecuador and about 200 in Peru. Zápara, their native language, is spoken by no more than a dozen elders as Záparos have taken Quichua as their own language. Researchers working with the Záparos believe that the revitalisation of this nationality has been possible thanks to the peace treaty signed by Ecuador


CIP 033



53

and Peru in 1998 as now both countries support the Záparos’ cultural maintenance efforts (Lucas, 2002). Their local organisation, Organización de la Nacionalidad Zápara del Ecuador (Organisation of the Zápara Nationality of Ecuador /S/ ONAZE) encourages their children to relearn their language and to participate with non-natives in field research and publications. According to Andrade (2002), these joint activities have given some members of the Záparo nationality the opportunity to express their viewpoints and rediscover their history. Waotededo (Huao Tiriro, Wao Tiriro) is spoken by the Waorani (Huaorani) nationality and is located along the Yasuní, Cononaco, Nushiño, and Curaray Rivers in the provinces of Napo and Pastaza. There are about 1300 people (Montaluisa, 1998). This group was largely monolingual until the mid-1800s (Stark, 1985), but has since witnessed several changes that have threatened their culture and language. They were relocated by the SIL and the Ecuadorian Government into a missionary station; at that time a road system was built within their area of residence (Mirzayan, 1997). Later, oil companies invaded their territories, forcing them to move further away. In recent years there has also been an increasing number of intermarriages with the lowland Quichuas, generating a new Wao-Quichua community. In addition, increased mestizo migration to the area has been a great source of cultural and linguistic change. Overall, minoritised Indian languages maintain a lower status vis à vis the dominant society that ignores their existence or conceives of them as extinct or low class dialects. Derogatory names are still widely used to refer to Indian people and their languages. In the indigenous languages, however, these names carry the fundamental meaning of humanity (Montaluisa, 1998). As an example, the Waoranis and their language (Waotededo ‘language of the people’ /W/), are commonly referred to as Auca (wild, savage /Q/) by non-members, while Wao, the term they use to refer to themselves, means ‘human being’ (see Table 3).

Media Lengua In addition to the indigenous languages, there are also a number of newer varieties that have developed as the result of intense language contact. The most Table 3 Names and meanings of indigenous languages Language

Meaning

A’ingae

a’i (‘man’ or ‘people’), ingae (‘language’)

Awapi’t

awa (‘man’ or ‘people’), pit (‘language’)

Cha’palaachi

chachi (‘man’ or ‘people’), palaa (‘language’)

Epera Pedede

epera (‘man’ or ‘people’), pedede (‘language’)

Runa Shimi

runa (‘man’ or ‘people’), shimi (‘language’)

Shuar-chicham

shuar (‘human being’), chicham (‘language’)

Tsa’fiqui

tsachi (‘man’ or ‘people’), fiqui (‘language’)

Waotededo

wao (‘man’ or ‘people’), tededo (‘language’)

Source: Adapted from Montaluisa, 1998: 11



54

CIP 033


well documented of these is media lengua (half language /S/), which is characterised by Quichua morphosyntax and massive Spanish relexification. Muysken (1979, 1981), in his analysis of media lengua in Salcedo (in the province of Cotopaxi), concluded that media lengua is a type of interlanguage used by Quichua speakers as a mechanism to facilitate their shift towards Spanish. More recently, Gómez (2001) documented a different version of media lengua in the northern province of Imbabura. He suggests that this variety is a relatively stable and coherent semi-creole, used as a linguistic strategy to adapt to a diglossic environment (Gómez, 2001: 224). Gómez further argues that media lengua has an important extralinguistic role as a means of resistance on the part of the minoritised speakers towards cultural assimilation and linguistic shift. It serves to mark the internal and external limits of a group vis à vis the outsiders and to reinforce their ethnic and linguistic identity. However, both researchers concur in the need to develop a new means to describe these linguistic varieties that takes into consideration their linguistic and extralinguistic conditions. Immigration patterns and immigrant languages In addition to the three most visible population groups (the indigenous population, the individuals of direct European origin, and the large group of mestizos whose ancestry is rooted in both populations), there are also immigrants in Ecuador who have arrived more recently from other regions. Such groups are by and large Spanish-dominant or Spanish-monolingual; to our knowledge, there are no state-sponsored programmes to cater for the linguistic needs of these populations. By far the most significant and most visible of these ‘other’ immigrant populations are Ecuadorian blacks. By some estimates, African descendents constitute as much as 25% of the population (Lipski, 1994), and by others, as little as 3% (US Department of State, 1998). Afro-Ecuadorians largely reside in the north-western coastal regions of the country, with smaller numbers in the highland Chota Valley (Lipski, 1987). As Lipski (1994) reports, there is lack of certainty concerning when and how Africans immigrated to Ecuador. One common belief is that the first black residents landed on Ecuador’s west coast as a result of two shipwrecks at the end of the 16th century. In the decades that followed, Jesuits (and eventually other landowners) imported black slaves to work on plantations. Other blacks came to Ecuador from Colombia as soldiers early in the 19th century during the wars of colonial liberation. Afterwards many remained in the coastal province of Esmeraldas. The most recent wave of African-ancestry immigration occurred in the late 19th century, when roughly 4000 to 5000 labourers were brought to the country from the Caribbean to work on construction projects and plantations. In addition, in Ecuador, as in most South American countries, there are small numbers of immigrants from other continents. For instance, there are a significant number of Catalan-speaking families in Quito who have founded La Casa Catalana (The Catalan House), where about 100 families meet weekly. Although there are many mixed (Spanish-Catalan) marriages, these families generally speak Catalan and maintain their cultural traditions. Currently, Catalan classes are being offered to the public at La Casa (David Sánchez, personal communication, November 2002). There are also individuals of Jewish and Arabic descent;



CIP 033


55

Japanese, Korean, and Chinese immigrants, and immigrants from neighbouring Andean countries, especially from Colombia in recent years (New York Times, 2002). While immigration has not had a huge impact on national demographics, a far more potent force has been emigration, as thousands of Ecuadorians have left their homeland for either permanent or temporary residence in the United States or Europe. There are currently estimated to be 260,000 documented Ecuadorians officially living in the United States, with many more remaining undocumented and uncounted (NAHJ, 2001). In New York City, for instance, which is traditionally a stronghold for Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, Ecuadorians are the fourth most numerous Latino group, numbering 144,314 (more than the total combined number of Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans and Peruvians) (Kugel, 2002). Roughly 60% of Ecuadorians in the U.S. have settled in New York City; another 10% reside in Los Angeles (NAHJ, 2001). The Ecuadorian Government estimates that 500,000 people, 4% of the total population, left Ecuador in 1999 and 2000 alone (Washington Post, 2000). This group significantly impacts the Ecuadorian economy: remittances from family members working abroad are projected at one billion US dollars annually, placing them only behind oil exports, the country’s leading source of foreign capital, according to the newly created Office for Ecuadorians Abroad (Washington Post, 2000). Emigration often has significant consequences on language use and ethnic identity maintenance. For instance, Linda Belote (personal communication, April 2002) reports that roughly 1000 indigenous people from the Saraguro area (the total Saraguro population is estimated at 22,000–25,000) have relocated to Almeria and Vera, Spain; according to Belote, many have altered their indigenous clothing and hairstyle in order to blend in with Spanish society. Back in Ecuador, for some indigenous communities, the departure and long periods of absence of young men, and in some cases whole families, puts further stress on communication networks and traditional routines, as the youngest and oldest are left behind. Unofficial estimates suggest that Cañar and Azuay are the provinces with the highest rates of emigration (see also Grebe Vicuña, 1997; Herrera, 1999; Katz, 2000). In sum, Ecuador is a multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural country whose society has faced a series of abrupt socioeconomic, cultural, and political changes during the last three decades. These have affected both the way people use and conceive of their languages, and the way official institutions have approached and regulated them. Overall, the decline and increased endangerment of Ecuador’s indigenous languages remains apparent. This is largely due to the fact that, even though new rights have been recognised and new laws have been developed which favour the indigenous people, the implementation of such laws has been less than complete. The complexity of this situation is particularly clear in the case of education, which is discussed next.

Language Spread: Education Education is compulsory for all Ecuadorians. The public education system for those under the age of 18 consists of three components: (1) ‘regular’ primary and secondary schools, which comprise a system for indigenous students and one for


CIP 033



56

Hispanic students, (2) compensatory schools, which aim to assist students who have not been able to attend classes regularly for a wide range of reasons, and (3) special education programmes for students with particular emotional, physical or cognitive needs. By law, students must attend six years of primary school from age 6 to 12, and then three years of basic secondary education (middle school) from age 12 to 15. Students then have the option of attending an additional three years of high school to earn their high school degree, and then going on to attend a technical institute or one of 29 universities in the country (see HESD, 2003, for more details). Although education is compulsory in theory, in practice, only 50% of the population completes six years of primary school, and of those who enrol in secondary education, 50% fail to graduate (HESD, 2003). Rates of school participation and school completion have varied widely across regional, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic groups. These divergent school experiences are most clearly reflected in the nation’s illiteracy rates and school attendance statistics (SIISE, 2002b). Although by most measures overall literacy rates have increased by roughly 25% over the last three decades, wide discrepancies in literacy skills remain across rural and urban populations, as well as between men and women. Correspondingly, statistics reveal that urban children on average complete twice as many years of schooling as rural children, while boys tend to complete more schooling than girls do (see Tables 4 and 5). Ecuadorian children’s school experiences vary widely not only in terms of the amount of time spent in school, but also in the types of schools they attend. As an example, roughly 20% of primary and secondary schools in the country are privately run, and the percentage of students enrolled in private schools increases for each scholastic year (for instance, slightly less than 20% of primary students, but more than 40% of secondary students, are enrolled in private institutions). Private institutions are also far more common in urban areas, where roughly one-third of schools are not state sponsored (Library of Congress, 1989). For instance, one well-known private institution is the Colegio Menor San FranTable 4 Percentage of children between 6–11 years old enrolled in school in 1999, by region and gender Coast

M

F

Highlands

M

F

Amazon

M

F

Rural

81.2

80.0

82.4

88.4

88.8

88.0

85.9

86.0

85.8

Urban

92.2

91.8

92.7

94.2

94.3

94.2

91.3

91.0

91.5

Source: SIISE, 2000

Table 5 Number of school years completed in urban and rural areas by region and gender Coast

M

F

Highlands

M

F

Amazon

M

F

Rural

4.1

4.3

3.9

3.8

4.5

3.3

4.4

5.0

3.7

Urban

8.0

8.3

7.7

8.8

9.5

8.2

7.0

7.5

6.5

Source: SIISE, 1999



CIP 033


57

cisco de Quito, founded in 1995. This fee-based school serves upper-middle-class students and is known for its progressive (US-style) curriculum, international teaching staff, and early and strong emphasis on English, all of which distinguish it from state schools (Lannak, 1999). For most students in the country, education is conducted through the medium of Spanish and is oriented towards Spanish or Hispanic culture. None of the indigenous languages described in previous sections are taught to non-indigenous Spanish speakers, and the Hispanic school system includes no possibility for doing so. (All indigenous students, in contrast, must learn Spanish as a second language and in many cases are educated through the medium of Spanish.) In 1994, the Board of Education, as part of reforms to the Law of Education, agreed to include some topics related to the indigenous peoples of the country in the national curriculum. These 12 ejes tematicos (thematic topics /S/) include: ‘different Ecuadorian cultures’, ‘family and community habits’, ‘myths and legends’, ‘worldviews’, ‘ancestral technical knowledge’, ‘health and sickness’, ‘ethics’, ‘production systems’, ‘familial, social and external organisation’, ‘festivities and ceremonies’, ‘values and their maintenance’ and ‘social and economic changes (transformations)’ (Soto, 1997). Nevertheless, these ‘topics’ have neither been properly developed nor included as regular areas of the curriculum within the Hispanic public school programmes. Furthermore, because indigenous schooling is limited to primary education, indigenous students who wish to continue with their education beyond grade six, must do so in Hispanic secondary schools. Bilingual education in Ecuador can loosely be classified into two general types (King, in press). In the first group are programmes aimed at students who are monolingual speakers of Spanish, and which teach English (or less commonly, French or another European language) as a foreign language, in some cases using it as a medium of instruction. These programmes, which are typically offered in private schools only, tend to be designed for – and in many instances are only available to – students from upper-middle and upper-class backgrounds, and are created as a means to enrich their educational and social opportunities. As English is a language of high social status and economic advancement, this type of school potentially facilitates a version of elite closure, wherein competence in English simultaneously signals elite status and is accessible only to elites (Myers-Scotton, 1993). Enrichment programmes such as these, which promote an additive type of bilingualism, have often been labelled ‘elitist’ bilingual education (Hornberger, 1991; Mejia, 2002). The second class or type of bilingual programmes is aimed at students who are dominant or monolingual in an indigenous language, and who need to acquire Spanish as a second language. These programmes are designed as vehicles for providing meaningful instruction and literacy training in students’ first language, prior to (or concomitant with) their transition to Spanish, and are typically part of the national indigenous intercultural bilingual education system. In contrast to the first class of programmes, these students tend to come from societal groups that have long been economically and socially marginalised within the national context. Advocates of such programmes argue that the use of the students’ first language provides them with a greater chance of engaging with the school curriculum, developing literacy skills, and eventually, participating



58

CIP 033


on more equal terms in the wider national society (PEBI, n.d.). However, some critics of these so-called ‘maintenance’ programmes point out that, despite some use of students’ first language in the early grades, in reality the programmes overwhelmingly tend to be oriented towards transition to Spanish, and hence to promote a subtractive form of bilingualism. Each of these two types – elite (foreign-language) bilingual education and indigenous bilingual education – are briefly discussed in the following sections. Elite bilingual education and foreign-language instruction While Spanish is the primary language of instruction, foreign-language instruction – especially English – also takes place in both elementary and secondary schools. In many secondary schools, for example, English is a mandatory subject, and private institutions are incorporating English into the curriculum at even earlier grades, not only as a subject of study, but also as a medium of instruction. These institutions aim for students to become bilingual and to develop strong academic skills in English. For instance, at the Colegio Menor San Francisco de Quito, mentioned previously, English is used as a primary medium of instruction at each grade level, and courses such as maths and science are taught exclusively in English using US materials (Lannak, 1999). Other schools where English is used as the language of instruction include Academia Cotopaxi and international sections of the American School. In addition to English, other languages such as French, German and Italian are also taught. German and French especially are used as the main means of instruction in some international schools: the German school, Colegio Alemán, for instance, functions with two sections, one national in which 60–70% of the subjects are taught in German, and one international, in which all coursework is completed in German. Spanish is only taught as a second language. Similarly, the French school, La Condamine, teaches approximately 70% of all subjects in French and the remaining 30% in Spanish. Foreign-language instruction is not entirely limited to private schools, however. For instance, in 1992, under an agreement between the British and Ecuadorian Governments, a new project, CRADLE (Curriculum Reform Aimed at the Development of the Learning of English) came into effect. This programme has been devoted to improving the teaching of English in all Ecuadorian public and missionary schools (but excluding bilingual intercultural schools). Its stated goal is to help Ecuadorian high school students to acquire English in order for them to have better opportunities in the future. With a series of books adapted to the Ecuadorian context, CRADLE aimed to develop four English skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Haboud, 2001a). This trend towards English within K-12 institutions is a reflection of the growing place of English within both urban and rural Ecuadorian society. Alm (personal communication, May 2002) notes that, in Ecuador, English is primarily used for international communication in specific pan-national domains such as science, higher education, and technology. In describing a profile of the use of English in Ecuador, Alm (2002) writes that English is highly prestigious and is regarded as an important means of climbing the social ladder and being competitive in the labour market, especially in business. Alm also finds that English is widely used in advertising as a means of projecting images that are easily associ-



CIP 033


59

ated with modernity, technology, education, and beauty. English is also commonly used in mass media, especially radio stations in the main Ecuadorian cities (i.e. Quito and Guayaquil) and the written press. For instance, El Comercio, a well-known Ecuadorian newspaper, publishes bilingual English-Spanish jokes in its Sunday supplement. The popularity of English among Ecuadorians has resulted in the increase of many private institutions that offer English classes for all ages and with different methodologies. The yellow pages of Quito’s telephone book, as an example, show the existence of about 40 English institutes in Quito’s commercial centres (July 2002). Indigenous bilingual education Despite the substantial linguistic and ethnic diversity of the country, Spanish has traditionally been the primary medium of instruction in all schools. However, due to significant shifts in education and language policy that took place in the 1980s, use of indigenous languages in education now has a firm legal basis and a dedicated administrative office within the national educational system. Intercultural bilingual education in Ecuador rests on three legislative and executive decisions, each of which is outlined in the following paragraphs. The first legislation enacted to support indigenous language use in education was Decree No. 000529 of 12 January 1981, which officialised bilingual, intercultural education in predominantly indigenous zones for both primary and secondary education. In these areas, instruction is to be imparted in Spanish and Quichua (or the group’s indigenous language). The second foothold for bilingual education is found in Article 27 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, which was adopted in 1983. Article 27 provides that ‘the educational systems in predominantly indigenous zones should use Quichua (or the community’s respective language) as the primary language of education and Spanish as the language of intercultural relations’ (DINEIB, 1994: 5).3 Five years later, the third legal administrative structure was put into place in order to implement these legislative decisions and to support meaningful use of indigenous languages in education. With these aims, the Dirección Nacional de Educación Indígena Intercultural Bilingüe (National Directorate of Bilingual Indigenous Intercultural Education /S/, DINEIIB) was created and charged with organising and administering schools in areas where the population is more than half indigenous (see the DINEIIB section below for more details). DINEIIB’s mandate is extensive, and its responsibilities include developing pedagogical materials; promoting the unified standard of various indigenous languages; coordinating regional directorates in each of the country’s 22 provinces; implementing and evaluating health, environmental, and community education programmes; and providing all in-service and pre-service teacher training (DINEIIB, 1991; Krainer, 1996). These three policy decisions represented a major break with previous language and education policy and practice. In the following paragraphs, we trace their historical and political development. Prior to the 1960s, formal schooling in Ecuador was Spanish-only in terms of both medium of instruction and cultural orientation. In addition to resulting in irrelevant curricula and largely ineffective pedagogy, this system also abetted indigenous language shift and cultural assimilation (DINEIB, 1994; PEBI, n.d.).



60

CIP 033


The radical shift in policy which made indigenous language education possible was the result of national and international pressures on the Ecuadorian Government, and it needs to be viewed in light of similar shifts in neighbouring Andean countries and beyond, as well as within a broader framework which takes into account issues of power and resistance. Ricento (2000) has recently argued that research in the area of language policy and planning is best divided into three historical phases. In the first of these phases, language-planning work was perceived as politically neutral and as a technical, problem-solving exercise; goals frequently focused on achieving unification, modernisation, and efficiency within newly formed nation-states (Ricento, 2000: 198–9). Work within the second phase, in contrast, began to question the feasibility and the neutrality of these goals, as modernisation policies in the developing world failed and notions such as the ‘native speaker’ and ‘diglossia’ were critically scrutinised. This phase is generally characterised by: a growing awareness of the negative effects – and inherent limitations – of planning theory and models, and a realisation that sociolinguistic constructs such as diglossia, bilingualism, and multilingualism were conceptually complex and ideologically laden and could not easily fit into existing descriptive taxonomies (Ricento, 2000: 202). The third and current phase, in turn, builds on these insights, but is also informed by critical theory and a language ecology perspective, and is concerned more specifically with the role of ideology in language policy, the maintenance of threatened languages and linguistic diversity, and support for linguistic human rights. While some of the existing language planning and policy research on Ecuadorian bilingual education policy has worked within the first phase (e.g. DINEIIB, 1991), more recent analysis operates from the perspective of the second and third phases (e.g. King, 2000; von Gleich, 1994). From this vantage point, the three shifts in policy outlined previously are generally viewed not as politically neutral technocratic solutions to language problems, but as the result of negotiations and compromises, and as embedded in larger debates concerning identity, ethnicity, and conceptions of nation-state. More precisely, the Ecuadorian case must be viewed in light of three related currents: (1) the global trend towards greater acceptance of minority language rights; (2) the regional shift across the Andean nations towards greater recognition of the plurilinguistic, pluricultural and pluriethnic nature of these nation-states, and perhaps most significantly, (3) the political shifts resulting from the expansion of identity-based political organisations in Ecuador and the concomitantly greater articulation of indigenous rights within the country. Each of these three trends is now briefly discussed.

Global trends towards language rights ‘Globalisation’, and the process of cultural erosion that it implies, is often characterised as a force that (further) endangers ‘small’ languages and cultures (Hamelink, 2000; Phillipson, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). For instance, the greater availability and aggressive marketing of dominant-language media, services, and goods potentially promotes languages such as English and simultaneously undermines the use and status of minority languages (Phillipson, 2000).



CIP 033


61

However, as Fishman has argued, ‘globalization is both a constructive and a destructive phenomenon, both a unifying and a divisive one’ (Fishman, 1991: 6). One prime example of a global trend that unites and positively impacts the climate for language and education policy is the movement towards greater recognition of minority language rights. As Huss notes (1999: 50), there is a clear ‘trend in international law towards a greater acknowledgement of the linguistic diversity in nation states’. The United Nations has perhaps been the most powerful language-planning agent in this regard. Indeed, as early as 1966 a general notion of language rights was recognised in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 27 (in force since 1976) stipulated that: in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their groups, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language (Huss, 1999: 50). More recent declarations have tended to give greater emphasis to the state’s obligation to support minorities actively. For instance, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities of 1992 requires that: states shall take measures to create favorable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of law and contrary to international standards (UNESCO, 1992, in Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000: 533). The most recent of these declarations, and also the most promising, is the draft of the ‘Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights’, which was accepted in June 1996 in Barcelona and submitted to UNESCO thereafter. According to Skutnabb-Kangas, this declaration is the ‘first attempt at formulating a universal document about language rights exclusively’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000: 544), and in many respects it is more progressive and far-reaching than previous declarations. This document is not without its shortcomings however; for instance, educational language rights, in contrast to cultural rights, are not seen as inalienable and thus are subject to denial by individual states (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000: 544). Further, there is a continued discontinuity and important distinction between the often abstract and unrealistic discussions of ‘rights’ in political discourse and those rights which have recognised legal status either internationally or nationally (personal communication, R.B. Kaplan, March 2003). Concomitant with these trends in international law is greater collaboration among indigenous groups across state lines, and with that, increased awareness of similar struggles across a wide range of contexts. There are more than a dozen international organisations working to promote endangered languages and to support indigenous people, including, for instance, the Endangered Languages Fund, the Foundation for Endangered Languages, the Hanns Seidel Foundation, and Terralingua (see Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000 for detailed overviews). Through



62

CIP 033


these and other vehicles, indigenous groups from distant nation-states are increasingly in contact with each other. These global trends towards indigenous collaboration and greater international recognition of minority language rights form an important part of the context of the Ecuadorian case.

Andean shifts in language and education policy The shifts in Ecuadorian language and education policy are also interwoven with currents of change in the Andes, as two of Ecuador’s neighbouring countries, Peru and Bolivia, have also seen substantial shifts in language education policy. These policy shifts generally reflect greater recognition and respect for the languages and cultures of indigenous groups, and tend to showcase bilingual intercultural education as representative of this new orientation. In Peru, the most significant reforms occurred in the 1970s, beginning with the officialisation of Quechua in May 1975 under General Velasco. Officialisation in Peru meant that Quichua was stipulated for use at all levels of education (Art. 2), and that Quechua was required for use in all judicial procedures where monolingual Quechuas were involved (Art. 3). In addition, officialisation required that the Ministry of Education be held responsible for developing instruction materials and supporting institutions dedicated to the diffusion of the language (Art. 4) (von Gleich, 1994; also see Hornberger, 1987; Pozzi-Escot, 1988). In Bolivia, in turn, similar currents resulted in dramatic policy shifts in the 1990s, and specifically, the educational reform of 1994. This reform law calls for bilingual intercultural education for all societal sectors in Bolivia (Benson, in press; UNICEF, 1998), stressing official recognition of all Bolivian languages (ETARE, 1993) and the need for mutual respect among all Bolivians (CEBAIE, 1998). The accompanying Law of Popular Participation, also in effect from 1994, involves community and indigenous organisations in educational decisionmaking, sometimes creating new organisations to replace pre-existing ones and decentralising school management (also see King & Benson, 2004). The Ecuadorian laws of the 1980s are thus clearly embedded in a particular regional context of reform. Minaya-Rowe (1986) has argued that the shifts in bilingual education policy across Andean Latin America are motivated by a shared underlying ideology and common set of goals. These goals include achieving political, economic, and cultural independence in the international community, and integrating the indigenous populations into mainstream society both socially and politically. More specifically, ‘to become economically developed, technologically advanced nations, the current Andean Latin American governments feel they cannot do without having a polity – i.e. a national citizenry – which includes all sectors of the population’ (Minaya-Rowe, 1986: 468). Luykx (2000) argues that the reforms which have taken place across each of the three main Andean nations have been ‘cut from the same cloth’, inasmuch as they can each be understood as direct responses to pressure from indigenous organisations and from international donors concerned with promoting more democratic and inclusive educational systems. For Luykx (who draws largely from her work in Bolivia), these policy shifts are part of a ‘larger package of “modernizing” state reforms, guided largely by the pressures and criteria emanating from international lending institutions’ (Luykx, 2000).



CIP 033


63

In addition, the similarity in policies can also be traced to the significant amount of inter-Andean cooperation, as professionals and experts from each of these countries frequently serve as consultants for various inter-Andean commissions and projects. A prime example of this sort of collaboration is Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (Training Programme in Bilingual Intercultural Education for the Andean Countries /S/ (PROEIB)). PROEIB is an internationally funded and organised programme designed to support the consolidation of bilingual intercultural education across the Andes, primarily through the development of human resources (PROEIB Andes, 2002). Although based in Bolivia, large numbers of both the faculty and students hail from other Andean countries. PROEIB has quickly become the epicentre for language policy and bilingual education planning and research across the Andes. PROEIB’s next goal is to create an independent foundation in each of the Andean countries. These foundations seek to provide academic services by 2006 and to offer permanent low-cost opportunities for academic study among local populations (Anita Krainer, personal communication, January 2003).

Ethnic politics and indigenous schools These recent shifts in Ecuadorian language and education policy have also coincided with substantial growth of identity-based political movements in Ecuador and beyond. Ecuador has long been home to one of the stronger indigenous organisations in South America, CONAIE. This political organisation was formed in 1986 and officially recognised by the Government soon after. This recognition united the distinct indigenous groups across the country and allowed for rapid mobilisation of cultural and linguistic resistance (von Gleich, 1992, also see Moya, 1991). As the CONAIE leadership explains, the organisation serves as ‘the representative body that guarantees indigenous people the political voice that has too long been denied them, and that expresses their needs and goals within a rapidly changing world’ (CONAIE, 1989: 1). CONAIE’s goals generally have paralleled concerns of indigenous people throughout Latin America, including land and agrarian rights, local and regional autonomy and self-determination, and legal rights relating to educational and linguistic policies (Stavenhagen, 1992). Within the Ecuadorian context, the struggles along each of these three lines have intersected with dramatic changes on the national scene, including: (1) the Agrarian Reform Laws of 1962 and 1974, which aimed to redistribute massive areas of land, and opened new questions of land rights, identity, and access to other resources; (2) the petroleum boom of the 1970s, which translated into massive state investment into rural sectors, especially in education, communication, electricity, and water; and (3) the fiscal and political crises of the 1990s. It should also be noted that some of the language and education policy shifts detailed here are embedded in a long history of reform. For instance, in 1953, the Board of Education tried to create a rural teachers’ school, which was intended to provide the Indian population with the opportunity to become certified teachers. Nevertheless, the training largely consisted of instruction in the official language, Spanish. In 1964, the Plan Ecuatoriano de Educación (Ecuadorian Plan of Education) argued for the importance of integrating the Indian population into



64

CIP 033


the mainstream; it was believed that teaching quality would improve if it were designed and implemented in order to motivate the socioeconomic integration of the Ecuadorian Indians (Yánez, 1989: 76). However, it was not until the 1970s, with the development of a stronger sense of self-identity on the part of some members of the middle class and the increased number of foreign visitors interested in local traditions and cultures, that a broadening interest in indigenous Ecuadorian culture, beyond that traditionally defined by the white elites, began to appear. Certainly the unprecedented step taken by former President Jaime Roldós in 1979, when he delivered part of his inaugural address in Quichua, is one indication of this shift (Schodt, 1987). The emphasis on creating cultural awareness and a sense of national unification was clearly underlined in the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (1980–1984) (National Development Plan /S/), whose main goals included establishing the National Literacy Plan; informing public administration officials of the basic characteristics of the indigenous population; promoting the rights, significance, and inclusion of the Indian peoples and cultures; and defending national cultural values against foreign imperialism. Similarly, the Law of Education, proposed in April 1983, states as one of its main objectives the promotion and enrichment of Ecuadorian cultural traditions and the preservation of a national identity (see Ley de Educación, 2000). Yet despite the many efforts to create national awareness concerning the multicultural and multilingual character of Ecuador, powerful sectors of the Ecuadorian society continue to harbour negative stereotypes and indifference towards the minoritised populations, rejecting all local or national organisations which represent indigenous peoples. Some of these organisations and their educational efforts are discussed in the following paragraphs. CONAIE emerged on the scene in the late 1980s and continues to play a powerful role in national politics, making its voice heard on numerous issues which are significant not only to the indigenous sectors, but to the entire nation. For instance, CONAIE and other indigenous groups were a major factor in ousting democratically elected, but widely unpopular, President Jamil Mahuad in January 2000. More recently, in January and February 2001, indigenous protest resulted in major presidential reversals concerning transportation, domestic gas, and budgets for organisations created to assist indigenous people (e.g. Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador (Council for the Development of Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador (CODENPE) /S/). In terms of educational policy, CONAIE and other indigenous organisations over the last three decades have worked for language and education reform on two levels. First, as discussed in the following section, indigenous groups demanded policy change regarding language and education at the national level. Second, during the same period indigenous groups began to implement their own native language literacy and education programmes within their communities. Thus, indigenous groups not only pushed to improve their children’s educational experience by calling for pedagogical use of a language that was meaningful to their children and for content and cultural orientation that was relevant and self-affirming, but also began employing their languages in new domains. Two prime examples of such educational programmes that are controlled by indigenous groups are Sistemas de Educación Radiofónica Bicultural Shuar (Shuar Bicultural Distance Radio Education Systems /S/ (SERBISH)) and



CIP 033


65

the Fundación Runacunapac Yachana Huasi (Indigenous Schooling /Q/ ‘Foundation’ /S/), each discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Among the first of the locally controlled, indigenous education programmes was SERBISH, initiated by the Federación Shuar in 1972. The objectives of the SERBISH programme are far-reaching and ambitious, including schooling the entire Shuar population between the ages of 6 and 15; encouraging mutual assistance between regionally dispersed Shuar groups; developing local cultures and ensuring the permanence of the Shuar communities. To this end, the pedagogical theory of the programme emphasises not mixing Shuar and Spanish. The programme begins initially with the Shuar language for content instruction and literacy acquisition in the first years and moves eventually to using both languages for all topics. A guiding principle is to make the school system reflect the realities of Shuar community and cultural life. With 31 radio centres in different communities, SERBISH reached 506 students in its first year, and continued to grow. By the late 1980s, SERBISH had an enrolment of 4519 students at 187 primary schools and 731 students at 39 secondary schools (Puwáinchir Wajárai, 1989). In 1988 the programme was officially recognised by the Government. Inspired by the Shuar, and motivated by their own needs, the Quichua of Bolivar province formed their own schools in 1972. The schools were organised by the indigenous and locally controlled, Fundación Runacunapac Yachana Huasi (Indigenous Schooling /Q/ Foundation /S/). The goals of the schools are to use Quichua as the medium of instruction; to teach Spanish-as-a-second-language; to enrich the students’ cultural identity; and to encourage the children to remain within the family and community (Caiza, 1989). In 1989, there were 17 schools, 30 teachers, and more than 600 children participating in the programme (Caiza, 1989). Although the academic effectiveness of these and other programmes is difficult to assess, the continued demand for them is a powerful, and probably reliable, indicator of their success within the communities. Moreover, the social impact of these and other similar programmes has been substantial both within the communities and also in the national context. Many of the children who participated in these early programmes became politically conscious of their ethnic identity and went on to become the bilingual school teachers, members of the indigenous intelligentsia, and indigenous political leaders of the present. Furthermore, the indigenous groups, through their organisation and mobilisation around education, demonstrated, in the words of one indigenous woman, that: we no longer want to be the object of investigations and experiments; rather, we want to be (and are capable of being) the actors and executors of an intercultural bilingual education that includes our historical, social, political, and cultural reality designed and controlled by us (Cotacachi, 1989: 263). The schools served as reminders for the national community of the existence of indigenous cultures and languages, and also as testimony to the groups’ powers to organise, administer and staff their own institutions. In a similar vein, Moya notes that ‘the participation of the indigenous movement in education was – to a certain extent – an act that “educated” the entire population of the content and form of civil



66

CIP 033


rights, and in particular, the rights of culture and of identity’ (Moya, 1991: 8). And as Cotacachi observes, ‘utilization of the native language as a medium of instruction . . . is a clear political decision on the part of the indigenous population’ (Cotacachi, 1989: 255). Improved local and regional indigenous organisation, increased access to and local control of education, and international support for indigenous demands, allowed the ‘political space’ and power of indigenous groups to grow significantly (Selverston, 1992). With this increased power came growing challenges to longstanding divisions and ideologies. As Hornberger has observed, while ‘language policy and language use reflect the socio-cultural and political-economic divisions of a society, they can also be vehicles for challenging those divisions’ (Hornberger, 1995: 189). In the Ecuadorian context, language of instruction was a symbolic vehicle for challenging many of the assumptions about indigenous peoples and languages. And as a result of continued political pressure from the indigenous sectors, significant changes concerning indigenous language education have occurred at the national level.

DINEIIB The most significant of these changes was the establishment of DINEIIB. Although bilingual education gained legal footing in the 1980s, there were few specific programmes and policies in place to support the practice of bilingual education. It was not until it was repeatedly brought to the public’s attention that there was a lack of accord between official policy (which mandated bilingual education) and educational practice (which, apart from a few experimental programmes, remained unchanged) that serious reforms were implemented (Moya, 1991). By far the most significant of these was the establishment of DINEIIB in November, 1989. As Moya notes, at the time, it was significant that the name of the organisation began first with ‘indigenous’ rather than ‘intercultural’ or ‘bilingual’ (the name of the office has since changed to the Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (National Directorate of Bilingual Intercultural Education) /S/ or DINEIB). According to Moya (1989: 22), ‘the creation of DINEIIB was a response to pressure on the part of indigenous organisations to have greater voice in decisions concerning education for the indigenous population’. Similarly, according to Selverston (1992), the formation of DINEIB was the outcome of a new dialogue process between the newly elected President Borja (1988) and CONAIE leaders. In short, DINEIB was charged with administering schools in areas in which the population is more than half indigenous, and with guaranteeing the unity, quality, and efficiency of indigenous education throughout Ecuador (DINEIIB, 1991). In the months after the establishment of DINEIB, an agreement of technical cooperation was signed between CONAIE and the Ministry of Education and Culture that allocated high-level positions within DINEIB for CONAIE representatives. In collaboration with CONAIE, DINEIB’s specific functions and responsibilities include developing appropriate bilingual intercultural education curricula; designing education programmes and structures in accord with the needs of the indigenous population; promoting the production and use of didactic materials; and supporting the maintenance and spread of standardised Quichua (DINEIIB, 1991). In order to administer the diverse and numerous



CIP 033


67

indigenous schools in the country, regional directorates were established in each of Ecuador’s 22 provinces. The regional directorates are responsible for administering and supervising all indigenous schools within their jurisdiction. The allocation of funds and authority to DINEIB marked the first time: in the educational history of Latin America that a Hispanic government allowed and supported the establishment of an independent educational administration for the indigenous populations, transferring the right to develop culturally appropriate curricula and independent teacher-training and selection methods (von Gleich, 1994: 96). As noted previously, these shifts in government policy occurred at least in part because they were the most viable political option in response to indigenous organisational pressure (Moya, 1991). When DINEIB was established in 1989, all educational programmes targeted at the indigenous populations fell within its jurisdiction. The most important of these was the experimental Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (Project of Bilingual Intercultural Education /S/ (PEBI)), which also operated in Peru (see Hornberger, 1988) and elsewhere in the Andes. Through an agreement of technical cooperation between the Ecuadorian and German Governments, PEBI began in Ecuador in 1986 with its first bilingual group of students and added one grade level each year. By 1993, PEBI was working in seven Quichua provinces with 53 pilot schools, 175 teachers and 4000 students (Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural, n.d.). In addition to promoting fluency in both oral and written Quichua and Spanish, PEBI emphasised the importance of the students’ own ethnicity and the development of student competence in interacting with other indigenous and non-indigenous groups. When PEBI came to a close at the end of the 1993 school year, it left behind a wealth of scholastic texts, technical information, and pedagogical experience.

Challenges to implementing indigenous language education As von Gleich has suggested, despite a great deal of federal legislation across the Andes designed to protect and promote ‘the ethnic and cultural diversity of the nation, this very favorable legal framework still lacks the regulations needed for implementation in the public, administrative, and legal sectors, as well as explanation of imprecise terms such as “zone” and “predominantly”’ (von Gleich, 1999: 686). And as recent work by Cotacachi (1997), Haboud (1998), and King (2000) suggests, although bilingual intercultural education is practised in many areas of Ecuador (according to DINEIB estimates, there are 2000 bilingual primary schools, 40 bilingual high schools, and six intercultural bilingual pedagogical institutes), it is generally not implemented consistently or effectively (Aguilar & Cabezas, 2002; Krainer, 1999). The following paragraphs explore some of the reasons why, despite strong federal legislation, years of experimentation, and substantial international support, bilingual intercultural education is still not practised effectively in many regions of the country (see King & Benson, 2004, for further discussion). Key issues include the dearth of qualified teachers; conflicting ideologies concerning the suitability of indigenous languages for school contexts; disparate



68

CIP 033


definitions and interpretations of interculturalism (and interculturality) and bilingualism, and administrative complications and resource shortages. A central issue in expanding the use of indigenous languages in education in the region is the training of qualified bilingual teachers (Abram, 1989). In Ecuador, this has long been recognised as a major challenge. For instance, CONAIE, DINEIB, and PEBI have each established intensive, accelerated programmes to train teachers (Yánez, 1991). However, wide-scale implementation of bilingual intercultural education (BIE) requires a critical mass of trained bilingual teachers, something that Ecuador, despite these and other significant efforts, has yet to succeed in cultivating. Even where basic training and recruitment issues are addressed, ideological forces potentially undermine use of the indigenous language in the classroom. As Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1998) note, there is often disparity between expressed ideals and actual support for indigenous languages, which in their view often results from deeply embedded ideologies concerning the language. Indigenous teachers might sharply recall their own punishment and embarrassment for using their language in school. Bilingual teachers also may harbour doubts about the suitability of the language for academic use, or feel insecure about their own language skills. For instance, among Ecuadorian Spanish-speaking elementary school teachers and principals who opposed bilingual intercultural education, some of the most revealing reasons they gave were that Quichua is useless in daily life, being a ‘backward’ language with an inadequate grammar and lexicon (Cotacachi, 1997). Other teachers may question, as Luykx does (2000), the assumption that formal school initiatives are key to indigenous language maintenance, and instead believe that focusing on home transmission is more appropriate. Implementation of bilingual education is also complicated by the fact that many parents in some communities are resistant to indigenous-language medium education. Carpenter (1983), for instance, found that in Otavalo, Ecuador – especially among the rural poor – parents wanted their children to be educated in Spanish, many believing that bilingual education would deny students access to social mobility. Another problematic issue rests in the varying definitions and interpretations of key terms such as bilingüismo (bilingualism) and interculturalidad (interculturality). Not unlike early formulations of bilingual education policy in the US (Crawford, 1999), legislation in Ecuador provides few specifics concerning how bilingual education should be defined and how Spanish and Quichua should be balanced within and across grades. For instance, DINEIIB outlines the primary goal of BIE as ‘contributing to the affirmation of the cultural identity of people of Ecuador’, altering the relationships and attitudes among peoples and groups, and contributing ‘to the development of a process of reflection which is the basis of a sustained and creative dialogue between cultures’ (DINEIIB, 1991: 25). DINEIIB does not specify media of instruction, but rather states that ‘the process of indigenous education involves cultivating and recuperating the mother tongue and learning the second language as a means of intercommunication with other cultures’ (DINEIIB, 1991: 36). According to Krainer (1996), the use of the word ‘bilingual’ within the Ecuadorian context reflects official recognition of the fact that there are diverse forms of statement and communication within the society. Thus, ‘the process of bilingual education supports the teaching and



CIP 033


69

use of indigenous languages and Spanish in a manner which develops both languages lexically and stylistically with the aim of converting them into multifunctional languages’ (Krainer, 1996: 26). From this perspective, ‘bilingual’ education is concerned not only with the use and instruction of indigenous languages within schools, but with the corpus and status development of indigenous languages as well as Spanish. Likewise, the meaning of ‘intercultural’ education is also open to interpretation. Krainer (1996) defines intercultural education as that which not only affirms one’s social and conceptual universe, but also permits the selective and critical appropriation of cultural elements of other groups. Haboud (2000, 2001c) argues that interculturality implies relations and interactions between two separate cultures, as well as the political task of constructing an egalitarian society. A further discrepancy concerns to whom ‘intercultural’ education should be directed. Although the discourse surrounding interculturality and interculturalism in Ecuador suggests that the enterprise involves all groups and must be reciprocal, in practice, it has generally been treated as an issue that is exclusive to the indigenous population as well as one which is limited to classroom contexts and not extended to interactions in wider society (Haboud, 2000, 2001c; Hornberger, 2000). As noted previously, Quichua is not taught to Spanish-speaking students in public schools as a foreign or second language, nor is it ever used as a medium of instruction for this group. Outside of public school, Quichua instruction for Spanish speakers is also extremely limited. For instance, out of 12 universities in Quito, only two (Universidad Católica and Universidad San Francisco) currently offer Quichua classes as open language classes. Out of the 45 private language institutes in Quito, only one teaches Quichua language and culture (José Maldonado, personal communication, May 2003). Thus, the Ecuadorian educational model has left the actual practice of interculturality squarely in the hands of the indigenous people. Given this imbalance, it is difficult to arrive at the formation of an intercultural society whose members learn to value and respect other cultures and peoples. Finally, the nature of DINEIB and its relationships with the National Government as well as with regional and local directorates also present complicating factors. Initially, DINEIB was headed by CONAIE leader and linguist, Luis Montaluisa. In 1990, an agreement was signed between the Government and DINEIB for support of 800 million sucres (about $800,000 at the time) for bilingual education services in 1989, and 2800 million sucres (just under $3,000,000) for 1990. According to CONAIE leaders, these funds never arrived and the DINEIB ‘was only a huge bureaucracy that serves to dissipate the strength of the bilingual education process, while indigenous organizations were excluded from control of the program’ (Selverston, 1992). Perhaps in response to such tensions, in 1998 DINEIB proposed an addition to the constitution which would codify bilingual intercultural education as a constitutional right (PROEIB Andes, 1998). The proposal maintains that indigenous persons constitute 40% of the country’s population and, if adopted, would require the state to allocate 30% of the total education budget to intercultural bilingual education for indigenous populations. In addition, the proposal would ‘guarantee the technical, administrative and financial autonomy of intercultural bilingual education’ (PROEIB Andes, 1998: 2). Unfortunately, the economic crisis Ecuadorians have faced



70

CIP 033


during the last decades has resulted in budget cuts in education and health. This has deeply affected indigenous education and development programmes in general. Nevertheless, given recent changes in Ecuadorian politics (see section that follows) and the presence of indigenous leaders in national political arenas, DINEIB anticipates an increase in the number of bilingual intercultural programmes. Furthermore, they expect to be adequately financed while maintaining their administrative, technical and financial autonomy, as the new Government has proposed to increase the budget for social areas to assist the underprivileged of the country (Luis Montaluisa, personal communication, November 2002).

Language Policy and Planning We turn now to the language planning channels and mechanisms in Ecuador. As highlighted in the paragraphs which follow, one point of contention concerns the debate over individual vs. collective rights, while another is rooted in the longstanding gap between legislation and implementation. Indigenous legislation and legislators As previously mentioned, according to Article One of the 1945 Constitution, Spanish is the official language of Ecuador, while Quichua and the other indigenous languages of the country are recognised as belonging to the ‘cultural heritage’ of Ecuador. Although indigenous languages are at least mentioned in the current Constitution, full legal recognition of the pluricultural and multilingual status of Ecuador has long been a central goal of regional indigenous organisations, particularly CONAIE. In January 1998, CONAIE, in collaboration with other social organisations, presented its proposal for a new constitution to the National Ecuadorian Assembly. CONAIE emphasises that the proposed constitution stresses ‘unity in diversity’ and that CONAIE aims ‘to form a pluri-national state, but does not aim to divide the state or territories or to create new states within the state’ (CONAIE, 1989). In essence, CONAIE’s goal has been for the linguistic, cultural, and social diversity of the country to be recognised by the Government as well as represented in the country’s policies. CONAIE’s position has shifted since the last presidential elections in 2002. The newly elected president, Lucio Gutierrez, is supported by several indigenous national and local organisations. Former CONAIE representatives have been given important governmental positions. While this has generated strong controversy within mainstream society, it is an unprecedented positioning of the minoritised population within the national sphere. Nevertheless, the challenge remains for this new political elite to overcome the racist and intolerant attitudes of the powerful mainstream society (El Comercio, 8 January 2003), as well as to bridge the disagreements and tensions which exist within and across different indigenous organisations. Such changes are relatively new as it was not until the 1980s, largely due to the pressure exercised by the indigenous organisations, that the Ecuadorian Government began to adopt rhetoric describing the construction of a plurinational, multilingual and multiethnic state with the goal of favoring the underprivileged (PRODEPINE, 2002b). Since the 1980s, the indigenous people of Ecuador and



CIP 033


71

their organisations have significantly increased their participation in the national political arena, and in development and educational programmes, generating profound changes in state politics as well. There are now more than 400 Indian representatives of parishes in different provinces of the country, around 100 working at the municipal level, more than ten in city councils, and at least five in local prefectures (Acosta, 2001). These gains in indigenous legislative power are reflected in new policies: in 1997, Ecuador ratified the International Labor Organisation, Convention number 169, concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, and protecting their collective rights; in 1999, the Ministry of Health recognised the National Indigenous Health Directorate, thus affirming the value of ancestral healing practices, and in May 2000, the Government created a special indigenous fund, which was increased in 2001 (León, 2002). In addition, there is current talk of changing the name of the Ministry of Education and Culture to the Ministry of Education and Cultures, in order to recognise publicly the multicultural and multilingual nature of the state. Further evidence of the shifting climate is evident in legislation put forth by indigenous leaders such as the former national deputy, Nina Pakari, in 2000. Pakari (2000, 2001) proposed a provision to the Constitution concerning the use of ancestral languages at the national level. She proposed the following: (1) The citizens and indigenous peoples of Ecuador have the right to use their languages to express viewpoints or demands in public and official acts. The State will provide the necessary means to guarantee mutual understanding (Art. 2). (2) Public procedures involving one or more indigenous citizens must guarantee the use of Indian languages (Art. 3). (3) In order to guarantee the use of vernacular languages in the official arena, state laws and all judicial norms must be bilingual (in Castellano (Castilian / S/) and the corresponding Indian language) (Art. 5). (4) Ancestral languages increasingly should be used in public institutions and services, legislatures, courts, mass media, etc. It is expected that the Government grant adequate facilities to enable appropriate translators and translations (Art. 6). The proposal was a point of contention between those who favour the use of indigenous languages and those who aim to form a homogeneous state united by Spanish. According to Pakari (personal communication, October 2002) it has been impossible to pass any amendments regarding language policies due to congress’s lack of interest. However, Nina Pakari and Luis Macas (former president of CONAIE) were recently nominated Minister of International Relations and Minister of Agriculture, respectively. It is expected that by holding these important political positions, they will have the opportunity to work towards the enactment of these provisions more directly and effectively (El Comercio, 2003). Pakari’s proposed revisions represent extensions of the collective rights delineated in the 1998 Constitution. Their recognition is a focal point for human rights. The collective rights, as set in the 1998 Constitution of Ecuador, establish the following:



72

CIP 033


(a) maintenance, development and reinforcement of the indigenous people’s identity, as well as their spiritual, cultural, linguistic, social, political and economic traditions; (b) preservation and development of their traditional ways of living and exercising authority, as well as their social organisation; (c) formulation of projects for the development and improvement of the social and economic conditions of indigenous groups; and (d) development of appropriate educational services through the intercultural bilingual educational system (León, 2002: 38). As Wiley (1996: 107) points out, framing language rights issues from the perspective of either the individual or the group as the locus of rights has implications for how language planning is approached, since individual protections can either supercede or be overruled by those of the group. Various indigenous leaders in Ecuador, including Pakari, have demanded that indigenous collective rights be accepted and respected as a condition to guarantee the indigenous populations’ survival and existence. While one point of contention is based in the debate over individual vs. collective rights, another is rooted in the longstanding gap between legislation and implementation. For instance, while the constitution outlines respect for indigenous languages and rights, official documents concerning development of sustainable projects on behalf of the underprivileged population of the Amazon offer very limited information concerning how such aims might be achieved. The Government’s Plan maestro (Major Development Plan /S/) (July 1998) devotes only one paragraph to the Indian people residing in the Amazon Basin (Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico, 1998: 17): The entire indigenous population of the Amazon is estimated at 120,000 inhabitants grouped into the Quichua, Shuar, Achuar, Siona-Secoya, Cofán, Huaroani, Shiwiar and Záparo peoples. The difference between groups is generated by the immigrant population who has previously or recently settled [in the Amazon] . . . (emphasis ours). The programmes developed by the Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico (Institute for the Eco-development of the Amazonian Region /S/ (ECORAE)) are devoted to the exploitation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, the reduction of waste according to the capacity of the ecosystem, and the use of technologies that increase the productivity of the region (ECORAE, 1998: 27); however, little is said about substantial changes for the inhabitants of the Amazonian region. Additionally, statistics often refer to the number of people belonging to a nationality as if this figure corresponded to the actual number of language speakers, despite the fact that people may continue to recognise themselves as members of a specific community or nationality after having lost their native language. This is, for instance, the case of many Quichuas in the southern province of Loja, where indigenous people forcefully defend their Quichua identity although Spanish is their dominant language (Haboud, 1996; King, 2000), or the case of Awa children whose native language is Spanish (see Krainer, 1999).



CIP 033


73

Another example is found in the 2000–2003 development plan of the present Government, which reiterates the importance of awareness of the country’s diversity; the first chapter decrees that the search for national integration must also respect diversity so as to ‘recognize the regional, ethnic, cultural and gender differences [of the country] in order to build a nation which is capable of consolidating diversity and playing a leading role in the American continent and the world’ (ODEPLAN, 2000: 3). In the same vein, the Oficina de Planificación Nacional (Office of National Planning /S/ (ODEPLAN)) outlines the potential of the country based on this diversity: ‘the ethnic, cultural and gender diversity are potential sources of change, creativity and diverse and complementary alternatives vis à vis the national crisis’ (ODEPLAN, 2000: 6). However, despite these official statements, in everyday actions the diversity of the country is still considered to be a problem impeding national progress. The Human Rights Committee (CEDHU) regularly denounces the violation of Indians’ basic rights, including those rights stated in the Constitution of the Republic, such as respect for the indigenous languages, customs and traditions; these are not recognised in practice, but rather continually challenged and violated (CEDHU, 1984: 110). Literacy policy and implementation If literacy is understood as the capacity to read and write, Spanish has been the major language of literacy in Ecuador for nearly 500 years, that is, since the conquest (1492) until late in the last century (1980s). All cultures of the Ecuadorian territory prior to the conquest were primarily oral ones; formal literacy skills were introduced as part of the colonisation process. At present, Spanish is the official language of literacy in Ecuador as set by the Constitution and by practice. Indian languages were first used as educational tools in the 19th century due to the difficulties of teaching Spanish literacy to non-speakers of Spanish. In 1945, Indian languages were recognised as part of Ecuador’s cultural heritage, and in 1979 (in reforms to the 1945 Constitution) the State accepted the use of Indian languages for literacy purposes. Since then, there have been multiple national literacy programmes, most of them constrained by economic and technical limitations as well as political controversies. This has unfortunately resulted in continuous shifts in the pedagogies and underlying orientations of programmes to the detriment of the potential beneficiaries. Some of these literacy projects are now briefly outlined.

Literacy programmes in Spanish A large number of popular Spanish-language literacy campaigns have been implemented in Ecuador in the last eighty years. The most successful and well known of these was the Monsignor Leonidas Proaño National Literacy Campaign, which sought to increase literacy rates in urban and rural areas and to emphasise that formal education is a right of all human beings. Under the slogan Ponle tu nombre (Write your name on it /S/), the campaign sought to raise awareness of education and to involve underprivileged sectors of the population such as Indian women. Although this campaign was limited to literacy in Spanish, official reports praised it for contributing to the 25% growth in literacy rates between 1970 and 1995 (UNESCO, 2002; World Bank Group, 2001). UNICEF and UNESCO main-



74

CIP 033


tain that the Monsignor Leonidas Proaño National Literacy Campaign has been one of the most significant educational and social events to occur in Ecuador in recent years. Nearly 425,000 people, including 75,000 literacy teachers, registered in Círculos de Alfabetización Popular (Popular Literacy Circles /S/). The campaign adopted human rights as its central topic and both the literacy materials and the training plans for the teachers were structured around this topic. The teachers were mostly secondary school students for whom participation in this campaign was a prerequisite for graduation. The campaign was thought of as the start of a movement towards educational reforms. Unfortunately, the majority of the individuals (1.2 million) who did not have access to any of these literacy programmes were concentrated in rural areas, especially in indigenous communities (see Neira, 2002). More recently, the Board of Education, with support from the United Nations, has opened two websites, EDUCARECUADOR (Educating Ecuador /S/) and EDUCTRADE (Proyecto de Reforzamiento de la Educación Técnica en el Ecuador, Reinforcement Project for Technical Education of Ecuador /S/). The first aims to promote education and culture and to develop a sense of national identity in private and public schools through virtual Internet classes. The second site intends to offer continuous education to future professionals. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the minoritised population has no access to Internet services. (See MEC, 2002 for an analysis of literacy programmes for this decade.)

Indigenous literacy programmes As noted previously, literacy rates vary substantially throughout Ecuador, generally with lower literacy rates in poorer, more rural, and more indigenous sectors. In the 1980s, efforts were undertaken with a particular emphasis on Quichua speakers and rural areas. The most substantial of these efforts was known as the Programa Nacional de Alfabetización (National Literacy Programme /S/). The programme was developed by the Centre for Investigation of Indigenous Education (CIEI) at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador in Quito. Although in its inception the programme was to make use of multiple indigenous languages, in practice, only Quichua and Spanish literacy programmes were developed (Krainer, 1996). As designed by CIEI, the literacy programme consisted of three phases: (1) literacy development: learning to read, write, and calculate in Quichua; (2) post-literacy development: introduction of Spanish as a second language; and (3) primary education (in areas where schools did not exist) (Krainer, 1996). Because of the prominent role of Quichua in instruction, as part of the development of this programme a unified alphabet for Quichua was established (see the next section on corpus planning). With CIEI, for the first time in Ecuadorian history, there was an interest in developing nationwide indigenous education projects with the active participation of representatives from all Indian nationalities. However, partly due to the difficulty of accommodating all local and national needs at the time, the Government suspended the plan after less than two years of operation. There were numerous intra-institutional disagreements, as well as misunderstandings between CIEI planners and local communities. Local indigenous leaders and community officials were generally not included in the decision-making process (Krainer, 1996), and additional problems surfaced when some communities



CIP 033


75

were found to be Spanish dominant. Tension also arose from the fact that CIEI had planned for the initial phase of literacy development to be completed in six months; in reality, this phase extended much longer, in some cases up to two years (Krainer, 1996). As Moya summarised, ‘the general opinion of the time was that literacy development should be bilingual, not exclusively monolingual Quichua’ (1991: 12). Moya (1989) also notes, however, that despite a limited impact quantitatively (only roughly 20,000 people achieved some level of literacy), qualitatively the programme was significant in that many more people – both indigenous and non-indigenous – were made aware of the right of indigenous people to educate themselves in their own language. In addition, the programme helped to dislodge the negative ideologies surrounding indigenous languages (e.g. that they were unsuitable for education or the production of knowledge).

Corpus planning Literacy planning has also taken place in the form of corpus planning for Quichua. With the technical support of the CIEI at the Catholic University of Ecuador, in 1981, representatives of speakers of the different Ecuadorian varieties of Quichua agreed upon a unified variety of Quichua (see also Montaluisa, 1980; in von Gleich, 1994). Quichua language planners, who were mostly Ecuadorian indigenous political and education leaders, made decisions in two key linguistic areas, which together constituted a major step towards the standardisation of Ecuadorian Quichua, known as Unified Quichua, or Quichua Unificado. First, planners attempted to modernise and purify the lexicon, expunging Spanish loan words from the language and replacing them with a regional Quichua term or with a neologism. Second, leaders agreed upon a unified system for writing Ecuadorian Quichua. Although the language had existed in written form for hundreds of years, there was no standard writing system, and its graphic representation tended to be based on Spanish orthography. With 20 consonants and three vowels, the orthography of Quichua Unificado differs from Spanish. For instance, Unified Quichua, in contrast to Spanish, does not use the letters b, d, g, rr, x, e, o, while including consonants such as ch and sh. According to Moya (1989), the debates concerning the unification of the writing system resulted in the adoption of a ‘compromise alphabet’ which rested somewhere between Quichua and Spanish phonology, with the assumption that incorporation of the latter would facilitate the acquisition of written Spanish. As Moya notes, ‘the decision to unify Quichua – at the linguistic level – resulted in the creation of a type of “pan-phonology” for Ecuadorian Quichua in which phonemes existing in all dialects were represented, but phonemes appearing in only some dialects were absent’ (Moya, 1989: 14). These decisions were codified in subsequent dictionaries and grammars (e.g. CONAIE, 1990; MEC, 1982) and constituted a major step towards the nation-wide standardisation of Ecuadorian Quichua. Aims included facilitating the development of Quichua materials, and contributing to the maintenance and even revitalisation of the language. In general, these decisions have been accepted and adopted by the majority of people and institutions that write and publish in Quichua (Moya, 1989). One additional factor supporting the unified system was the use of Quichua in radio broadcasting: ‘the announcers, above all, those who have learned to read in



76

CIP 033


Quichua, began to “speak in Unified [Quichua]”. In other words, the written norm influenced the spoken norm, and the spoken, in turn, influenced the written’ (Moya, 1989: 15). Although initially various alphabets were proposed based on linguistic, pedagogical, or explicitly political criteria, in the end, the latter prevailed as there was support behind the concept of ‘unification of written Quichua as an instrument of popular education’ (Moya, 1989: 13). The belief was that popular education was the best (and only) means of addressing three central problems: that of land, that of culture, and that of liberty (1989: 13). As such, the unity of the indigenous population could be translated into the unity of the writing system, and concomitantly, the unity of the writing system offered concrete possibilities as a means of developing capacity within indigenous organisation and developing support among indigenous populations (Moya, 1989: 13; see Luykx, in press, for a contrasting position). While unified in written form, it was accepted and expected that the regional varieties would continue to vary in their spoken forms (CONAIE, 1990). In practice, however, these goals have proven elusive. For instance, King (1999, 2000) reports that as Quichua materials have been introduced into some Quichua-Spanish bilingual communities in the southern highlands, two distinct Quichua varieties have emerged. The Quichua pedagogical materials promote the nationally standardised variety, i.e. Unified Quichua, which stands in contrast to what is commonly referred to as Quichua auténtico (Authentic Quichua /S/), spoken by elderly and rural dwellers. Because children and young adults studying Unified Quichua have not mastered the phonological system or the lexicon of the local variety, they learn not only to read but also to speak Unified Quichua. While the varieties are mutually intelligible to most, there are clashes and gaps in communication between older and younger Quichua speakers; such tensions undermine the use of Quichua and exacerbate generational and social divisions (see King, 2000). Such tensions have also caused Luykx (2000) to call into question the ideological assumptions underlying current language policies in Andean nations: namely, that standardisation is key to Quechua language revitalisation and political empowerment; that etymological criteria are the best guide for elaborating a standard; and that literacy- and school-based functions are the most crucial to Quechua’s future. Inasmuch as these assumptions conflict with the language ideologies of Quechua communities, the chances of success for these policies are diminished. Rather than focusing exclusively on domains where Spanish is dominant, language planners should address language shift in those domains that constitute Quechua’s stronghold: the home and community (Luykx, 2000). Language planning agencies The main institution devoted to Spanish language planning in Ecuador is the Ecuadorian Royal Academy, which, despite its defence of linguistic purism, recently accepted the incorporation of loan words from Indian languages (especially Quichua) and from foreign languages (mainly English) into Ecuadorian Spanish. (See El Comercio, 2003 for recent comments on this topic.) Regarding



CIP 033


77

indigenous languages, there are no agencies or institutions dedicated exclusively to language planning; rather, as suggested by the previous discussion, corpus, status, and acquisition planning generally take place as by-products of educational and political planning across a wide range of governmental and non-governmental agencies. One example of such an agency is the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), known in Latin America as the Instituto Lingüístico de Verano (/S/). According to their current public relations materials, SIL ‘is a service organization that works with people who speak the world’s lesserknown languages’ (SIL, 2002). Founded in 1934, SIL has carried out ‘linguistic investigation in 1,320 languages, spoken by 350 million people in more than 50 countries’ (SIL, 2002). While this description of general service may be technically accurate, it is also important to note that all resources for SIL’s work are provided by Wycliffe International, an organisation devoted to Bible translation. Wycliffe Bible Translators’ current goal is ‘to see a Bible translation program begun in all the remaining languages that need one by the year 2025’ (Wycliffe Bible Translators, 2002). SIL began operation in Ecuador in 1952, authorised by the state to support the investigation of indigenous languages in the country (DINEIB, 1994). Initially, SIL primarily operated in the Amazonian region of the country with various indigenous groups, including lowland Quichua; in later years SIL also worked in highland sierra regions (Moya, 1989). During these years SIL developed bilingual educational programmes, often with a strong missionary or evangelical component (Cotacachi, 1989; DINEIB, 1994), and also created a large body of literature on Ecuadorian indigenous languages, ranging from teachers’ guides for instructing Quichua to analyses of phonemes in the Cofan language (SIL, 2002). Nevertheless, criticism of SIL’s methods and objectives grew in the 1970s, and in 1981, after nearly 30 years in the country, the Government rescinded SIL’s contract. This was largely due to pressure from indigenous organisations, unions, professionals and intellectual and leftist circles, among others (Moya, 1989). These groups levelled two basic complaints against SIL’s activities (Krainer, 1996): (1) that SIL’s primary objective was religious conversion, a process which resulted in profound cultural, economic and social shifts among those populations with whom SIL worked; and (2) that the scientific work of SIL was inaccessible and overly linguistic, and that is was the responsibility of the state, not of SIL, to conduct studies of this nature. Another example of ‘indirect’ language planning in Ecuador is the Mision Andina (Andean Mission /S/). The Andean Mission’s goals were to improve the social conditions of the rural population (Cotacachi, 1989). The Mission began its work in 1958 in the province of Chimborazo. In 1964, the Mission was nationalised and placed under the ‘National Development Plan’ whose jurisdiction included any areas above 1500 metres altitude. In the 1970s, the Mission was integrated into the Ministry of Agriculture. The Mission prepared reading booklets in Quichua on topics including mythology, social relations and the environment. This work was accomplished in the local Quichua dialects of Salasaca, Imbabura and Chimborazo (MEC, 1992). PEBI (see previous DINEIIB section) was also extensively involved in ‘indirect’ language planning. PEBI made a strong commitment to maintenance and revitalisation of Quichua. One of the project’s major objectives was to produce a



78

CIP 033


complete set of teaching materials in Quichua and Spanish for each of the six years of primary school. In addition, PEBI supported the creation of new editions of previously published written grammars of Quichua as well as the publication of the journal Pueblos Indígenas y Educación (Indigenous People and Education / S/) as a regional means of communication about educational, linguistic and cultural issues (von Gleich, 1994). PEBI also promoted local and regional workshops focusing on terminological adaptation among Quichua-speaking Andean countries (von Gleich, 1994: 97–8). DINEIB, CONAIE, and the MEC have played similar roles as unofficial or indirect agents of language planning. Each has not only published a wide range of pedagogical texts, including grammar(s) and dictionaries, but also has made strategic decisions concerning the allocation of scarce resources to particular language groups or goals. Abya-Yala is a non-profit, private institution that operates a publishing house and a cultural centre, both of which are focused on indigenous issues in Latin America (Abya-Yala, 2002). Abya-Yala initiated its activities in 1975 and was officially recognised by the Government in 1986. Its goals include rescuing, documenting, and disseminating the cultural values of indigenous peoples; sensitising the wider society to the legal, educational, and territorial issues facing the indigenous population, and promoting academic initiatives to enrich the debate concerning indigenous rights, through publications, conferences, symposia, and research centres. A number of indigenous institutions of higher education have also been proposed and developed in recent years, each of which potentially impacts indigenous language planning in Ecuador. Among these are the Instituto Científico de Culturas Indígenas/Amauta Runacunapac Yachai (Scientific Institution of Indigenous Cultures, /S/Q/) which has proposed the formation of the Universidad Intercultural de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos Indígenas del Ecuador Amautai Wasi (Intercultural University of the Nationalities and Indigenous Peoples of Ecuador /S/Q/) in order to educate future professionals who will work in harmony with nature and with other cultures in areas such as indigenous medicine, indigenous law, education, economics and alternative development (PROEIB Andes, 2001). Their complete academic programmes were scheduled to begin in June 2002. Three other universities intend to open by the end of 2002: Universidad Intercultural (Intercultural University /S/) led by the Secretary of Education of CONAIE and sponsored by the Swedish Government; University Yachak Huasi (House of Knowledge) with two branches, one in Otavalo and one in Chimborazo, and Universidad de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (University of Ecuadorian Amazonia /S/) (Fernando Garcés, personal communication, February 2002; see also Haboud, in press). Despite these and other efforts, various analyses of intercultural bilingual education in Ecuador show that, in general, it has not been extremely effective in reinforcing minoritised languages, and in some cases, may potentially play a role in facilitating language shift (Fernando Garcés, Simeon Floyd, personal communications, November 2002 and January 2003, respectively). For instance, Krainer (1999) reports that in the community of El Troje in Chimborazo, all of the parents and children report Quichua to be their mother tongue, and 62.5% of the teachers claim to know Quichua, but a much smaller number, only 18.8%, use it regularly in school. Similarly, in the Shuar community of San Luis de Inimkis, 100% of the



CIP 033


79

parents report that they are speakers of Shuar, while only 40.7% of the children have Shuar as their native language; simultaneously, 76% of the teachers know Shuar, but only 15.4% use Shuar in school (1999). These gaps in language use and language transmission have been recognised by both indigenous and non-indigenous experts at the Ministry of Education and DINEIB (DINEIB, 2002). Their most recent ‘strategic plan’ for education highlights the previous ineffectiveness and future challenges for intercultural bilingual education to significantly expand use of indigenous languages beyond the familial domain and to adequately address complex issues of cultural identity (DINEIB, 2002). Education has perhaps been less successful as a tool for language maintenance in part because of the tendency for both indigenous and non-indigenous people to believe that minoritised languages cannot serve as educational channels (see Haboud, in press; Krainer, 1999). Other major influential domains of use are religion and mass media, each of which is briefly discussed in the following sections. Language planning and religion The most recent reformed National Constitution (1998) guarantees the freedom of religion as established in the 1945 National Constitution. However, there is no explicit legal statement concerning the use of any language for religious purposes. In general, Catholicism is the primary religion of the country (Almanaque Mundial, 2002) and Spanish is the primary language of religion. Yet in order to fully understand language and religion in Ecuador it is crucial to note that the multiethnic and multicultural nature of the Ecuadorian society implies a multi-religious reality. As in many places of the world, indigenous people in Ecuador have traditionally venerated nature. Later, with the expansion of larger social groups such as the Incas, new rituals and beliefs were transmitted and shared with dominated groups. The cult of the Pachamama (Mother Earth / Q/), Inti Wiracocha (Sun and Ocean /Q/) and Pachacamac (Creator /Q/) is a demonstration of the cultural influence of the Inca empire on other groups. In addition to these, many other gods and goddesses still exist along the Andes. With the cultural cataclysm induced by the Spanish conquest of America, European divinities and rituals were imposed on the local population. At the present time, ancient rituals worshipping nature still exist, particularly in rural areas of the Andes and the Ecuadorian Amazon, and the language used for such ceremonies varies. Correspondingly, prayers, rituals and the transmission of religious values might take place in Quichua, Shuar or any of the other ancestral languages, as well as in Spanish. Catholicism has long used Spanish and local languages to catechise, although rituals were performed in Latin, which continued to be the language for spiritual communication between priests, people and God in the Western World until the late 1950s. Thus, the religious manifestations in the Americas are syncretic; that is, beliefs, symbols and rituals from the Spanish and the indigenous tradition worldviews converge (Rueda, 1981–1982). Although Spanish is now the language primarily used for religious purposes, historically Quichua played an important role in the processes of Christianisation by Spanish conquerors and missionaries. Figueroa explains the role of Quichua during the colonial period:



80

CIP 033


that all priests try, in every case, to introduce the general language of the Inca in the lessons. This language is the most accepted and the easiest to master, as shown by experience, since it is the closest to their [the Indians’] capacity, and the one which in its elocutions, details, and modes of talking, corresponds to their natural languages (Figueroa, 1661: 167–8, in Garcés, 1999: 44). The Jesuits likewise attempted to use Quichua as a lingua franca within the multilingual region they had conquered. Their goal was to eliminate the other existing languages and to facilitate evangelisation (Uriarte, 1986). The use of Quichua during the colonial period as a means of Christian instruction decreased gradually in favour of Spanish. More recently, studies concerning the development of the Ecuadorian Catholic Church (Botasso, 1991; Hurtado, 1977) demonstrate the impact that the newer progressive theologies have had on the traditional church and on the Indian languages and cultures. Movements such as Liberation Theology have definitely favoured ethnic minorities of the country (Botasso, 1991; Botero, 1991), and one of their approaches has been to adopt Quichua as the language for religious services, with the purpose of encouraging the Indian population to maintain their traditional values. In addition, during the last 50 years several non-Catholic groups, especially those affiliated with evangelical churches (for instance, the Gospel Missionary Union (GMU), the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and Hoy Cristo Jesus Bendice (HCJB)), have greatly expanded their memberships. These groups have helped to generate a sort of competition and de facto bilingual policy that promotes the use and potential maintenance of indigenous languages (Muratorio, 1981; Ocaña, 1996). Based on a sociolinguistic survey of nine highland provinces, Haboud (1998) reports that although Spanish is the language most widely used for religious purposes, Quichua is widely used as well. Similarly, Floyd (2002) found in three highland communities that Quichua is widely used within religious contexts, especially among evangelical groups. Similar findings are reported among Quichua speakers in urban areas (Haboud, 2001d). Evangelical groups have translated the bible into all Ecuadorian languages (Grimes, 1999), and the Covington Bible Church reports the translation of the bible into Awap’it as well as the creation of a new a church in which the native language is widely used (Covington Bible Church, 2002). According to the Catálogo de las Organizaciones Misioneras del Ecuador (Catalogue of Missionary Organisations of Ecuador /S/), there are 35 ‘cross-cultural missionary’ groups that have been licensed to work in Ecuador. Of these missionaries, 30 are active in the country’s provinces, and 12 use a vernacular language. There are four Quichua ministers, two Shuar, and six from other ethnic groups (COMIBAM, 2002). Accordingly, internal missionary policies have had an important impact on indigenous languages and have provided de facto language planning. In addition, a small number of Catholic and other Christian churches located in Quito offer services in English and German on a regular basis, and the radio station HCJB broadcasts religious programmes in Spanish, English and Quichua. Until recently, the Lebanese-Ecuadorian association, settled in the main coastal city, Guayaquil, had Catholic services in Arabic (Janet Elghoul, personal communication, July 2002).



CIP 033


81

Language planning in the media Spanish is the primary language of all national and regional media. Quichua and other indigenous languages are generally not heard or seen on commercial media outlets in urban or in rural areas. While Spanish-only is the general rule, there are exceptions, the more notable of which are outlined here. While the national newspapers all appear in Spanish, occasionally bilingual (Quichua/Spanish) supplements in El Comercio of Ecuador are included. For instance, when Ecuador was considering dollarisation, a bilingual SpanishQuichua Sunday supplement entitled Dolarización/Dolarwan Aylluyarinamanta (Dollarisation, /S/Q/) appeared in this paper (El Comercio, 2000, in Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, in press). Most popular movie theatres show US films that have been dubbed in Spanish. Yet a few movies have been produced in both Quichua and Spanish by indigenous groups with the support of farmers’ and miners’ organisations and some regional clubs. One example is Llujsiy Caimanta (Get Out of Here /Q/) directed by Bolivian Jorge Sanjinés (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, in press). Moreover, since the 1990s, CONAIE and Abya-Yala have hosted an indigenous film festival that showcases indigenous-directed and written films from across the Americas (Cuarto Festival de video de las Primeras Naciones de Abya-Yala (Fourth Film Festival of the First Nations of Abya-Yala /S/)) (Infodesarrollo, 2002). In addition to a week-long exposition in Quito, many of the films were screened in indigenous communities far from the capital. The main goals of the film festival were to support the development of an authentic native audiovisual language and to transmit these new developments among the migrant indigenous and the non-indigenous populations in order to increase the cultural participation of the indigenous peoples nationally and internationally. The festival also offered training workshops about technical and theoretical aspects of film production and broadcasting and allowed participants to exchange experiences about the contribution of audiovisual media to the development of the indigenous peoples. In addition, there is a growing body of Quichua and indigenous literature too large and diverse to describe here adequately. (See Hornberger & CoronelMolina, in press, for more detailed discussion of Quichua/Quechua literature across the Andes.) A few notable examples: Fausto Jara (1982, 1994) and María Sisapacari Bacacela (2000) each produced bilingual compilations of stories in Spanish and Ecuadorian Quichua. Popular literature translated into Quichua includes the Ecuadorian Quichua versions of García Márquez’s (1981) Crónica de una Muerte Anunciada (Chronicle of a Death Foretold /S/), and Saint-Exupéry’s classic, Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince) (Albó, 1998). Two Ecuadorian resources written entirely in Quichua (though not in Unified Quichua) are a dictionary (Montaluisa et al., 1982) and a grammar (Cotacachi, 1994). Also significant are dictionaries and grammars by Catta (1994), Cole (1982), and Segundo Francisco Lema Guanolema (1997). From 1993 to 1997, MACAC, a private corporation devoted to bilingual Quichua-Spanish education, published a bilingual review, Samana Pacha (Time to Enjoy /Q/), which included scientific and academic articles as well as short stories, jokes and games. Due to financial difficulties, these publications were


CIP 033


82


offered to students only on a sporadic basis (Consuelo Yánez, personal communication, January 2003). In addition, Abya-Yala Press has long printed texts in and about indigenous languages, although the number of indigenous language titles has dropped sharply since 2000. Indigenous languages have perhaps the most visible position across the medium of radio. Although nearly all commercial radio is in Spanish, there are a number of state and private educational and religious programmes or stations which operate in indigenous languages. Perhaps the best known of these is HCJB World Radio, which has a longstanding radio transmission in Quichua (dating back to 1932) with an evangelical mission (Albó, 1998: 132). This station produces its programmes to both Quito and the United States, and broadcasts using shortwave from the Voice of the Andes in Ecuador (Hornberger & CoronelMolina, in press). Another significant Quichua radio project was known as the ‘Popular Radio Schools of Ecuador’, which began in 1964. These schools were aimed at developing literacy skills among the adult Quichua-speaking population and were initiated by Monseñor Proaño, Bishop of Riobamba. However, in these programmes ‘the native language was used primarily to raise consciousness among participants; the actual broadcasts were transmitted only in Spanish’ (DINEIB, 1994: 10). In spite of the scarce resources and the lack of trained expertise, the Indian nationalities in general look forward to using new technologies and believe they hold great promise. For instance, linguist Consuelo Yánez Cossío along with members of the MACAC corporation she directs, are currently preparing a Quichua dictionary with 12,000 technical and scientific terms (personal communication, January 2003).

Language Maintenance The Spanish spoken in Ecuador embodies much regional and social variation due to the strong indigenous and Afroecuadorian influence (Lipski, 1994). During the colonial and republican periods, the highland Spanish of the upper social classes was shaped by Quichua, due to the contact of both speech communities within the hacienda system of large land holdings (see Büttner, 1993; Haboud, 1991; Lipski, 1994; Sánchez-Parga, 1992; Toscano, 1953). More recently, the influence of Quichua on highland Spanish has declined, and many Spanish speakers, consciously or unconsciously, look to Spain for models of correctness and good Spanish (Fierro, 2002). In addition, many Ecuadorians believe the best Spanish is spoken in one of the southern provinces, Loja. Its prestige is attributed to the resemblance this variety is said to have with dialects spoken in Spain and to the relationship between the elite of the city of Loja and European culture. In general terms, however, the parameter determining standard Spanish in Ecuador is the language used in academic institutions and prestigious mass media broadcasting in urban centres like the capital, Quito. Upper urban social classes set the prestige norm for many of the variable linguistic features. This standard is, of course, influenced by global mass media (e.g. cable television programmes which use Caribbean, Mexican or North American versions of Spanish) and foreign languages, especially English. During the last 20 years, English has had an increasing influence on Ecuadorian



CIP 033


83

Spanish. Aside from lexical borrowings in both technical and non-technical areas, there is an important influence of phonetic characteristics associated with high status and prestige. For example, a recent study of the production and perception of the phoneme /r/ among middle-class Spanish speakers in the city of Quito showed that they preferred speakers with a more English-sounding retroflex /r/ over a sibilant /r/. Retroflex /r/ is associated with wealthy, high prestige society members, while sibilant /r/ is connected with the speech of uneducated, rural, Indian speakers (FCLL, 2002a). While such findings reflect some degree of insecurity concerning variation on the part of Spanish speakers, there is no concern about the intergenerational transmission of Spanish. As Spanish is the primary language in most communicative domains, its place in the country is secure. In contrast, speakers of indigenous languages seem to have good cause to worry about the status of their languages and their chances for maintenance in the years to come. Indigenous language shift Language shift and language loss are not new phenomena in Ecuador. However, the manner and speed at which indigenous language loss is taking place in Ecuador is unprecedented. As part of the process of modernisation, Spanish has massively intruded into all regions of the country. As King notes, ‘Spanish has made in-roads into seemingly every speech situation, and presently [in many communities], only what might be the traces of former domains are left’ (King, 1999: 25). In general, demographic analysis suggests a significant decrease in the number of speakers of indigenous languages, although the lack of accurate data means that little is known about the specific situation of each community and the cultural impact of these shifts. For instance, reports about the number of indigenous people who paid taxes in 1831 show that at least 50% of the national population was indigenous. Within the highlands, estimates were as high as 75% or even 85% (Gobierno del Ecuador, 1831; in Mills & Ortiz, 1980: 78). By 1880, the estimated indigenous population was 60% (Church, 1881, in Mills & Ortiz, 1980: 125). Seventy years later, the 1950 census reported that 24% of the total Ecuadorian population used Quichua. This percentage included monolingual Quichua speakers as well as bilinguals (Castellano-Quichua and Quichua-Castellano). Other languages registered in the same census were Jivaro (Shuar and Achuar), Cayapa (Chachi) and Záparo, all listed under the category of aboriginal dialects, with no more than 1% of the total population (DGEC, 1954: 6–7; Knapp, 1991: 10). One of the final reports concerning the 1950 census states that the lack of information about Tsa’fiki, Siona, Secoya, and Aìngae results from the rejection of the official census on the part of such populations who evaded census takers by moving into other areas (DGEC, 1954: 7). The same document comments that these languages (described as ‘dialects’) are rapidly being assimilate into Spanish, favoured by the white settlers. It was not until the 1990 census that a linguistic question was included again (‘what language do you usually use at home?’) with the intention of determining the indigenous population of the country. The 1990 census reports a total of 362,500 speakers of Indian languages, which corresponds to only 3.75% of the total population (9,648,189) (INEC, n.d.). In contrast, CONAIE reports that at least 30%



84

CIP 033


of the population are Indians. These inconsistencies result mainly from the high absenteeism of the Indian population in the 1990 census and the lack of precise criteria to determine the ethnicity of the interviewees, on the one hand, and the different parameters used to collect and understand demographic data on the other.

Quichua In all the Andean countries, the number of Quechua speakers has declined over time. The percentage of monolingual Quichua speakers in the Andes has decreased from 31% in 1940, to 17% in 1961, and to 11% in 1982, while the percentage of Spanish monolinguals has risen (from 50% in 1940, to 65% in 1961, and to 72% in 1982) (von Gleich, 1992: 59l, in Hornberger & King, 2000: 167–8). Comparisons of the figures found in Ecuador seem to be quite unreliable, as suggested in Table 1 (from 24% in 1950 to 0.49% in 2002, or to 0.3% in 1990). Also, a brief comparison of data reported in 1987 by SIL (Grimes, 1999) concerning two highland provinces (Pichincha and Imbabura) and the recent fieldwork conducted by Floyd (September 2001 – June 2002) in the same two locations shows a decline in the use of Quichua. Except for remote rural areas, Pichincha (the capital region) is no longer a strong Quichua-speaking area where the language is spoken by children and in the home. As for Imbabura, which was considered a highly monolingual Quichua province by SIL, it is now a bilingual (Quichua-Spanish) area (Gómez, 2001; Haboud, 1998). Despite these rough estimates, the context and status of Quichua varies widely across the Andes, and it is difficult to generalise concerning the vitality of the language (Hornberger & King, 2000). For instance, Hornberger (1988) found that in Puno, Peru, there were clearly defined domains of use for both Quechua and Spanish, while King (1996) suggests that the communities of her study in southern Ecuador, Loja, cannot be considered diglossic. Haboud (1996) also stresses the different patterns shown in each of the 99 communities she studied. In a similar vein, Floyd (Floyd, 2002: 3), after comparing four different rural Quichua communities of Ecuador, concludes, ‘the place of Quichua and the factors that affect it vary drastically from place to place’. Likewise, Garcés and Haboud (June, 2002), in recent visits to Salasaca and Ambayata, two communities in the province of Tungurahua, found dissimilar linguistic behaviour. Salasaca is still a vital Quichua-speaking community in which children continue to use the native language as an important means of communication within the family, in playgrounds, on the streets, and in the markets. In Ambayata, in contrast, about 40 children who attend a bilingual intercultural school were unable to hold a conversation in Quichua, although they had greeted the visitors with formulaic Quichua phrases (e.g. hello, how are you?). However, both Haboud (1998) and Floyd (2002) reported that the household, a Quichua domain par excellence, is becoming a bilingual space in those communities that are most exposed to the Spanish influence. In short, although it is not possible to offer exact information about Quichua maintenance or loss, there is evidence of increased bilingualism in areas traditionally known as Quichua-only domains. Amazonian and coastal languages The situation of the Amazonian and Coastal languages is similarly complex. These languages and their speakers have not only suffered the impact of colonisation and modernisation, but they are also confronting the presence of rebel



CIP 033


85

guerillas and government soldiers from the neighbouring country of Colombia. As this is a continuous source of distress for the Indian people, it is not surprising that reports about Awapi’t, Aìngae, Siona, Secoya and Waotededo show a decrease in population size and intergenerational linguistic and cultural transmission, to the point that monolingual elders, on occasion, have limited communication with their own children. (See Muratorio, 1998, for Amazonian Quichua; Contreras, 1997–1998, for Awa; Ventura, 1995, for Tsachila; and Mirzayan, 1997.) The case of lowland Amazon Quichua also presents special challenges. Within some traditional Quichua populations the language is being lost because of the influence of foreign institutions (missionaries, non-governmental organisations), the military (Floyd, 2002) and transnational companies. Muratorio (1998), for example, describes the impact of oil companies on language loss, especially among young women from Napo who seem to have shed their cultural values and are instead emulating models of Western soap operas. This has created a profound generational gap with the older women, who are unable to transmit their knowledge and culture. For the younger generations, shifting to Spanish is often not viewed as a problem, but rather as the solution to Indian subordination within a society where Spanish is dominant. The Záparos have also initiated several activities to stimulate language revitalisation with the help of the few elders who still speak the language. Although culturally distinct from Quichuas, Záparos have shifted to Quichua in recent years. Other non-Quichua communities are also learning Quichua as their second or third language (Richard Salazar, personal communication, July 2002). This suggests that, in the Amazon basin, many of the Indian nationalities potentially confront a situation of double subordination, as their language is dominated not only by the official language, Spanish, but also by Quichua, which has gained regional recognition.

Migration, employment and language loss Migration is a critical factor in language loss for both highland and lowland groups. The socioeconomic restructuring of Ecuador during the last 40 years, its agrarian reforms (during the 1960s and 1970s), major political, social and geographic changes (e.g. the peace treaty with Peru in 1998), and the image of the city as the place of success and progress, have dramatically increased rural-urban migration. As already noted, there has been a dramatic shift from rural to urban residence: 30% urban in 1950 and 70% in 2002. Ibarra Illanez (1992: 74) found a strong correlation between rates of migration and the size of the land owned by migrants, with urban migration positively correlated with ownership of smaller, unproductive lots. Martinez reports that 81% of the permanent urban migrants own less than 5.5 acres (roughly 2 hectares) (1984: 82). In most cases and at least for a certain period, migrating means isolation and individual search for success. This introduces the need to learn the dominant language and culture within the demanding context of the city. It is impossible to generalise the outcomes of migration, as each case may develop differently depending on the potential individuals have for negotiation and on their ability to reconstruct their community under the pressures of the new environment. Although migration is clearly linked with language loss, especially among the younger generations, it is likely that those individuals who achieve stability and



86

CIP 033


a desire to rebuild a particular community may look to language as a means of doing so. (See Haboud, in press for specific cases of Quichua migrants in Quito; see also Herrera, 2002). The migration of new industries to rural areas has also presented threats for Ecuadorian indigenous languages, and for Quichua in particular. As an example, the increase in the number of flower plantations (a major industry in the country) in previously agricultural land in northern Ecuador is a new source of language and culture loss. Diego Bonifaz, mayor of Cayambe, (personal communication, July 2002) explains that the indigenous people working in such plantations are not allowed to wear their traditional clothes (for safety reasons) and must speak Spanish. The complaints presented by the local indigenous organisation have been unanswered. One of the workers explained that, given the restrictions of the factories and the price of the traditional indigenous clothes, they have decided to wear them once a year for the annual festivities, and occasionally for important celebrations. Regarding the language, the children of these workers, are, at best, passive bilinguals. As Bonifaz points out, ‘the[ir] actual living conditions do not leave any margin for changes that could favour the revitalisation of the language’. Teachers of bilingual intercultural schools in the same region mention that the number of first graders who arrive speaking Spanish seems to have steadily increased (Laura Santillán, personal communication, June 2002). Quintero and de Vries (1991) describe a similar situation in the province of Bolivar, where a high percentage of the children attending Quichua-Spanish bilingual schools were native Spanish speakers, although their parents had Quichua as their native language. Indigenous language revitalisation efforts While many events and processes have intentionally or unintentionally undermined indigenous languages, there have been deliberate attempts to facilitate language maintenance and development, and more recently to revitalise use of both ‘larger’ languages, such as Quichua, and languages with very few speakers, such as Zápara. Some efforts have emerged from individual and family interests and have later turned into community-based projects. Others have been developed through the central Government and national or international organisations. While some of the latter have already been described, there are important smaller-scale educational efforts that deserve our attention. We focus on these here.

Educational efforts Outstanding examples of small-scale revitalisation efforts are found in Indian schools of Cayambe (province of Pichincha), thanks to the efforts and inspiration of a Quichua woman, Dolores Cacuango, in the 1940s. Together with the schools, Cacuango promoted the creation of the first national Indian organisation in Ecuador, Federación Ecuatoriana de Indios (Ecuadorian Indian Federation /S/ (FEI)), as she was convinced that education could not be separated from overall development, local organisation and language maintenance (Rodas, 1988). In 2001, Dolores Cacuango was nationally recognised as one of the Ecuatorianos que no podemos olvidar (Ecuadorians we cannot forget /S/) (Ponce, 2001: 20). Alongside these efforts was the first bilingual newspaper, Nucanchic Allpa (Our Land



CIP 033


87

/Q/), published during the 1930s and 1940s as a channel for defending and organising indigenous people of the country (Ponce, 2001: 86). Similar, little known efforts continue to emerge. For instance, in Quilapungo, a small community in the province of Cotopaxi, some elders gather their families together every night to talk and sing in Quichua. After six months of fieldwork in the area, Floyd (2002: 5) comments that ‘in most families in the area Quichua will survive at least to the next generation, since even the youngest children are currently learning the native tongue’. Young Quichua speakers from Agato, Province of Imbabura, who are discontented with the intercultural bilingual schools of the area, have decided to teach their own children using both Quichua and Spanish and to focus on their ancestral knowledge (Oscar Santillan, personal communication, April 2002). Groups of migrants in Quito are trying to offer bilingual education in centres that correspond to those in native communities. Unfortunately, much of the success of these programmes relies on student interest in learning their own language (Laura Santillán, personal communication, June 2002). Quichua migrants in Guayaquil and Quito have also developed strategies to survive culturally in the city. They have not only formed organisations affiliated with CONAIE, but are also coordinating with local government officials in order to receive better basic services. Since most of the migrants work as street vendors or in small businesses in populated neighbourhoods, mutual assistance is an implicit rule. Members of the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (Salasaca Polytechnic University) comment that indigenous migrants replicate their community lifestyle which helps reinforce their worldview and native language. Their children also attend a bilingual intercultural school, and their religious services and catechism are performed in Quichua (El Hoy, February 2002). These efforts may hopefully turn into effective ways to secure intergenerational transmission and language and cultural maintenance (see also Haboud, 2001d). Regarding the other minoritised languages in the country, for about 15 years the Tsa’fiki nationality along with the Central Bank in Guayaquil have produced vocabulary lists, mythology books and short stories. With the technical support of linguistics students of the University of Oregon, some Tsafiqui speakers are putting together a grammar, a lexicon and several publications about oral traditions. These, along with their economic, geographic and communal stability, favour the vitality of the language (Alfonso Aguavil and Connie Dickinson, personal communication, June 2001; January 2002; see Calazacón et al., 1995). The Shuar-chicham and Achuar nationalities have used the educational radio system as a successful tool to communicate in their own language. Federation leaders emphasise the importance of traditional knowledge about forest management, reproduction, healing practices and schooling, which can be better transmitted in the Shuar language: ‘the songs sung by the women would not have any meaning if sung in Spanish’ (Hendricks, 1991: 59). For the Shuar people, leadership, and optimal production are related to speaking ability, so good leaders and women must know their language to communicate and maintain good relationships with the rest of the community, mother earth, and nature. Hendricks underlines the great significance that Shuar place on language as a source of group identification and friendship (Hendricks, 1991: 63), to the point



88

CIP 033


that speakers of languages other than Shuar are considered potential enemies. For Puwainchir (Federation President, 1987–1988): language is the most important sign of identity among ethnic groups in Ecuador. Policies that deny the Shuar the right to use their language and promote the expansion of Spanish are sources of domination that the Shuar must resist if they are to survive (in Hendricks, 1991: 66). The role of the Shuar Federation in language policy and planning has been outstanding. Along with the Salesians, the Shuar centres and their federation created one of the first schools committed to the maintenance of their culture and language in the early 1970s. Another example of the Shuar Federation academic outcomes is a comprehensive dictionary which is: . . . the result of collective work and [our] battle to preserve the Shuar language and culture. This is everybody’s commitment: teachers, leaders, and parents. We all need to defend the Shuar culture and language for our children to be proud of their Shuar identity . . . Our Shuar women talk to the crops and the plants. How can we continue to call them if we forget their names? Would the plants answer if we call them by foreign names? (Instituto Normal Bilingüe Intercultural Shuar (Introduction), 1988: xiii). Given the increased rates of bilingualism, Shuar leaders and elders fear that their native language will be lost, especially in some towns where many children who attend monolingual Spanish schools are fluent speakers of Spanish (Almeida, 2000; Krainer, 1999; Mader, 1994; Stark, 1985).

Legislative efforts Regarding legislative shifts, in addition to the advancement in the recognition of minoritised languages for official use within their speech communities, Nina Pakari has proposed the creation of new laws and amendments to the existing ones on behalf of vernacular languages (see previous section on ‘Indigenous legislation and legislators’). Such linguistic proposals support more general demands concerning public recognition of indigenous individual and collective rights (Pakari, 2000, 2001). As she notes, it is time for the indigenous people to move beyond empowerment to a stage of self-identification, self-determination and self-generation of power (personal communication, June, 2001; see also Haboud, 2001b, 2001d). A young generation of Indian people who are connected to academic circles has shown their interest in both status and corpus planning. Masaquiza (2001: 62–3), for instance, proposes the creation of communicative nets to increase communication with members of all the Indian nationalities, and to enrich the indigenous knowledge with the use of modern resources. Masaquiza also underlines the need to promote the use of native languages in mass media, academic events, written publications and the creation of public libraries. Unfortunately, serious periodicals devoted to indigenous topics (Quichua in particular), such as Yachaikuna (Wisdom /Q/), whose editors and authors are for the most part Quichua speakers, have been published entirely in Spanish. In recent years, some of these young intellectuals have begun working with the Government in order to implement new programmes taking into account the



CIP 033


89

indigenous worldview. Institutions devoted to national development in different areas include the Indian population, and the country has witnessed the creation of new iniatives whose main goal is to provide assistance to each one of the indigenous nationalities. For instance, ODEPLAN, in its 2000–2003 plan, states as one of its important goals the improvement of living conditions of the poor. Poverty impacts 70% of the rural population (i.e. indigenous people). This improvement is meant to be achieved by including minoritised people in national activities, and by providing them with appropriate assistance through national institutions such as Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador (Council for Development of Nations and Peoples of Ecuador /S/ (CODENPE)) and Consejo Nacional de Mujeres (National Women Council /S/ (CONAMU)) (see ODEPLAN, 2000; Pachano, 1988). Some of the governmental strategic actions to reduce social discrimination include establishing informative campaigns about human rights, encouraging intercultural relations through educational and informative campaigns, strengthening all the councils favouring the underprivileged, and placing topics related to Collective Rights in all educational programmes (ODEPLAN, 2000: 76). In 1993, CONAIE and various indigenous organisations signed an agreement with the Government and the World Bank, ‘to work for the development of the indigenous and black nationalities of the country’ (León, 2002: 57). As a result, PRODEPINE, one of the executive units of CODENPE, was created in 1996 with the goal of designing, along with national, local, and non-governmental organisations, projects of development which would incorporate, as a specific strategy, the indigenous peoples’ worldview and values (León, 2002: 5). Regarding education, PRODEPINE and the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (Salesian Polytechnic University /S/) have offered indigenous people educational programmes in the fields of communication, anthropology, and self-sustainable projects for local development. Although the content of these programmes includes topics related to the cultural values of indigenous peoples, all the classes have been taught in Spanish. Recapitulation In sum, although there have been deliberate efforts towards language status planning, thus far they seem to have had limited impact on language-use patterns and have done little to increase most Ecuadorians’ consciousness of the diversity of the country. Nevertheless, some of these projects and, most of all, the visibility Indian nationalities have acquired in public domains have helped minoritised languages, especially Quichua, gain space in the public arena. This has generated mixed reactions on the part of the mainstream society, which typically fears that the country will soon become indianizado (indianised /S/) as larger numbers of indigenous people occupy public and official positions previously controlled only by the non-indigenous. As noted by King (2000) in her study of indigenous language use in the southern province of Loja, the typical pattern of language loss or death is first for the language to disappear from the more public or formal domains, and then later from family domains. However, this pattern is altered in many indigenous communities as Quichua is becoming a public symbol of empowerment. This trend raises important questions about the meaning and impact languages might



90

CIP 033


have once they move from private to more public domains. Is such symbolic use a symptom of revitalisation or loss? The experience with Quichua and its process of gaining public visibility while losing speakers and functions in intimate domains lead us to believe that once a language is used primarily in the public arena, it may be in danger of becoming a symbol rather than a natural medium of everyday communication. The public or symbolic presence of indigenous languages has not dramatically increased consciousness among non-indigenous sectors of the economic and social inequalities within Ecuador. Rather, in many cases it has generated stronger rejection of Indian nationalities and those affiliated with them. Hendricks points out, in relation to the Shuar communities, ‘the attempt to marginalize and repress the Shuar language is part of a larger national paradigm in which everything Indian is devalued’ (Hendricks, 1991: 63; also see Becker, 2001). The ideal Ecuadorian national identity continues to be conceived as homogeneous and uniform. Recently, a group of sociolinguistic students interviewed 100 people in Quito to investigate whether the middle-class population thought the presence of Indian languages and cultures could help create a sense of national identity. Not surprisingly, 80% of those interviewed stated the importance of maintaining the country’s cultural heritage, but only 15% mentioned maintaining the country’s linguistic and ethnic diversity as important (FCLL, 2002b). Another major point of concern is that, as in other parts of the Andes (see Hornberger & Coronel Molina, in press), very few intercultural projects have been directed towards the involvement of the mestizo population. In 1990, the Ministry of Education demonstrated its commitment to promoting the cultural and historic value of the indigenous languages and cultures among the mainstream society. Multiple proposed changes were put forth by the Ministry concerning the educational curricula that would entail non-indigenous or mestizo students learning about pluralism, diversity and human rights (Soto, 1997). However, very few of these recommendations were adopted, and within mainstream society pluralism and diversity continue to be conceived as problematic. As a result, maintenance of minoritised languages, acquisition of dominant languages, preservation of cultural diversity and development of intercultural relations have remained the responsibilities of minoritised peoples. Attitudes towards minoritised people and their languages continue to be based upon prejudices, forming the basis of the longstanding racism to which minoritised languages and their speakers are subject (Dillon, 2001; Haboud, 1993, 2001a, 2001c). As Hendricks observes (1991: 56): Ecuador has never had a clearly articulated, comprehensive policy for dealing with its (Amazonian) Indians. Until recently, the country has dealt with the question of indigenous peoples by ignoring their existence, a strategy that is, in effect, a policy of integration. The mestizo ideology prodded in development programs claims that all Ecuadorians have an Indian heritage, thus eliminating the ‘Indian problem’ and rejecting the possibility of a plural Ecuadorian society.



CIP 033


91

Conclusion Throughout this monograph, we have seen how certain language policies were generated at the official level, while others were developed locally or nationally in response to the demands on the part of the minoritised peoples. Indeed, the indigenous political organisations of Ecuador have played a critical role in shaping the country’s language and educational policies. Presently, the central question of the Ecuadorian language policy in general (and of literacy policy in particular) is how to find appropriate responses to ongoing demographic, socioeconomic and political changes while maintaining national unity and respect towards the linguistic diversity of the country. At the same time, it is urgent to develop better assessment measures that will yield more accurate data concerning the demographics of the country and the extent and use of foreign languages in educational programmes at the national level. Regarding policies and legislation, we need to bear in mind that linguistic policies and educational policies, despite their close relationship, are not synonyms. Often, linguistic policies are conceptualised as falling within the realm of education. Consequently, little has been said or done about the use of the Ecuadorian minoritised languages in public domains, such as religion or mass media. As Kaplan and Baldauf observe more generally, ‘because the education sector rarely has the outreach or the available resources to impact any sector other than the schools, it is unwise (though it is frequently the case) to assign the entire implementation activity to the schools’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997: 113). Furthermore, as we have shown here, while there has been great advancement in terms of legal recognition of minoritised languages and cultures, in practice Ecuador continues to be a fragmented society which favours the use of Spanish and foreign languages, largely denying the existence, needs and value of local vernacular languages and people. The speakers of native languages are still discriminated against, and racism, linguicism and classism are explicitly and implicitly part of everyday discourse. Indigenous languages and cultures tend to be conceived as national symbols of an ancient past. The nation is willing to accept and even participate in well recognised festivities (e.g. Inti Raymi Sun Festival /Q/), but ignores the rights of minoritised languages and cultures on a daily basis. Although some of the Indian languages, mainly Quichua, are quickly becoming public symbols of power, this does not guarantee language vitality. In fact, as highlighted here, in many communities intergenerational transmission of indigenous languages is threatened as increasing numbers of indigenous households become bilingual spaces. Another point of concern is the growing number of new urbanised indigenous communities who face the challenges of big cities, globalisation and modernity more directly. Unless these groups proudly identify with their indigenous heritage and find appropriate strategies to maintain their languages, it is unlikely that there will be many positive linguistic outcomes. Potentially, the presence of indigenous officials at the national level will become an indirect source of empowerment and pride for those migrants living in the city, provided of course that they use their languages publicly; if they use Spanish, it may equate success even more firmly with language shift.



92

CIP 033


In the domain of bilingual intercultural education, Ecuador has been in the forefront of educational programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean; many efforts have been publicly developed and implemented to create and maintain alternative educational projects for and with the indigenous population. Nevertheless, genuine intercultural education will not be achieved unless it becomes a nationwide task; otherwise intercultural relations, interculturality as a practice, and interculturalism as a philosophical principle will remain solely for the Indian people and within Indian classrooms. As for the use of Indian languages, it is important to develop a strong sense of awareness of the possibility that any language can potentially be used in any communicative domain. Although education has been one of the major means of language maintenance, it is necessary to find ways to move beyond the educational realm, entering public spheres through national radio and television broadcasting, as well as public announcements and administration, including street signs, stamps, official documents, and every possible strategy that could help put into practice official policies. According to Ecuador’s indigenous people, this is an era of change, time for a new pachakutik (time of transformation /Q/). However, it remains to be seen how these transformations will take shape and how beneficial they will be for the revitalisation and maintenance of the indigenous languages and peoples of Ecuador. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Kendall A. King, Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics, ICC 458, Washington DC 20007, USA ([email protected]) or Marleen Haboud, Department of Linguistics, Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, 12 de Octubre y Carrión, Quito, Ecuador. Colegio de Artes Liberales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Campus Cumbayá, Cumbayá Ecuador. Notes 1. Throughout the paper, /S/ will designate translations from Spanish, and /Q/ translations from Quichua. Unless otherwise specifically noted, translations are those of the authors. 2. Quechua refers to the varieties spoken in Peru, Bolivia, and parts of Argentina and Chile; it is also the cover term for all varieties of the language. Quichua is used exclusively for varieties in Ecuador and Argentina. The difference in terms has to do with the differing phonological evolution of the language in Ecuador, as compared to the other countries. In the former case, the uvular stop /q/ has been lost, and with it the lowering of the /i/ vowel to /e/ in proximity to the /q/. 3. Also see Reforms to the Law of Education, 15 April 1992, and Ley de Educación 25 January 2001 (Art. 29).

References Abram, M. (1989) El papel de las organizaciones indígenas en la educación [The role of indigenous organisations in education]. In E. Lopez and R. Moya (eds) Pueblos Indios, Estados, y Educación [Indigenous People, States, and Education] (pp. 309–26). Lima: PEB/ PEBI/PERA. Abya-Yala (2002) On WWW at http://www.abyayala.org/busqueda.php?FAC_CODIGO =. Accessed 6.2.03. Acosta, A. (2001) Nada Solo Para los Indios [Nothing Only for the Indians]. Quito: Abya-Yala.



CIP 033


93

Aguilar, R. and Cabezas, D. (2002) Sociolingüística: Política lingüística y planificación educativa. [Sociolinguistics: Political linguistics and educational planning]. Unpublished paper, Facultad de Lingüística, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Albó, X. (1979) The future of the oppressed languages in the Andes. In R. Robins and E.M. Uhlenbeck (eds) Endangered Languages (pp. 45–85). Providence, RI: Berg. Albó, X. (1998) Expresión indígena, diglosia y medios de comunicación [Indigenous expression, diglossia, and communication channels]. In L.E. López and I. Jung (eds) Sobre las Huellas de la Voz [About the Footprints of the Voice] (pp. 126–56). Cochabamba, Bonn, Madrid: PROEIB Andes/ DSE/ Morata. Alm, C. (2002) The use of English in the media in Ecuador. Paper presented at Encuentros Lingüísticos [Linguistic enounters], Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, 8 May. Almanaque Mundial (2002) Ecuador: Editorial Televisa. Almeida, M. (2000) Los shuar y la conquista del bilingüismo [The Shuar and the conquest of bilingualism]. On WWW at http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/sp/ doss23.htm. Accessed 10.1.03. Andrade, C. (2002) Kwatupapa Sapara, Palabra Zápara [The Zapara Language]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Bacacela, M.S. (2000) Ecuador Chinchasuyupi Quichua runacunapac ñaupa rimai. Literatura indígena en los Andes del Sur de Ecuador [Indigenous literature in the southern Andes of Ecuador]. Cuenca: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana Benjamín Carrión. Becker, M. (1998) Achuar [Achuar]. On WWW at http://abyayala.nativeweb.org/ ecuador/achuar. Accessed 17.11.02. Becker, M. (2001) Coaliciones interétnicas en los años treinta. Movimientos indígenas en Cayambe [Interethnic coalitions in the 1930s. Indigenous movements in Cayambe]. Yachakuna 1, 76–91. Benson, C. (in press) Real and potential benefits of bilingual programs in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5 (6), 303–317. Botasso, J. (ed.) (1991) Política Indigenista de la Iglesia en la Colonia [Indigenous Politics of the Church in the Colonial Period]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Botero, L.F. (1991) La iglesia y el indio en la colonia [The Church and the Indian in the colonial period]. In J. Botasso (ed.) Política Indigenista de la Iglesia en la Colonia [Indigenous Politics of the Church in the Colonial Period] (pp. 55–144). Quito: Abya-Yala, MLAL. Büttner, T. (1993) Uso del Quichua y del Castellano en la Sierra Ecuatoriana [Use of Quichua and Castilian in the Ecuadorian Sierra] Quito: Abya-Yala. Caiza, J. (1989) Hacia un modelo de educación bilingüe autogestionaria [Towards a self-determined model of bilingual education]. In E. López and R. Moya (eds) Pueblos Indios, Estados, y Educación [Indian People, States, and Education] (pp. 309–26). Lima: Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno, El Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural del Ecuador, y el Programa de Educación Rural Andina. Calazacón, C., Oranzona, D. and Calazacón, I. (1995) Cuatro Leyendas Mitológicas de los Tsáchila de Santo Domingo de los Colorados, Ecuador. Tradiciones Orales de los Tsáchila [Four Mythological Legends of the Tsáchila from Santo Domingo de los Colorados, Ecuador. Oral Traditions of the Tsáchila]. Guayaquil: Programa de Idiomas Vernáculos, Dirección de Programas Culturales, Banco Central del Ecuador. Carpenter, L.K. (1983) Social stratification and implications for bilingual education: An Ecuadorian example. In A. Miracle (ed.) Bilingualism: Social Issues and Policy Implications (pp. 96–106). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Catta, J.Q. (1994) Gramática del Quichua Ecuatoriano [Grammar of Ecuadorian Quichua]. Quito: Abya-Yala. CEDHU (1984) Los Derechos Humanos: el Caso Ecuatoriano [Human Rights: The Ecuadorian Case]. Quito: Editorial El Conejo. Centro Boliviano de Investigación y Acción Educativas (CEBAIE) (1998) Diversidad Cultural y Procesos Educativos [Cultural Diversity and Educational Processes]. La Paz. Centro de Paternidad Responsable (Centre for Responsible Parenthood) (CEPAR) (2001) Principales indicadores y proyecciones demográficas [Principal indicators and demographic projections]. On WWW at http://www.cepar.org.ec. Accessed 24.6.02.



94

CIP 033


Cerrón-Palomino, R. (1987) Lingüística Quechua [Quechua Linguistics]. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos ‘Bartolomé de las Casas’. Chiodi, F. (ed) (1990) La Educación Indígena en América Latina [Indigenous education in Latin America]. (México, Guatemala, Ecuador, Perú, Bolivia). Quito: EBI, Abya-Yala. Church, G.E. (1881) Report upon Ecuador. Senate Executive Document 69. 49th Congress, 2nd Session. In N.D. Mills and G. Ortiz Economía y sociedad en el Ecuador poscolonial, 1759–1859. [Economy and Society in Postcolonial Ecuador] Revista Cultura [Culture Review] 17, 71–170. Quito: Centro de Investigaciones y Cultura del Banco Central. Cole, P. (1982) Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland. COMIBAM (2002) Catálogo de las Organizaciones Misioneras del Ecuador [Catalogue of Missionary Organizations in Ecuador] (pp. 57–116). On WWW at http:// www.comibam.org. Accessed 8.8.02. Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE) (1989) Las Nacionalidades Indígenas en el Ecuador: Nuestro Proceso Organizativo [The Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador: Our Organizational Process]. Quito: Tincui/Abya-Yala. Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE) (1990) Ñucanchic Shimi 1 [Our Language 1]. Quito: MEC/DINEIIB/CONAIE. Contreras, E. (1997–1998) Taluk P+NK+H. Libro de Lengua Materna AWAPIT Para el Primer Grado de Educación Primaria Integral Bilingüe Ambiental [Book of the Awapit Maternal Language for the First Grade of Integrated Environmental Bilingual Education]. Quito: EBI-GT, DINEIB. Córdova, W. (1987) Educación Bilingüe Intercultural en el Ecuador. Informe de una Investigación Sociolingüística en el Área Quichua (1981–1982) [Intercultural Bilingual Education in Ecuador. Report on a Sociolinguistic Investigation of the Quichua Area]. Quito: EBI. Cotacachi, M. (1989) La educación bilingüe en el Ecuador: Del control del estado al de las organizaciones indígenas [Bilingual education in Ecuador: From state to indigenous organization control]. In E. López and R. Moya (eds) Pueblos Indios, Estados, y Educación [Indigenous Peoples, States, and Education] (pp. 253–66). Lima: Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno, el Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural del Ecuador, y el Programa de Educación Rural Andina. Cotacachi, M. (1994) Ñucanchic Quichua Rimai Yachai/Nuestra Gramática Quichua [Our Quichua Grammar]. Cuenca, Ecuador: Licenciatura en Lingüística Andina y Educación Bilingüe, Universidad de Cuenca. Cotacachi, M. (1997) Attitudes of teachers, children and parents towards bilingual intercultural education. In N. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 285–98). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Covington Bible Church (2002) On WWW at http://members.aol.com/covbc/ mission.htm. Accessed 10.6.02. Crawford, J. (1999) Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services. On WWW at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/ homepages/JWCRAWFORD/HYTCH6.htm. Accessed 15.7.02. Curnow, T.J. and Liddicoat, A. (1998) The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 384–408. Dauenhauer, N.M. and Dauenhauer, R. (1998) Technical, emotional, and ideological issues in reversing language shift: Examples from Southeast Alaska. In L.A. Grenoble and L.J. Whaley (eds) Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects (pp. 57–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dillon, S. (2001) Actitud lingüística frente al Quichua [Linguistic attitudes surrounding Quichua]. Unpublished paper. Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Dirección General de Estadística y Censo (DGEC) (1954) Primer censo de población del Ecuador. 1950. Población por Idiomas y Dialectos [First Census of the Ecuadorian Population. 1950. Population by Languages and Dialects]. Quito: Ministerio de Economía. Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (DINEIB) (1994) Modelo de educación intercultural bilingüe [The intercultural bilingual education model]. Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 29–30, 5–142. Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Indígena Bilingüe (DINEIIB) (1991) La educación intercultural bilingüe en el Ecuador [Intercultural bilingual education in Ecuador]. Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 17, 31–67.



CIP 033


95

El Comercio (2000) Dolarización/Dolarwan Aylluyarinamanta [Dollarization] (Special Supplement). 17 April. Quito. El Comercio (2003) Los indios al poder [Indians move towards power] (Special Supplement). Quito. On WWW at http://www.elcomercio.com/fotos/flash/ indigenas/home.html. Accessed 8.1.03. El Hoy (2002) La comuna se recrea en plena capital [The community relaxes in the capital city]. 17 February. Quito. Equipo Técnico de Apoyo a la Reforma Educativa (ETARE) (1993) Reforma Educativa. Propuesta [Educational Reform. Proposal]. Cuadernos de la Reforma Educativa [Notes on the Educational Reform]. La Paz. Facultad de Comunicación, Lingüística y Literatura (FCLL) (2002a) Percepción y uso de la /r/ en Quito urbano [Perceptions and use of /r/ in urban Quito]. Unpublished class paper, sociolinguistic seminar, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Quito, January. Facultad de Comunicación, Lingüística y Literatura (FCLL) (2002b) Percepción de la relación lengua e identidad en la copa del mundo [Perceptions of language and identity during the World Cup]. Unpublished class paper. Sociolinguistic seminar (February, 2002). Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Fierro, G. (2002) Aportes del Quichua al Castellano de la Sierra Ecuatoriana [Contributions of Quechua to Castilian of the Ecuadorian Sierra]. Paper presented at Jornadas de identidad del Municipio de Quito, Quito. Figueroa, F. (1960) [1661] Informe de las Misiones de el Marañon, Gran Pará o Rio de las Amazonas [Report on the Missions of Marañon, Gran Pará or Rio de las Amazonas the Amazon river]. In Historiadores y Cronistas de las Misiones. La Colonia y la República [Historians and Chronologists of the Mission. The Colony and the Republic] (pp. 137–70). Quito: J.M. Cajica. Fishman J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Floyd, S. (2002) Final report: Quichua and Spanish usage in bilingual indigenous communities. Mimeo. Fullbright Commission. Garcés, F. (1999) Cuatro Textos Coloniales del Quichua de la Provincia de Quito. Estudio Introductorio [Four Colonial Quichua texts of the Quito province. Introductory Study]. Quito: Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit, GTZ, Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural, EBI. Garcés, F. and Alvarez, C. (1997) Lingüística Aplicada a la Educación Intercultural Bilingüe [Applied Linguistics in Bilingual Intercultural Education] (pp. 137–269). Colección de Antropología Aplicada [Collection of Applied Anthropology]. Quito: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Abya-Yala 12. Garcés, F. and Haboud, M. (2002) Informe sobre el trabajo de campo de estudiantes del PROEIB-Andes [Report on the fieldwork of PROEIB-Andes students]. Unpublished. Quito. García Márquez, G. (1981) Mushuc Quellca Huañuyta Yachasha Huillarca (Crónica de una Muerte Anunciada) [Chronicle of a Death Foretold]. Lima and Quito: La Oveja Negra. Gobierno del Ecuador (1831) Exposición del Ministerio-Secretario de Estado Presentada al Congreso Primero Constitucional del Ecuador en 1831 Sobre los Ramos de su Administración [Exposition of the Ministerial-Secretal of the State Presented to the First Constitutional Congress of Ecuador in 1831 Concerning the Branches of its Administration]. Quito: Imprenta del Gobierno. Gómez, J. (2001) La deixis pronominal en media lengua: Comunidades de El Topo y Casco, Valenzuela [Promoninal deixis in media lengua: Communities of El Topo and Casco, Valenzuela]. Unpublished thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. González Suárez, F. (1970) [1892] Historia General de la República del Ecuador [General History of the Republic of Ecuador]. Quito: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana. Grebe Vicuña, M.E. (1997) Procesos migratorios, identidad étnica y estrategias adaptativas en las cultural indígenas de Chile: una perspectiva preliminar. [Migratory processes, ethnic identity, and adaptive strategies among the indigenous cultures of Chile: a



96

CIP 033


preliminary perspective]. Ethno 1. On WWW at http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl/ rehuehome/facultad/publicaciones/Ethno-/grebe1.htm. Accessed 15.7.01. Grimes, B. (ed.) (1999) Ethnologue. Languages of the World (13th edn). (CD Rom). SIL. Guerrero, P. (2001) Queremos un Ecuador pintado con la luz del Arco Iris [We want an E c u a d o r pa in te d w ith t h e l i g h t o f a r a i nb o w ] . O n W W W a t ht t p : / / www.cultura.com.ec/. Accessed 25.6.02. Guevara, D. (1972) El Castellano y el Quichua en el Ecuador [Castilian and Quichua in Ecuador]. Quito: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana. Haboud, M. (1991) Distribución del Uso del Quichua y Castellano en el Ecuador [Distribution of the use of Quichua and Castilian in Ecuador]. Unpublished report. Programa de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe. Quito. Haboud, M. (1993) Actitud de la población mestiza urbana de Quito hacia el Quichua [Attitudes of the mestizo population of urban Quito towards Quichua]. Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 27–8, 133–67. Haboud, M. (1996) Quichua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Highlands: The effects of long-term contact. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. Haboud, M. (1998) Quichua y Castellano en los Andes Ecuatorianos: Los Efectos de un Contacto Prolongado [Quichua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Andes: The Effects of Long-term Contact]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Haboud, M. (1999) Tensión, balance y poder en el quichua de la Sierra ecuatoriana [Tension, balance and empowerment of Quichua in the Ecuadorian Highlands]. Paper presented in the World Conference about the Language of the World. UNESCO-Inguapax, PROEIB-Andes. Cochabamba, Bolivia. Haboud, M. (2000) Interculturalidad y sordera visual [Interculturality and visual deafness]. Mimeo. Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Haboud, M. (2001a) Lenguas extranjeras para los minorizados ecuatorianos [Foreign languages for minoritized Ecuadorians]. Opúsculo 20. Photocopy. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Haboud, M. (2001b) Investigación sociolingüística. Más allá del empoderamiento [Sociolinguistic research: Beyond empowerment]. Opúsculo 21. Photocopy. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Haboud, M. (2001c) Interculturalidad y sordera visual [Interculturality and visual deafness]. Opúsculo 22. Photocopy. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Haboud, M. (2001d) Andean women: Tradition, identity and the challenge of globalization. Unpublished paper presented at Georgetown University, Georgetown, Washington DC. Haboud, M. (2003) Políticas lingüísticas en Ecuador: Entre éxitos, fracasos y esperanzas [Language policies in Ecuador: Between success, failure and hopes]. Unpublished paper presented at IV Jornadas internacionales sobre indigenismo americano, Madrid. Haboud, M. (in press) Quichua language vitality: An Ecuadorian perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Special Issue on Quechua sociolinguistics, edited by K. King and N. Hornberger. Hamelink, C. (2000) Human rights: The next fifty years. In R. Phillipson (ed.) Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education (pp. 62–6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hendricks, J. (1991) Symbolic counterhegemony among the Ecuadorian Shuar. In G. Urbam and J. Sherzer (eds) Nation-states and Indians in Latin America (pp. 53–71). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Herrera, L. (1999) La representación de la ciudad en relatos de migrantes indígenas [The representation of the city in stories of indigenous migrants]. Unpublished paper presented at Jornadas Andinas de Literatura Latinoamericana, Cusco. Herrera, L. (2002) La representación de la ciudad en relatos de migrantes indígenas [The representation of the city in stories of indigenous migrants]. Unpublished paper presented at Jornadas Andinas de Literatura Latinoamericana, Cusco. HESD (Higher Education Systems Database) (2003) Ecuador: Education System. International Association of Universities/UNESCO and the International Centre on



CIP 033


97

Higher Education. On WWW at http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/globaled/ wwcu/background/Ecuador.htm. Accessed 20.5.03. Hornberger, N. (1987) Schooltime, classtime, and academic learning time in rural highland Puno, Peru. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18, 207–21. Hornberger, N. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua Case. Berlin: Mouton. Hornberger, N. (1991) Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In O. Garcia (ed.) Bilingual Education: Festshrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman (vol. 1) (pp. 215–34). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hornberger, N. (1995) Five vowels or three? Linguistics and politics in Quechua language planning in Peru. In J.W. Tollefson (ed.) Power and Inequality in Language Education (pp. 187–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornberger, N. (2000) Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 31 (2), 173–201. Hornberger, N. and Coronel-Molina, S. (in press) Quechua language shift, maintenance and revitalization in the Andes: The case for language planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Special Issue on Quechua sociolinguistics, edited by K. King and N. Hornberger. Hornberger, N. and King, K.A. (2000) Reversing Quechua language shift in the Andes. In J. Fishman (ed.) Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective (pp. 166–94). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hurtado, O. (1977) El Poder Político en el Ecuador [Political Power in Ecuador]. Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Huss, L. (1999) Reversing Language Shift in the Far North. Linguistic Revitalization in Northern Scandinavia and Finland. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 31. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Ibarra Illanez, A. (1992) Los Indígenas y el Estado en el Ecuador [Indigenous People and the State in Ecuador]. Quito: Abya-Yala. INEC (2001) VI censo de población [Sixth population census]. On WWW at http:// www.inec.gov.ec. Accessed 3.2.03. Infodesarrollo (2002) Boletín de prensa sobre el IV festival de cine y video [Press bulletin about the fourth festival of film and video]. On WWW at http://listas.ecuanex.net.ec/ listas/listasinfo/infodesarrollo. Accessed 2.8.02. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC) (n.d.) Resumen Ejecutivo del Censo de 1990 [Executive Summary of the Census of 1990]. Quito: INEC. Instituto Normal Bilingüe Intercultural Shuar (1988) Chicham Nekatai. Diccionario Comprensivo Castellano-Shuar [Comprehensive Dictionary of Castilian-Shuar]. Morona Santiago: Editorial SERBISH. Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico (ECORAE) (1998) Plan Maestro Para el Ecodesarrollo de la Región Amazónica Ecuatoriana [Teaching plan for the Eco-development of the Ecuadorian Amazonian Region]. Quito. Jara, F. (ed.) (1982) Taruca: Ecuador Quichuacunapac Rimashca Rimaicuna. La Venada: Literatura Oral Quichua del Ecuador [The Deer: Oral Quichua Literature of Ecuador] (trans. F. Jara and R. Moya.) Quito: Consejo Provincial de Pichincha. Jara, F. (ed.) (1994) Challi Chuzalungu Pachamanta: En los Inmemoriales Tiempos del Pícaro Chuzalungo [In the Unforgettable Times of Mischievous Chuazalungo]. Cuenca, Ecuador: Universidad de Cuenca, Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación, Licenciatura en Lingüística Andina y Educación Bilingüe. Kaplan, R. and Baldauf, R. (1997) Language Planning: From Theory to Practice. Clevedon: Multiligual Matters. Katz, E. (2000) Individual, household and community-level determinants of migration in Ecuador: Are there gender differences? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles, CA. King, K.A. (1996) Indigenous politics and native language literacies: Recent shifts in bilingual education policy and practice in Ecuador. In N.H. Hornberger (ed.)



98

CIP 033


Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 267–84). The Hague: Mouton. King, K.A. (1999) Inspecting the unexpected: Language corpus and status shifts as aspects of language revitalization. Language Planning & Language Problems 23, 109–32. King, K.A. (2000) Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. King, K.A. (in press) Language policy and local planning in South America: New directions for enrichment bilingual education in the Andes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Special Issue on Bilingual Education in South America, edited by A.M. Mejia. King, K.A. and Benson, C. (2004) Indigenous language education in Bolivia and Ecuador: Contexts, changes, and challenges. In J. Tollefson and A. Tsui (eds) Medium of Instruction Policies: Whose Agenda? Which Agenda? (pp. 241–261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. King, K.A. and Hornberger, N. (eds) (in press) International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Special Issue on Quechua sociolinguistics. Knapp, G. (1991) Geografía Quichua de la Sierra del Ecuador [Quichua geography of Highland Ecuador in the Mountains of Ecuador]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Krainer, A. (1996) Educación Intercultural Bilingüe en el Ecuador [Bilingual Intercultural Education in Ecuador]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Krainer, A. (1999) El rol de la educación intercultural bilingüe y el mantenimiento de las lenguas indígenas en Ecuador [The role of bilingual intercultural education in the maintenance of indigenous languages in Ecuador]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Vienna. Kugel, S. (2002) The Latino culture wars. New York Times (City section) 24 February. Lannak, J. (1999) The founding of Colegio Menor San Francisco de Quito. Journal of Education 181 (1), 17–37. La reafirmación indígena [The indigenous reaffirmation] (n.d.) On WWW at http:// www.eurosur.org/guiadelmundo/recuadros/ecuador. Accessed 20.12.02. Lema Guanolema, S.F. (1997) Gramática del quichua [Quichua Grammar]. Quito: Abya-Yala. León, M.G. (2002) La educación como derecho cultural y colectivo: Estudio del Proyecto PRODEPINE del Banco Mundial [Education as a cultural and collective right: Study of the PRODEPINE Project of the World Bank]. Unpublished BA thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Ley de Educación (2000) On WWW at http://www.iadb.org/sds/ind/ley/ecuador/ ecuador_menu.htm. Accessed 2.1.03. Library of Congress (1989) Ecuador: A country study. On WWW at http:// memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/ectoc.html. Accessed 14.3.02. Lipski, J. M. (1987) The Chota Valley: Afro-Hispanic language in highland Ecuador. Latin American Research Review 22, 155–170. Lipski, J.M. (1994) Latin American Spanish. London: Longman. Lucas, K. (2002) Indígenas amazónicos luchan por su superviviencia [Amazonian indigenous people fight for their survival]. On WWW at http://www.rebelion.org/ ecologia/lucas080701.htm. Accessed 16.7.02. Luykx, A. (2000) Diversity in the new world order: State language policies and the internationalization of Quechua. Paper presented at the 2nd Spencer Early Career Institute in Anthropology and Education, Chicago, IL. Luykx, A. (in press) The future of Quechua and the Quechua of the future: Language ideologies and language planning in Bolivia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Special Issue on Quechua sociolinguistics, edited by K. King and N. Hornberger. Mader, E. (1994) Deviance, conflict and power in Shuar-Achuar society. Unpublished lecture held at the third EASA Conference. Martinez, L. (1984) Pobreza Rural y Migración en Ecuador Agrario [Rural Poverty and Migration in Agricultural Ecuador]. Quito: Editorial El Conejo. Martinez, R. (1995) La Educación Como Identificación Cultural [Education as Cultural Identification]. Quito: Abya-Yala.



CIP 033


99

Masaquiza, M. (2001) La política de preservar el Kechwa [The politics of preserving Quichua]. Yachaikuna 1, 56–63. Mejeant, L. (2001). Culturas y lenguas indígenas del Ecuador [Indigenous cultures and languages of Ecuador]. On WWW at http://icci.nativeweb.org/yachaikuna/1/ mejeant.pdf. Accessed 1.7.02. Mejia, A.M. de (2002) Power, Prestige and Bilingualism. International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mills, N.D. and Ortiz, G. (1980) Economía y sociedad en el Ecuador poscolonial, 1759–1859 [Economy and society in postcolonial Ecuador, 1759–1859]. Revista Cultura [Cultural Review] (pp. 71–170). Quito: Centro de Investigaciones y Cultura del Banco Central. Minaya-Rowe, L. (1986) Sociocultural comparison of bilingual education policies and programmes in three Andean countries and the United States. Journal of Multilingual Multicultural Development 7, 465–77. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (MEC) (1982) Caimi Ñucanchic Shimiyuc-Panca [Our dictionary]. Quito: MEC/PUCE. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (MEC) (1992) Ley No. 150 de 15 de abril de 1992 [Law Number 150 of 15 April 1992]. Quito: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (MEC) (2002) Hacia un Ecuador que lee y escribe: ‘Minga nacional por la lectura y la escritura’. El país frente a la década de la alfabetización de naciones unidas (2003–2012) [Towards an Ecuador that reads and writes: ‘National minga for reading and writing’. The country in the decade of the United Nations literacy programs (2003–2012)]. On WWW at http:// www.mec.gov.ec/. Accessed 8.1.03. Mirzayan, A. (1997) Endangered languages in Lowland Ecuador. On WWW at http:// physics.colorado.edu/mirzayan/EndLangEkuador.html. Accessed 2.6.02. Montaluisa, L.O. (1980) El vocabulario general de la lengua Quichua para el Ecuador [General vocabulary of the Quichua language of Ecuador]. Revista de la Universidad Católica [Journal of the Catholic University] 25, 99–119. Montaluisa, L.O. (1998) Plan de fortalecimiento de las lenguas y la educación de las culturas indígenas del Ecuador. Programa de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe. [Plan to strengthen the languages and the education of the indigenous cultures of Ecuador]. Mimeo. Quito. Montaluisa, L.O., Muenala, F., Viteri, F. and Haboud, M. (1982) Caimi Ñucanchic Shimiyuc-Panca. [Our dictionary]. Quito: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura / Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador / ILL-CIEI. Moya, A. (1997) Ethnos. Atlas Etnográfico del Ecuador [Ethnicity. Ethnographic atlas of Ecuador]. Quito: Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (EBI). Moya, R. (1979) Estructura del poder y prestigio lingüístico en Toacazo [The structure of linguistic power and prestige in Ecuador]. Lengua y cultura en el Ecuador [Language and Culture in Ecuador] (pp. 129–96). Otavalo: Instituto Otavaleño de Antropología. Moya, R. (1989) Políticas educativo-culturales y autogestión: El caso de Ecuador [Educational and cultural politics and self-determination: The case of Ecuador]. In E. López and R. Moya (eds) Pueblos Indios, Estados, y Educación [Indigenous Peoples, States, and Education] (pp. 289–307). Lima: Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno, el Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural del Ecuador, y el Programa de Educación Rural Andina. Moya, R. (1991) Un decenio de educación bilingüe y participación indígena: Ecuador [A decade of bilingual education and indigenous participation: Ecuador]. Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 17, 7–29. Muratorio, B. (1981) Etnicidad, Evangelización y Protesta en el Ecuador. Una Perspectiva Antropológica [Ethnicity, Evangelization, and Protest in Ecuador. An Anthropological Perspective]. Quito: CIESE. Muratorio, B. (1998) Indigenous women’s identities and the politics of cultural reproduction in the Ecuadorian Amazon. American Anthropologist 100, 409–20. Muysken, P. (1979) La mezcla de Quechua y Castellano. El caso de la ‘media lengua’ en el Ecuador [The mix of Quechua and Castilian. The case of ‘media lengua’ in Ecuador]. Lexis 3, 41–56.



100

CIP 033


Muysken, P. (1981) Half-way between Spanish and Quechua: The case for relexification. In A. Highfield and A. Valdman (eds) Historicity and Change in Creole Studies (pp. 52–78). Ann Arbor: Karoma. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Elite closure as a powerful language strategy: The African case. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 103, 149–63. National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) (2001) Latinos in the United States. Washington, DC. Neira, S. (2002) Country Report. On WWW at http://www.literacyonline.org/sltp/ country/ecuador.htm. Accessed 15.7.02. New York Times (2002) Colombians, fleeing war, make a slice of ecuador their own. New York Times (3 November). Niño-Murcia, M. (1988) Construcciones verbales del Español andino: Interacción Quechua–Española en la frontera Colombo–Ecuatoriana [Verbal constructions in Andean Spanish: Quechua–Spanish interaction on the Colombia–Ecuador border]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Michigan. Ocaña, J.C. (1996) Theoretical perspectives on Latin American indigenous development, with reference to a case study of Cebadas, Ecuador. Unpublished MA thesis, Oregon State University. Oficina de Planificación (ODEPLAN) (2000) Plan de Gobierno 2000–2003. República del Ecuador [Government Plan 2000–2003. Republic of Ecuador]. Presidencia Constitucional del Dr Gustavo Noboa Bejarano. Quito: Vicepresidencia de la República. Ortiz, G. (1992) Las tareas inconclusas de nuestra historia, a propósito de la plurinacionalidad y el movimiento indígena [The unfinished work of our history, plurinationality and the indigenous movement]. In E. Ayala (ed.) Pueblos Indios, Estado y Derecho [Indian Peoples, the State, and Rights] (pp. 85–128). Pachano, S. (ed.) (1988) Población, Migración y Empleo en el Ecuador [Population, Migration, and Employment in Ecuador]. Quito: Instituto Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS). Pakari, N. (with Legislative Representatives) (2000) Proyecto de Ley para el uso de los idiomas ancestrales del Ecuador [Legal project for the use of ancestral languages in Ecuador]. Unpublished. Quito. Pakari, N. (with Legislative Representatives) (2001) Propuesta al proyecto de Ley orgánica general de educación [Proposal for the project of a general organic law of education]. Unpublished. Quito. Parker, G.J. (1963) Clasificación genética de los dialectos Quechuas [Genetic classification of Quechua dialects]. Revista del Museo Nacional [Journal of the National Museum] 32, 241–52. Phillipson, R. (ed.) (2000) Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ponce, J. (ed) (2001) Ecuatorianos que no debemos olvidar [Ecuadorians that we must not forget]. El Hoy [Today] (Special edition, January). Quito: EDIMPRES. Pozzi-Escot, I. (1988) La educación bilingüe en el Perú: Una mirada retrospectiva y prospectiva [Bilingual education in Peru: A retrospective and prospective look]. In L.E. López (ed.) Pesquisas en Lingüística Andina [Puzzles in Andean Linguistics] (pp. 37–79). Lima-Puno: CONCYTEC-UNA-Puno-GTZ. Programa de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (PRODEPINE) (1998) Tríptico Informativo. [Informative Handout]. Quito. Programa de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (PRODEPINE) (2002a) Plan Operativo [Operating Plan]. Quito. Programa de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (PRODEPINE) (2002b) Síntesis Ejecutiva [Executive Synthesis]. Quito. Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (PROEIB) Andes (1998) Novedades. Boletín informativo [Novelties. Informative Bulletin] 23–24 (January–February). Cochabamba, Bolivia: Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos/Universidad Mayor de San Simón/Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). On WWW at http:// www.proeibandes.org. Accessed 30.3.02.



CIP 033


101

Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos ( P R O E I B ) A n d e s (2 0 0 1 ) B o l e t í n i n f o r m a t i v o [I n f o r m a t a t i v e bu l l e t i n ] 49 (January–February). Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (PROEIB) Andes (2002) On WWW at http://www.proeibandes.org/programa.html. Accessed 30.3.02. Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (PEBI) (n.d.) Informational brochure. Quito: PEBI. Puwáinchir Wajárai, M. (1989) La Federación de centros Shuar y el problema educativo en la region Ecuatoriana [The Federation of Shuar centers and the educational problem in the Ecuadorian region]. In E. López and R. Moya (eds) Pueblos Indios, Estados, y Educación [Indigenous People, States, and Education] (pp. 289–307). Lima: Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno, el Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural del Ecuador, y el Programa de Educación Rural Andina. Quintero, M.E. and de Vries, L. (1991) El Quichua: Lengua materna de los Quichuas? [Quichua: Mother language of the Quichuas?] Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 20, 39–63. Ramón, G. (1993) El Regreso de los Runa [The Return of ‘the Runas’]. Quito: COMUNIDEC. Ricento, T. (2000) Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 196–213. Rodas, R. (1988) Crónica de un sueño [Dream Chronicles]. Quito: Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit GTZ, Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural EBI, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. Rueda, M. V. (1981–1982) La Fiesta Religiosa Campesina. (Andes Ecuatorianos) [The Religous Peasant Festival. (Ecuadorian Andes)]. Quito: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Saint-Exupéry, A. de (1989) Auquicu. (El Principito) [The Little Prince]. Quito: EBI and CEDIME. Salazar, E. (1981) The Federation Shuar and the colonization frontier. In N.E. Whitten (ed.) Cultural Transformations in Modern Ecuador (pp. 589–613). Urbana: Univeristy of Illinois Press. Sánchez-Parga, J. (1992) Presente y Futuro de los Pueblos Indígenas. Análisis y Propuestas [The Present and Future of the Indigenous Peoples. Analysis and Proposals]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Schodt, D.W. (1987) Ecuador: An Andean Enigma. London: Westview Press. Selverston, M. (1992) The 1990 Indigenous Movement in Ecuador. Politicized Ethnicity as Social Movement. Papers on Latin America No. 32. Columbia University: Institute of Latin American and Iberian Studies. SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) (2002) On WWW at www.sil.org. Accessed 18.3.02. SIISE (Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Sociales del Ecuador) (2002a) Definiciones del SIISE (1997–2002) [Definitions of the Integrated System of Social Indicators of Ecuador (1997–2002)]. On WWW at http://200.24.215.221/siise/ayudas/glos910u.htm. Accessed 7.8.02. SIISE (Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Sociales del Ecuador) (2002b) On WWW at http:/ /200.24.215.221/siise/ayudas/fuen0cz2.htm. Accessed 30.3.02. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Soto, I. (1997) Educación de adultos y bilingüismo. El caso ecuatoriano [Adult education and bilingualism. The Ecuadorian case]. In Pueblos Indígenas y Educación [Indigenous Peoples and Education] 37–8, 69–80. Stark, L. (1985) Indigenous languages of lowland Ecuador. In H. Klein and L. Stark (eds) South American Indian Languages, Retrospect and Prospect (pp. 157–93). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Stavenhagen, R. (1992) Challenging the nation-state in Latin-America. Journal of World Wide Affairs 45, 420–39. Telecentros (1998) Red de comunicación electrónica para comunidades indígenas de la Amazonía ecuatoriana [Electronic communication for indigenous communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon]. On WWW at http://www.redes-comunitarias.apc.org/ ecuanex_project/informes1/html. Accessed 15.11.02.



102

CIP 033


The World Bank Group (2001) Country reports. On WWW at http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ External/lac/lac.nsf/093e674928c454fb852567d6006b0cda/2d26104a2ccefd01852567 dd0066c2e6?OpenDocument. Accessed 14.1.03. Toscano, M.H. (1953) El Español en el Ecuador [Spanish in Ecuador]. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Revista de Filología Española Añejo LXI). UNESCO (1992) Workshop on Human Rights and Languages. Pécs, Hungary, 15–16 August 1991, Final Report. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2002) Statistics Division. On WWW at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/ mi_results.asp?row_ID = 658. Accessed 14.1.03. UNICEF (1998) Propuesta de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe [Bilingual Intercultural Education Proposal]. Project document. La Paz: UNICEF. United Nations (1996) World Economic and Social Survey 1996. New York: United Nations. Uriarte, M. (1986) Diario de un Misionero de Maynas (1750–1770) [Diary of a Missionary from Maynas (1750–1770)]. Iquitos: Instituto de investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana. US Department of State (1998) Background Notes: Ecuador, November 1998. Released by the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. Ventura, M. (1995) En el camino. Los Tsachila en el complejo étnico de la selva occidental del Ecuador [On the road. The Tsachila in the ethnic complex of the western jungle of Ecuador]. In A. Alvarez., S. Alvarez, C. Fauría and J. Marcos (eds) Primer Encuentro de Investigadores de la Costa Ecuatoriana en Europa. Arqueología-Etnohistoria, Antropología Sociocultural [First Encounter of Investigators of the Ecuadorian Coast in Europe: Archeological-Ethnohistory, Sociocultural Anthropology] (pp. 433–65). Quito: Abya-Yala. Vickers, W. (1989) Los Sionas y Secoyas. Su Adaptación al Ambiente Amazónico [The Sionas and Secoyas. Their Adaptation to the Amazonian Environment]. Colección 500 años [500 years collection] No. 9. Quito: Abya-Yala, Movimientos Laicos para América Latina. Vitadello, A. (1988) Cha’palaachi. El Idioma Cayapa. Tomo 1. Miscelánea Antropológica Ecuatoriana [The Cayapa Language. Volume One. Miscellaneous Ecuadorian Anthropology]. Serie Monográfica 5. Guayaquil: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Sede de Esmeraldas. Museo del Banco Central del Ecuador. Editorial Abad. von Gleich, U. (1992) Changes in the status and function of Quechua. In U. Ammon and M. Hellinger (eds) Status Changes of Languages. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter. von Gleich, U. (1994) Language spread policy: The case of Quechua in the Andean republics of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 107, 77–103. von Gleich, U. (1999) El impacto lingüístico de la migración: ¿Desplazamiento, cambio o descomposición del quechua? [The linguistic impact of migration: Displacement, change, or decomposition of Quechua?] In S. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, C. Arellano Hoffmann, E. König and H. Prümers (eds) 50 Años de Estudios Americanistas en la Universidad de Bonn. Nuevas Contribuciones a la Arqueología, Etnohistoria, Etnolingüística y Etnografía de las Americas [50 Years of Americanist Studies at the University of Bonn. New Contributions to Archeology, Ethnohistory, Ethnolinguistics and Ethnography of the Americas] (pp. 679–702). Bonn: Anton Saurwein. Vries, L., de (1988) Política Lingüística en Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia [Linguistic Policies in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia]. Quito: Centro de Documentación e Información de los Movimientos Sociales del Ecuador (CEDIME), Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (EBI). Washington Post (2000) South Americans are coming to the US in record numbers! Washington Post (29 November). Wiley, T. (1996) Language planning and policy. In L. McKay and N. Hornberger (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 103–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wycliffe Bible Translators (2002) On WWW at http://www.wycliffe.net/. Accessed 15.3.02. Yánez, C. (1989) La Educación Indígena en el Área Andina [Indigenous Education in the Andean Area]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Yánez, C. (1991) The implementation of language policy: The case of Ecuador. International Review of Education 37 (1), 53–66.



CIP 033


103

Glossary of acronyms CEP

Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones (Corporation for Studies and Publication) CEBAIE Centro Boliviano de Investigación y Acción Educativas (Bolivian Centre for Educational Research and Activity) CEDHU Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (Ecumenical Committee for Human Rights) CEPAR Centro de Paternidad Responsable (Centre for Responsible Parenthood) CODENPE Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador (Council for Development of Nations and Peoples of Ecuador) CONAIE Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) CONAMU Consejo Nacional de Mujeres (National Council of Women) COMIBAM Catálogo de las Misioneras del Ecuador (Catalogue of Missionary Organisations of Ecuador) DGEC Dirección General de Estadística y Censo (General Statistics and Census Office) DINEIB Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education) DINEIIB Dirección Nacional de Educación Indígena Intercultural Bilingüe (National Directorate of Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Education) ECORAE Instituto para el Ecodesarrollo Regional Amazónico (Institute for the Eco-development of the Amazonian Region) ETARE Equipo Técnico de Apoyo a la Reforma Educativa (Technical Support Team of the Educational Reform) FCA Federación De Centros Awa (Federation of Awa Centres) FCLL Facultad de Comunicación, Lingüística y Literatura (School of Communication, Linguistics and Literature) FEI Federación Ecuatoriana de Indios (Federation of Ecuadorian Indians) GMU Gospel Missionary Union HCJB Hoy Cristo Jesús Bendice (Jesus Christ Blesses Today) ITPE Instituto Teológico Pastoral del Ecuador (Pastoral Theological Institute of Ecuador) INEC Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (National Institute of Statistics and the Census) MEC Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura (Ministry of Education and Culture) ODEPLAN Oficina de Planificación Nacional (Office of National Planning) ONAZE Organización de la Nacionalidad Zápara del Ecuador (Organisation of the Zapara Nationality of Ecuador) PEBI Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (Bilingual Intercultural Education Project) PRODEPINE Programa de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (Development Programme for Indigenous and Black People of Ecuador)



104

PROEIB

PUCE SERBISH SIISE SIL UNIDAE

CIP 033


Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (Training Programme in Bilingual Intercultural Education for Andean Countries) Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador) Sistemas de Educación Radiofónica Bicultural Shuar (Shuar Bicultural Educational Radio System) Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Sociales del Ecuador (Integrated System of Social Indicators for Ecuador) Summer Institute of Linguistics Universidad de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (University of the Ecuadorian Amazon)


Ecuadorian Indigenous Language and Education Policy and Practice: Recent Challenges and Advances Marleen Haboud PUCE, Ecuador Kendall King Georgetown University, U.S.A.

Introduction As detailed in previous work on language policy in Ecuador (King & Haboud, 2002), the 1988 reformed Ecuadorian Constitution explicitly recognised the multilingual and multicultural nature of the country (Article 1) and provided the legal opening for expanded Indigenous rights. Ecuador’s Indigenous groups, or nacionalidades, were granted specific rights, including the right to social and economic development without loss of their identity, culture, or territory; the right to culturally appropriate education; and the right to participate actively in all decisions impacting them as individuals and as communities. To this end, Article 84 of the Constitution established that support, development, and reinforcement of Indigenous people’s communities would be recognised and guaranteed; further, Indigenous traditional ways of life and social organisation, including the exercise of authority and law, would be preserved and developed. Appropriate policies have been in place for some time to support Indigenous language education and Indigenous language maintenance; the ongoing challenge has been to develop the programs and activities to meet these lofty aims. Since 2002, when our overview first appeared in Current Issues in Language Planning, Ecuador has undergone a period of political turmoil and has been governed by three different presidents. The most recent, Rafael Correa, elected in November, 2006, is a U.S-and-European-educated economist who has focused on addressing Ecuador’s debt, but who also publicly supports greater inclusion of Indigenous Ecuadorians in government, and in his first months in office created a new Ministry of Culture with this aim. Correa is the eighth president to serve Ecuador in the past decade. Among other 2006 candidates was Luis Macas, a Quichua native from the Andean highlands of Saraguro and co-founder and current president of the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) (CONAIE), the largest Indigenous organisation in Ecuador. Macas, who came in sixth place, represented the Pachakutik Movement, whose platform consisted of, among other things, defense of Indigenous rights. With the adoption of the U.S. dollar as the only Ecuadorian currency in 2000 and subsequent inflation and instability, many Ecuadorians, including those in 105

la-5.indd 105

26/04/2007 12:10:15

106


the Indigenous sectors, face economic hardships. In 2003, 40 per cent of the population was estimated to live in poverty (CIA World Factbook, 2007). Since 2000, many Ecuadorians have sought employment in Spain and the United States, leaving their land and families behind, sometimes permanently. The European Union reports that around 500,000 Ecuadorian emigrants send money back to Ecuador (European Union, 2005); these monetary transfers are said to make up the second largest source of revenue for Ecuador after oil (European Union, 2005). In the Ecuadorian highland regions, these developments – and in particular large-scale international migration – have resulted in on-going challenges to both Indigenous language maintenance and the implementation of intercultural bilingual education in many Indigenous communities. In many regions, teachers are among the most educated and most mobile, and the first to leave Ecuador for the United States or Spain. More generally, migration is linked with a shift in values towards the international labour market and away from local, community-based agricultural work. Fieldwork in southern highland Ecuador in August 2006 by King and Haboud suggested that many Indigenous community members were well aware of these shifts, and often troubled by them, as evident here in the conversation between King and a southern highland woman named Rosa. Spanish original

English translation

Rosa

No hay control de nada. Será por la migración. Será por la televisión. Será por el estudio Kendall estamos muy perdidos ya. Mucho mucho mucho . . . Por eso le [el marido de Rosa] dijo Kendall hay un cambio en todo, en todo, todo cosa hay bastante cambio.

There is no control of anything. Maybe it’s because of migration. Maybe it’s because of television. Maybe it’s because of school. Kendall we are already so lost . . . So much so much so much. For that reason, he [Rosa’s husband] told you, Kendall, that there is a change in everything in every everything there is enough change.

King

¿Por qué ha cambiado tanto?

Why has it changed so much?

Rosa

Los jóvenes ya no quieren trabajar.

The youth does not want to work anymore.

King

¿En la sierra?

In the mountains?

Rosa

Sí.

Yes.

As Rosa observes here, migration can be linked with profound shifts in community values and a devaluing of local work practices (in this case, traditional agricultural work), and as many others noted during our August fieldwork (2006), with continued shift away from Quichua and towards Spanish. While there has been little formal, national-level language planning activity in Ecuador in the last four years since the original monograph was written, in the face of such challenges, many Indigenous communities have been active at the local and national levels, engaging in educational and community efforts which have implications for Indigenous maintenance and language shift. In this

la-5.indd 106

26/04/2007 12:10:15

Ecuadorian Policy and Practice: Recent Challenges and Advances

107

article we highlight these issues as examples of the way the political, social and economic aspects of the ecological context impact language policy in a particular polity. We examine four instances where such local, and at times ‘unplanned’ (Baldauf, 1994; Eggington, 2002), language planning activity can be found: Indigenous education efforts in the Amazonian lowlands; elementary and secondary education planning and policy; higher education planning and policy; and advances in language material production and public programming. Challenges and advances to Indigenous education in the lowlands While there is great linguistic and cultural diversity across the Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador, there is also a shared history of contact with and colonisation due to religious missions, the rubber boom, mestizo relocation promoted by the State as part of the Agrarian Reform of 1964 (Ibarra, 1992), the oil boom, and more recently, tourism, armed guerrillas and militarisation (CONAIE, 2006; Haboud, 2006; Santos, 1996; SILAE, 2003; Vaca, n.d.). (Migration has been less severe within the lowland Amazonian regions.) These multiple and varied factors make the Amazon a complex and heterogeneous region, but one which is subject to shared tensions: on the one hand, Westernisation and the resultant tendency towards Spanish, and on the other, resistance to these forces and an interest in cultural and linguistic maintenance (Santos, 1996). Important forces for linguistic and cultural maintenance are the local language and education programs by Amazonian Indigenous communities themselves. These efforts can be traced back to the work of the Shuar Federation in the 1960s, which based their defense of local culture not in terms of traditional dress, music or language alone, but within a broader context that included their world view, and was linked to their land, education, language, forms of organisation and production. As a result of their early work, other Indigenous Amazon groups formed similar federations with the shared goal of cultural defence and the defeat of colonisation. A key example, described in King and Haboud (2002): in 1980, the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon) (CONFENIAE) was formed – a group which fights for the control of territory as a base for the survival of its people. In 2003, this organisation, together with representative organisations of each region of the country,1 made a declaration protesting against the violation of collective rights and the intrusion of oil and mining companies into Indigenous territories (ARGENPRESS, 2003). They also joined forces with the Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe del Ecuador (National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education of Ecuador) (DINEIB) and other organisations and specialists to document and promote the values of material and spiritual culture of Indigenous communities of the Amazon, and to facilitate Indigenous groups’ access to and appropriate adaptation of scientific advances and modern technologies. In a similar way, the Coordinator of the Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (Indigenous Organisations of Amazonian Cuenca) (COICA) is currently working jointly with the CONFENIAE and its grassroots organisations to develop new Amazon protection projects, in particular ecotourism. Each of these projects rests on the multilingual reality of the region as well as the diversity of bilingual situations and language contact. From this per-

la-5.indd 107

26/04/2007 12:10:15

108


spective, COICA seeks to promote ‘the development of the mother language (or language of predominate use), whether it be the indigenous language or Spanish; learning a second language, whether it be Spanish or an Indigenous language; and learning at least one foreign language’ (COICA, 2005). In 2005, COICA published the Agenda Indígena Amazónica (Amazonian Indigenous Agenda), which provides an overview of key goals: respect for life, health, individual freedom; maintenance of territorial, cultural, spiritual, and social integrity; appropriate integration of ancestral knowledge and western knowledge (Diálogo de Sabers, 2005). Despite these notable advances in the Amazon and elsewhere in the country, in recent years, Indigenous organisations have been troubled by internal divisions. This division, according to Lourdes Tibán, director of the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas y Negros del Ecuador (National Council for the Development of Indigenous and Black Communities of Ecuador) (CODENPE), has impeded collaborative work (personal communication, October 23, 2005). Education planning and policy (Elementary and Secondary) Throughout the country, bilingual intercultural education (BIE) continues under the auspices of DINEIB. At present, the Directorate serves 170,111 students in the Amazon region alone, of which only 20.16 per cent attend an educational program that is in fact intercultural and bilingual. In other words, most of these students attend monolingual Spanish schools. According to interviews with Wao and A’i speakers and teachers, the most serious problem is the lack of teachers that speak their languages. BIE still faces many challenges at the conceptual level as well. Close analysis of practice suggests that most BIE teachers, including those who are themselves Indigenous, continue to use traditional teaching methods (Garcés, 2004). In recent years there has been greater emphasis by both the DINEIB and the CONAIE on the need to rethink education, and to develop a model of education which is truly intercultural, placing all groups on an equal footing (see, e.g., CONAIE, 2004; Haboud, Krainer & Yánez, 2006). As an example of an initiative with such an aim, since 1988, the Cofans have developed an educational project, Fundación para la Sobrevivencia Cofán (Foundation for Cofan Survival) (FSC), which seeks to provide competitive and quality education for all students and to help them eventually to become qualified professionals with pride in their identity. Cofan youth groups study in renowned schools in major Ecuadorian cities while they live with their own people. The aim is to cultivate a new Cofan generation who will be both locally grounded and, at the same time, professionally equipped to defend their 300,000 hectares of forest land (see www.cofan.org). If this program is successful, it will be a model for those endangered language communities now at the greatest disadvantage. Higher education policy and planning in the Amazon and beyond One major shared advance across both Amazonian and Highland regions has been the development of multiple projects to promote Indigenous higher education. Some of the prime examples of these include: Proyecto Ibis (‘Ibis Project’), funded by the Danish government, has supported

la-5.indd 108

26/04/2007 12:10:15


109

two education projects since 2003: (a) a degree in intercultural bilingual education (PLEIB, 2002) offered in Spanish but designed for teachers of smallpopulation Indigenous nationalities. The program operates in modules, each lasting for four years, and has been developed jointly with the Universidad de Cuenca, CONAIE, DINEIB and the Canelos Pedagogical Intercultural Bilingual Institute.2 The program is now in its second year and serves 300 students; (b) a bi-national project (WASH) that is being developed with the Wambis, the Awajun of Peru and the Shuar people of Ecuador. This program will develop its own educational system grounded in their worldview promoting the maintenance of their language and culture. La Fundación de Culturas Indígenas Kawsay (The Foundation of Indigenous Cultures Kawsay), formed in 2000, aims to cultivate and train Indigenous leaders. It is planning to convert the program into the Universidad Intercultural Kawsay (Intercultural University Kawsay) (Moya & Moya, 2004). Universidad en Sarayaku – Proyecto Yachay (University in Sarayaku-Yachay Project).3 In 2003 the Quichua community of Sarayaku inaugurated a degree in intercultural bilingual education in an agreement with the Universidad de Lleida (University of Lleida) of Spain and Emprentes (from Catalonia). The program lasts for four years and 8 months (Personal communication, Ileana Almeida (linguist and historian) and Ángel Ramírez, DINEIB (October 17 and 26, 2005, respectively). Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi as part of the Universidad Intercultural de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos Indígenas (Intercultural University of the Nacionalidades and Indigenous Peoples). This university promotes itself as a ‘universidad para todos, todos por una universidad intercultural’ (university for everyone, everyone for an intercultural university), basing its curriculum on five learning centres: Yachay Munay, Munay Ruray, Ruray Ushay, Ushay Yachay, and Centro Kawsay. These centres focus on (respectively) world views, rationalities, philosophies; human beings in the community, the land, the planet, the cosmos; the recuperation and development of human talent with technology; the construction of interculturality; the construction of wisdom (Amawtaywasi Universidad Intercultural de las Nacionalidaes y Pueblo Indígenas, 2007). This university is closely connected with the country’s Indigenous movement, as one of its sponsors is CONAIE. DINEIB and la Universidad de Cuenca currently offer an M.A. degree in teacher training. Graduates will teach in pedagogical schools, technical colleges and specific university programs. This is a two-year, distance-learning program; students are required to attend in person one week per month. The first group of students will graduate in March 2008; the second cohort will be due in October 2008 (Personal communication, Ángel Ramírez, DINEIB, January 22, 2007). Other advances and developments: Language materials and programs Indigenous written and audio materials have been developed by a wide variety of individuals and organisation over the last five years. For instance,

la-5.indd 109

26/04/2007 12:10:15

110


Mitos, cuentos y leyendas del pueblo Saraguro (Myths, stories, and legends from the town of Saraguro), is a recent (2006) small-scale publication in Quichua and Spanish designed so that the ‘sabiduría de nuestros mayors perdure en la memoria de las nuevas generaciones’ (knowledge of our elders remains in the memory of the new generations). A very different example comes from the agreement by several oil companies to contribute to the publication of printed materials, for example, lexicons and oral stories. In 2005, under the title Palabra Mágica (Magic Word), Petroecuador produced a compilation of oral stories in two volumes with CDs included. The company, Petrobras, as part of the Plan de Vida (Life Plan) for the Wao population, has accepted a petition from the speakers of Wao to finance the publication of a lexicon (Personal communication, M. Isabel Zea, Petrobras Community Relations, September 30, 2005). While these materials are an important source of information for those studying cultures, language, and settled communities in the Ecuadorian territory, it does not guarantee the vitality of language nor the survival of its speakers, who have difficulty accessing these readings, rethinking their own histories or listening to their own voices. To fill this gap, the Coordinadora de Radios Populares y Educativas del Ecuador (Coordinator of Popular and Educational Radios of Ecuador) (CORAPE) has been working since 1988 to strengthen educational, popular and community radio systems of Ecuador, grouping radio stations and production centres, directly linking them to social development processes at the national level. Currently, it is working with 35 affiliated distributed radio stations across the country to construct a Quichua network in coordination with local radio stations. Transmission is bilingual, Quichua to Spanish, although hopefully the project will be working with other languages in the Amazon region in 2007.4 There are also local initiatives to develop Indigenous language radio programming. For instance, Lauro Vicente Poma Macas, a Quichua speaker from the Saraguro highlands, records and produces a weekly program in Quichua and Spanish. The program, which is designed primarily for school-aged, Spanish-dominant Indigenous children, aims to promote pride and to develop competence in Quichua. Other recent radio efforts include Un minuto de multiculturalidad (Multicultural Moment), a program which seeks to promote and raise awareness about linguistic diversity among all Ecuadorians beginning in 2007. Using a quiz show format, listeners will be asked to identify different Ecuadorian Indigenous languages, and then they will hear a short segment from speakers of those languages about those languages. Lastly, at the level of computer networks, Abya Yala coordinates the Network of Amazonian languages (see http://www.abyayala.org/Linda) that seeks to exchange information related to completed investigations concerning Indigenous languages and peoples. The CODENPE, in agreement with the Servicios de Iniciativa Local para la Amazonía Ecuatoriana (Local Initiative Services for the Ecuadorian Amazon) (SILAE) maintains computer systems that support the initiatives of Amazonian development (Infocodenpe, special bulletin No. 016. October 6, 2005). The Instituto de Tecnologías del Lenguaje of Carnegie Mellon (The Technical Institute of Languages), the Centro de Tecnologías de Información de la Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (The Center of Information Technology

la-5.indd 110

26/04/2007 12:10:15


111

of the Polytechnic School of the Coast), the DINEIB and the DIPEIB-Pastaza, initiated a project in 2003 about the Development of Information Technology for BIE, named: ‘Avenue/Huaorani – Avenue/Quichua.’ Their aim is to develop a computerised translation system from Quichua and Wao to Spanish, as an adjunct of a system of simultaneous translation from Quichua to Wao. The web not only provides lexicons in various languages, grammatical outlines and ‘easy lessons’ of differing scope in all languages, but also carries, official statistics, mapping, and of course, tourist descriptions of the exotic Amazon.

Conclusion Little has changed in terms of official, national-level language and education policy in Ecuador since 2002; however, the last five years, has seen greater implementational space for local initiatives that could eventually favor Indigenous and minoritised languages. Although Indigenous peoples of Ecuador face on-going challenges, Indigenous organisations, communities, and individuals continue to seek alternative and creative ways to survive, adapt, and flourish in Ecuador in 2007. And Rafael Correa, the newest Ecuadorian president, publicly announced that his government should be ‘para los indios’ (for the Indians) in a recent speech in an Indigenous Quichua town, Zumbahua (January 6, 2007). We hope that this is more than political positioning on Correa’s part, but will mean that, in the years ahead, Ecuadorian democracy will work towards the dual goals of reducing social inequalities and developing a true multilingual intercultural society. The official policies and formal language planning activity for this to happen have been in place for approximately a decade. Whether or not this official policy meets its explicitly stated goals and whether Quichua and Indigenous languages can maintain a foothold in the republic depends to great measure not on the creation of future additional language policies, but rather on how the local ecology continues to change in relation to massive migration, globalisation and other large-scale forces. This review, and in particular, the developments in the areas of lowland education programming and higher education planning, gives us both cause for concern and cause for (cautious) optimism. Ecuador’s Indigenous organisations maintain that the current laws and policies – which they had a major hand in shaping – are well crafted and work to promote respect for their linguistic and cultural rights. From their viewpoint – and from ours – what is still needed is better use of funding and more effective programming that can meet the spirit and aims of these policies. This will require on-going work in education – and perhaps more importantly, beyond education – to promote the use, development and vitality of Ecuadorian languages other than Spanish. Notes 1. These included El Consejo Ampliado de los Pueblos de la Nacionalidad Kichwa del Ecuador (The Extended Council of the people of the Quichua Nationality) (ECUARUNARI), Confederación de las Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (Confederation of the Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon) (CONFENIAE), and Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Costa) (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Coast) (CONAICE). 2. We thank Ileana Soto, Ibis Denmark Official, for the information about these projects

la-5.indd 111

26/04/2007 12:10:15

112


(personal communication, October 13, 2005). One can find a more detailed description at: [email protected] / [email protected] 3. See http://www.sarayacu.com/education/proyecto_yachay.rtf 4. We thank José Atupaña de CORAPE for this information (personal communication, October 29, 2005). It is possible to enter the consulted bilingual programming: www. corape.aler.org.

References Amawtaywasi Universidad Intercultural de las Nacionalidaes y Pueblo Indígenas [Amawtay Intercultural University of the Nacionalidades and Indigenous Peoples] (2007) Online documents at URL (http://www.amawtaywasi.edu.ec/, http://www. amawtaywasi.edu.ec/centros.htm [January, 2007]. ARGENPRESS (2003) El mundo en sus manos, Ecuador busca su camino: Asamblea extraordinaria de la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas (CONAIE) [The world in your hands, Ecuador searches for its path: Special Assembly of the Confederation of Indigenous Nacionalides] (CONAIE).Online documents at URL http://www. argenpress.info/nota.asp?num = 005678 Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1994). ‘Unplanned’ language policy and planning. In W. Grabe et al. (eds) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 14 (pp. 82–89). New York: Cambridge University Press. CIA World Factbook (2007) Ecuador. Online document at URL https://www.cia.gov/ cia/publications/factbook/geos/ec.html [January, 2007]. Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica [Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazonian Cuenca] (COICA) (2005) Volviendo a la Maloca. Agenda Indígena Amazónica. [Returning to Maloca. Indigenous Amazonian Agenda]. Quito. Constitución Política de la República del Ecuador [Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador] (1998) Quito, Ecuador: El Comercio. http://www.mmrree.gov.ec/mre/ documentos/ministerio/legislacion/leg_contitucion_titulo03.htm [January, 2007]. CODENPE (SIDENPE – SIISE) (2002) Online documents at URLs http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/zapara.htm http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/centro.htm http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/kichwaama.htm (October 10, 2005). CONFENIAE (2000) Pueblos amazónicos [Amazonian peoples]. Online documents at URL http://www.confeniae.org [December 01, 2005]. Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador [Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador] (CONAIE) (2004) Asamblea de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe de la CONAIE. Plan estratégico institucional de la EIB por parte de la DINEIB y los directores provinciales de EIB [Assembly of Intercultural Bilingual Education of the CONAIE. EIB Strategic Institutional Plan by the DINEIB and the provincial directors of the EIB]. Quito: CONAIE. Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador [Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador] (CONAIE) (2006) Los efectos del Plan Colombia en el Ecuador [The effects of Plan Colombia in Ecuador]. Online document at URL http:// www.llacta.org/plan-colombia/ [January, 2007] Diálogo de Saberes [Dialogue of Knowledges]. Elaboración de Propuesta de Ley de Cultura [Elaboration of the Proposal of the Law of Culture]. Online documents at URL http://www.cncultura.gov.ec/ [October 10, 2005]. Eggington, W. (2002) Unplanned language planning. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 404–415). Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Union (2005) The European Union’s relationship with Ecuador. Online document at URL http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/ecuador/intro/ index.htm [January, 2007] Garcés, F. (2004) Situación de la educación intercultural bilingüe en Ecuador [Intercultural bilingual education situation in Ecuador]. Unpublished document, Quito. Haboud, M. (2006) Políticas lingüísticas y culturales. El caso de la Amazonía ecuatoriana [Linguistic and cultural policies. The case of the Ecuadorian Amazon]. In UNESCO.

la-5.indd 112

27/04/2007 11:12:15


113

Lenguas y tradiciones orales de la Amazonía [Languages and Oral Traditions of the Amazon]. ¿Diversidad en peligro? [Diversity in danger?] (pp. 183–251). Havana: UNESCO / Casa de las Américas. Haboud, M., Krainer, A. and Yánez, F. (2006) Estado de situación de educación intercultural bilingüe en Ecuador [State of the situation of intercultural bilingual education in Ecuador]. Barcelona: ICCI. Ibarra, A. (1992) Los Indígenas y el Estado en el Ecuador [The Indigenous People and the State in Ecuador]. Quito: Abya-Yala. Infocodenpe (2005) Boletín especial [Special Bulletin] No. 016. Quito: CODENPE. King, K. and Haboud, M. (2002) Language planning and policy in Ecuador. Current Issues in Language Planning 3 (4): 359–424. Ley de Gestión Ambiental [Law of Environmental Management] (1999) Registro Oficial [Official Register] 245 (July 30, 1999). Online document at URL www.upsq.edu.ec [November 01, 2005]. Mitos, cuentos y leyendas del pueblo Saraguro [Myths, stories and legends of the Saraguro people] (2006). Saraguro, Ecuador. Moya, R. and Moya, A. (2004) Derivas de la interculturalidad [Derivations from Interculturality]. Procesos y desafíos en América Latina [Processes and Challenges in Latin America]. Quito: CAFOLIS / FUNADES / FPH / CECI. Petrobras (2004) Objetivos [Objectives]. Online document at URL http://64.233.187.104/ search?q=cache:gyNfBwoFNFAJ:www.energia.gob.mx/work/resources/ LocalContent/3034/1/CR9_PETROBRAS.pdf+Petrobras+Proyectos+educacion+Ecu ador&hl=es [October 27, 2005]. Petroecuador (2004) Políticas Corporativas, Ambientales y de Relacionamiento Comunitario de Petroecuador [Corporate Policies, Environmental Issues and Petroecuador Community Relations]. Quito: Petroecuador. PLEIB, Universidad de Cuenca, Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (DINEIB), Instituto Pedagógico Intercultural Bilingüe Canelos, Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador [Unversity of Cuenca, National Department of Intercultural Bilingual Education (DINEIB), Intercultural Bilingual Pedagogical Institute Canelos, Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador] (2002) Programa de licenciatura en Ciencias de la Educación en la especialidad de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para maestros de las Nacionalidades indígenas ecuatorianas de menos población [Degree program in Sciences of Education specializing in Intercultural Bilingual Education for teachers from Ecuadorian indigenous Nacionalidades from smaller populations] . Canelos, Ecuador (Internal document). PROEIB (2002) Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos [Training program in Intercultural Bilingual Education for Andean countries]. Online documents at URL http://www.proeibandes.org/programa.html. [July, 2006]. Red de lenguas indígenas de la Amazonía [Amazonian Indigenous Language Network] (n.d.). Online documents at URL http://www.abyayala.org/Linda [December, 2005]. Santos, F. (1996) Hacia una antropología de lo contemporáneo en la Amazonía Ecuatoriana [Towards an anthropology of the contemporary in the Ecuadorian Amazon]. In Santos, F (ed.) Globalización y cambio en la Amazonía Indígena [Globalization and Change in the Indigenous Amazon]. (Vol. I) (pp. 7–46). Quito: Abya-Yala. Sarayaku (n.d.) Proyecto Yacía Sarayaku Proyecto [Sarayaku Project]. Yachay Sarayaku [Sarayaku Learning]. [email protected]. [December, 2006]. Segunda Cumbre Continental de los Pueblos y Nacionalidades de Abya Yala [Second Continental Summit of the Peoples and Nacionalidades of Abya Yala] (2004) Pronunciamiento de la Mesa del Cumbre Continental (21 a 25 de Julio del 2004) [Declaration of the Executive of the Continental Summit (21–25 of July 2004)]. SILAE (2003) (Servicios de Iniciativa Local Para La Amazonia Ecuatoriana [Local Initiative Services for the Ecuadorian Amazon]) (2003) El Proyecto SILAE. Solidaridad con la Amazonia [The SILAE Project. Solidarity with the Amazon]. Online document found at URL http://www.silae.org/eu/info.cfm?s=7&ss=5 [November, 2006]. Vaca, A. (press coordinator) (n.d.) Organización Indígena SECOYA del Ecuador se

la-5.indd 113

26/04/2007 12:10:15

114


mantiene con fortaleza contra Texaco [The Indigenous Organization SECOYA of Ecuador keeps strength against Texaco] (n/d). Online document found at URL http:// www.texacotoxico.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid =2&PHPSESSID=16e0fb994e6205c00bf93f31f6c8583c [January, 2007].

Abbreviations CODENPE

Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador [Council for the Development of the Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador]

COICA

Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica [Indigenous Organisations of Amazonian Cuenca]

CONAIE

Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador [Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador]

CONFENIAE

Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de la Amazonía Ecuatoriana [Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon]

CORAPE

Radios Populares y Educativas del Ecuador [Coordinator of Popular and Educational Radios of Ecuador]

DINEIB

Dirección Nacional de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe [National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education]

FSC

Fundación para la Sobrevivencia Cofán [Foundation for Cofan Survival]

SILAE

Servicios de Iniciativa Local para la Amazonía Ecuatoriana [Local Initiative Services for the Ecuadorian Amazon]

(Note: Names tend to be in Spanish given that the aim of most of these organisations is to serve multiple indigenous language groups and Spanish is viewed as the lingua franca.)

la-5.indd 114

26/04/2007 12:10:15

CILP No: 109

The Language Situation in Mexico Roland Terborg and Laura García Landa Department of Applied Linguistics, Centro de Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico Pauline Moore Faculty of Languages, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Mexico This monograph will cover the language situation in Mexico; a linguistically very complex country with 62 recognised indigenous languages, the de facto official language, Spanish, and some immigrant languages of lesser importance. Throughout the monograph, we will concentrate on three distinct challenges which we consider relevant for Mexican language policy. The first area of interest is the challenge of the multilingual situation where there is conflict between Spanish and the indigenous languages, most of which are in danger of shift. This situation has many consequences both for education and for linguistic human rights. The second challenge that is discussed is that of foreign language teaching, which is a growing need in the Mexican education system, just as it is for any economically developing nation. In particular, English is in high demand at all levels of education; in turn, this development creates new demands for teaching staff. The third challenge dealt with is Spanish as the language of 90% of all Mexican citizens. While we recognise the role of Spanish as constituting a threat to the indigenous languages, it also plays an important role as a symbol of national identity and has developed a diversity of local varieties. Overall, Mexico has the greatest number of speakers of Spanish in the world and it is a major source of such cultural commodities as films, books, music and theatre. In addition, Spanish itself poses serious educational challenges, with regard to literacy.

Keywords: indigenous languages, language maintenance, language planning, language policy, language shift, Mexico

Introduction Mexico is situated between the Gulf of Mexico to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Most of its surface consists of highlands. The climate is dominated by high coastal mountain ranges that create a rain shadow effect, leaving vast areas of desert in the central highlands. Mexico is also a country with a great diversity in languages and cultural groups, as well as tremendous geographic and mineral wealth. Although Mexico is situated on the North American continent, because the southern portion of the country borders on Guatemala and Belize, it has been called Middle America by some (Campbell, 1997: 15). The linear distance between the northern border with the United States and the southern border with Guatemala and Belize is more than 2000 km. The Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States) covers 1,972,550 sq. km (761,600 sq. mi.), a size roughly comparable to the land area of Indonesia or Saudi Arabia. The climate varies from desert to tropical in the coastal regions 115

la-6.indd 115

30/03/2007 10:28:19

Figure 1 Map of the territory of the Mexican Republic (adapted from Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1997)

CILP No: 109

116

la-6.indd 116


30/03/2007 10:28:19

CILP No: 109

The Language Situation in Mexico

117

and from Mediterranean to temperate in the higher central regions. The north is mostly desert, particularly the state of Sonora and the peninsula of Baja California, while arid climates can also be found in other parts such as in the centre of the country. In sum, roughly 12% (240,000 sq. km) of the area consists of arable land. The capital of the republic is Mexico City, surrounded on three sides by the State of Mexico. In 2006, the country had 103,088,021 inhabitants of whom approximately 20 million live in the capital city. A large portion of Mexico’s industry is located in or near the cities of Guadalajara, Monterrey and Puebla. Each of these cities has over 1 million inhabitants. Other large cities include Chihuahua, Hermosillo, Mexicali, and Tijuana in the north, and Merida, Jalapa, Veracruz, Toluca, Cuernavaca and Acapulco in the south. (See Figure 1.) To understand the language situation in Mexico it will be helpful to point out some of the political, social and cultural contrasts that exist in the country. Culturally, Mexico is part of Latin America. At the same time Mexico has the largest population of speakers of indigenous languages (ILs) and presents the highest cultural diversity in the Americas, with regard to the number of languages spoken. This region is composed of the countries of South and Central America and also of the Caribbean countries of Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. After Brazil, Mexico is the most populous country in Latin America, and it has one of the most competitive economies, while only Chile and Uruguay occupy higher positions in the Growth Competitiveness Index rankings. (See Growth Competitiveness Index rankings, 2005.) Partly due to lax environmental laws, Mexico attracts large multinational corporations such as Volkswagen, located in the city of Puebla, about two hours east of Mexico City, where it dominates the local economy. Other giants of the car industry like Ford, Nissan, Chrysler and General Motors also have assembly plants in Mexico. Other major industries include pharmaceuticals, construction, food and beverages, textiles and banking and financial services. Natural resources are central to the Mexican economy. Mexico’s oil reserves – administrated by the national company PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos, Mexican Oil) – are one of the main sources of income in the country. Tourism is also a prosperous sector of the Mexican economy. The diversity of landscapes and the ancient Mesoamerican ruins attract tourists from North America, Europe and Asia. Partly as a result of the prospering economy, there has been progress in tertiary education with at least one official university in each of the nation’s 31 states, as well as one of the world’s largest universities, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) [National Autonomous University of Mexico]. According to the university ranking published in ‘Gaceta UNAM’ (03/11/05), UNAM is the most prestigious university in Latin America. In contrast to other countries in the region, the political system of Mexico has been relatively stable in recent decades. At the same time, it has developed an autonomous position in relation to the United States of America; for example, the Mexican Government maintained diplomatic and trade relations with the Government of Cuba throughout the Cold War. These facts suggest that, for

la-6.indd 117

30/03/2007 10:28:19

CILP No: 109

118


quite some time, the Mexican political system has been a functioning democracy supported by an effective constitution. However, on a closer look, and disregarding the state of other nations in the region, things in Mexico start to appear in a different light. For over 70 years, up to the elections in June 2000, a single party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional [Party of the Institutionalised Revolution] (PRI) held power as the Mexican Government, despite persistent rumours of electoral fraud. In the 1988 election, for example, early counts revealed that the candidate for the PRI, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, would lose, but this suddenly changed after a timely failure of the computerised electoral system. There is freedom of the press, yet it is not unheard of for a reporter to be shot or to become involved in a fatal road accident. In the Mexican provinces there is a history of mass shootings of peasants by soldiers and paramilitary groups, the most well known of which have been the massacres of Acteal (Chiapas, 1995) and Aguas Blancas (Guerrero, 1996). However, the most significant massacre happened in Mexico City (Tlatelolco) in 1968 immediately before the Olympic Games. The actual number of victims of Tlatelolco is still unknown and the persons responsible have never been brought to trial. Social inequality is a part of everyday life, and the division between rural and urban areas is notorious. In some areas, a full range of modern services may be available, while others, not far away, may lack electricity, running water and/or sanitation facilities. The sociologist, Julio Boltvinik from the Colegio de México (COLMEX),1 generally divides the population into three strata: indigentes [extremely poor], pobres no indigentes [poor but not extremely poor] and no pobres [not poor]. He points out in his research that, in 2004, the Mexican population consisted of 41,260,000 persons who were ‘extremely poor’, 43,737000 persons who were ‘poor but not extremely poor’ and only 19,142,000 who may be considered ‘not poor’ – i.e. members of the middleclass (Boltvinik, 2005). One result of this degree of poverty is continuous illegal migration on a massive scale from Mexico to the United States in the north. Other related issues are guerilla activities, general insecurity, organised crime and corruption. This description of the main sociopolitical characteristics of present-day Mexico provides the reader with the background necessary to understand how language policy and planning decisions have emerged and explains some of the typical local idiosyncrasies which continue to surface. History When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, there were two dominant cultures: (1) (2)

In central Mexico the Mexicas or Aztecs had established an empire that reached from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The Mayan civilisation reaching from Honduras in the south to the states of Chiapas and the Yucatan in the north.

Other important cultures, such as the Toltecs, or earlier the Olmecs, had already died out by the time the Spaniards arrived. The capital of the Aztec Empire was Mexico Tenochtitlan, which covered part of the territory of the present-day capital, Mexico City. The Aztec Empire was

la-6.indd 118

30/03/2007 10:28:19

CILP No: 109


119

formed through a series of alliances with peoples from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. But among these were different groups that were dissatisfied with the central power in Mexico Tenochtitlan. This was the case with Tlaxcalans in the east of the capital. The Mayans had not achieved the degree of political unity that the Aztecs had. Both, however, were highly developed civilisations, leaving behind an impressive archaeological record in the pyramids and structures that they built. The Aztec Empire included diverse groups of people who spoke different languages and had distinct cultures. Among these cultures, the most important were the Mixtecs, the Zapotecs who built Monte Alban, and the Totonacs from the state of Veracruz who built El Tajin with its famous Pyramid of the Niches. These archeological sites are present-day tourist attractions. The people in the northern part of Mexico were nomadic and, hence, their cultures did not produce lasting physical evidence. After the European discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492, Spaniards arrived, attracted to the land, its peoples, and the potential to exploit them. The Spanish conquest began with the islands in the Caribbean. Cuba and Hispaniola (later renamed the Dominican Republic) were established as Spanish colonies from the late 15th century. Between 1519 and 1521 CE, Mexico was conquered by Hernán Cortez who had already lived in the Caribbean islands for 15 years. From Cuba he started out with a relatively small force of Spanish soldiers, sailing along the Yucatan Peninsula in the east of Mexico. From there he arrived at the present-day port of Veracruz and started on his way to Mexico Tenochtitlan. The Spaniards were beaten at first losing two-thirds of their men, in spite of their weapons and horses, which were very impressive for the Mexicas. If the Mexicas would have persecuted Cortez, then they might not have conquered the empire. But, ultimately it was possible to conquer the whole empire with a small number of soldiers because Cortez was able to arrange an alliance with the Tlaxcalans who, as already mentioned, were dissatisfied with the central power. The conquerors had the added advantage of the unfamiliar diseases that the Spanish brought with them that wiped out up to 90% of the population. (See Cifuentes, 1998: 45; Moreno Toscano, 1981: 350–1.) The Spaniards were attracted to the wealth of the country, especially in those areas where great civilisations existed, but not to the uninhabited areas or areas where nomadic populations subsisted. Between 1540 and 1549 waves of immigrants from Europe came to the viceroyalty of New Spain, as Mexico was known while it was a Spanish colony. Interest waned after the conquest of Peru until the discovery of mines in the north of New Spain. During the first half of the 16th century after the conquest the indigenous population was decimated. Estimates put the Mexican population at approximately 25.3 million in 1519, 16.8 million in 1523, 2.6 million in 1548, 1.3 million in 1695 and 1 million in 1605 (Moreno Toscano, 1981: 350–1). Cifuentes (1998: 45–6) points out that the decrease of indigenous population at the end of the 16th century led to the extinction of more than a hundred languages. During the 300 years of colonial rule, a number of insurrections occurred, none of which, however, really endangered the predominance of the Spanish Crown. Some areas were never dominated militarily, but most were converted

la-6.indd 119

30/03/2007 10:28:20

CILP No: 109

120


Figure 2 The indigenous languages of Mexico. Adapted from Anaya (1987)

to Christianity by Catholic missionaries. At present only part of the Huichols (see Table 3 and Figure 2 number 21) may be considered as not having been converted. The religion of most of the indigenous people is a kind of Catholicism with pagan influences (see later discussion in religious languages). With the insurrections of Hidalgo and Allende in 1810, the first popular revolution of importance in Hispanic America took place (Villoro, 1976: 614). Even though both uprisings were defeated and their leaders later executed, the insurrection continued, and in 1821 Mexico won its independence from Spain. In the following decades conflicts of internal and external origin took place on Mexican territory. In 1836, the inhabitants of Texas, led by more recently arrived Englishspeaking settlers, won its independence from Mexico. In 1845 Texas was annexed by the United States, and the US Government sent troops into these territories. This aggression led Mexico to defend its territory; that interaction was followed by armed conflict between Mexico and the United States lasting from 1846 to 1848. (See Velasco-Márquez, 2006.) In Mexico, this war is known as ‘The U.S. Invasion’. In the ‘Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo’ which ended the war, Mexico lost the northern part of its territory to the United States. The losses included Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and parts of what is now Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The decadence of the Mexican army became obvious. The two institutions that enjoyed the greatest legal privileges – i.e. the army and

la-6.indd 120

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109


121

the Catholic Church – were considered responsible for the military defeat. This was the beginning of the debilitation of the church during the liberal revolution from 1855 to 1876. (See Bazant, 1981: 61–79.) Thus, in Mexico at the present time, the government is secular although the majority of the population is Catholic. In 1862 the country was invaded by the French, with the help of Mexican conservatives who subsequently imposed Maximilian of Habsburg as emperor. But French domination ended in 1867 with the execution of Maximilian. Despite these drastic changes in governance, mainstream politics remained more conservative than might have been expected. (See Bazant, 1981: 82–6.) Among the regional conflicts was the Caste War of Yucatan that started in 1847 with the rebellion of the peninsular Mayans against the dominance of the Dzules (white people) (Reed, 1971). The Mayans were defeated, and many fled into the state of Quintana Roo, an uninhabited territory at that time. The movement of the population during this war probably caused Yucatec Mayan to have fewer dialectal differences than can be found among other indigenous groups. In 1877 Porfirio Díaz, a war hero from the French Intervention, was elected president. His rule lasted for the ensuing 30 years because he was re-elected several times until a win produced by undeniable electoral fraud in 1910 caused public outcry, leading to the Mexican Revolution in 1911 which put an effective end to the Porfirian dictatorship. From 1911 to 1920 Mexico was torn by civil war of which the USA attempted to take advantage on two occasions, sending troops into the country in the hope that the political instability would make Mexico an easy target for conquest. Sporadic conflict continued into the early 1930s when the country began to stabilise under the presidency of Lazaro Cárdenas from 1934 to 1940. He was a member of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI – the Institutional Revolutionary Party) [initially PNR or National Revolutionary Party] that subsequently governed Mexico for more than 70 years. On 1 January 1994 the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional EZLN) took control of the main municipalities of southern Chiapas. This coincided with the beginning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which was widely perceived to encourage social inequality and to bring little benefit to the poorer sectors of the country, and which was perhaps a major catalyst for the rebellion. The element of surprise gave the Zapatistas an advantage over the Mexican Army, in spite of their inferior weapons. This uprising was led by several indigenous groups in Chiapas, in particular the Tzotzils and Tzeltals who are the most numerous ethnic groups in that state. The uprising has been guided by Subcomandante Marcos, whose identity is unknown, but who has probably worked as a professor at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City. Armed combat lasted only 12 days as spontaneous support from the population created pressure for negotiation between the rebels and the government. Moreover, 1994 was an election year, and a year later Mexico became a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), making the government even more conscious of its image abroad. The governing PRI was in danger of losing its position while the EZLN received increasing sympathy from national and international movements. Both parties agreed to enter into negotiations, which were overseen by the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA)

la-6.indd 121

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109

122


[Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación], an ad hoc legislative body. These talks resulted in the San Andrés Accord (see Part IV of this monograph), most importantly introducing the topic of indigenous languages and education into discussions at a national level. When the PRI won the 1994 elections, the new administration of President Ernesto Zedillo opted, in 1995, to surround the region with troops, leaving the EZLN with no military option. Talks also have broken off and the EZLN has carried out various actions that have been noted throughout the world, but has not been able to force the government of Mexico to comply with its demands. After days of fighting, negotiations led eventually to an armistice, but even at the present time some indigenous groups in this region remain armed. However, the Zapatista uprising has led to attention being focused on authentic ethnic groups throughout the country. Opinions certainly differ concerning the results of this insurrection, but there is no doubt that the events of 1994 had a profound effect on emerging language policy. Before the EZLN uprising, indigenous languages were scarcely mentioned in Mexican newspapers; this changed dramatically after 1 January 1994 (Carbó & Salgado, forthcoming).

Part I: The Language Profile of Mexico National/official languages In Mexico, Spanish is the de facto official language of the government and the first language of 90% per cent of the population. It is the national language because of its historic and legislative functions and because it acts as a lingua franca for indigenous language speakers (Heath, 1986; Patthey-Chavez, 1994). Recently, the indigenous languages were also recognised as national languages because of their historic origins from before the time of the Spanish conquest. All national languages are part of the national patrimony, and they are considered to enjoy equal rights as far as their usage, diffusion and development is concerned. The Ley general de derechos lingüísticos de los pueblos indigenas (The General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People) effective from March 2003, established these basic rights for indigenous languages in Article 4. The law states that the majority language and most minority languages would be national languages. (See the comprehensive discussion in Part IV of this monograph.) Spanish is also an international language. It is the official language of 21 countries (Lacorte, forthcoming) and it is the first language of more than 300,000,000 speakers; i.e. only Chinese has more first language speakers than Spanish. Without any doubt, Spanish will be one of the great regional languages in the immediate future, and it will be more important in the future (Moreno de Alba, 2003: 37–44). Of those people with Spanish as first language (L1), one in three is Mexican. Mexico is the country with the largest number of speakers of Spanish in the world. Spanish is also an important minority language in the United States. In this monograph we will focus only on variables of Mexican Spanish which are often shared throughout Latin America, while general language structure, when referred to, will only include descriptions of typical differences between Mexican and peninsular Spanish. Over the past 150 years some research has been carried out on Mexican

la-6.indd 122

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109


123

Spanish in Mexico, but the majority of the linguistic work has been done on indigenous languages. With regard to regional variation, Gynan’s (2001: 53–6) monograph on Paraguay draws parallels between Paraguayan Spanish and the phenomenon of American Spanish in Mexico. He points to the lack of a second person informal plural form of the subject pronoun vosotros in Mexican Spanish. He also notes that the second person singular informal vos does not persist as it does in Paraguay, Argentina and in the north of Guatemala. What this is indicative of is that, in general, it is possible to recognise the dialects of people from different South American countries as well as the regional dialects within polities. As Company (2005) shows, Mexican Spanish as a dialect may have deviated from the European forms as soon as the 18th century. Since Company’s studies are based on written documents, it is probable that spoken Spanish may have moved apart even earlier. Henriquez Ureña distinguished six Spanish dialectal areas in Mexico (cited in Lope Blanch, 1975: 133–5). The first area comprised the states of Baja California Sur, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and part of Tamaulipas. These states, north of the Tropic of Cancer, can be separated from other areas by linguistic features of pronunciation. For example, the deletion of ‘y’ in words like ‘amarillo’ (yellow) which is pronounced as ‘armario’. The second dialectal area includes the following states: Mexico, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Queretaro, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, Aguascalientes and Zaxatecas. Included are the highlands of Veracruz, Michoacan, Colima, Jalisco, Colima and Nayarit. Within this region Colima, Jalisco and Nayarit show a trend toward forming a new group. The third area is composed of the southern states of Morelos, Guerreo and Oaxaca. Little data exists about the Spanish language in these states. It appears to be similar to the varieties spoken around the Gulf of Mexico but has received greater influence from indigenous languages. The fourth area is the Gulf of Mexico, comprising the lowlands of Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche and parts of Tamaulipas. One of the best-known phenomena here is the aspiration of some consonants that might be compared to varieties spoken around the Antilles and Cuba. The fifth dialectical area is the Yucatan and Quintana Roo. Here a glottal stop typical of Yucatec Mayan but unknown in Spanish is used. The sixth area, Chiapas, seems to bear greater similarity to Central American dialects than to Mexican dialects of Spanish. Lope Blanch questions whether these classifications are precise enough to refute the notion of the uniformity of American Spanish. Along with a number of co-workers, Lope Blanch produced the Atlas lingüístico de México (1990, 1992, 1994) using mostly phonetic isoglosses. At the present time much research has been done on Mexican Spanish, not only on phonetic phenomena. There are also lexical, grammatical and even orthographic differences in comparison with peninsular Spanish or that of other American countries. In the following section we offer some examples of these differences.2 Moreno de Alba (2003) mentions the specific use of prepositions, in particular the preposition ‘a’ which covers a greater range of functions in Mexican Spanish than in other variants. The following examples provided in Table 1 show some of the variants. Another variation in the use of prepositions occurs in the combination of ‘de’ and ‘que’. Moreno de Alba gives the following example: in Mexico one

la-6.indd 123

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109

124


Table 1 ‘a’ variants of Mexican Spanish varieties Mexican Spanish

Peninsular Spanish

English

Problema a resolver

Problema por resolver

A problem to resolve

Televisión a color

Televisión de color

Colour television

Entrar a la casa

Entrar en la casa

To go into the house

Escapar al peligro

Escapar del peligro

To escape from danger

Source: Adapted from Moreno de Alba (2003: 220–1)

commonly hears ‘ahí tienes de que’ whereas in standard peninsular Spanish the structure would normally be ‘ahí tienes que’. This phenomenon is called ‘dequeísmo’ (dequeism) and is considered ‘poor’ Spanish. Moreno de Alba (2003: 239) proposes that ‘dequeism’ can be considered as a syntactic transfer from substrate indigenous languages. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, they encountered a considerable quantity of flora, fauna, geographic phenomena and everyday objects that were entirely new to them. The majority of lexical variations observed are from Nahuatl, Yucatec Mayan and Cahita (Yaqui and Mayo). In general the indigenous word was borrowed for the term causing an influx of neologisms in peninsular Spanish for those items that were exported and came to form part of everyday life in Spain. Words that fall within this category include hule (rubber), chocolate (chocolate), tomate (tomato), cacao (cocoa), aguacate (avocado), coyote (coyote) and petaca (satchel) (Zamora, 2004). In addition, many words that are unknown or unusual in peninsular Spanish are common in Mexico, giving the Mexican variety a character different from other major varieties. At times the peninsular and the Mexican forms co-exist, as is the case with cuate and amigo (friend), guajolote and pavo (turkey), chamaco and niño (child), mecate and reata (rope). In other cases the indigenous words have acquired more specific semantic meanings than the Spanish counterpart; e.g. huarache and sandalia, where the indigenous word denotes an open sandal made of leather while the Spanish term denotes a sandal of any material. Sometimes the indigenous word has replaced the Spanish equivalent completely, as is the case with tecolote for búho (owl), ejote for judío (green bean) and papalote for cometa (kite). Many other indigenous words denote realities which are peculiar to the American continent and hence did not exist in peninsular Spanish: mezquite (a hardwood tree similar to the acacia), zapote (sapodilla plum), jícama (Yam bean), ixtle (a native vegetable fibre), cenzontle (a native species of bird), tuza (groundhog), pozole (a soup made with hominy), tamales (ground maize and sometimes meat and chili sauce or a sweet filling wrapped in a banana or a maize leaf), huacal (a wooden crate), comal (ceramic dish or metal hotplate used for cooking tortillas), huipil (traditional Indian dress worn by Indian women), metate (a flat stone used for grinding corn), among others. Even within Mexico there is often regional variation with regard to the use of words of indigenous etymologies. The word jitomate (tomato), which is of Nahuatl origin, is used in the centre of Mexico including Mexico City, and the word tomate is reserved for the green variety of this fruit. The usual term for the

la-6.indd 124

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109


125

red variety in other regions like Yucatan in the south or Sonora in the north is tomate. Toponyms in Mexico are often adaptations of the original place name in the dominant language of the area. Most common are names of Nahuatl origin like Oaxtepec, Metepec, Cocoyoc, Nezahualcoyotl, Toluca and Tlaxcala. Also the names of mountains like Popocatepetl, Iztacihuatl and Citlaltepetl are of Nahuatl origin. In the states of Michoacan and Guanajuato, however, where the Tarascan Indians resisted the imperialism of the Mexicas, place names are usually of P’urepecha origin, for example, Huandacareo, Janitzio, Patzcuaro and Tingüindin. The Yucatan peninsula also displays this tendency to retain original indigenous toponyms, with names like Uxmal, Balamku, Tikal and Bonampak, in which the sound represented by the letter ‘k’ is particularly noteworthy since it does not occur in Spanish (Zamora, 2004). Nahuatl influenced the Spanish language throughout the entire country, although in different ways in some regions as in the case of the word tomate. There are also regional variations resulting from the local indigenous languages. By way of example we would like to present the cases of Yucatan and Sonora. One of the most notable regional markers of the Yucatan dialect is a phonetic variant; the glottal stop in liaison between Spanish words (see also García Fajardo, 1984). This is noteworthy since the glottal stop does not occur in Spanish; when a word ends with the same vowel as the next word begins, the two words are usually pronounced as one. For example ‘Santa Ana’ is pronounced /Santana/. But in the local variety in Yucatan the two vowels are separated by a glottal stop, i.e. /santa’ana/. In addition the Yucatan variety of Spanish follows a different intonation pattern, placing the stress on the final syllable of the word whereas in the rest of Mexico, and in most other areas of the Spanish speaking world, word stress falls on the penultimate syllable. Regional variation in the form of lexical differences in Yucatec Spanish is exemplified by some Mayan words like bakal meaning the inner part of a corncob, generally called holote in Mexico. Another Mayan word is balche, a special alcoholic drink from water and honey fermented with the bark of a local tree. There is no Spanish translation for this word. Other words are box for standard Spanish negro (black), cenote for Spanish dolina (sinkhole), chan for Spanish pequeño (small), chich for Spanish abuela (grandmother), tuch for Spanish ombligo (navel) (Barrera Vásquez, 1980). In Sonora, the local variety is marked by a phonetic phenomenon which is striking for speakers of other dialects of Spanish because of the pronunciation of the affricate ‘ch’ [č] (as in the word muchacho (boy, youngster)) which becomes the fricative [š] making Sonoran speech easily identifiable. Lexical differences are often a result of the influence of local indigenous languages, and in the state capital, Hermosillo, these are derived mostly from Mayo and Yaqui. Examples from regional words are bichi for standard Spanish desnudo (naked), bitachi for Spanish avispa (wasp), buki for Spanish niño (child), kaita for Spanish nada (nothing), cochi for Spanish puerco (pig) (Mungía Zatarain, 1995). Irrespective of our inability to mention all the lexical variety Mungía Zatarain presents in her article, she states that there is only a reduced influence of indigenous language in the local Spanish variety. There may be some 50 words of this origin in Sonora, and these are used in highly reduced contexts (Mungía Zatarain, 1995: 136).

la-6.indd 125

30/03/2007 10:28:21

CILP No: 109

126


The mentioned influence of Yucatec Mayan lexicon on the local Spanish variety presented by Barrera Vásquez (1980) is more widespread than is the case in Sonora, which probably reflects the fact that Mayan in the Yucatan is not limited to the lower and working classes but permeates all strata of society. Mexican Spanish is also much more open to borrowings from the English language than other varieties. Throughout the Spanish speaking world one can hear words such as filmar (to film a movie), beisbol (baseball), club (club), coctel (cocktail), líder (leader), cheque (check (n.)), sandwich (sandwich), and so on. In addition to these generally accepted words in Mexican Spanish we can also hear carro (car cf. Sp. coche), checar (check (v.) cf. Sp. revisar), hobby (hobby cf. Sp. pasatiempo), folder (folder cf. Sp. carpeta), overol (overall cf. Sp. guardapolvo), réferi (referee cf. Sp. árbitro) and closet (closet cf. Sp. guardarropa), to name just a few. These examples would seem to mark Mexican Spanish as one of the least purist variants of the language on an international level. Attitudes within the speech community toward Mexican Spanish are as diverse as the general linguistic situation in the country. Mexicans are very conscious of the conquest, and one of the most important civil celebrations of the year is that of independence from Spain. They also call the Spaniards ‘gachupines’ which is a term of abuse. At the same time Spanish is part of the national identity. According to Moreno de Alba (2003: 74–81) 84% of Mexicans consider Spanish an important marker of the national identity, and 89% feel proud of being speakers of Spanish. A degree of complexity is introduced when value judgements as to the best variety of Spanish are requested, since 39% consider that the best Spanish is spoken in Madrid and 29% consider that the best Spanish is spoken in Mexico City (2003: 82–5). While peninsular Spanish may be considered to have greater prestige, even in Mexico, Mexican Spanish also has some prestige even outside the country. By the initiative of the Real Academia Española [The Spanish Royal Academy] in 1875 the Academia Mexicana Correspondiente a la Española [The Mexican Corresponsal of the Spanish Academy] was founded to include Mexican terms in the dictionary. At the present time, Mexicans take part in the decisions concerning the norms of the Spanish language in the world (see Cifuentes & Ros, 1993). But the work of the Academy is not the only factor in the spread of Mexican Spanish. Mexican writers, including a Nobel Prize winner in the field of literature, are well known throughout the Hispanic world and also internationally. Perhaps the single most important factor is Mexican television production by the two powerful companies Televisa and TV Azteca whose work can be seen in most countries of Latin America, transmitting colloquial speech forms with their soap operas.

Minority Languages As previously mentioned, indigenous languages have been considered national languages by the Mexican constitution since 2003. However, they are minority languages because only a small percentage of the Mexican population speaks any one of them. When the Spanish conquerors came to Mexico, it is estimated that more than 100 languages and dialects were spoken. There are still more than 60 indigenous languages being spoken at present.3 One

la-6.indd 126

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109


127

might still talk about 100 languages if certain highly differentiated linguistic complexes were considered as a number of different languages (Diaz-Couder, 1997b). A linguistic mosaic of different types of indigenous languages exists in Mexico. Some are agglutinative (such as Nahuatl), some are isolating (such as Chinanteco), some are tonal (such as Oto-manguean), and some are ergative (such as the majority of the Mayan languages) (Diaz-Couder, 1997b). After the conquest in the 16th century, these languages were learned by European traders and missionaries. In the years that followed the beginning of the colonial era, linguistic materials were collected, producing a rich documentation of grammars and vocabularies (Contreras, 1986). During the second half of the 16th century, Catholic missionaries who were learning the ILs carried out extensive studies of languages in Mexico. It was assumed that knowledge of a language would facilitate their work (Arana de Swadesh, 1975: 11). Many documents such as prayer books and catechisms appeared at this time in indigenous languages. The early written grammars were developed following the patterns of Latin and Spanish, but the lack of homogeneity in spelling suggests that standard orthographies were not developed. Major minority languages Although it is difficult to divide Mexican indigenous languages into major and minor languages, it makes sense to distinguish them by their vitality and the number of speakers they have. This division is somewhat arbitrary, but there appear to be two major minority languages: Nahuatl and Yucatec Mayan. According to information from INEGI,4 there were 1,448,936 registered speakers of Nahuatl and 800,291 registered speakers of Yucatec Mayan (INEGI, 2004). Children under five years of age were not included in these numbers. Next in terms of number of speakers are Zapotec with 452,887 speakers and Mixtec with 446,236 speakers. Zapotec and Mixteco are only spoken in Oaxaca,5 while Nahuatl is spoken in the states of Guerrero, Puebla, Morelos, Verzacruz, Michoacán, Hidalgo and Nayarit. The Yucatec Mayan speaking population is distributed over the peninsula of Yucatan, which includes the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo.6 The historical importance of Nahuatl justifies including it as a major language among the minority languages due to its role as a lingua franca for speakers of other indigenous languages. This role still continues in the present day. Yucatec Mayan is a local language that contrasts with Nahuatl in that it is spoken in a contiguous area with no interruption (see Figure 2). It is not only linguistically coherent, but it is also perceived by its speakers as ‘the language’ of the peninsula of Yucatan. Both languages have a long history of literacy that includes many dictionaries and grammars written over the years since the time of the Conquest. As a result there is no dispute as to which language family they belong. Yucatec Mayan is part of the Mayan family and Nahuatl is part of the Yuto-Aztecan family (see the following section on lesser minority languages and Table 2). The grammar of Nahuatl is not so very different from that of European languages. For example, it is not a tonal language like Chinese or Otomi and, unlike Yucatec Mayan, it is not an ergative language, a phenomenon that makes

la-6.indd 127

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109

128


Table 2 Mexican indigenous language families, subfamilies and languages I. Algonkina (Family) 1. Kikapoo II. Hokalteca (Family) a. Yuma (Sub-Family) 2. Paipai 3. Kiliwa 4. Cochimí 5. Cucapá 6. K’uumiai II. Hokalteca (Family) b. Seri (Sub-Family) 7. Seri II. Hokalteca (Family) c. Tequistlateco (Sub-Family) 8. Chontal de Oaxaca II. Hokalteca (Family) d. Tlapaneco (Sub-Family) 9. Tlapaneco III. Yuto-Azteca (Family) a. Pima (Sub-Family) 10. Pápago 11. Pima alto 12. Pima bajo 13. Tepehuán del Norte 14. Tepehuán del Sur 15. Tepecano III. Yuto-Azteca (Family) b. Taracahita (Sub-Family) 16. Ópata 17. Tarahumara 18. Varohío (Guarijio) 19. Yaqui 20. Mayo III. Yuto-Azteca (Family) c. Aztecoide (Sub-Family) 21. Huichol 22. Cora 23. Náhuatl IV. Otomangue (Family) a. Otopame (Sub-Family) 24. Pame 25. Chichimeco- Jonaz 26. Otomí 27. Mazahua 28. Matlazinca 29. Ocuilteco IV. Otomangue (Family) b. Chinanteca (Sub-Family) 30. Chinanteco IV. Otomangue (Family) c. Zapoteca (Sub-Family) 31. Zapoteca 32. Chatino IV. Otomangue (Family) d. Mixteca (Sub-Family) 33. Mixteco 34. Cuicateco 35. Trique 36. Amuzgo IV. Otomangue (Family) e. Mazateco-Popoloca (Sub-Family) 37. Popoloca 38. Mazateco 39. Ixtateco 40. Chocho V. Maya-Totonaca (Family) a. Mayanse (Sub-Family) 41 Huasteco 42. Maya Peninsular 43. Lacandón 44. Chontal de Tabasco 45. Chol 46. Tzeltal 47. Tzotzil 48. Tojolabal 49. Chuj 50. Jacalteco 51. Kanjobal 52. Mame V. Maya-Totonaca (Family) b. Mixe-Zoque (Sub-Family) 53. Mixe 54. Popoluca 55. Zoque V. Maya-Totonaca (Family) c. Totonaca (Sub-Family) 56. Totonaco 57. Tepehua VI. (Family) 58. Tarasco (Purépecha) VII. Huave (Family) 59. Huave Source: Adapted from Anaya (1987: 5)* *We did not change the Spanish written names of the languages. Since some languages are known by different names, in some cases those names have been added in brackets. The languages may be localised with the respective number in Figure 2.

la-6.indd 128

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109


129

the language difficult for Europeans to learn, since many major languages in Europe belong to the nominative-accusative system. Lesser minority languages In a linguistic ecology as complicated as that of Mexico, language policy depends on classification and definition; that is, which variant forms of a language are to be considered independent languages and which are perceived to be dialects, because policy must be in accord with the specific conditions under which the variant operates. In this way, the classification may be based only on linguistic criteria, on ideological ones or even on extremely practical criteria used to carry out censuses. For this reason, it is important to list several of the different classifications. The classifications of the indigenous languages in the 19th century were so imperfect that in the first census of 1895 a lot of made-up languages (like Acmara, Cahuillo and Puctue) appeared, which Manrique7 ignores. There were other names like Chug, Cocopa and Juava that may actually refer to Chuj, Cucopa and Huave. On the other hand, there existed many different names for the same language; e.g. Nahuatl and Mexicano (Manrique Castañeda, 1997: 44–5). There have been a number of different attempts to classify Mexican indigenous languages. While a consensus exists about the existence of three great language families, the Uto-Azecan or Yutonahuan, Otomangue or Otopame, and Mayan or MayanTotonacan, generally the problem is to define what should be considered a family or a subfamily, and which languages should be included in each. In addition, there are some languages that may not belong to any of these families and thus should form their own groupings. Pérez Gonzales (1975) gives an overview of the different ways of handling classifications. In 1864 Orozco and Berra (cited in Pérez Gonzáles, 1975: 30–4) proposed 11 families: Mexicana, Othomi, HuaztecaMaya-Quiché, Mixteca-Zapoteca, Matlazinca, Tarasco, Opata-Tarahumara-Pima, Apache, Seri, Guaicura and Cochimi. In 1901, León proposed 20 families: Nahuatlana, Pimana, Yumana, Seriana, Tarascana, Zoqueana, Totonacana, Zapotecana, Othomiana, Mayana, Huaviana, Athapascane, Matlalzinca, Chinantecana, Chiapanecana, Maratiniana, Chichimecana, Tañoana, Shoshoneana and Coahuiltecana (cited in Pérez Gonzáles, 1975: 35–40). However, Anaya (1987) had only seven families, 18 sub-families and 59 languages (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Recently proposed changes in the nomenclature for ILs has added to the confusion, as many indigenous groups prefer to rename their languages with the term used in the original language, hence: • the Otomí of the Mezquital Valley now prefer their language to be known as Hñahñu; • what was previously known as Huastecan became Tenek; • Mixtec has become Ñuu Savi; • Tarascan has become Pur’epecha. Political disagreements can create problems in nomenclature at a very local level; for example, Ocuilteco (also called Atzinca by Velázquez Vilchis, 2006) is referred to as Tlahuica in the town of San Juan Atzinco, since the speakers in this area have long-standing land disputes with the authorities in the main town of Ocuilan.

la-6.indd 129

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109

130


However, the degree of mutual intelligibility between Ocuilteco and Tlahuica would probably lead these varieties to be considered the same language. In 1997 Manrique discussed the problem of deciding under which name a language should appear in the census and why it is sometimes the case that two languages may appear under one name. His division had the purpose of representing the speakers in the census. In many cases, a language with a single name has to be divided into subgroups. For example, Zapotec was divided into eight different languages, Chinantec into 10 languages and Mixtec into six languages. Within the Hokaltecan family ‘Seri is spoken along the coast of Sonora, Mexico, in two main villages, Punta Chueca and El Desemboque, and also in a number of seasonal camps; it was once also spoken on Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California’ (Campbell, 1997: 160). At the present time, the language has less than a thousand speakers and may be considered to be an endangered language. Campbell considers it an isolate, but Anaya classified it together with Paipai, Kiliwa, Cochimí, Cucapá and K’umiai in Baja California, and also with Chontal (Oaxaca) and Tlapanec (Guerrero). All of these are endangered languages. Of Native American language families, Uto-Aztecan is one of the largest in terms of numbers of languages and speakers, and geographical extent (from Oregon to Panama). Uto-Aztecan is also the longest established and one of the few undisputed language families. (Campbell, 1997: 133–4) The Yuto-Aztecan (as Anaya calls it) group includes languages in the United States (e.g. Shoshoni or Hopi that are not considered here). (Campbell, 1997: 157) Anaya (1987) divides the Mayan-Totonacan family into three subfamilies called (1) Mayan, (2) Mixe-Zoque and (3) Totonaca. The Mayan subfamily of languages, spoken principally in Guatemala, southern Mexico, and Belize, has received relatively more attention from linguists than most other Native American language groups. This is probably due to the importance of the Mayan culture from a European perspective and to the fact that substantial information is available. For example, Bishop Diego de Landa, settled on the peninsula during the 16th century and documented copiously the customs of the Mayan in Yucatan. As a result of this attention, the languages are fairly well documented and their historical relationships are well understood. Also, many grammars, dictionaries, and texts were written soon after first contact with Europeans (more than 450 years ago), and these provide rich resources (Campbell, 1997: 162–4). According to Romero Castillo (1975: 9), there are more or less five languages in the Mayan family. Some of them may not really be considered to be languages, but rather should be called dialects since these classifications are based on structuralist research; for example, Izta, Morpan and Lancandon may be considered dialects of Yucatec Mayan. Two of the Mayan languages (e.g. Motozintlec and Cotoque) may be considered to be extinct. In Mexico, there are speakers of 11 Mayan languages who live in the southern states of Yucatan, Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco and Chiapas. Chiapas has the greatest number of languages, including Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Chuj, Chontal, Chol and Lacandon. There are also speakers of Mam, Keckchi and Quiche in Chiapas who emigrated from Guatemala because, during the last few decades, indigenous people have been persecuted by paramilitary groups there.

la-6.indd 130

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109


131

Chontal is spoken in Tabasco8 by 36,000 speakers, and Yucatec Mayan, the largest Mayan language with some 776,000 speakers, is spoken in the states of Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo. Yucatec Mayan is also simply referred to as Mayan and it is the language that gave its name to the whole language group. The four states mentioned are located on the Yucatan Peninsula (see Figure 1) and form a continuous territory together with Chiapas, Belize and Guatemala. The only Mayan language that is separate from this territory is Huastecan in San Luis Potosi and Veracruz. There are different hypotheses as to why this is the case: The first hypothesis is that Mayans migrated from north to south, and the ancestors of Huastecans separated from the main group and remained in this area. Another hypothesis is that Mayans migrated from south to north and Huastecans separated from the other groups to finally settle in a more northern area. The third hypothesis supposes that a Mayan speaking population initially inhabited the region along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, while other peoples penetrated from the west and separated the Mayan speaking territory into two separate regions. The Mayan language subfamily may be divided into subgroups, of which Tzeltal and Tzotzil form one with which most linguists would be in agreement; others add Chol to this classification and still others would include Tojolabal, but this classification is somewhat controversial. Speakers of Tzeltal and Tzotzil consider themselves as speakers of the same language and, in spite of grammatical and lexical differences, there seems to be a fair degree of mutual intelligibility between these languages. Another subgroup is Mayan-Lacandon. This group consists of Yucatec Mayan (or Mayan) and Lacandon in Mexico and the Mopan and the Itza languages in Guatemala. Yucatec Mayan may be considered to be a well-documented language for which grammars and dictionaries were written soon after the first European contacts. As has been stated previously, a rich written documentation in Yucatec Mayan as well as in many other Mayan languages exists (Campbell, 1997: 162–4). Chol can be classified as a single language in the Mayan family (see Kroeber, cited in Romero Castillo, 1975: 58), but Stoll (cited in Romero Castillo, 1975: 58) has placed it together with Chontal from Tabasco, Tzeltal, Tzotzil and Tojolabal. McQuown (cited in Romero Castillo, 1975: 58) agreed, but Halpern (cited in Romero Castillo, 1975: 58) classified Chol together with Chontal and Chortí. The latter is spoken in Honduras. However, more recently Swadesh et al. (cited in Romero Castillo, 1975: 58) have come back to the original position of Kroeber (Romero Castillo, 1975: 58). Nevertheless, Anaya (1987) considered Chol and Chontal as related languages. The Mixe-Zoquean subfamily also consists mostly of the different dialects of Mixe, Zoquean and Populuca. Of course, the distinction between dialect and language is sometimes even more arbitrary in minority languages than it is in national European languages. The Mixe-Zoquean family has special importance in Mesoamerican prehistory, since a Mixe-Zoquean language appears to have been spoken by the Olmecs, who organised the first great Mesoamerican civilisation. Also Huave in Oaxaca and P’urepecha (Tarascan) in Michoacan are considered isolates that are unrelated to other languages. Kikapoo in Coahuila is a member of the Algonquian language family, originating on the Canadian border.

la-6.indd 131

30/03/2007 10:28:22

CILP No: 109

132


Table 3 The 1990 Census data for indigenous languages using the language categories as defined by Manrique Castañeda (1997: 57–9) Language

la-6.indd 132

Speakers

Language

Speakers

Aguacateco

118

Mixteco de la Mixteca Alta

148

Amuzgo

28228

Mixteco de la Mixteca Baja

1813

Cahita

462

Mixteco de la zona mazateca 3

Cakchiquel

436

Mixteco de Puebla

2

Cochimí

148

Motocintleco

235

Cora

11923

Náhuatl

1197328

Cucapá

136

Ocuilteco

755

Cuicateco

12677

Ópata

12

Chatino

28987

Otomí

280238

Chiapaneco

181

Paipai

223

Chicomucelteco

24

Pame

3096

Chichimeco jonaz

1582

Pame del Norte

30

Chinanteco

103942

Pame del Sur

2606

Chinanteco de Lalana

12

Papabuco

19

Chinanteco de Ojitlán

4443

Pima

716

Chinanteco de Petlapa

1

Pima alto

128

Chinanteco de Quitepec

1

Pima bajo

16

Chinanteco de Sochiapan

3

Popoluca

31079

Chinanteco de Usila

676

Popoluca de Oluta

3

Chinanteco de Valle Nacional

22

Popoluca de Texistepec

172

Chocho

12553

Purépecha

94835

Chol

128240

Quiché

918

Chontal

23779

Seri

561

Chontal de Oaxaca

2232

Solteco

51

Chontal de Tabasco

10256

Tarahumara

54431

Huasteco

120739

Teco

107

Huave

11955

Tepehua

8702

Huichol

19363

Tepehuán

18469

Ixcateco

1220

Tlapaneco

68483

Ixil

238

Tojolabal

36011

Jacalteco

1263

Totonaca

207876

Kekchí

1483

Triqui

14981

Kikapú

232

Tzeltal

261084

Kiliwa

41

Tzotzil

229203

Kumiai

96

Yaqui

10984

Lacandón

104

Yuma

26

30/03/2007 10:28:23

CILP No: 109


133

Table 3 (Contd.) The 1990 Census data for indigenous languages using the language categories as defined by Manrique (1997: 57–9) Language

Speakers

Language

Speakers

Lamjobal

14325

Zapoteco

380690

Mame

13168

Zapoteco de Cuixtla

11

Matlazinca

1452

Zapoteco de Ixtlán

723

Maya

713520

Zapoteco del Istmo

133

Mayo

37410

Zapoteco del Rincón

19

Mazahua

127826

Zapoteco sureño

16530

Mazateco

168374

Zapoteco vallista

5350

Meco

39

Zapoteco vijano

1

Mixe

95264

Zoque

43160

Mixteco

383544

Other languages

444

Mixteco de la costa

32

Not specified languages

225860

Manrique (1997) offers advice on the classification of indigenous languages for the national census. He based this advice on the structuralist definition of a language which supposes that two different languages are mutually unintelligible for their speakers while different dialects are not. While such linguistic criteria may be the best manner to present languages in the census, this kind of classification ignores sociocultural distinctions and is not without its problems. For example, Mayo and Yaqui appeared to be the same language because they are very similar and presumably speakers of either language would understand speakers of the other. So the speakers of both were subsumed under the name Cahita. But, as we have experienced in our fieldwork (Terborg & Martínez, 1988), people say they do not understand the other language, and other researchers (Moctezuma, personal communication) have shared this experience. This means that the speakers of either Mayo or Yaqui probably do not identify themselves with the other group (Manrique, 1997: 44–5). Nevertheless, this was the categorisation used in a national census. Table 3 presents the census of 1990 and excludes children less than five years old. It uses the names of the languages proposed by Manrique. When comparing the data in Table 3 with the classifications suggested by Anaya (1987; Table 2), there are many languages that did not appear in those older classifications. Table 3, with the 92 languages proposed by Manrique simply shows one way to manage the census. Of course, there are many languages with fewer than 20 speakers. For example, Opata really should be considered an extinct language along with Chinanteco de Petlapa, Chinanteco de Quitepec, Chinanteco de Sochiapan, Mixteco de la Zona Mazateca, Mixteco de Puebla, Papabuco, Popoluca de Oluta, Zapoteco de Cuixtla, Zapoteco del Rincón and Zapoteco Vijano. The same thing may be true for some other languages. In addition to the issue of nomenclature of languages, there are further sources of imprecision in the census data. Many speakers of indigenous languages are ashamed of admitting to a minority ethnicity and often try to deny it. In an

la-6.indd 133

30/03/2007 10:28:23

CILP No: 109

134


Table 4 Numbers of speakers of the principal indigenous languages of Mexico for 1970, 1980 and 1990. (Found on internet 2004 http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/ espanol/tematicos/mediano/len.asp?t = mlen10&c = 3337) 1970

1990

2000

3,111,415

5,282,347

6,044,547

Náhuatl

799,394

1,197,328

1,448,936

Maya

454,675

713,520

800,291

Zapotecoa

283,345

403,457

452,887

Mixtecob

Total

233,235

386,874

446,236

Tzotzil

95,383

229,203

297,561

Otomí

221,062

280,238

291,722

Tzeltal

99,412

261,084

284,826

Totonaca

124,840

207,876

240,034

Mazateco

101,541

168,374

214,477

73,253

128,240

161,766

Huasteco

66,091

120,739

150,257

Mazahua

104,729

127,826

133,430

54,145

109,100

133,374

Purépecha

60,411

94,835

121,409

Mixe

54,403

95,264

118,924

Tlapaneco

30,804

68,483

99,389

Tarahumara

25,479

54,431

75,545

Zoque

27,140

43,160

51,464

Amuzgo

13,883

28,228

41,455

Chatino

11,773

29,006

40,722

Tojolabal

13,303

36,011

37,986

Mayo

Chol

Chinantecoc

27,848

37,410

31,513

Huichol

6,874

19,363

30,686

Tepehuán

5,617

18,469

25,544

Cora

6,242

11,923

16,410

Huave

7,442

11,955

14,224

10,192

12,677

13,425

7,084

10,984

13,317

91,815

376,289

256,737

Cuicateco Yaqui Other indigenous languages in México a

Includes: zapoteco, zapoteco de Cuixtla, zapoteco de Ixtlán, zapoteco del Istmo, zapoteco del rincón, zapoteco sureño, zapoteco vallista y zapoteco vijano. b Includes: mixteco, mixteco de costa, mixteco de la Mixteca Alta, mixteco de la Mixteca Baja, mixteco de la zona mazateca, mixteco de Puebla y tacuate. c Includes: chinanteco, chinanteco de Lalana, chinanteco de Ojitlán, chinanteco de Petlapa, chinanteco de Usila y chinanteco de Valle Nacional.

Source: For 1970: DGE. IX Censo General de Población, 1970. México, D.F., 1972. For 1990: INEGI. XI Censo General de Población y Vivienda, 1990. Aguascalientes, Ags., 1992. For 2000: INEGI. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda, 2000. Tabulados Básicos. Aguascalientes, Ags., 2001.

la-6.indd 134

03/04/2007 15:59:00

CILP No: 109


135

Otomi village, we were told by an informant that many people say they do not speak the indigenous language, but this same informant was later observed to participate in a conversation in Otomi having apparently forgotten that he had claimed not to speak that language (see also Diaz-Couder, 1997b). Conversely, ethnic pride may lead a speaker to claim the status of speaker, even if his or her command of the IL is minimal (Cienfuegos Salgado, 2004: 166–7). In Table 4, the data on the principal indigenous languages of Mexico have been brought together to provide an indication of their growth and vitality across three decades. It shows the growth of the indigenous population of five years and older from 1970 to 2000 with data on the 28 most important languages, as determined by the number of speakers. The languages are presented ranging from groups having the largest population to groups having the smallest population. The figures for Zapoteco, Mixteco and Chinanteco include varieties that Manrique (1997: 44–5) considered different languages. As Table 4 illustrates, there are only 28 languages with more than 10,000 speakers. In purely practical terms, language planning efforts should concentrate on these languages, without entirely disregarding other languages. By language planning efforts, we are thinking particularly of language maintenance programmes, since other programmes, such as literacy planning, are of equal importance in language communities with fewer than 10,000 speakers. However, it is important not to equate a greater number of speakers automatically with greater language vitality. For example, for Otomi with c. 290,000 speakers and for Mazahua with c. 130,000 speakers, it seems that language shift is advancing more rapidly than for Yaqui with c. 13,000 speakers; this perhaps reflects the greater degree of unity within the Yaqui community. The Yaqui community is highly integrated, while speakers of Otomi are often unaware of the importance of their language. In the village of San Cristobal Huichochitlan, a speaker who was asked to name other locations where the Otomi language was spoken (see Terborg, 2004) could only name some neighbouring villages, but was unaware that the language is spoken in other states of the nation. It is probable that the same limited identification would be evident among speakers of Mazahua. Thus it would be inappropriate to consider a named language to represent a speech community as understood by anthropologists and linguists. On the other hand, the Yaqui community organises its daily life by means of a type of local administration, and the territory where it is spoken is contiguous; strengthening their community ties and identity. Language vitality is necessarily determined by many factors (see Grenoble & Whaley, 1998). Indigenous languages remain strong in rural areas where communities tend to be poor, isolated and live in an agricultural economy. As public transportation is scarce or non-existent in these communities, it is difficult for these indigenous people to leave and make outside contacts, unless they can find a ride on the back of a van or lorry, and it is difficult for outsiders to enter these communities, except for the few communities located along main roads or railway lines. While this isolation is supportive of indigenous language maintenance, it condemns these people to lives of poverty and isolation from society as a whole. In any case, the increasing use of technology, for example, the introduction of mobile phones, may make their integration into the wider community harder to avoid, endangering the preservation of the discourse spaces which permit the maintenance of ILs.

la-6.indd 135

30/03/2007 10:28:23

CILP No: 109

136


Some situations cannot be truly defined as rural. Speakers also live in urban or peri-urban areas or in communities in the urban centre. For example, the town of Papantla in Veracruz has about 80,000 inhabitants and some 90,000 people live in the rest of the county, the total population of the county includes some 40,000 speakers of Totonac who may be found both in the town itself as well as in the surrounding rural area. Similar situations occur in all the towns in Yucatan, even in the city of Merida with several hundred thousand inhabitants. It is quite normal to hear people speaking in Mayan in the towns of Valladolid, Tizimín, Peto, Izamal and Merida. In all regions with a high density of speakers of indigenous languages, it is normal to find indigenous languages in urban centres, as is also the case in many places in Oaxaca and Chiapas. Even in the central region of the country (e.g. Puebla), there are speakers of Nahuatl, and in the State of Mexico there are speakers of Otomi and Mazahua in the peri-urban areas of the capitals, Puebla and Toluca (see Figure 1). In the south of Mexico City there are still some speakers of Nahuatl in Milpa Alta, and some decades ago there were speakers of other languages in Xochimilco.9 These Nahuatl speakers are traditionally residents of the South of Mexico City. There are speakers of Nahuatl and other languages in Netzahualcoyotl, (a relatively young city of 5 million inhabitants), Texcoco, Ecatepec and other cities surrounding the capital. In Mexico City itself, there are different barrios where speakers of an indigenous language may cluster. But most of these people are also speakers of Spanish, and there are few barrios that are distinguished by the use of a particular indigenous language. Not all speakers of indigenous languages in urban centres are originally from those centres. Migration toward the nearest town from rural areas is common and in most cities there are indigenous communities. Many are even nonresident and only go there to work or to beg. Tourist resorts, like Cancun on the Caribbean coast, attract seasonal workers from indigenous villages. In Mexico City there are different indigenous communities from the surrounding region, and from more distant places like Oaxaca or Chiapas. There are even Mexican indigenous communities in Los Angeles, California. Speakers of Mixteco are normally only found in Oaxaca and the South of Puebla, but on the Mexican side of the US border, near Tijuana, a Mixtecan community has settled. International and national migration is, in many cases, a factor that weakens indigenous languages, and, indeed, language shift to Spanish is on the increase in many indigenous communities. But there are still some indigenous languages (see Part V of this monograph) that may have a real possibility of survival for several generations. Foreign immigrant groups In addition to groups of national migrants, such as indigenous people who leave their territory, there are also groups of foreign immigrants in different parts of Mexico: speakers of Chinese, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese Arabic, and Russian, among others. Most of them are linguistically assimilated into Mexican society, although some of them conserve traditions they have brought with them as well as their group identity. A wellknown Italian colony is located in Chipilo near Puebla (Zilli Manica, 2002). The inhabitants of Chipilo still speak a variety of Italian called Veneto (MacKay,

la-6.indd 136

30/03/2007 10:28:23

CILP No: 109


137

1999; see also Tosi, 2004). In Mexico City there is an important Japanese community composed largely of descendants from an immigrant wave that moved to Mexico between 1920 and 1940 (Misawa, 2001). The Mennonites who emigrated from the United States speaking a northern German dialect provide another example of an immigrant group. While they have communities in states such as Chihuahua, Durango, Zacatecas, Quintana Roo, they maintain a strict isolation from the local society and conserve their language. But little is known about foreign immigration because general statistics from the government are not made available as a matter of policy (see Secretaría de Gobernación, 2006). It is common for the border area of countries to show certain permeability to language varieties and hence, the border between Mexico and the United States would be expected to show a broad band of permeability and a mixing of English and Spanish. While this band is thicker on the American side of the border, the use of Spanish-English mixtures is less common on the Mexican side. Conversely, deep within the Mexican borders in the tourist zones of the Caribbean coast (i.e. Cancun or Chichen Itza), and other regions (i.e. Acapulco or Teotihuacan), codeswitching and pidginised varieties of English are much more common, since, in these areas, the acquisition of English is considered important in order to maximise revenue from the tourist trade. Religious languages The religion of most of the Mexican population is Roman Catholic. Figures indicate that 92% of the population five years old and over who profess any religion are Catholic, and the remaining 8% are largely Protestant. Not included in these figures are those who do not profess any religion, about 3.5% (INEGI, 2004). Latin was historically the formal language of the Catholic Church and was used in most religious rituals. After Vatican II (1962–1965) languages other than Latin were permitted. Consequently, Spanish became the religious language in the most important Catholic ritual, the mass. However, the peninsular Spanish rather than the Mexican variety are used; for example, for the second person plural pronoun the priest does not use ustedes but vosotros (see the description of Spanish). But this usage seems to be more customary than obligatory, because in some churches the local version prevails (see also Moreno de Alba, 2003: 97– 100). It is possible that there are Protestant groups using English since many of them are related to churches in the United States. However, we do not have any information to suggest that English is being used systematically as a religious language. The Huichol in Nayarit and the Lacandon in Chiapas cannot be considered Christians as they were not converted to Catholicism during the Spanish colonial period (Scheffler, 1992). Most of the other indigenous groups follow a sort of mélange of different, non-monotheistic religions overlaid with more recent Christian practices. People may pray to a god or a spirit; for example, Catholic Mayans in Yucatan give thanks by making offerings to the God of the Rain (Yum Chak) to whom they pray for enough rain to water their corn crops. When the harvest is in, they leave a part of it in the forest for Aluxob (Spirits of the forest) who may become angry if they do not receive a ritual sacrifice. In some cases the cross may be considered a saint but not a symbol. Among the ‘mestizos’ (Mexicans who are not part of the indigenous population) in the

la-6.indd 137

30/03/2007 10:28:23

CILP No: 109

138


countryside and the capital, one can visit a market and find altars with objects, not all of which are related to Roman Catholicism (Villa Rojas, 1977). On the other hand, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) has created writing systems to translate the Bible into local languages as a vehicle for introducing Protestantism into indigenous communities. In some way this has given rise to a polemic debate because the SIL has been accused of changing the indigenous culture (see Nolasco, 1989), but at the same time the local language is used in religious rites. In our own experience in Yucatan, we often observed that Protestant groups like Mormons and Presbyterians caused schisms in small communities as converts no longer participated in traditional religious ceremonies. Although these missionaries sometimes encouraged the use of Yucatec Mayan, the profound divisions created in community life might be prejudicial to the maintenance of the language. There are also the ‘Maestros Cantores’, a relic of the Caste War of Yucatan from 1847 to 1855. These persons celebrated the mass during this Mayan revolution because they had no priests. Generally, the priests were ‘White’ and therefore were considered to be among the Mayans’ enemies. Thus, the Maestros Cantores sang religious chants in Spanish and Latin when they were acting as ministers (see Reed, 1971; Villa Rojas, 1977). This practice is still continued in the east of Yucatan and in the north of Quintana Roo. There are many rituals in which people may use either Mayan or Spanish. This practice may also be true for most of the other minority languages. Another interesting case occurs among the Yaqui who moved to Hermosillo, the capital of Sonora. These people have largely adopted the Spanish language, but still celebrate ceremonies of Yaqui origin. Especially during Holy Week, or Easter, they enact a dance that represents the fight between a deer and a coyote. Most of the language used during this dance is Yaqui, which in the case of these people has the status of a religious language. At the same time the language of communication is Spanish. In general, the determination of what language is to be used for what religious purpose is rather complex, varying from place to place. Rites related to local religions are often celebrated in indigenous languages (see also Moctezuma Zamarrón, 2001; Redfield, 1977; Villa Rojas, 1977). Because Latin has virtually disappeared from religious observances, Spanish may now be considered the most important religious language.

Part II: Language Planning Legislation, Policy and Implementation When reading Mexican history, it is often the case that the indigenous peoples are notorious only for their absence. Diversely cast as victims or troublemakers, downtrodden and ignorant or Machiavellian and manipulative, the great respect in which the ancient cultures they represent are held only serves as a sad reminder of the disdain and lack of awareness that contemporary Mexico holds for its native peoples. It is difficult to do justice to the complexities that have led to the current situation. Within the constraints of this monograph, we shall attempt to outline the events and policy decisions which have had the greatest impact. Many have undertaken this task previously; this section owes heavy debts to the work of Cienfuegos Salgado (2004), Cifuentes & Ros (1993), Garza

la-6.indd 138

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109


139

Cuarón (1997), Heath (1986), Lastra (2003), Lara (forthcoming), and Pellicer (1997); any errors or oversights are, however, our own. From a historical perspective, Warman (2003) conceives of Mexican language policy towards the minority languages as having fallen into three main styles: Incorporation, Integration and Participation. Policies of incorporation are typically policies formulated by the non-indigenous population towards the indigenous people. This style of policy making is unilateral, unidirectional and has a single goal – the incorporation of the indigenous people to the nation as a whole – by replacing traditional indigenous values with more widely accepted ones. Policies of integration develop from the understanding that education alone is a necessary but insufficient condition to integrate the indigenous peoples into national life. Under this view, educational policy must be complemented with actions to enhance social and cultural development. With integration as a policy in Mexico, governmental attention to the indigenous sector of the population ironically was reduced to a kind of complaints department, especially with regard to land rights (Iturralde, 2003: 57). Both incorporation and integration are paternalistic policies where the indigenous are treated as children who must be guided toward making correct decisions. In the third policy type, that of participation, policy making becomes an arena where government, the indigenous communities and NGOs are all actively involved. Relations between the various agencies involved become multilateral and multidirectional and pursue many different goals. Rather than seeking the replacement of indigenous belief systems, the goal is to attain the full potential of their cosmology. Other objectives include the promotion of bilingual and bicultural school programmes, the tolerance of traditional medicine and the exploration of alternative models for agricultural and handicraft production. Ideally, at the present time, policy making with regard to the indigenous population in Mexico is in this third stage of participation. While there is some evidence that this may be so, there is also evidence that the state authorities find these strategies difficult to rationalise and, hence, to manage. (See, for example, the results of the San Andrés Accord elsewhere in this section.) This section begins with a historic description of language policy in Mexico. This part is presented in four subsections covering pre-Hispanic Mexico, colonial New Spain, the post-independence period and the present day, since it is believed that each of these periods might be characterised by generic language policies. The pre-Hispanic period is usually characterised as the linguistic domination of the Mexicas, with some pockets of resistance. The colonial period shows the conflict between the Castilianisation policy of the Crown and the evangelisation policies of the Church. The period during which independence from Spain was obtained and established is characterised as the concomitant establishment of the hegemony of the Spanish language, in spite of official declarations to the contrary. Finally, present-day policies show a move toward less paternalistic policies and supportive legislation due to internal and external pressure from various agencies and organisations. Finally, we present a summary of policies toward literacy development both at school and with regard to adult education. The section ends with a listing of the main language planning and policy agencies that operate within Mexico and a description of the actions and goals pursued by these agencies.

la-6.indd 139

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109

140


Pre-Hispanic Mexico The language situation in pre-colonial times was dominated by the Mexicas. Their hugely efficient introduction of Nahuatl or Mexica as a lingua franca for commerce and jurisprudence and as the official language of culture, the arts and the education of the elite is amply documented (Aguirre Beltrán, 1983; Cienfuegos, 2004; Heath, 1986). Policies included the relocation of conquered peoples to language areas outside their original speech community and the implantation of Mexicas within areas where other languages were spoken. The fragmentation of speech communities attained through such strategies resulted in the spread of Nahuatl far beyond its traditional territory. The Mexicas also exercised their linguistic power over the subjugated peoples by naming their languages. In some instances the denominations provided were derogatory; for example, Chontal (outsider) Popolaca (incomprehensible language), Totonaca (rustic) (Wolf cited in Hamel, 1993: 6). With regard to corpus planning, the Council of Arts and Sciences located in Texcoco played the role of a sort of language academy promoting the linguistic arts and exemplifying the ‘purest’ form of Nahuatl (Heath, 1986). In Heath’s perhaps over-idealistic words, ‘when the Spanish arrived in Mexico the solution to the existing linguistic diversity had been found but their very presence made it a problem again’ (Heath, 1986: 18). Colonial times in New Spain Royal decrees, on the whole, openly favoured Castilianisation as the main language policy. They identified the learning of Spanish with education and evangelisation. This belief notwithstanding, it is probably not true that they believed the indigenous languages to be unsophisticated or primitive, especially in the first century of colonisation when a romantic view of the native was widely held (Guzmán, 1997: 86–90). In fact, during this period some of the most important grammars and dictionaries of Nahuátl were produced. In addition to Nahuatl, grammars were produced for P’urepecha, Zapotec and Mixtec. The official Royalist policy of Castilianisation was maintained fairly consistently throughout the period of colonisation as is evidenced by the frequent Royal decrees to teach Spanish and to exclude non-speakers of Spanish from government positions (Aguirre Beltrán, 1983; Cienfuegos, 2004; Heath, 1986). Nonetheless, these decrees fell upon deaf ears among the missionaries whose linguistic practices were heavily influenced by the Pentecostal tradition. In particular the mendicant orders believed that true understanding of the word of God could only be achieved in the speaker’s first language. This belief, coupled to the economic facts and the shortage of Spanish speakers made Castilianisation an impractical policy and contributed to the fact that, on achieving independence from Spain, an estimated 80% of the population still spoke indigenous languages (Cienfuegos, 2004: 170). For further discussion of this topic, see Part IV of this monograph. The republic One could be forgiven for believing that winning independence from Spain, given the demographic characteristics of the speech community, would in fact

la-6.indd 140

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109


141

benefit the speakers of indigenous languages. However, within the first 50 years of independence, Spanish went from a minority language spoken by around 10% of the population to being the recognised first language of about 70% (Cienfuegos, 2004: 170). How this was achieved is debatable; however, it seems clear that, confronted with a fragmented and linguistically diverse population, it was preferable from the perspective of the new liberal mestizo leaders to impose a one language-one nation ideology and that this ideology, persistent even at the present time, was what created the irony of the political and economic break from Spain while simultaneously embracing the Spanish language. The consequences of remaining outside the one-language-one nation hegemony were severe – resulting for the indigenous peoples in what has been described as a colonial system within the larger nation. For those who chose not to conform to the national culture, oppression, exploitation, illiteracy and landlessness prevailed (Cienfuegos, 2004: 163–6). The conditions of misery and ignorance that the indigenous population suffered were seen, not as the result of the oppressive system, but as their natural condition. Communal lands were to be divided and redistributed to individual owners. The ultimate objective was the integration of the Indians into ‘civilisation’ – a clear case of paternalism. While most of the policies that prevailed throughout this period were integrationist in nature, there were, essentially, two different approaches to the best way to attain Castilianisation in the indigenous population. The direct approach maintained that literacy training should begin directly in Spanish with no reference whatsoever to the student’s native language. This approach was believed to be the best option by early heads of the national Ministry of Education, in particular, Torres Bodet and Justo Sierra (Aguirre Beltrán, 1983). The second approach, that Castilianisation was best served by an initial period of literacy training in the native language of the student and that these literacy skills should be applied later to reading and writing in Spanish, found support from the fields of social anthropology and linguistics by important figures such as Manuel Gamio and Maurice Swadesh (Aguirre Beltrán, 1983; Heath, 1986). The indirect approach first came to light from the work of the SIL in various regions of Mexico (see later section on agencies). Ideologically, for one reason or another, direct instruction came to be identified with nationalism and conservatism and indirect strategies came to be identified with left-wing, revolutionary thought. In conclusion, it should be clear from this discussion that the belief that a particular period is aligned with a particular language policy is an oversimplification. It would seem that language policy in Mexico is a feather in the wind of political change. In post-colonial Mexico it is fair to say that there has been no language policy as such, merely economic policies with linguistic side-effects. This is particularly true of the situation with regard to the Spanish language. In recent times the planning possible within the six-year periods of any particular government is clearly never sufficient since language planning requires much greater time spans – at the generational level – to be effective. The history of colonial Mexico shows that it is important never to underestimate the power of agents of change at a micro level in the implementation of wider planning activities. Despite the consistently pro-Spanish nature of the Royal decrees, without the support of the monks involved in literacy training they were doomed to failure.

la-6.indd 141

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109

142


The present The 500th anniversary (1992) of the discovery of the Americas brought about a re-evaluation of the relationship between the Old World and the New. In the case of Mexico, this translated into a renewed interest in the destiny of the indigenous people, who had in any case become increasingly active in politics at a local level since the early 1980s with the formation of civil associations for the protection of human rights and cultural development (Iturralde, 2003: 58). Amidst the fervour of ethnic revival, a revision of constitutional articles 4 and 27 was passed and published in January 1992. The revised versions of these articles gave official recognition to the multilingual and multicultural character of modern Mexico and placed the responsibility for language preservation and maintenance upon governmental agencies. Although there was no specific provision for the obligatory introduction of state-level legislation to enable the constitutional initiative, 12 states passed specific laws on the recognition of rights for the indigenous peoples within their territories between January 1992 and August 2001 (when article 4 was revised). Four states, in addition to these 12, had previously introduced specific legislation with regard to the linguistic and social rights of indigenous peoples. It is, nonetheless, fair to point out that the provision of legislation will not necessarily lead to a change of circumstances for the minority language groups without a corresponding change in the attitudes of the wider society. The San Andrés Accord (Acuerdos de San Andrés) The San Andrés Accord is the result of a series of meetings held at the beginning of 1996; the document brings together proposals of the federal government and the Ejército Zapatista de la Liberación Nacional (EZLN), through the mediation of a legislative body called COCOPA (Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación [The Commission for Harmony and Pacification]). The main aim was the construction of a new relationship between the indigenous peoples, the wider society and the state. The agreements reached were called ‘propuestas conjuntas’ (joint proposals) to indicate that the federal government intended to consult with the EZLN on constitutional reforms. The central proposal should have ended the traditionally asymmetric relationship of the indigenous groups with mainstream society – a relationship marked by subordination, inequality, discrimination, poverty, exploitation and political exclusion. The proposed jurisdictional framework contemplates the recognition of both individual and collective rights in the Constitution of the Rights of Indigenous Groups. The rights to be recognised include: • Political: the recognition of an inclusive government and the introduction of more appropriate forms of election to authority. • Judicial: the exercise of internal normative systems for issues such as the election of authorities, the forms of justice to correct failures and self-determination with regard to internal conflicts. • Social: the adoption of more appropriate forms of social organisation. • Economic: the adoption of an appropriate organisational structure for

la-6.indd 142

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109


143

work, for enjoying one’s own resources as well as to increase productivity, employment and self-sustaining economic practices in indigenous communities. • Cultural: to guarantee the maintenance of the indigenous cultures. The agreements and joint proposals that the members agreed to are: • The recognition of the indigenous people in the Constitution and the right to self-determination within the constitutional framework of autonomy. • The expansion of participation and political representation. • The recognition of political, economic, social and cultural rights. • The guarantee of access of the indigenous communities to the justice of the state, its jurisdiction, and the recognition of the internal systems of the communities. • The promotion of cultural manifestations of indigenous communities. • The protection of educational services and approval and respect for traditional leaders. • The satisfaction of basic needs. • The promotion of productivity and employment. • The protection of migrant indigenous peoples. The new relationship called for a profound reform of the state, a new social pact in which the autonomy of the indigenous peoples is respected in such a way that the programmes and projects offered by the state would promote the active participation of indigenous people in local government. Instead of the anticipated reappraisal of the social role and increased autonomy, in August 2001 a further constitutional reform was introduced. The most controversial part of this reform was the relocation of the fourth article’s recognition of multilingualism and multiculturalism in an extensively redrafted article 2 that includes the assignment of responsibilities for language and environmental preservation. The reform was almost unanimously rejected by indigenous groups around the country, attracting international attention to the situation. Perhaps in part to assuage the public outcry, in 2003 a new law was introduced – the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People (henceforth GLLRIP) (Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas). Despite its shortcomings, this law is clearly the single most significant language policy in the recent history of Mexico. The General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People (GLLRIP) The GLLRIP protects the linguistic rights of indigenous individuals and indigenous communities, as well as promoting the use and development of ILs. A brief description of the law follows. In the articles of the first section of the General Law, the equal status of both ILs and Spanish is recognised. Article 3 states that the indigenous languages are one of the principal expressions of the pluricultural composition of the Mexican nation. Article 7 establishes that indigenous languages are valid and equal to Spanish for use in any matter and activity of a public nature.

la-6.indd 143

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109

144


The second section addresses the rights of language speakers in Mexico. Article 9, for instance, states that it is the right of all Mexicans to communicate in the language that they speak, without restriction, in the public or private sector and in such matters as social, economic, political, cultural, and religious activities. Article 10 guarantees the right of access of indigenous communities to the judicial power of the state for matters involving the national indigenous language of the community’s inhabitants. Article 11 stipulates that indigenous populations are to have access to compulsory bilingual and intercultural education and to an educational system that respects the dignity and identity of peoples, independent of their language. Moreover, the middle and higher educational levels must foment interculturality, multilingualism, and respect for diversity and linguistic rights in their institutions. The inhabitants and institutions of the pueblos and of indigenous communities will be jointly responsible for seeing to it that the objectives of the GLLRIP are carried out, and that they will participate actively in the teaching of languages in a manner appropriate to the community and region. The strategies needed to accomplish educational and linguistic objectives are stipulated in section 3. For example, the section states that the plans and programmes of the nation, the states and the municipalities will protect, preserve, promote and develop diverse national ILs through the participation of the indigenous population and their communities. Included in programmes of study for basic and normal education are the origin and evolution of national indigenous languages and their contributions to the national culture. The section also states that there will be supervision of public and private education to encourage interculturality, multilingualism and respect for linguistic diversity in order to contribute to the preservation, study and development of national indigenous languages and their literatures. Article 6 guarantees that teachers involved in basic bilingual education in indigenous communities speak and write the language of the location and know the culture of the indigenous people they are working with. In section 4, Article 14 creates the National Institute of Indigenous Languages (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas) (INALI) as a decentralised organ of the Federal Public Administration under the direction of the Secretary of Public Education. The purpose of the Institute is to promote, preserve and develop ILs. The INALI pursues the following objectives: • To design strategies and instruments for the development of ILs nationally. • To promote programmes, projects and actions which stimulate knowledge of the national cultures and Ils. • To extend the social domain of national ILs and access to IL learning opportunities. • To study the preservation, knowledge and appreciation of ILs in public places and through the media. • To establish programmes to certify and accredit bilingual professionals and technicians. • To promote the production of grammars, the standardisation of the written form and reading/writing in indigenous languages.

la-6.indd 144

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109


145

This section also requires that the INALI should be instrumental in researching linguistic diversity in Mexico and should help the National Census Commission (INEGI) to design the methodology necessary to carry out this task more reliably. This proposal can be seen as an attempt to overcome persistent problems with regard to the official number of languages and their denominations. It is also possible that more sensitive questions on the census format might uncover more reliable and interesting data. Article 16 names the representatives who make up the governing body of the INALI, including representatives from schools, institutes of higher education and indigenous universities in addition to the Secretary of Education along with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Public Credit, the Secretary of Social Development and the Secretary of Communication and Transportation. The composition of this body has become a bone of contention – particularly with regard to a perceived over-representation of state authorities – but calls to ensure that the members should also be native speakers of the indigenous languages that they are to represent so that the languages are understandable (Cienfuegos, 2004: 202). Notwithstanding the discontent with the limitations of legislation to alter social reality, the general law and the subsequent state level legislation that will implement its provisions constitute an important step towards encouraging the active participation of indigenous peoples in all levels of Mexican society. It is no longer unanimously held, for example, that in order to have a voice it is necessary to conform to the social practices and structures of the majority. It is also fair to point out that, currently, those who work in the INALI hold professional qualifications in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics and are well known and respected in their field. Despite some positive indicators it is also true that the assimilation of indigenous peoples to mainstream society is advancing inexorably, for example: (1) (2) (3) (4)

The monolingual indigenous population is decreasing, while the number of Spanish/indigenous bilinguals is increasing. The indigenous migration to urban centres is now more likely to be permanent than temporary. Many indigenous parents are no longer teaching their native language to their children. The discourse spaces available to bilinguals do not favour the use of indigenous languages and new spaces are not being created to encourage their use. (Zimmermann, 1999: 120)

All of these indicators offer little hope for the efforts to preserve indigenous languages. The maintenance of indigenous languages in present-day Mexico is confounded by both internal and external pressures. Internally, it is true that Spanish is the only language that is consistently spoken and guaranteed to be understood throughout the entire country, and hence the ability to use Spanish communicatively brings important socioeconomic benefits. It is also true that the use of indigenous languages and customs is regarded as outmoded and obsolete. This pressure to discard the ‘outmoded and obsolete’ is encountered daily in the workplace and indirectly from the younger generations who attend schools where indigenous peoples are under-represented and discriminated

la-6.indd 145

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109

146


against. These same children return to their homes to use this discriminatory policy directly against their own parents and grandparents. Despite these indicators, data from the field (as reported elsewhere in this monograph), show that ILs are in a stronger position than might be expected and, in some cases, are even showing an upturn. Literacy The DGEI (Dirección General de Educación Indígena) [General Directorate of Indigenous Education] estimated that in 1978 around 6 million adults in the country were illiterate in Spanish, and 1.2 million indigenous persons were monolingual. In addition, 13 million adults – while technically literate – had not completed primary school, and a further 7 million had not completed secondary education. In other words, at the time two-thirds of the adult population had insufficient levels of education (Source: Official INEA website www.inea.gob. mx). International pressure from, for example, UNESCO, led the government to reconsider its previous policy of hoping that formal schooling would, in the long term, remedy this situation, particularly since it was becoming clear that the children of illiterate parents were at a severe disadvantage when exposed to literacy at school. Reliable figures for literacy in ILs are scarce; it would seem that there is greater interest in literacy in Spanish. In any case, the main problem with literacy in indigenous languages is one of post-literacy, since beyond basic primers and school textbooks there is usually little available to read; even though there are some writers who are very active, the material they produce does not meet the demand. This situation leads to the perception that the investment involved in learning alphabets and deciphering texts has little payoff. Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública) SEP Within the 2001–2006 National Development Plan, there is a National Reading Programme, available from the Ministry of Education which is designed, in the SEP’s own words, to respond to social demands. While the programme is officially declared to be operative in all levels of formal education, adult education is not mentioned in this programme at federal level, and the programme really only deals with the provision of reading materials. The programme also identifies the need to renew pedagogical strategies in the field of language and communication that have traditionally been highly prescriptive and elitist. As an example of best practice, the policy documents push for the creation of minilibraries in every classroom, which would seem to reflect a traditional Mexican rejection of large public libraries. The programme provides funding for teacher training and development, acquisition of materials such as books, hardware and software for reader training and costs deriving from the distribution of materials (Source: Official website www.sep.gob.mx). The SEP promotes the development of literacy materials in indigenous languages, but inevitably there is a gap between what is really needed and what is actually produced. Brambila Rojo (2004) points out that society in general holds positive attitudes to the preservation of ILs but that these attitudes rarely go beyond good intentions. Quite fairly, he also calls attention to the fact that there is no well-developed methodology for the teaching of ILs as L2s, such

la-6.indd 146

30/03/2007 10:28:24

CILP No: 109


147

as the one that exists for the teaching of English and French. However, it is important to mention in this respect, the work being carried out by Hamel et al. (2004) in Michoacan, using foreign language teaching methods to make the learning of P’urepecha more communicative, with very interesting results. National Institute for Adult Education (Instituto Nacional de Educación para Adultos) INEA The National Institute for Adult Education is a decentralised body that offers further opportunities for complementary study and literacy training to that segment of the population over 15 years of age. The Institute was created in August 1981. The INEA follows a philosophy of education for life and the workplace influenced by the philosophy of UNESCO and ‘No Child Left Behind’ (Programa Cero Rezago) policies. In order to increase efficiency in the attainment of objectives within strict budget restraints, the INEA incorporated a strategy of using young Mexicans who were completing their Military Service as instructors in rural and indigenous communities. The necessary agreements for the operation of this programme were signed in 1996, and from 1997 to 2004 approximately 980,000 people have entered the programme achieving 268,000 certificates of primary and secondary education. According to official figures, the INEA serviced just over 2.5 million people in 2005, of which slightly more than 500,000 obtained a certificate of some kind (Source: Official INEA website www.inea.gob.mx). INEA offers a relatively complete series of books for working on literacy skills with indigenous peoples in the following 21 languages: Chatina, Chinanteca, Ch’ol, Huasteco, Mazahua, Maya, Mazateca, Mixe, Mixteca, Nahuatl, Otomi, P’urepecha (Tarasco), Raramuri, Tlapaneca, Totonaca, Tojolabal, Triqui, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Zapotec and Zoque. Agencies The purpose of the following section is to present and describe the actions and goals of the main agencies of language planning and policy operating within Mexico. In the first place, there are the language academies, the most organised of which is the Mexican Academy of the Spanish Language. However, increasingly one can observe the establishment of academies for indigenous languages, which confront issues rather different from those faced by the Spanish Academy. It is also important to consider the impact of the Summer Institute of Linguistics on the language situation in Mexico. Mexican Language Academy The Mexican Language Academy (Academia Mexicana de la Lengua, hereafter AML) is parallel to the Spanish Royal Academy (Real Academia Española, hereafter RAE). It was created in 1875 with the mission of studying, classifying and proposing words of Mexican origin for the dictionaries developed in the RAE. Previously, the policy was for Mexican correspondents to propose neologisms and words of indigenous origin, but the RAE itself decided whether the words were worthy of inclusion and wrote the final definition. Since the final writers were often unaware of the etymology of the words they were defining, there was frequent confusion and error; for example, the definition for the word

la-6.indd 147

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109

148


‘avocado’ made it seem that the edible part of the fruit was the stone and not the flesh. Cifuentes and Ros (1993: 138) identify the major force behind the creation of a separate Mexican Academy as a belief that the purist RAE would hold back the dynamic modernisation that was characteristic of the emerging American nations. That having been said, in general the relationship between AML and the RAE is still very close. Indigenous languages Not all of the indigenous languages present in Mexico have official language academies and those that do reflect relatively recent developments. They tend to originate as civil associations from small interest groups, and it is sometimes the case that one language may have three or four academies formed independently on a regional basis. Since they are non-governmental organisations, funding is often a problem, and many tend to peter out as the main actors lose impetus. In this section, those organisations that cover indigenous languages in general are presented first, then those which have arisen for particular languages. General Association of Indigenous Writers Organised in 1993, this association is chronologically posterior to many of the individual language academies and identifies its main objective as the unification of criteria in work on revitalisation. The organisation’s main objectives are the promotion of reading and the creation of literature in indigenous languages. In view of the above discussion on literacy development, increased production is considered a priority in order to create the necessary incentives to emergent readers. The association currently includes 60 writers from 22 different indigenous languages. International Indian Press Agency (Agencia Internacional de la Prensa India) AIPIN Organised in October 2005, this organisation, with headquarters in Mexico City, proposes to organise the voice of the indigenous peoples of America and to promote communication via the internet. Language specific academies In 2005 the INALI held the first meeting of indigenous language academies. The following academies are those who presented their work at the conference and, hence, can be assumed to be active. Despite these academies being devoted to indigenous languages, they often only have Spanish names. Academy of Hñahñu Culture (Academia de la Cultura Hñahñu) This academy started work in 1982 with three ethnolinguists; official status was achieved in 1988. At the time of writing, three more ethnolinguists and bilingual teachers had joined the organisation. The main objectives of the academy are to promote the cultural, linguistic and educational development of the Otomi of the Mezquital Valley, also known as Hñahñu. On an operational level, it offers literacy courses to bilingual teachers, develops textbooks, dictionaries and grammars, and edits musical cassettes to bring the manifestations of Hñahñu culture to mainstream society.

la-6.indd 148

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109


149

Academy of the Mayan anguage (Academia de la Lengua Maya) Founded in 1937 by Alfredo Barrera Vázquez, a noted scholar who was bilingual in Spanish and Mayan, this academy goes beyond the usual work in literacy development and works for the use of Mayan in public services throughout the area where the language is spoken, in an attempt to create much needed discourse spaces to encourage the use of the language. Academy of the P’urepecha language (Academia de la Lengua Purépecha) Started in 1980, this academy covers four different speech communities, but unfortunately faces severe funding difficulties. The academy produces glossaries and short stories in P’urepecha. Academy of the Tenek language (Huasteco) (Dhuchum Tsalap ti Tenek) This Academy was founded in 2001, and it is working on a dictionary and a grammar for the Tenek (Huasteco) language, spoken in San Luis Potosi. Working group for the rescue and teaching of the Kiliwa language (Grupo de trabajo para el rescate y enseñanza de la lengua kiliwa) This group started in 1993 because of its concern for the preservation of the Kiliwa language, currently spoken by only five adults in Baja California Norte. However, the organisation was forced to abandon its efforts due to personal and work pressures. As a result of their work, there are written and audio recordings of this previously undocumented language. The Academy of the Mixtec language (Academia de la Lengua Mixteca) Organised in 1997, this group holds as its main objective the revitalisation of the Mixtec language and explicitly reserves the right to analyse and study the language within the speech community itself. Since Mixtec is a dispersed language, the academy also has a regional delegation in Tijuana, Baja California. In order to achieve its objectives, the academy carries out extensive work in literary production and promotion and is also working on a standardised orthography and writing system for the Mixtec language. Other language organisations In addition to these organisations the following agencies are relatively active in the preservation of specific languages, but have a lower profile in national terms: • The Nahuatl Academy of the Huasteca (Academia Náhuatl del Centro Cultural de la Huasteca). • The Academy of the Chinanteca Language (Academia de la Lengua Chinanteca). • The Association of Researchers of the Mazateca Culture (Organización de Investigadores de la Cultura Mazateca). • The Centre for the Research and Promotion of Zapotec (Centro de Investigación y Difusión Zapoteca de la Sierra Juárez). While the work carried out by these academies is admirable, standardisation efforts, in particular, experience severe difficulties in practice. Dialectal

la-6.indd 149

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109

150


fragmentation is considerable within the languages, and hostile attitudes are frequently encountered in the defence of local varieties, making widespread consensus improbable (Crhová, 2004: 77). The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), which in Spanish is known as the Instituto Lingüística de Verano (ILV), was founded by William Cameron Townsend in 1936 in Mexico. Not long after, in 1942 [Official website: http://www.wycliffe. org], Townsend created the limited company known as the Wycliffe Bible Translators in order to facilitate the production and distribution of the Bibles he was publishing in indigenous languages. SIL has functioned as a non-profit organisation for the study of indigenous languages in Mexico and more recently as an international organisation, SIL International, working with more than 1,200 languages in more than 50 countries [Official website: www.sil.org]. Aguirre Beltrán (1983), in his brief history of the SIL, describes the highlights of Townsend’s career, starting with his experiences as a linguist among the Cakchiquels of Lake Atitlán, Guatemala, where he developed the psychophonemic method for teaching monolinguals to read and translated the Bible into their language. Aguirre Beltrán (1983: 224) explains how Moisés Sáenz – a consultant to the Ministry of Education – after seeing Townsend’s methods using indigenous language as an instrument of teaching, invited Townsend to work in Mexico. Townsend worked with the Nahuatl people of Morelos. At the same time, President Lázaro Cárdenas passed through Tetelcingo where Townsend was working, was impressed and extended his support to work with other ethnic groups as well. President Cárdenas was also keen to clean up Mexico’s image internationally at a time following the international outcry at Cardenas’ expropriation of the oil fields, and it seems he felt that a close relationship with the eminent, respected scholar would operate in Mexico’s favour. In return for permission to continue with his missionary activities, Townsend wrote a biography of Cardenas (Lazaro Cardenas: Mexican Democrat, 1952, George Wahr Publishing Company) that helped to improve Mexico’s image abroad. Encouraged by the President, Townsend founded SIL as an establishment for recruiting and training missionary linguists and expanded the work begun with Nahuatl, Mixteco and Tarasco to include Maya, Mazateco, Mixe, Totonaca, Otomí and Tarahumara (Heath, 1986: 170). Most importantly, previous to Townsend’s entry onto the linguistic scene, official work on literacy was carried out indirectly in Spanish, with notoriously poor results. Townsend offered what the Mexican Government – recovering from crisis after crisis – could not; highly trained teachers and supplies of ‘pedagogical’ material in the native languages of many linguistic groups in a relatively short period of time. This policy resulted in undeniably better results (Bravo Ahuja, 1977: 98). It still remained clear, however, that official policy favoured the literacy skills acquired in the native language so that they might serve as a means to an end, that is, the eventual transfer of literacy skills to the Spanish language (Acevedo Conde, 1997: 194). The SIL has produced dictionaries and grammars of indigenous languages as well as pamphlets and books to promote the preservation of oral literature and to encourage literacy in indigenous languages. For almost 50 years this

la-6.indd 150

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109


151

symbiotic relationship survived, each side receiving enough from the other for the sake of convenience, and neither particularly troubled by any downside, but in recent years the participation of SIL in Mexico has met with controversy (Patthey Chavez, 1994: 204). In 1983, after five years of hot debate concerning the alleged cultural destruction implicit in SIL’s work in Latin America, the special agreement between SIL and the Mexican Government was terminated at the request of the Mexican Ministry for Education (Patthey-Chavez, 1994: 204). Visas which had been issued to members of SIL who were active in Mexico were not renewed after this date although the Mexican Government as of the early 1990s began once again to issue visas for volunteers from the organisation, and important work in the creation and revision of dictionaries is still being carried out [Official website: www.sil.org]. National Indigenist Institute (Instituto Nacional Indigenista) INI At the end of Cardenas’ presidential period, in 1940, the First Inter-American Indigenist Congress met in Patzcuaro, Michoacan. One of the major outcomes of this congress was the call for the establishment of a National Indigenist Institute whose purpose would be the development of research programmes and the promotion of indigenous populations in the participating nations. The national institutes loosely affiliated with the Inter-American Indigenist Institute were headquartered in Mexico. The organisation promoted the publication of the journal América Indígena (Indigenous American). Regional Co-ordinating Centres focusing on economics, education and sanitation were developed. The first centre was in the Tzeltal-Tzotzil region of Chiapas, chosen for the work done by anthropologists and linguists during the 1940s and the economic needs of the area. The second was among the Tarahumaras of Chihuahua, a state with considerable indigenist concerns. However, the INI, established in 1948, as a subdependency of the Secretariat for Social Development, was not accepted by indigenous groups. The dependence of INI on the government to establish centres and their funding created a struggle between political expediencies and financial realities on the one hand and the ideals of applied anthropologists on the other. The resulting failure of government personnel to co-operate and work for the benefit of indigenous people created a concomitant need for the reassessment of the existing programmes. This assessment was carried out by Maurice Swadesh in 1956. After visiting communities and evaluating the bilingual method being used in Co-ordinating Centres, he stated that, if the teachers were unprepared to endorse the programme’s ideals it would never be successful. He attributed the lack of success in several regions not to the fault of the direct method being used but to the ambivalent attitudes of the teachers toward the teaching method used and to the lack of teachers adequately trained in linguistic skills and in the anthropological assumptions upon which the method was based (Heath, 1972: 144). According to Swadesh, the teachers and residents of indigenous villages did not want reading and writing to be taught in their native languages because it would not give them the opportunity to learn Spanish. Swadesh encouraged the Centres to begin oral instruction in Spanish on the first day of class and

la-6.indd 151

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109

152


then move toward oral competence in Spanish in order to introduce literacy skills gradually. He feared the mishandling of language policy within the INI, but strongly endorsed the policy of teaching Spanish to the indigenous people without denying them the right to use their native tongues. Language policy, in the years that followed this reassessment, centred on the direct method and bilingual teaching. The SIL had demonstrated that the indigenous people learned most effectively through a comparative approach, contrasting the sound and grammatical systems of their indigenous speech with those of Spanish. The pros and cons of bilingual programmes versus the direct method were debated by linguists, not only in Mexico, but in a special UNESCO session held in Paris in 1951. Representatives from other countries decided in favour of bilingual teaching techniques. The use of bilingual techniques was applied by the linguist Kenneth Pike of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, the educator Maurice Swadesh and the UNESCO Secretariat Alfredo Barrera Vásquez in the Tarascan Project. Evaluation of the results of the Tarascan Project led to the continued use of bilingual techniques. The main tenets of the re-evaluation of the method included: • The first language is an individual’s natural means of self-expression, and no other language is adequate to meet the child’s expressive needs at home or in the early school years. • Nothing in the structure of any language precludes it from becoming a communicative tool for modern civilisation. • A lingua franca or national tongue should not be considered an adequate substitute for the first language unless children know the lingua franca before coming to school. • The success of bilingual education depends in large part on a consideration of the socialisation processes and expressed needs of the community into which a public formal education system is being introduced. • Literacy is functional only if there is a need for reading and writing skills among adults accepted as models within the community; an adequate supply of relevant reading materials is necessary to maintain literacy. • During the child’s first or second year at school the national language should be introduced orally; through formal instruction the use of this idiom should be increased gradually until it becomes the medium of instruction (Comas, cited in Heath, 1972: 147). The crucial concern for socioeconomic unification of the nation was a major issue for indigenous communities within the national community. Whether the INI could accomplish unification without disintegration of Indian cultures was questioned. While scientists are currently aware of the great multiplicity the interdependence of cultural traits had for different indigenous groups, the earlier regional integral approach had not foreseen this. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, INI and government officials accepted the integrative function of indigenous languages, but they only accepted bilingualism as a necessary transition stage to the national language, Spanish.

la-6.indd 152

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109


153

Law of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (Ley de la Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) (CDI) This law, enacted in 2003, effectively replaced the INI – which operated under the orders of the Secretariat for Social Development – with the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas or CDI) a decentralised body that is to orient, assess, co-ordinate and evaluate federal policy toward indigenous groups. The first Director General of the CDI was Xochitl Galvez, an Hñahñu native, and postings within the Commission are generally held by native speakers of a variety of indigenous languages. The CDI has regional delegations in 24 states of the Mexican Republic and operates 20 AM radio stations and four FM stations. Current programmes include: • • • • • • •

indigenous Boarding Schools; basic infrastructure for attention to indigenous peoples; promotion and development of indigenous cultures; indigenous regional funds; productive organisation for indigenous women; promotion of agreements with regard to justice; development programme for the Mayan communities of the Yucatan peninsula.

In conclusion, as mentioned at the beginning on this section, Mexican government policy on ILs and indigenous cultures is ideally at the participation stage of policy development, which should mean that the community is amply consulted before policy decisions are taken and that indigenous people hold positions of power within the decision-making process. The evidence presented suggests that, while some consultation is carried out, the degree of power held by indigenous communities could still be increased. Within language preservation efforts the actions of the various language academies, with their inherent funding problems, and the work of the INALI have been identified. It is true to a certain extent, however, that the efforts of some academies are limited to the recording of examples of production in the language, which seems rather a fatalistic tendency – i.e. it shows the belief that the language is doomed to disappear and that the only thing that can be done is to document its existence. The early work of the INALI has concentrated on the production of a reliable catalogue of indigenous languages. While it may be tempting to dismiss this as the same kind of fatalism as the recording of examples, given the context of Mexico and the problems confronted in naming and counting languages, this catalogue represents an important first step toward producing a thorough analysis of the language situation in order to establish a solid basis for policy decisions. To summarise the main points of this section, the number of languages and territorial extension of Mexico make the job of the language planner somewhat daunting. The ‘one language-one nation’ ideology predominant throughout the country’s history is making the shift to an ideology of respect for diversity

la-6.indd 153

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109

154


rather difficult to implement. This problem is coupled with a lack of hard data and a surplus of individual opinions (often sadly misinformed) on what would be good for the nation. On a more optimistic note, key workers in the language planning process are trained in Applied Linguistics and specialise in the field of Language Planning; unfortunately their opinions merely feed into the planning process, leaving the responsibility for the final decision with the politicians.

Part III: Language Spread Languages taught through the educational system Spanish has been the language of the educational system for almost 200 years. In the 19th century, a bilingual education programme was introduced in each town. The purpose was to incorporate the indigenous population into the democratic process. A monolingual education programme was established throughout the country; however, the lack of infrastructure in the programme limited the impact on the 80% of the population living in rural areas. This practice favoured the maintenance of many indigenous languages (Alvarado & Velázquez, 2002). But by 1917, coincident with the Mexican Revolution, Spanish became the official language of education and unification in Mexico. Although there have been bilingual schools in indigenous regions since the 1980s (see e.g. Hamel, 1984; Hamel & Muñoz, 1981; Ramírez, 1976) and foreign languages were introduced throughout Mexico from the end of the 19th century. Spanish is the language taught at most schools (except indigenous monolingual ones) at primary, middle and higher levels of education. However, the level of competence of teachers and students varies from school to school, from community to community and from individual to individual. In this section, we will introduce the educational structure in which languages in Mexico have been taught, subsequently focusing on the three aspects that influence decisions on language status and on the attitudes that endorse these languages as added values in education: type of educational system, type of language community and type of curriculum. Type of educational system The national educational system in Mexico is structured as shown in Figure 3. It shows that in Mexico City there are two types of educational systems: the system of the Ministry of Education (SEP) for primary and lower secondary education, and the programme of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) for higher secondary and tertiary education. There are both public and private educational institutions, which either follow the SEP and/or the UNAM regulations, which means that private schools are ruled by government educational norms that are set by the SEP in basic, intermediate and high educational levels or by the UNAM in secondary and tertiary educational levels. However, these regulations also apply to other states of the republic up to junior high school level of education. State universities have autonomous local regulations. Spanish taught to speakers of indigenous languages (SEP Regulations) In the first system, the SEP, the language taught in all schools is Spanish. Even

la-6.indd 154

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109


155

Postgraduate SEP and UNAM

Bachelor degree 4 to 6 years SEP and UNAM Senior high school 2 to 3 years SEP and UNAM Junior high school 3 compulsory years

SEP

Elementary school 6 compulsory years

SEP

Pre-Scholar 1 to 3 years old

SEP

Figure 3 National Educational System in Mexico Adapted from Ornelas (1995) El sistema educativo mexicano. La transición de fin de siglo. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Nacional Financiera, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, pp. 366

the early bilingual rural elementary educational programmes were intended to assimilate the indigenous people into the language and culture of the ‘people of reason’ through Castilianisation10 (Ramírez, 1976). Later, bilingual programmes aimed at interculturalism and two-way bilingualism; nonetheless, the results reported by Hamel (1998), Muñoz (1987), Muñoz (2001) and Terborg (1987) show that the implementation of such syllabi failed to integrate the cultural background of the communities with their interactions successfully. In the early 1990s, bilingual programmes planned to use indigenous languages as a bridge to Castilianisation, while other programmes used indigenous languages in order to educate indigenous children. However, only the latter produced fragmentary results, partly due to the lack of materials, the lack of teacher development in the approach of the new models of bilingualism and appalling teaching conditions (see Hamel, 2003a, 2003b; Hamel & Carillo Avelar, 2003). The main problem was that the SEP, which had previously promoted Castilianisation was now supporting the use of indigenous languages at school, within a multicultural and multilingual approach. Furthermore, the teaching staff, most of whom maintained their positions, was not convinced of the advantages of interculturalism and blocked the implementation of the new programme (Muñoz, 2001, 2002; Patthey Chavez, 1994; also see a parallel example in Sommer, 1991). None-

la-6.indd 155

30/03/2007 10:28:25

CILP No: 109

156


theless, the level of Castilianisation varies according to the type of school; i.e. public schools, private schools or rural schools. In rural schools the teaching of the four skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing) is carried out at the primary level. However, the sociocultural environment and the central educational policies have made the learning of Spanish difficult, meaning mainly that the students are left with poor Spanish skills (Hamel, 1983; Hamel & Muñoz, 1988; Terborg, 2004 for examples). At least 2,250,000 students continue their studies through the Telesecundaria programme (Telesecondary programme). The telesecundaria programme is an educational programme for small communities (5% of the population of Mexico) where it is not possible to build a regular secondary school. The school comprises three teachers one per level of education and three classrooms with satellite receiver dishes, where a 20-minute TV programme is shown and then the teacher reviews the lesson and exercises for the day in 40 minutes. The programmes are produced at the General Office of Educational Television at the SEP and are transmitted through the satellite television official channel, Edusat. In 2003 the educational results of secondary education were evaluated in different areas of knowledge by the CENEVAL (National Centre of Evaluation for Higher Education). The telesecundarias reported the lowest level in Spanish at least in Aguascalientes, Mexico City, State of Mexico and Quintana Roo. (Cf. CENEVAL, 2006). Once students in rural areas reach the higher secondary level, they often migrate to urban areas and follow the regular curriculum. Some of these students have managed to obtain scholarships to study at the Autonomous University of Chapingo (UACH), a rural university offering students education, lodging and food from the secondary to the tertiary educational levels. This university operates under a quota system which requires 10% of total matriculation to be indigenous. Indigenous students live in the university’s residences and receive instruction in Spanish. Their grade point averages are under continual review to ensure their permanence as students. Among the efforts to maintain ILs is a support system for the academic progress of indigenous students, which has been designed to strengthen the bonds of indigenous students with their communities. One action taken in this direction is the implementation of Náhuatl and Mixe language courses for university students taught by Náhuatl and Mixe student volunteers (see e.g. University of Chapingo, Unidad de apoyo académico a estudiantes indígenas [Office of Academic Support for Indigenous Students], 2003). There are other indigenous universities that aim to provide intercultural education, but that allow a wider role for Spanish than would seem advisable if maintenance of ILs is a goal. Given this pattern, the first intercultural university in the country, located in the State of Mexico, has started giving university courses in indigenous languages (Portal SEP, 2003), and it may be true that maintenance activities are being phased in slowly. Some students use their ILs, but others neglect them and prefer Spanish. This has been the predominant attitude of many indigenous speakers for years (Terborg, 2004). Although the intercultural universities were created to revitalise and maintain indigenous cultural and linguistic diversity, specialists and speakers of the ILs have found it difficult to implement courses in any language other than Spanish due to the shortage of specialised teachers who combine IL knowledge with pedagogical

la-6.indd 156

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109


157

skill. The literacy skills of some students are limited and, for certain languages, there is no agreement on a standard variety (Muntzel & Lozano, 2005). Some other university programmes (such as the UPN (National Pedagogical University) education languages programmes and the CIESAS (Centre of Research and High Studies in Social Anthropology) Masters in Indo-American Linguistics) are inclusive; that is, they admit speakers of Spanish or of any Amerindian language. Classes are taught in Spanish and the focus of studies is the description and status, corpus and language-in-education planning of indigenous languages (see e.g. Díaz Couder, 1997a). Mexico has only very recently started up bilingual programmes that can be evaluated as successful (Hamel et al., 2004). However, considering the lack of human and material resources, the swinging pendulum of policies for and against plurilinguism and multiculturalism, and the ever present negative attitude towards indigenous languages; these few successful efforts are worthy of recognition. They represent the first steps towards an effective symmetric bilingualism. Government policy has, at least superficially, been favourable to bilingual education programmes for the last 10 years. However, as reported by Carbó and Salgado (forthcoming), it remains to be seen whether these efforts convince those in power that further programmes and projects must be implemented to support those already in place. It is also necessary to focus on local needs, so that more realistic policies can be developed. Spanish taught to Spanish speakers In public and private schools, students study Spanish for nine years. At the elementary level, children are taught to read, speak and write. Grammar and language use is distributed in a six-year syllabus. The aim is to achieve clear and precise oral and written communication in diverse contexts and situations. Instruction also caters for the use of language as a tool for the acquisition of knowledge inside and outside school as a means to develop students’ intellect. In this programme, language is conceived as dynamic and varied, and respect for social and regional varieties of Spanish and indigenous languages is promoted (Portal SEP, 2005). Communicative competence is to be developed within a content-based methodology so language is used for specific assignments in formal or informal situations. In lower secondary grades, the four skills are developed (Portal SEP, 2005). However, the acquisition of writing skills is often difficult for various reasons: large class size, overworked teachers and time constraints. In some private schools, writing is taught as a separate subject. These special courses cover some of the content that will be reviewed in higher secondary school, which gives these students an advantage over students who are not taught how to write at the lower secondary level in urban schools. Foreign languages taught in urban schools With respect to the teaching of foreign languages in Mexico, basic French and English are provided at the lower secondary level at the rate of three hours a week. In the 1970s and 1980s, courses usually consisted of grammar exercises and vocabulary, whereas more recent programmes have tried to develop all four skills. Because junior high school teachers were not familiar with this way of teaching, the SEP organised programmes for teacher development

la-6.indd 157

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109

158


abroad. Pilot programmes for the teaching of English in elementary school in some states of the republic have been implemented. However, a recent study published by Chepetla (2005) reports that, in the State of Morelos, a 12 year pilot programme to include English at the elementary level, with positive results, has met with difficulties due to incompatibility with Central SEP guidelines for English language at junior high level. The English programme designed for junior high by the SEP assumes no prior knowledge of the English language and is not open to changes despite changing local circumstances. The result is that students who finish the pilot elementary school programme interrupt their progress in English on reaching the junior high school level. This might also be the case with other pilot programmes still in process, leaving educational language policies at a dead end. The Reforma Integral de la Educación Secundaria (Integrative Reform of Junior High School Education, RIES, 2005), states that, while they are aware of the existence of these pilot programmes, SEP’s main concern is with the quality of English lessons at the secondary level (RIES, 2005:15). Students are required to study English at the rate of three hours a week (90 to 100 hours per grade). The programme expects the teacher to emphasise social practices of language through experiential learning in order to achieve learner autonomy. There is also a commitment to supporting those students who come from communities with less schooling and/or lower levels of literacy (RIES, 2005). The Reform offers a general framework for the description of students’ levels of achievement and contemplates the possibility of adapting language programmes to the needs of students who already have some knowledge of English. Nonetheless, the RIES establishes that students at this level should reach level A2 in the European Framework of Reference, which might be unrealistic for children with knowledge of English. The need for realism becomes even clearer when the document further states that teachers are expected to have level B1 (threshold level, 350–400 hours of study of language) command of English, making them improbable tutors for children who already exceed this level. Some private schools offer alternative programmes that are compatible with those of international schools11 which are called ‘bilingual schools’. This term is applied indiscriminately to international schools and to schools that offer a range of language competence in the foreign language with no link with other international schools. ‘Bilingual schools’ may offer from one hour a day to full immersion in the foreign language (usually English). Private schools can use an alternative curriculum or a parallel one, as international schools do. In the first case, schools follow the SEP curriculum, but alter the methodology using different pedagogical ideas. In the second case, schools follow both the SEP or UNAM regulations and those of international schools in different countries; e.g. England, France, Germany, Israel, Japan and United States. The main problem with these parallel programmes is that they are not truly intercultural.12 National and International syllabi run simultaneously but are not mixed. Students usually take the first year of elementary education in the foreign language and then start with the SEP programme the following year. The integration of the two syllabi is not well planned. In the Colegio Alemán (German College), for example, objectives which are initially covered in German are repeated later in Spanish, causing disinterest and low

la-6.indd 158

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109


159

motivation among students. Teachers at the Colegio Alemán, for example, come to Mexico from Germany to teach such courses as mathematics or German, with little knowledge of the Spanish language or of cultural of Mexico. Likewise, Mexican teachers teach in the Colegio Alemán without knowing German or being knowledgeable about German culture. German teachers are paid by the German Ministry of Education, while Mexican teachers are paid by the SEP, resulting in huge discrepancies between their salaries. The Colegio Alemán, as is the case with many of these parallel bilingual programmes, offers programmes up to higher secondary level. However, students seem to experience difficulties in writing in either language at the secondary level. Some of the students who study in bilingual secondary schools, after taking a teacher training course, may become German, French or English teachers in different educational and professional areas; e.g. international companies like Volkswagen. However, this activity is usually seen by them as complementary to their main professional skills and careers: politicians, lawyers, chemists. Most study in teacher training courses while they are still undergraduates and subsequently work as teachers until they finish their studies. Ironically, few students from the modern language faculties, where teachers are trained professionally, manage to become teachers of German, owing to low proficiency in the language. It would seem clear that, as far as Germany is concerned, the language teaching profession is still underdeveloped. (See García Landa et al., 2004.) Foreign languages in rural schools In rural schools, foreign languages are usually taught through the Telesecundaria programme. Telesecundarias follow the SEP programmes for teaching English, but these programmes are taught through a different modality. However, immigration from Mexico to the USA has raised questions regarding the teaching of Spanish and English to immigrant communities in rural localities. In Puebla, for example, the children of immigrants usually return to Mexico having a high level of English, which is not recognised as an added value in Mexican regular schools. These students are often classified as slow learners due to their poorer competence in Spanish while in Mexico and, on returning to the USA, they experience the same problem since their English skills are also underdeveloped (Smith, forthcoming). Plans are being developed that could help diminish the problems of these children with regard to formal schooling; for example: • the investment of an additional 8.4 million pesos in migrant children’s education (Portal SEP 24 July); • the development of an integral educational model for migrant labourers with an intercultural approach (27 August 2003); • the system of standards for evaluating academic competences among immigrant children (18 September 2003); • the recommendation of a Binational Accord to increase young immigrant’s access to higher education (22 October 2003); among others. However, as Chepetla (2005) has pointed out, these well-intentioned pilot schemes often founder upon implementation.

la-6.indd 159

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109

160


As may be inferred from the situations described regarding the types of educational systems, there are a few issues that require additional attention. Language-in-education planning is often incongruous on both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of action. It would seem futile to implement pilot language programmes if these are abandoned at further levels of education, or if local needs are disregarded. Educational policies are highly centralised, and local efforts are rarely recognised or supported by the Ministry of Education. New proposals require human and material resources to be able to cope with local needs. Besides incongruent language education proposals, the meaning of ‘bilingual schools’ needs to be clarified. Discussions and definitions could help institutions to articulate more realistic objectives, giving students an added value in learning languages, beyond the credit for passing the subject. Language competence needs to be defined in accordance with professional demands for those who intend to work in domains where foreign languages are used or for those who intend to follow academic studies. In the case of international schools, regulations could be introduced to encourage more symmetrical development of the languages studied at school to acquire a communicative intercultural competence. An issue that also needs close attention lies in the motivation provided to teachers of language to become full-time language teaching professionals. Societal attitudes toward the language teacher are negative and dismissive. The availability of fast track, unchallenging teacher training programmes may reinforce the idea that teaching languages is a hobby for native speakers or for job seekers. Language teachers and language teacher trainees should be allowed to experience the language and culture of the language they teach in order to develop their own experiences in different teaching situations to develop their own experiences in different teaching situations. More support could be offered for academic exchanges for language teachers, nationally and internationally, to broaden their knowledge of different varieties of the languages they teach. This is particularly true for public schools and could have an important impact on the way the language teaching profession is perceived. The UNAM and State Autonomous Universities Regulations In this section we will deal with the teaching of languages from a centralised perspective, since most of the documents found dealt with situations and problems reported in research articles and papers localised in Mexico City and the Metropolitan Area. However, a couple of studies have been found that give an account of other situations and realities in such other states of the republic as Puebla, Morelos, Hidalgo, State of Mexico, Michoacán, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Coahuila and Oaxaca. As we said at the beginning of this part of the monograph, state universities have autonomous local regulations that sometimes conflict with the central regulations, simply one more effect of this centralist view of educational policy in Mexico. We will deal with the spread of Spanish, indigenous languages and foreign languages at schools in Mexico City and in other states in the republic. Spanish is rapidly becoming a language of wider communication; demand is continually on the rise for courses in Spanish as a foreign language for international students. Within the UNAM type of educational system there is an

la-6.indd 160

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109


161

increasing interest in studying advanced Spanish for university education, as is the case in other universities in different states in the republic. Spanish taught to foreigners in Mexico To our knowledge, Spanish is taught at the universities of Coahuila, Sonora, Baja California Norte, Veracruz, Michoacán, Morelos, Mexico State and Oaxaca. These schools offer general courses of Spanish and Spanish for academic or specific purposes. There are also several schools for teaching Spanish as a second language in Mexico. The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) operates its own Centre for the Teaching of Spanish as a Second language, the CEPE (Centro de Español para Extranjeros) [Centre of Spanish for Foreigners]. This centre was initiated in 1921 to cater for the language needs of foreigners who came to Mexico for business or for academic reasons. At the present time, the CEPE has expanded to offer courses in Spanish as a foreign language, as well as literature, history and art for Mexicans and non-Mexicans interested in these fields. It also offers an online teacher’s diploma for Spanish teachers. In addition, the CEPE has expanded geographically. At present, the CEPE has several branches in Mexico; i.e. Mexico City (University City and Polanco), Taxco and Morelos. It also has three branches in the USA (San Antonio, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; and Los Angeles, California) and one in Canada (Gatineau, Quebec), where Spanish is taught as a foreign language. The CEPE is currently working on a project to certify Spanish at an international level. At present the only international exam to certify competence in Spanish as a foreign language is that offered by the University of Salamanca in Spain. Spanish in the UNAM With respect to the teaching of Spanish at the university level, some steps are being taken through the project Lenguajes, comunicación e identidad [Languages, communication and identity] led by Moreno de Alba and Ezcurdia (2005) whose objective is to study the function, acquisition and learning of languages, pointing out the importance of linguistic expression in calling attention to similarities across cultural identities. The project seeks to propose communication, including language learning and teaching models, focusing on indigenous and Mexican Spanish from both theoretical and applied perspectives. Within this framework, the project organised the first symposium on Spanish learning in Mexico in 2005 to enhance studies in the teaching of Spanish at all levels (Báez & Rojas, 2005). The National Autonomous University of Mexico has the implicit policy of using Spanish for teaching in the junior high, senior high and university levels. Both in the junior and higher secondary as well as in the tertiary levels of education, Spanish is the language used as the language of instruction and interaction in both the public and private sectors. However, there is still no explicit language policy for the teaching of advanced Spanish for specific purposes, which could be very useful for the future professionals and researchers studying at the universities following the UNAM’s regulations. Although there are a few universities that have started initiatives regarding the teaching of Spanish at the university level, it still remains to specify the domains in which future professionals might find language barriers (García Landa, 2005).

la-6.indd 161

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109

162


Spanish taught to speakers of indigenous languages and indigenous languages taught to Spanish speakers Since it was founded, the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico (now the UNAM) has accepted people from all backgrounds and ethnic origins. However, as previously noted, the language of instruction has generally been Spanish. Some ILs have been taught in the Schools of Anthropology and the Institutes of Philology basically to facilitate describing languages and doing research, but the perception of studying these languages has recently changed (Brambila Rojo, 2003; Hekking, 1995). ILs are now being used for communication, and much of the work done for international languages can be adapted to teach and learn these languages. Unfortunately, ILs do not have the status of international languages, which means that their study is still limited to some specialists and professionals interested in these communities for research purposes and to those who speak indigenous languages at home in a diglossic situation with Spanish or English. More recently, as a result of the San Andrés Accord (see Part II), there has been an increasing interest in changing the assimilationist and paternalistic policies regulating the rights of indigenous people (Del Val, 1999). The Project México, Nación Intercultural [Mexico Intercultural Nation Project] (Del Val & Mendizábal, 2004) is a promising effort in helping to change the status of indigenous languages among university students. This programme was piloted in 2004. The objective is to include an elective subject in all faculties at the UNAM entitled ‘México, Nación Intercultural’ to increase student awareness that Mexico is not a homogeneous state but rather is a plurilingual and multicultural nation. In this concept of nation, indigenous people play a role in the construction of a new vision of citizenship which respects cultural diversity. The course comprises 16 lessons which focus on the multicultural identity of Mexico in the 21st century. Foreign languages at high school level at the UNAM At the secondary level (preparatoria),13 students choose among four foreign language courses for a three-year period: English (chosen most frequently by students), French, German (least chosen) and Italian (second choice). The four skills are taught in the first two years, and reading comprehension is taught during the third year, but students of differing ability are heterogeneously mixed in the language levels, which hinders language development for those who have a higher competence in the language studied. In one programme, sponsored by the Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades (College of Sciences and Humanities) (CCH), students have the choice of reading comprehension courses in English or French for the first two years of study. Most choose English. No third year course is offered in this programme (see Plan de Estudios del Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades, 1996) [Programme of the College of Sciences and Humanities]. Private schools tend to teach English as a foreign language with practically no limit to the hours devoted to the teaching of English, ranging from two hours a week to half day content lessons given in the language. These private schools follow the UNAM higher secondary programme except that some of them also

la-6.indd 162

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109


163

give four-skills courses during the third year. The sequencing of the teaching contents of foreign languages at this level has just been reviewed. In a few years, the development of the plans will become apparent, together with subsidiary projects such as teacher development courses, reflection on teaching practice and materials design among other areas. Although the National Autonomous University of Mexico is not a bilingual university, it requires foreign language reading ability in most of the faculties. This language requirement involves taking a reading comprehension test in any of the languages prescribed by each of the faculties. It is unclear whether the regulations have been followed. A survey of requirements in 45 faculties of the university shows that this issue deserves some serious investigation.14 However, the Coordination of Evaluation and Certification (CEC) of the Centre of Foreign Languages of the UNAM, CELE, reports that the choice of language requirement is commonly narrowed to English as the first choice and French as the second choice (García Landa & Terborg, 2004). Probably the recently created COELE (Special Commission of the Teaching of Foreign Languages) at the National University, whose functions are explained further in Part IV of this monograph, will clarify the situation in the near future (Gaceta, UNAM, 2003). Meanwhile, study of the language competence in English of first year students (4,690) in institutes of higher education in Mexico City and the surrounding area (González Robles et al., 2004)15 has revealed deficiencies in the teaching of English at elementary and secondary levels on the basis of the results obtained in a test of English language competence, a modified version of the Nelson English Language Tests (NELD). Revealingly, only 497 students passed the exam, 10.6% of the total sample. The study sampled students attempting to enter nine universities, from both the public and private education sector. The results show a significant difference between the results of private universities and public ones. Of the students who studied in public elementary, junior and senior high schools, 95% failed the test; compared to 89.7% of those who studied in mixed public and private schools and 63.3% who did so in private schools. The differences would seem to be caused by inequalities in such conditions as: • access to bilingual schools and environments (exchange programmes, travel, extracurricular language classes, English bilingual environments at home, and satellite television); • type of primary and secondary school; • quality of language teaching in those levels and schools; • parental background; • student marital status; and • students’ gender. Those with highly educated parents in higher income brackets have a significant advantage over those who have other backgrounds. Students who attend private and public secondary schools where English is very poorly taught are unable to engage in a multilingual work environment. According to González Robles et al. (2004), to date, the teaching of English in

la-6.indd 163

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109

164


secondary schools in Mexico has been, for the most part, substandard. These authors make a number of recommendations to improve this state of affairs: • Realistic objectives must be formulated to enable the Mexican education system to produce multicultural and multilingual professionals who can satisfy the demands of a globalised world. This should include the development of programmes which clearly define the level of competence to be achieved at each educational level nationwide. • Language teaching programmes must be revised and designed to ensure that objectives are achieved and that these objectives are properly articulated between levels. • A standard must be set against which student competence in English can be measured in terms of their performance at each level. • The teaching of foreign languages should attain professional standards in three basic competences: linguistic, cultural and pedagogical. • The infrastructure for the teaching of foreign languages must be upgraded for all levels of education and channels of communication must be established to enable a permanent exchange of information among the different educational subsystems to aid in the development and coordination of integrative educational policies for the teaching of languages, in order to provide more solid, holistic and egalitarian education (González Robles et al., 2004).

Non-Regulation Schools The third type of educational system is one in which schools and programmes do not attach themselves to either the SEP or the UNAM regulations. Some of these schools may at a later point attempt incorporation to one or other set of regulations due to the higher status enjoyed by incorporated institutions. Within this system are regular schools that offer afternoon language courses for children, youngsters and adults. Indigenous languages taught to Spanish speakers and other speakers The INALI (National Institute of Indigenous Languages) reports the existence of 64 non-regulated indigenous languages’ schools in Mexico distributed across 14 states: Oaxaca, Baja California, Mexico City, Hidalgo, Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Campeche, Chiapas, Michoacán, Guerrero, Durango, Tabasco, Coahuila and Veracruz. These schools offer courses in ILs in an effort to maintain or revitalise these communities’ languages and cultures. Other revitalisation activities include the celebration of traditions, the publication of books about their culture and traditions, as well as the organisation of conferences to resolve community problems. These schools are community based and provide a space to reflect on and discuss cultural problems and needs in order to implement projects that pursue greater prestige for their language and culture. Teaching Spanish as a foreign language There are 75 Spanish schools all over Mexico. Morelos is the state that offers

la-6.indd 164

30/03/2007 10:28:26

CILP No: 109


165

most of the programmes for learning Spanish (25) in combination with the culture and history of Mexico: • • • • • •

Mexico City offers eight programmes of Spanish as an L2; Jalisco offers seven; Quintana Roo five; Guanajuato and Yucatán have three programmes each; Querétaro, Nuevo León, Michoacan, Chiapas each offer two; and Sinaloa, Coahuila, San Luis Potosí and Veracruz each offer one.

Beginning, low intermediate, high intermediate and advanced language programmes are focused on developing communication skills, and usually include the study of Mexican culture and history. These schools are open all year round; they also organise special intensive summer courses with three to six teaching hours a day. Some courses are one to one or group organised. Courses are tailored to fit student needs. Teachers are college trained or hold an L2 instruction qualification. They are native speakers of Mexican Spanish with experience in Spanish teaching; some are also fluent in English. Foreign languages Within the foreign language teaching institutions that are not regulated by the SEP or by the UNAM are those founded by well-known language teaching organisations such as the Goethe Institute, the Berlitz Programmes, the British Council, the Alliance Française and IFAL [French Institute of Latin-America], as well as local schools including: Interlingua, Quick Learning, Cultural University Centre and Canadiense de México (Canadian Institute of Mexico) and embassies. Except for the Goethe Institute, the Alliance Française, the IFAL, and the Instituto Italiano de la Cultura (The Institute of the Italian Culture), most of these schools teach English as a foreign language, offering intensive, semi-intensive and regular courses. The range of hours varies, running from one hour a day to four hours per week delivered in a single day (i.e. Saturday classes for people who work or study during weekdays). Some of these schools offer French and English classes for youngsters and adults mainly on weekdays or on Saturdays. Some of these language institutions receive some support from the Ministry of Culture or from such embassies as the IFAL, the Anglo Mexicano de Cultura (The Anglo-Mexican Culture), El Instituto Italiano de la Cultura and the Goethe Institute. Other courses focus on English for Special Purposes (ESP), such as business English, for example, which is offered by most of the embassy-supported institutions. Other institutions offer technical English for secretaries as well. Type of language community The types of social communities determine the domains in which languages are learned and used, but they are also an indicator of their maintenance in public domains and their transmission to future generations. As previously mentioned, Mexico is a multilingual country with a tremendous range of indigenous languages, and heavy internal migration to urban areas as well as international migration to the United States. The specific needs of each community are determined by its activities, its interests and its individual moti-

la-6.indd 165

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109

166


vations, in which the status of certain varieties of languages is more prestigious than that of others whose use is restricted or limited to less extended social networks. It is the context where activities are carried out that defines which languages are to be learned in each of these communities and how people value the effort involved in learning a language. As specified before, at the present time, Spanish is the language officially used at schools and services throughout the whole country. Nonetheless, plurilingualism prevails in many communities in Mexico, where Spanish is used in combination with an indigenous language or an international one. Studies in attitudes carried out previously (Hamel et al., 2004; Suárez, 2004; Terborg, 2004) have shown that many ILs are endangered due to language shift. As specified above, many Mexicans consider these languages to be inferior to Spanish or English at home, since learning Spanish or English affords greater social mobility within their communities. However, there are also those who value the use of their IL and promote revitalisation. Those who praise the use of their languages have contributed enormously to protect the status of their language within their communities as well as in the national and international realms (see e.g. Montemayor, 2005). Yet, it is important to understand that this effort is usually eclipsed by the strong presence of international languages. Due to the international impact of English, middle and upper class parents place high value on learning English at school. Parents send their children to bilingual schools thinking that learning English will be an asset in the future for finding a job (Portal SEP, 29 January 2005). They invest considerable amounts of money so that their children can learn English from early childhood. Depending on the curriculum and on the type of education system that the school follows, children learn basic English most of the time, but in a few schools they become truly bilingual (González Robles et al., 2004). Urban parents from lower economic groups might share the same motivation but they do not usually have the money to pay for private education for their children, although a few may make considerable sacrifices in order to do so. Therefore, those who study in public schools will probably not learn languages other than Spanish (except for those involved in pilot programmes), and even Spanish may not be fully acquired from pre-school to elementary school. They will begin English or French in secondary school, where they will only learn the basics; a few words and structures with few communicative skills. Although much effort is put into improving the language teaching at primary levels, the students at the higher secondary level still have a very poor command of English, French, German or Italian (the languages taught at the higher secondary level). In many cases, their language level hinders them from reading texts in any language other than Spanish at the university and from obtaining scholarships in foreign countries for academic exchanges. Therefore, only the individuals who have access to private language courses can use these languages for study.16 Although the university offers foreign language courses, there are still not enough courses for the number of students who study at the university, and the level attained is not higher than high-intermediate, which leaves some students out of the competition for scholarships. Later, students who are excluded from the system, usually at the end of their studies, will look for language courses to pass the ‘language test requirement’ (reading compre-

la-6.indd 166

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109


167

hension only) in order to get their degrees. Sometimes they do not get their degrees because they do not pass the language test! Inequality then continues once the students go to work in the cities, where they face the fact that English is also a requirement for obtaining some of the best jobs. Even if English is not the language of work, it is usually a stipulated requirement. Moreover, some companies invest in employee language training, creating a great demand for commercial schools. Schools such as these usually offer business courses for executives, which are not offered by the university. Other students start studying English while working, hoping to acquire the necessary level of language to obtain a better-paid position. However, there are also good jobs that do not require the use of foreign languages, for instance, knowledge of English might be irrelevant for those who work in the internal commerce of the country or in local services and have other interests. This matter deserves serious investigation. Another aspect to be considered is migration. Studies are needed to determine the specific language needs of the urban communities. The migrants can be divided into two groups. On the one hand, indigenous migrants, and on the other, embassy staff and other foreigners who work in Mexico. In the first case, indigenous migrants come from different regions and usually speak different varieties of ILs. In fact, there are no elementary urban education programmes that address the special language needs of indigenous children who have migrated from rural to urban regions, nor for those who migrate to the United States (Smith, forthcoming). In the case of the second groups, pressure from parents from different foreign countries to have their children educated in bilingual and bicultural environments has resulted in the creation of international schools in Mexico with the express purpose of meeting their needs. For other communities (including the Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Chinese communities) language education is primarily a domestic activity. Attitudes towards the status and use of languages function as a filter that encourages or discourages the learning of any particular language. In Mexican contexts, individuals should decide what languages need to be learned to work and live in their own communities. Individuals usually feel pressure to learn Spanish when confronted with urban contexts where Spanish is required for work, but they can also feel the need to learn English if their urban context is affected by international migration or tourism. However, central educational policies offer little possibility of adapting policy to local needs.

Types of Curriculum Spanish and indigenous languages The educational system of any country is always one of the language planner’s most powerful tools; Mexico is no exception. The objectives of language education in Mexico have always been tied to historical events. First, during the conquest, the main objective of teaching Spanish was to evangelise. Later, after the Revolution, the idea was to unify the country through the learning of Spanish. Currently, the emphasis is on learning to read and write in Spanish. The difference lies in the focus of learning. At the beginning the aim was to increase the numbers of people learning Spanish, but the quality of learning was not an issue. More recently,

la-6.indd 167

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109

168


and as a result of the evaluation of educational standards worldwide carried out by UNESCO, Mexico, along with other countries in Latin America carried out a special campaign to improve the use and quality of Spanish, specifically students’ proficiency in reading and writing Spanish (Alvarado & Velázquez, 2002; Moreno de Alba, 2003). However, internal evaluation of the programmes for teaching Spanish seems to be less common or less thorough (Moreno de Alba, 2003). There is little literature documenting the functioning of Spanish teaching programmes at any level of education. Government officials have been requesting an evaluation of the structural programme for teaching Spanish since 1973. As yet, no public document has been published by the National and Technical Council of Education to account for the results of that programme (Moreno de Alba, 2003). It is not known whether the new programmes have been evaluated. In the last decade there has been interest in the learning and maintenance of ILs as exemplified in the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People, published in 2003. This interest has been prompted by the political concerns of authorities in an attempt to win votes for political parties but also, and more importantly, due to the interest of local people striving to build a new life without poverty. The early indigenous language programmes intended to Castilianise indigenous people, whereas more modern programmes tend to create a more symmetrical relationship between the language and culture of indigenous people and Spanish. As previously noted, bilingual and bicultural programmes have been very little studied, let alone evaluated (Hamel, 2003b). However, the direct observation of classes in some school contexts in Hidalgo (Hamel, 1981, 1984; Hamel & Muñoz, 1981, 1986), in Michoacan (Hamel, 2003a), in Queretaro (Hekking, 1995) and in Yucatan (Terborg, 1987) confirm that teaching in the indigenous language, even in transitional programmes, has proven to be more effective than teaching in Spanish in rural communities. According to De Gortari Krauss (1997), the objectives for children of language (Spanish) instruction in the first cycle of elementary education in indigenous languages are: (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

The development of oral skills: pronunciation, fluency, communicative effectiveness; coherency of expression during conversation, narrating, expressing ideas, describing, interviewing, discussing and understanding, among other skills. The acquisition of reading and writing abilities: learning and practicing the conventions of writing and its formal characteristics (directionality, word separation, space between letters, use of capitalisation, use of punctuation, etc.); and promoting communicative situations through writing so as to expand the social domains of use of the indigenous communities and languages. The introduction of students to the traditional literature of their ethnic groups. The promotion of reflection on the most meaningful formal characteristics of language such as words and syntax using an implicit methodology; that is, with no explicit explanation.

The student objectives in language learning for the first cycle of elementary education in Spanish are:

la-6.indd 168

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109


169

• Basic: Acquaintance with basic vocabulary through such games as lottery, dominoes and puzzles. • Initial: Orientation to the learning of oral skills in Spanish. • Intermediate: Development of previous skills and the introduction of writing. These three basic objectives are classified under the following three criteria: (1) (2) (3)

Frequency: From common structures to less common ones, according to the communities’ needs when interacting with Spanish speaking people. Difficulty: From simple to complex. Contrast: Focus on the structural characteristics of Spanish that have little relationship with those of the indigenous languages. (De Gortari Krauss, 1997: 156)

Although the contrastive approach has been shown to be inadequate for the teaching of some languages in certain contexts, the contrastive approach is considered adequate by specialists involved in programming the teaching of Spanish as a second language. Due to these specialists’ experience in the design of syllabuses for teaching Spanish, their proposals17 were taken as suitable for every linguistic context in Mexico. However, it is probable that contrastive analysis had proved inadequate in such a multilingual context since the syllabus was implemented in communities with teachers with different backgrounds, languages and levels of study who might not have found contrastive analysis to be the most suitable approach for teaching Spanish to indigenous students, and to speakers of different varieties of the same indigenous languages. Moreover, of a total of 39,000 elementary school teachers who taught at the basic level, 30% had graduated from secondary school, 24% had studied at least basic teacher training and 16% had undertaken lesser studies. It is uncertain what the academic background of the rest 30% is. Besides, according to the Inventario de Recursos Humanos de la Dirección General de Educación Indígena [Inventory of human resources of the General Office of Indigenous Education] 3,857 teachers (13.71%) spoke a language different from that of the students. Some of the problems that this enterprise faces (i.e. determining who has command of the language and what the fundamental criteria for evaluating should be) were reported. The suggestion was that the language communities themselves must decide. Because of this decision, some professionals involved in the use of indigenous languages will have to consider learning a wide variety of regional uses of the indigenous languages in order to establish some criteria, however controversial this might be. The type of language curriculum chosen may offer a clue to the focus of teaching Spanish and indigenous languages in Mexican schools. Information about how these programmes have evolved in Spanish has been scarce and unsystematic. In the 1980s, some studies of the teaching of indigenous languages in schools were undertaken (Hamel & Muñoz, 1982, 1988; Terborg, 2004), and reports by other colleagues (Hamel, 2003; Heath, 1986; Muñoz, 2002; Patthey Chavez, 1994) provide some account of the focus of the teaching of these languages. At the present time, a new proposal is being tested in Michoacan, where students at the elementary level learn contents in P’urepecha and then transfer their abilities into Spanish. Reports about this

la-6.indd 169

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109

170


project evaluate it positively (Hamel, 2003); however, such practices are scarce and unsystematic. Foreign languages The SEP defines the content for the teaching of English and French in public schools. However, incorporated private schools tend to adopt the tables of contents of commercial textbooks as a sort of syllabus, only copied into a different format; i.e. they divide the content of the book into units per month. This practice is also sometimes followed by non-regulated language schools. The UNAM has a prescribed curriculum for secondary and incorporated schools. However, no prescribed curriculum exists for the university language centres or the incorporated universities. The UNAM only evaluates and supervises the programmes submitted by the incorporated secondary schools and their teachers. It regulates the suitability of programmes and teacher qualifications at secondary and tertiary levels. The Centre for Foreign Languages at UNAM has its own objectives, but they have just been reviewed for the first time since their creation in the 1970s, when a series, GEPUS,18 was written and published by UNAM to meet the needs of university students learning English, but which was later abandoned due to lack of resources (Emilson et al., 1990). Books for other languages have also been produced, especially reading comprehension courses for university students in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Russian, but these are only used in the reading comprehension courses of the Centre. Apart from the GEPUS series, there are no textbooks for four skill courses. All courses tend, instead, to use international commercial textbooks, which must be adjusted for appropriate use with Mexican students. In the case of modern languages in Mexico in the 19th century, the objective was to broaden the culture and vision of higher secondary and university students. However, in the middle of the 20th century, after World War II, the interest in modern languages increased for economic and political reasons. French was gradually replaced by English as the foreign language to be learned in school. The objective, however, was to familiarise the students with basic grammar and vocabulary of the language. Little attention was paid to communication. The focus was still on form, though the audiolingual method remained in use in a few schools. Learning a foreign language was considered a luxury for the sons and daughters of privileged families. It was not until the late 1980s that English in Mexico was seen as the world language, as a part of the framework of globalisation, where English has become the language of international communication. Because of internationalisation, the quality of English language competence has become important. It is this international demand that places English at the centre of education in Mexico. However, it is only very recently that schools have adjusted their curricula to the international framework of reference and trained teachers in both language and methodology. Some universities have even started homogenising English syllabi within this framework without reviewing whether this is suitable for their specific contexts (Estrada Cortés, 2004).19 Nonetheless, the guidelines of the European framework of reference are being used in an effort to adjust to globalisation. However, the guidelines are taken as mandatory, without evaluating their suitability in the local context. International schools also follow the syllabi of the Ministry of Education of a

la-6.indd 170

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109


171

specific country for the teaching of languages, among other subjects, without modifying them for the Mexican context. In fact, English was already important in the 1980s. English was taught as an important language in public junior high schools at the rate of three hours a week (McConnell & Roberge, 1994). All the new programmes and initiatives reported on in the ensuing section illustrate actions that aim to attain an international level of English language competence. It will, however, take a decade to adjust the programmes to international requirements. In the meantime, according to the SEP, the objectives for the cycle of English and French in higher secondary school are: (1) (2)

(3)

First year: Students are acquainted with basic functions, vocabulary and reading comprehension strategies. Second year: Students are acquainted with basic functions, vocabulary and reading comprehension strategies in contexts different from those of the previous year. Third year: Students are acquainted with basic functions, vocabulary and reading comprehension strategies in contexts different from the previous year.

As one can see, this rather general structure needs some improvement; the SEP is working on a new proposal (RIES, 2005). In this revision, it is suggested that teachers use realistic contexts of communication for introducing language functions by introducing models of the type of linguistic production expected, as well as presenting activities to consolidate vocabulary and reading comprehension. The degree of complexity should move from simple to more difficult throughout the different years. Teachers should be given suggestions of the kinds of activities to do and what kind of texts to choose. However, an ethnographic study carried out in a secondary school (González Trejo, 2006) has revealed that such issues as motivation, self-esteem, attitudes towards the English cultures and languages are not being considered for in-service teacher development programmes. In higher secondary schools, different foreign language teaching programmes differ in focus in several ways; in the number of hours devoted to studying English, in the contents covered by the programmes; in the language proficiency of the teachers and the students. These discrepancies lead to horizontal and vertical curricular dislocation at all educational levels. Once students arrive at the university, they are not offered language courses. Language courses are offered at the university for two purposes: the first is to give those who are interested in learning a foreign language the chance to do so in their pursuit of a scholarship; the second is to give students the opportunity to prepare themselves for the language requirement test that is compulsory at the end of their degree courses in most faculties. For some, this examination implies reading in a foreign language, which over time has come to mean reading in English; for others, it is compulsory to show the proficiency of one or two foreign languages, usually English and French (García Landa & Terborg, 2004). The Centre of Foreign Language Teaching, CELE, also administers the institutional TOEFL examination, but many students tend not to succeed. The general English programme needs revision, but time constraints and lack of budget make this task impossible. The Zertifikat Deutsch

la-6.indd 171

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109

172


als Fremdsprache (Certificate of German as a Foreign Language), ÖSD (Österreichisches Sprachdiplom) [Diploma of Austrian Language) and the DELF (Diplôme d’études en langue française) and DALF (Diplôme approfondi de langue française) are also offered with more success. Two very recent certifications have been given by the Italian Institute of Culture from the University of Siena and the Chinese Embassy. In the near future Perugia will also offer evaluation of competence in the Italian language (García Landa & Terborg, 2004). At the present time, there are no explicit internal guidelines for the evaluation of language policy decisions at the UNAM. It was not until 2005 that a Special Commission for Foreign Languages was established to produce general objectives for language learning and their evaluation at the university. At present, this Commission is organising small sub-commissions of specialists in charge of specific areas of certification and evaluation (Report of the Special Commission for Foreign Languages, 2005). The lack of qualified teachers is a central concern for this Commission, but attending to these highly practical problems makes it difficult for the Commission to achieve perspective on the wider issues in language-in-education planning. As noted in previous sections, the type of language curriculum presently in use lacks articulation. It is not clear what objectives should be reached at each educational level. The framework of reference provides a guide to those involved in education to attain an international language proficiency level for students and professionals to compete in a globalising environment. However, there are still educational gaps to be filled, such as the incongruent planning of syllabi, the repetition of contents, the human and material infrastructure, and the scarcity of research in the field to evaluate the language educational system locally, globally and nationally. As noted at the beginning of this section, the level of competence of teachers and students depends on the type of educational system, the type of language community and the type of curriculum. The type of educational system also plays an important role in the communities’ preferences. The central educational system has always set the terms to favour centralist policies first for the learning of Spanish, and then for the learning of foreign languages, more recently giving special emphasis to the learning of English. Although the central educational system has allowed some independence on the setting of local policies, these have not been supported with infrastructure, thereby causing successful pilot programmes to fail. The efforts undertaken by local communities within the realm of education depend on the current political stance on the added value of learning certain languages. This dependence means that financial support for these projects is usually only forthcoming for short periods of time and in small quantities, to allow politicians to gain votes in their campaigns. In this way, policy has moved from a nationalistic pattern to a plurilinguistic one. Equally, there is a documented history of the implementation of new programmes without evaluating their suitability and without demanding accountability. This history applies to indigenous as well as to international languages. Language communities associate beliefs, values and traditions to the use of specific languages; the disappearance of a particular language results in the extinction of the culture as well as the language. In the next section, migration will be shown to play a central role in the process of language shift. Rural and

la-6.indd 172

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109


173

urban language communities mingle as a result of migration. The pressure of work favours the use of Spanish in public domains, whereas the use of indigenous languages is restricted to private domains. Although there have been efforts to include ILs in the media and school, these have been mainly organised on a micro level by small language communities to maintain and revitalise their languages and cultures. Nevertheless, the resources available to those communities are limited in comparison to the resources available to communities funded by the Alliance Française, the British Council or La Real Academia de la Lengua Española [The Royal Academy of Spanish Language]. Therefore, although revitalisation programmes have a modest impact locally, language policies for the learning of international languages have a greater impact nationally, causing parents to prefer their children to become bilingual in Spanish and another international language (mainly English) than in Spanish and any individual IL. In the case of international migrants, English is even more prestigious than Spanish. Language curriculum has also been observed to be marked by contradictions. What syllabus designers propose usually reflects a different perspective on teaching than that held by the actual teachers, students, parents and local authorities that work at the chalk-face, and the latter are rarely taken into consideration in national curricular design. Local needs might have been recognised, and some projects for meeting those needs may even have come into existence, but the infrastructure needed for such programmes to become successful is still not in place.

Part IV: Policies and Practices A language policy is a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned language change in the society, group or system. Only when such policy exists can any sort of serious evaluation of planning occur. ‘Language policy’ may be realised at a number of levels, from very formal language planning documents and pronouncements to informal statements of intent (i.e., the discourse of language, politics and society) which may not at first glance seem like language policies at all. Indeed, . . . policy statements tend to fall into two types – symbolic and substantive, where the first articulates good feelings toward change (or perhaps ends up being so nebulous that it is difficult to understand what language specific concepts may be involved), and the latter articulates specific steps to be taken. (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997: xi) As noted in Part II, in Mexico, language policy falls into the symbolic type more often than into the substantive one. At the macro and meso levels, there is much of the symbolic power entailed in the politicians’ and authorities’ desire to win votes from a significant percentage of the population, which happens to be made up of indigenous people. At the micro planning level, language communities have enjoyed more positive results, since they have taken an active part in the substantial changes and have seen them prosper. However, it has also been observed that such efforts face economic difficulties that sometimes create a real barrier for the survival of these communities’ languages, as demonstrated by the Kiliwa revitalisation project, mentioned in Part II.

la-6.indd 173

30/03/2007 10:28:27

CILP No: 109

174


This section will describe and discuss how macro and meso level planning in Mexico has led to language death, subject to the desires of those in power (political, educational and economic authorities) whereas those actions taken at the micro level, involving the initiative and work of indigenous people have remained – a development that can be seen as the only way out for the maintenance of indigenous languages. Initially, language policies in the area of education will be described and discussed. We have decided to approach these policies chronologically since such an approach shows the conflicting views of language policy and planning inherent in the macro, meso and micro levels. As described in the first section, several socioeconomic factors have led to the formation of actual language policies, resulting from language planning and language-in-education planning. This section will try to trace the historical development of those decisions that underlie language-in-education policies, dividing this discussion into policies for indigenous languages, policies for Spanish and policies for foreign languages in chronological order. In 1596 the Council of the Indies proposed that King Phillip II issue a decree designating Spanish as the compulsory language to be used in communication between the indigenous caciques (local indigenous leaders) and the officers of the Spanish Empire, and specifying that the caciques would be punished if they failed to comply. However, the King added a handwritten note to the decree in which he stated that Indians could use their own native languages, that they would be taught Spanish on a voluntary basis and that orders would be conferred only on those who spoke the language of the Indians (Zavala, 1997: 70–71). Later, in 1769, the archbishop of Mexico, Francisco Antonio Lorenzana, expressed his ideas regarding the advantages of the Indians using Spanish. In 1770, King Carlos III of Spain decreed that the Indians should use Spanish and stated that Spanish should be used in the public domain and that the indigenous languages should be barred from it (Zavala, 1997: 72). This policy confined the use of indigenous languages to private domains and gave rise to diglossic language communities. However, during the Reform (1854–1859), this view of the integration of Indian people into the national programme assured the loss of their customs and their languages in a progressive assimilation of the indigenous people to the mestizo culture and language (Spanish) (Pimentel, 1864). Afterwards, in a new law, Maximilian restored the legal status of indigenous communities, as well as their right to own land in common (Félix Báez, 1989: 12). In 1902, Justo Sierra, a liberal intellectual, would reaffirm the old need for language unification given the presence of a group of radically different languages, once the Superior Council of Public Education was established (Zavala, 1997: 73). Towards the end of the Porfirian dictatorship (1877–1880 and 1884–1911), there were some attempts to support indigenous communities: (1)

la-6.indd 174

In 1905, The Office of Secretary of Public Instruction and Fine Arts (former Secretary of Public Education [Ministry of Education] was founded, and Justo Sierra was appointed director. In 1910, Sierra convened a committee to organise the Third Congress on Elementary Education. The topics dealt with were education uniformity, the situation of indigenous education,

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109


(2)

(3)

175

the evaluation of the previous accords and the anti-alcohol campaign (Espinoza Carbajal, 2002). In 1906, Enrique C. Creel, governor of Chihuahua, promulgated the first law that favoured indigenous peoples. The Creel law attempted to promote the ‘civilisation’ of indigenous people, their social development, their education, as well as their ownership of property. He proposed that Díaz donate 250,000 hectares of national territory in the Sierra Madre de Chihuahua to the Tarahumaras. However, this law was never implemented (Félix Báez, 1989: 15). In 1910, Belmar, magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico, promoted the founding of the Indigenous Mexican Society with the sole objective of studying indigenous races and promoting their advancement. The idea was received positively by high ranking functionaries and important persons of the Porfirian political régime. The government praised the project and established a grant of 100,000 pesos annually to instruct indigenous people in Spanish reading, writing and grammar.

During the First Indigenous Congress (30 October 1910), it was recognised that the demands of the indigenous people were far from being met. However, the Porfirian dictatorship, despite initial signs that these measures would be supported, condemned them to repression (Félix Báez, 1989: 16; Zavala, 1997: 73). Díaz was concerned at this point with attracting foreign investment in the mining and textile industries as well as in the construction of railroad and telegraph lines. The sharp about-turn in policy apparently was inspired by his opposition to the rich owners of large estates, increasing their properties and assigning them communal lands that belonged to the locals; once he realised that the rich owners were convenient friends, the pro-indigenous policies no longer seemed so attractive. It is also true that the education of the under-privileged was never a central concern of the Porfirian dictatorship. Just before the Díaz period came to an end, a Law of Rudimentary Instruction was proposed. The purpose of this law was to offer education to the people, specifically, to the indigenous people. The law was approved in 1911, and the Rudimentary School was created. Its purpose was to teach indigenous people to speak, to read and to write in Spanish, as well as to perform simple mental calculations. The law remained in force for two years, and its specifications were not to be considered compulsory. Rudimentary schools would be developed in regions with high levels of illiteracy. However, some months after this law was enacted, it was discovered that the law would be difficult to implement due to the large population that needed to be included. Besides, a large and complex linguistic plurality (including many dialects) made it difficult to settle on a common language policy. Moreover, the budget was insufficient to the task. The budget was progressively reduced each year, and it was evident that a more integrated educational approach was required. In spite of these problems, by 1912, there were 206 rudimentary schools with 50 students in each. This tendency to provide education to the poor would be intensified after the promulgation of the 1917 Constitution. Once the 1917 Constitution was promulgated, the Secretary of Public Instruction and Fine Arts officially ceased to exist. Article 3 of the Constitution stipulated that education was to be under the control of each state and district.

la-6.indd 175

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109

176


Now, Mexico City schools would depend directly on the city council. However, this latter codicil failed to perform its function, and after two years the schools were transferred to the Department of Public Education. According to Article 7, Section IV, of the 1917 Constitution, public education and its decentralised entities, as well as private institutions with authorisation and official recognition would be expected to ‘promote, through the teaching of the national language – Spanish – a common language for all Mexicans, without detriment to the protection and promotion of indigenous languages’. In spite of the fact that the 1917 Constitution mandated the protection and promotion of indigenous languages, ethnic minorities and their languages were not considered part of national society. None of the articles that dealt with the official language of the Mexican nation mentioned the existence of the languages spoken by the majority of the population at the time of Independence. The transmission of Spanish had been the main goal of education for indigenous populations since then. In planning educational systems, policies did not take into account the ethnic or linguistic diversity of the polity (Nahmad, 1997: 109–15). The fact that Mexico was in turmoil, suffering from severe political instability, might have led to intensive language contact among those involved in war who might have adopted Spanish as a lingua franca. The most important chiefs of Villa might even have had contact with English speaking people for trading in weapons. Those who remained isolated might have kept their languages for their private use. Once the Constitution was proclaimed and the war negotiated to a conclusion, it is probable that some communities had migrated to other places in search of food and work, since most of the land had been devastated by the wars. The following years were marred by a myriad of contradictory political perspectives that sometimes favoured external international relationships at the expense of internal ones. At times, this balance was inverted, especially during the administration of President Cárdenas. The governments of Obregón (1920–1923), Ávila Camacho (1940–1946), Alemán (1946–1952), Ruíz Cortines (1952–1958), López Mateos (1958–1964), Díaz Ordaz (1964–1970), Echeverría Álvarez (1970– 1976), López Portillo (1976–1982), De la Madrid (1982–1988), Salinas (1988–1994), Zedillo (1994–2000) and Fox (2000–2006) have been progressive, opening up to foreign investment in Mexico, with moderate to occasionally obtuse views of local priorities. Presidents Calles (1924–1928), Portes Gil (1932–1934), Rodríguez (provisional president (1932–1934) and Cárdenas (1934–1940) had focused more on local needs. This policy shift implied that, after the 1940s, the process of industrialisation intensified conditions of poverty in the rural zones and caused the rural poor to migrate first to the big cities and later to the USA. During the period between 1921 and 1940, there was a strong interest in rural education. The period between 1940 and 1958 witnessed the promotion of national unity, which included the unification of syllabi in elementary and normal education, but neglected the significant disparity between rural and urban populations. This neglect gave rise to the Organic Law of Public Education in 1941, the reform of Article 3 of the Constitution and a demographic explosion in urban elementary schools. Vasconcelos struggled to make access to public education accessible to all Mexican people, who were generalised as mestizos. His educational proposal was anchored in three basic elements: the teacher, the artist and the book. Con-

la-6.indd 176

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109


177

sequently, the SEP was structured into three departments: Academics, Fine Arts and Libraries. Vasconcelos pursued two objectives: to achieve national identity and unity and to abolish illiteracy in Spanish. He also aspired to allocate a shared responsibility for education both to the central government and to the states. As a consequence, a new relationship was established, and accords and agreements were negotiated with state governments in accordance with the economy of each state and their specific situations and results. In 1923, Corona Morfín, a rural teacher, presented the Secretary of Public Education with a document entitled ‘Guidelines for the operation of a peoples’ house’, which was approved by Vasconcelos. The peoples’ house was an integral project that sought to develop a school for the community and a community for the school, so that the rural indigenous school emerged as the result of the co-operation of the whole community; children, men and women. It was to be perceived as something that belonged to them – something in which their collective needs were always present. Many teachers in this programme worked with children in the primary school, with adults in continuing education and with the whole community as advisers. The same textbooks and teaching methodology were used to teach reading and writing to children as were used for adults. Although the project was considered one of the first steps in favoir of popular and national education, it was discontinued when the budget was cut from 52 million to 25 million pesos. During the period from 1924 to 1928, educational policy was determined by the economy, which was considered at the time to be the most important instrument of progress and economic development, as well as the hub of national integration. During President Calles’ government, the ‘peoples’ houses’ were turned into rural schools; missionaries became inspectors and supervisors and roles were systematised. Education in general became more practical, and educational objectives were redesigned to make peasants – the rural poor – more autonomous. The number of rural schools tripled, as did the number of cultural missions. This co-operation favoured the development of several campaigns for the benefit of rural and indigenous communities. However, a religious conflict in the middle of President Calles’ administration caused most of the schools to close or to work in secrecy. Children stopped attending schools, influenced by their parents’ fears that had been triggered by priests. But the rural school movement continued until 1930. During this time – 1924– 1928 – rural schools were supported by the circuit schools and children and adults were Castilianised. The number of rural schools increased from 500 to 700, but after a short period of expansion there was a decline. By 1932 only 64 rural schools remained. The causes for the rapid decline were multiple: lack of resources, badly prepared and under-paid teachers, resistance to the official programmes which neglected local needs and opposition from local and state authorities. The percentage of illiteracy was appalling – 59% of the population was illiterate, and of these 50% were women. In 1932, the peasants’ regional schools were created due to the shortage of teachers. These rural schools brought together the rural and regional normal schools, the agricultural schools and cultural missions with the rural elementary schools. The Mexican Institute of Linguistic Research was founded in la Cañada de los Once Pueblos, Michoacán, where the Experimental Station of Indig-

la-6.indd 177

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109

178


enous Incorporation project (CARAPAN) started. The magazine El maestro rural [The Rural Teacher] was edited by the SEP. Several issues of this magazine were devoted to the teaching of ILs. This perception of regional schools would change radically with the election of Cárdenas in 1934. He openly favoured a social (collectivist) view of education and focused on the working classes, giving the state strict control over elementary education. The education budget – especially for rural education – grew considerably. This change was important because the rural population in 1934 comprised 66.53% of the total population, and 79% of the economically active population was involved in the agricultural sector, the main source of wealth in Mexico at the time. The purpose of school was to transform the reality of the schooled population in order to construct a new society. Article 3 of the Constitution was revised to adapt it to socialist ideals in education. Elementary school was divided into rural (four years) and urban (six years) sectors. From 1946 to 1952, a democratic perspective was given to secondary and tertiary education. Tertiary education was expected to support economic development for the industrialisation and economic recovery of the country. The objective was to achieve Mexican identity, which presupposed a homogeneous culture and a collective will. In 1947 there was a demographic explosion in the elementary school, which left programmes such as adult literacy, rural schools, indigenous issues and agricultural education uncovered. From 1958, 1700 children had abandoned their studies after the third year of education. Of every 1000 children who went to school, only 22 obtained the elementary school certificate; however, of those 978 children who abandoned school before the sixth year not all were forced to do so for socioeconomic reasons, but rather because 81% of schools did not offer all the cycles necessary to earn a certificate. They were only able to offer three or four years of education because of a lack of teachers and resources. As a consequence, an 11 year plan – ‘National Plan for the Spread and Amelioration of Elementary Education’ – was implemented. This plan was scheduled to be put into practice between 1959 and 1970. It was also the result of an international education policy implemented by UNESCO in order to spread elementary education across Latin-America. This international project would last from 1957 to 1967. From 1959 to 1982 the large urban demand for elementary education, coupled with severe neglect of rural education, led the federal government to propose the continuation of the Eleven Years Plan and to plan an integral elementary education based on the reform of 1972. This reform covered the entire educational spectrum. A process of ‘economic modernisation of education’ was initiated in 1982, ending with the state’s reform and the signing of the National Accord for the Modernisation of Basic Education (ANMEB) in 1992. This accord gave birth to a new relationship between the Secretary of Public Education (SEP), state governments and the National Union of Educational Workers (SNTE). Both plans led to an increase in the number of elementary school students to 8 million (63.3% of the population) in 1970 and to 12.6 million (70.2% in 1980). The rural system of elementary schools was restructured. The telesecundaria [telesecondary] project (described in Part III) was launched to reach rural areas nationally. Unfortunately, as with so many other projects, budget shortages

la-6.indd 178

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109


179

coupled with the conflicts left by the social dissent led by university students in 1968 did not allow this plan to come to fruition. The National Law of Adult Education was approved in 1975, and community courses, which were to take education to the most isolated areas in the country, were piloted. These courses were supported by the National Council of Educational Promotion (CONAFE). Additionally, the Federal Law of Education, that became effective in 1973 and would remain in force until 1993, stated that educational contents and materials were to be the same for all school groups, emphasising the fact that the Secretaries and Education Officials did not support proposals to include indigenous languages as national languages in the Constitution, since the authorities foresaw a danger to national integrity. Rather, they promoted a subrosa paternalistic subjection of the indigenous communities to the national project through their education (De Gortari Krauss, 1997). In 1978, the General Management of Indigenous Education (DGEI), with normative, evaluative and investigative functions, was created to meet the demand for adequate education to indigenous children. The new Internal Regulation of the Ministry of Education (SEP) proposed an education suitable for the background and context of indigenous people without ignoring the national context (De Gortari Krauss, 1997). However, after some years of educational prosperity, a shortage in the Federal and Social budget materialised, affecting education drastically during Miguel de la Madrid’s government (1982–1988). As a result, there were fewer elementary schools and less equipment, resulting in a general decrease in resources for the school age population. Despite these shortcomings, in 1985 the educational policy for indigenous populations was focused on the development of local and national cultures and languages. Bilingual education was implemented in several different ways in rural areas with varying results (Coronado, 1997: 140). Aubage (1987), on the other hand, argues that, at the time, bilingual education in Mexico disregarded the diglossic situation existing between Spanish and the indigenous languages. Bilingual education considered the learning of Spanish as the sole objective of the educational programmes, converting the learning of ILs into a transitional stage to acquiring the dominant language, without ever asking people if they were interested in preserving their languages or noting that indigenous languages are oral languages. Yet, in July 1993 the General Law of Education recognised that one of the goals was to promote a common language, Spanish, without hindering the protection, promotion and development of indigenous languages (De Gortari Krauss, 1997). In the same year, it was decided, after some research, that children should first acquire their first language and then learn Spanish as a second language. It was also stated that new learning should begin from the children’s level of knowledge, according to their cultural background and with bilingual teachers. Some of the problems highlighted by this research were: • • • •

la-6.indd 179

the lack of teaching materials in the children’s languages; insufficient material for all levels; inadequate distribution of the available materials; language deficiency among most of the teachers, especially with regard to written skills;

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109

180


• the linguistic variety spoken by the teachers; • the teachers’ low educational level; and • the lack of infrastructure (buildings, furniture). In 1995, the Plan and Programme for Elementary Education was also ratified by law. It sought to construct an adequate curriculum for indigenous children, using a flexible programme which would address both national and local diversity. A functional communicational approach was to be used to teach the first language and Spanish. This programme aimed to achieve national unification through education. During the first two years, books for the first two cycles of elementary school were written by ethno-linguists and work teams from the General Directorate of Indigenous Education (DGEI) which also supervised the elaboration of the curriculum and elementary school programmes, paying special attention to the stimulation of abilities and basic knowledge. The first versions of the books were piloted, and suggestions from the teachers were considered for modifications (Gortari Krauss, 1997). This tendency became more intense with the social and political events after 1995. In 1996 the first series of agreements between the EZLN (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) [Zapatist Army of National Liberation] and the federal government were signed within the framework of a ‘Dialogue to achieve peace with justice and dignity’ that took place in San Andrés Larraínzar. Some of the agreements were: ‘to promote and develop indigenous people’s languages and cultures, as well as their social, political, religious and cultural customs and traditions’ (Document 2, Section 2, paragraph 6); ‘[to] ratify the right to bilingual and intercultural education of indigenous people’ (Section III, paragraph 4). In Document 3.1, Section 1, the following linguistic rights for indigenous people are specified: (a) (b)

(c)

the use of their own languages in declarations and testimony, which should be registered with a translation in Spanish; the right to ask for interpreters, with their explicit acceptance, who know both the IL and Spanish, who share and respect the indigenous culture and the legal system; the right to require a counsel for defence with knowledge of the IL and the indigenous legal system.

Despite political discourse, no president since 1997 has defended the linguistic rights agreed upon in the San Andrés Accord. In 2001, the initiative to create a ‘Federal Law of Linguistic Rights’ was proposed (Desmet, forthcoming). However, recognition is not widespread enough to gain actual language rights. Actions must be taken in order to create language domains where ILs can actually be used. Since 2000, however, there has been a boom in the development of bilingual educational programmes for indigenous and foreign languages. This boom might be due to the internal and external pressures on the current social, cultural, political and economic situation in Mexico and in the language communities that comprise it. However, there has also been some interest in developing advanced Spanish skills in reading and writing. We will now review some of the educational programmes that have been

la-6.indd 180

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109


181

promoted by the current administration at the Ministry of Education. In 2001 the ‘SEPA inglés’ programme was started for the lower and higher secondary levels (264 schools, 38 in Mexico City), a programme coordinated by the LatinAmerican Institute of Educational Communication (Instituto Latinoamericano de la Comunicación Educativa, ILCE) and the Ministry of Education (SEP). This programme is also offered privately by some commercial companies in 10 states of Mexico, and it is also available to employees of the Ministry of Education (SEP), the ILCE and the Electricity Company in Mexico City, Chiapas, Veracruz and Tabasco (Portal SEP, 2003). During the same year, several programmes and measures were also implemented for the teaching of English as a foreign language: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

The Free English programme for 234 6th year basic elementary school children in Tlanepantla, State of Mexico. The programme intends to spur language acquisition at the secondary level to improve levels of achievement, since English language studies has been the second most often failed subject in lower secondary in the country (Díaz, 2004). A programme for teaching Mexican immigrants in the United States within the framework of an agreement with the Mexican-American Solidarity Foundation. This programme seeks to prevent immigrant children from dropping out of school once they go to the USA (Naciff, 2004). A programme for learning English in elementary schools in Hidalgo through TIC [Technological and Informatic Communication]. The first phase is to implement these courses in the 6th level through games, songs and interactive programmes to cater to children’s motivation to learn the language. In the following phases it will be extended to other grades, including kindergarten (Hernández, 2004). An educational model for technological secondary education. Curricular innovation, intensification of English language courses from four hours in two semesters to three hours during the first four semesters and five hours in the following semesters. Teacher training and certification, as well as infrastructure (laboratories). English courses for high school and superior normal school English language teachers (Portal SEP, 2004).

This positive language situation is also encouraging university educational authorities to define their internal language policies regarding foreign languages. In 2003, the agreement for the creation of a Special Commission of Foreign Languages (COELE)20 was published in the Gaceta21 UNAM. Its objective is to coordinate the academic entities that are involved in the field of foreign languages at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) – mainly teaching, research, evaluation, teacher development, certification and design – to propitiate and develop beneficial actions that favour intercultural dialogue. The Special Commission of Foreign Languages is expected to carry out the following functions: (a)

la-6.indd 181

planning and defining mechanisms of co-ordination for the revision and exchange of foreign language teaching programmes and teaching materials;

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109

182


(b) (c) (d) (e)

proposing research in applied linguistics; promoting foreign language syllabus evaluation; producing teaching materials; submitting policies for the dissemination of knowledge in applied linguistics; designing strategies to update and develop academics’ knowledge of the cultures of the languages they teach in different schools; promoting the training of teachers involved in foreign language teaching; counseling academic entities and university departments that benefit from the services of teaching, evaluation, creditation or research in foreign languages, in the specific needs of foreign language learning and foreign language requirements, according to their needs; revising and evaluating the current language policies involved in the programmes and syllabuses of the different university departments and postgraduate courses; establishing criteria for the certification of foreign language teachers; establishing criteria for application and evaluation of certification exams for foreign language teachers

(f) (g) (h)

(i)

(j) (k)

This commission has the freedom to design certification examinations for foreign language teachers. It is supported by all the schools, centres and faculties involved in the teaching or certification of foreign languages and these schools, in turn, supervise the commission’s actions (Gaceta UNAM, 2003: 641). Major media language Radio and TV are the most important means of communication, information and entertainment for the population in general, as reflected in the political, social, educational, economic and cultural realms. The signal is not restricted and hence covers almost the entire population. In Mexico, radio and television are regulated by the Federal Law of Radio and Television and by the Regulations of this Law and those of the Law of the Cinematographic Industry. However, satellite communication is also included because it plays an important role in rural and distance education. The Federal Law of Radio and Television, published in 1970, in Title 4, Chapter 3, Articles 75 and 76, states: Article 75 ‘In their transmissions broadcasting stations should use the national language. The Department of the Interior will be able to authorise, in special cases, the use of other languages, as long as this other language text is followed by a Spanish unabridged or summarised version’; Article 76 ‘In all proof or splicing transmission that is carried out in the stations, as well as during the development of programmes and in lapses no longer than 30 minutes, the nominal letters that characterise the station, followed by the name of the location where it is installed should be expressed in Spanish.’ These articles apply to the use of languages in the media in general. The ensuing section contains the description of each media and the way this law is applied in each of these media.

la-6.indd 182

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109


183

Satellite communication A very important satellite communication project is the teleport Edusat (Educational Television Web via Satellite), which was developed between 1994 and 2000 by the federal government. This programme was recently digitalised, permitting the transmission of 24 TV channels. Edusat now covers up to 35,000 receiver stations installed in Telesecundarias [Telesecondaries] and other educational and cultural centres in the country, reaching a potential 1.2 million students. These figures bolster the social impact of this system, which is an extraordinary instrument to support teaching in rural areas and more recently for distance education. Radio in general Radio transmissions started in 1921; since then it has grown continuously. In Mexico, 99% of the population has access to radio. (Programa sectorial de comunicaciones y transportes, 2001–2006) [Sectorial Programme of Communication and Transport]. AM currently has 759 affiliates and 96 licensees, while FM has 387 affiliates and 212 licensees. There are also five affiliates and 11 licensees for short-wave radio stations. Some 130 affiliated stations entered into operation to increase the coverage of radio broadcasting in several cities. As stated by the Federal Law of Radio and Television of 1970, Spanish is the major language of the media in Mexico. Of the 338 radio stations in the republic, 309 transmit mainly in Spanish (Mejía, 1997). Only a few radio stations transmit in French, German or English with the support of the Ministry of Culture or through Radio UNAM with the permission of the Secretaría de Gobernación [The Department of the Interior]. Indigenous radio In 1978 the National Indigenous Institute (INI) set up their first radio station with programming based on three basic concepts: (1)

(2) 3)

Culture: manners, customs, habits, knowledge, beliefs, forms of organisation and expression, techniques and abilities, including singing, language, dance, music, ways of working the land, traditional medicine, short stories, myths, legends, sculpture, ceramics, pottery, textiles, clothing and design, food, beverages and ways to prepare them. Indigenism: Active involvement of the indigenous population in problem solving, participating mainly in the process of decision making. Communication: The presence of subjects in the communicative process where communities exchange and share experiences, knowledge, and feelings; establish relationships and strive to understand the make up of a social community.

The purpose of this radio station was to contribute to the improvement of the communities and to the strengthening of their cultures. By 1989, the INI had seven broadcast stations distributed throughout the country, with a potential indigenous audience of 2 million people. The broadcasts were transmitted in 14 languages (including regional varieties of Spanish); 90% of the radio station

la-6.indd 183

30/03/2007 10:28:28

CILP No: 109

184


Figure 4 Map of Mexico with the locations of the 20 indigenous radio stations adapted from CDI (2004). The circles indicate the area covered by the signal of the counties that receive a signal. The pin represents the broadcasting stations still in operation.

personnel were indigenous and carried out activities that went from management levels to administrative support (Plascencia, 1988). The former INI (Instituto Nacional Indigenista) [National Indigenous Institute] broadcasting system has now been integrated into the CDI (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) [National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples). This system was organised in 1979 to provide promotion and diffusion of indigenous cultures and traditions. At present, the CDI system has 20 indigenous stations. In addition, four experimental low power (FM) stations have been installed as a part of a pilot project to increase the knowledge and management of the media by Mayan children from the indigenous boarding schools. Figure 4 illustrates the CDI system which covers 16 states, 954 districts, 31 indigenous languages and Spanish and 22 million potential listeners of which 5.5 million are of indigenous origin (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) (National Commission for the Development of Idigenous Peoples, 2004). There are a few indigenous populations who have access to a few programmes

la-6.indd 184

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109


185

in the local languages. These broadcasts are only available in rural areas (Plascencia, 1988). They have only a small indigenous staff, a teacher or bilingual promoter, and a commentator for each of the 10 languages involved in the programme. For example, La Voz de la Sierra Norte [The Voice of Sierra Norte], using the call-letters XECTZ, constitutes a forum for the revival of indigenous culture as well as for the improvement of social conditions of the population. It has time slots for both general and cultural regional information. Regular TV Television transmissions were initiated in 1950 and cover up to 96.5% of the population. TV services are offered through VHF (Very High Frequency) and UHF (Ultra High Frequency) bands; however, the location of transmitters and the presence of various topographic obstructions may limit reception. Up to the year 2000, the installation of 1792 transmission points had been promoted to extend the TV service area through affiliates. So far 55% (c. 1000) have been installed. There was an important increase in the number of permits to install and operate educational and cultural stations in both rural and urban communities, many of which lacked this service. The operation of these stations (both radio and television) entails mainly social and cultural functions, constituting a programming alternative to that of commercial stations. However, as these stations are supported largely by state governments, educational institutions and sponsors, and as such are restricted by the limitations imposed by the Federal Law of Radio and Television, they face difficulties in financing their operations, caused by the inefficiency of content production or resulting from specific budget restrictions. Regular TV channels transmit mostly in Spanish. (In certain regions such as the Mayan areas some programming is broadcast in the local language) (Mexicoradiotv, 2006). Restricted TV Cable TV began in 1955 in Nogales, Sonora. This service, offered through MMDS technology (Television via Codified Microwaves) received the first licence to distribute its signal in Mexico City and the Metropolitan area in 1988. Ten years later, a public auction was held to assign frequencies to provide restricted television microwave service, making it possible to spread this service to new regions and to complete channel allocation in those regions that received partial service. In 1994, DTH service (Direct TV via satellite) also became available. Restricted TV transmits some dubbed or subtitled programmes in Spanish and some others in English and German (Deutsche Welle) and airs some films in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Russian, among other languages. Commercials are entirely in Spanish. Those who own a satellite receiver dish can access a wider variety of programmes in virtually all of the languages of the world. Very few TV stations transmit material in indigenous languages. People from rural areas normally listen to the radio and watch TV in Spanish. Some receive transmissions in local languages. The same can be said for lower class urban families who cannot afford cable TV. Middle- and upper-class families have access to cable television, but very few of them own satellite receiver dishes. However, it is possible that the increasing spread of this service will lower its cost so that more families will have access to it in the future.

la-6.indd 185

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109

186


Consequences of the current Reform of the Federal Law of Radio and TV Within the framework of the San Andrés Accord (see Parts I, II), the need to initiate intercultural dialogue and develop indigenous cultures was established, giving indigenous people their own communication media. In order to guarantee this right, a proposal was addressed to the national legislative bodies to create a new law of communication empowering indigenous people to receive, operate and administer their own media. This law should consider: • • • • •

the pluricultural character of the nation; the right to use indigenous languages in the media; the right to replication; a guarantee of the rights of expression, information and communication; the democratic participation of indigenous communities and peoples before the communication authorities (Montes, 2006).

Given the new Reform of the Federal Law of Radio and TV, indigenous communities will find it difficult to compete with the two Mexican oligopolies: • Televisa, which transmits 93 of the 100 programmes most widely seen in Mexico; and • TVAzteca. Televisa and TVAzteca have recently extended their licences for an additional 20 years, without participating in an auction (Fernández-Vega, 2006). One of the most important changes resulting from the Reform will be to establish a system of public auction to obtain licences. A public auction implies conferring a licence to one of the competitors that participated in the bidding in response to an invitation. The competitor who obtains the licence is the one who clearly assures the best use of a national public benefit, under the principles of equity, competence and transparency (Montes, 2006). However, in order for a person or group to access the use of a radio or television frequency, that person or group must participate in a public auction in competition with hugely successful enterprises such as Televisa and TVAzteca where they are clearly at an enormous disadvantage. It is believed that the federal, state and municipal authorities are disregarding their constitutional responsibility to establish the conditions allowing the indigenous communities and peoples to receive, operate and administer their own media. This notion was agreed to in the San Andrés Accord as a means to compensate for the history of inequality under which indigenous communities have suffered. It is a reality that these communities will not be able to compete with large consortia under the conditions that have been described. Therefore, the very existence of indigenous community broadcasting is in danger of extinction, and should indigenous communities fail in this effort, the possibility of introducing ILs in important public domains such as radio and TV will disappear. Paradoxically, the success of the large consortia may help to sustain the use of Televisa and TVAzteca Spanish (bland Spanish) internationally.

la-6.indd 186

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109


187

Motion pictures In this section we will explore the ways in which language policies are put into practice in the cinematography industry. The Federal Law of Cinematography, revised in 1998, stipulates, in Chapter 1, Article 8: Pictures will be exhibited to the public in their original version and, if necessary, they will be subtitled in Spanish, in the terms established by the regulations. Those classified for young audience or as educational documentaries may be dubbed in Spanish for exhibition. In Chapter IV, Article 19, the law specifies that exhibitors will reserve 10% of total exhibition time in their respective theatres for the projection of national films except as has been agreed to in international accords, in which Mexico has not stipulated restrictions on screen time. In the same chapter, Article 23 indicates that, to maintain national linguistic identity, the dubbing of foreign films will be done in Mexico, with Mexican or Mexican resident staff and actors living in the country, except for such dispositions as have been made in international agreements (Federal Law of Cinematography, 1998). Some documentary films have been made by the indigenous communities, but under very basic conditions. This limitation has in fact helped to provide a critical alternative to regular commercial Mexican films in which indigenous people are often represented as the poor, the ignorant and as those whose use of the Spanish language is not standard. These films are popular; the municipal plazas where these Spanish language documentaries are presented are packed; people even ask for screenings at parties and celebrations. The films show experiences from indigenous life and offer a window on the problems and beliefs of indigenous people, leading to positive reinforcement of their values and identity (Becerril, 1988). The written media The ensuing paragraphs deal with the written media, specifically newspapers, literature and translation. Written media are becoming increasingly computerbased, an area which provides important business opportunities for Televisa and TVAzteca, the two big Mexican consortia described earlier. At the same time, newspapers and books continue to circulate both in print and in electronic versions nationally and internationally. Newspapers In Mexico 151 newspapers, published in Spanish, are distributed in most states. In addition, a number of newspapers are published in indigenous languages; these newspapers usually appear in large indigenous urban communities. Some newspapers have been published in Mayan and Spanish for Maya, mestizo or foreign readers who live in the Yucatan region. Some other publications have appeared occasionally; for example, two newspapers appeared only during the time that Montemayor coordinated the Workshop on Maya Language, and in addition, in 1987 a monolingual newspaper entitled u yalal maya wiiniko’ ob (The Awakening of the Mayas) appeared as well as a bilingual newspaper entitled u k’aayil maaya t’aan (The chant of the Mayan language) was published from 1988 to 1990.

la-6.indd 187

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109

188


Another example is the magazine xunaan kaab (The Mayan Bee), published by the University of Yucatan and Popular Cultures. Publications have been made possible through the support of the INEA [National Institute of Adult Education], INI [Indigenous National Institute], the Institute of Culture of Yucatan and the Regional Yucatan Branch of Popular Cultures (May, 1997). A few of the Mexican dailies (such as Excelsior) publish editions of their papers in English. In the tourist zones in Mexico City, the most famous world newspapers in English, French and German (e.g. Le Monde, the Financial Times and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) are readily available. Some private university libraries also maintain a corner where some of the better-known international newspapers are available to their students and to visitors for in-library use only. Literature As a result of the General Law of Language Rights of the Indigenous People (see Parts I and II), many options have been opened for writers of minority languages in Mexico. These options have usually resulted from the effort of small communities interested in preserving their languages and cultures, supported by such cultural institutions as Popular Cultures, or sponsored by certain associations and commissions, or promoted by Federal, State or Municipal cultural departments – i.e. the SEP, the INAH or the General Direction of Popular Cultures. Although some ILs were used by contemporary writers before the 1980s, the decade is considered a watershed for the cultural revival – a time marked by the expansive publication of books, pamphlets, magazines and diaries. This period sets the tone for a renewed interest in rural education and a literary movement that would be consolidated in the 1990s. It was in 1993 that the Association of Indigenous Language Writers, with more than 60 members nationwide, was born. This association has created new opportunities for development, validation and recognition of literary creation and has emphasised the presence of new thinkers, philosophers and indigenous leaders who have offered interesting proposals regarding the languages and cultures of indigenous peoples in contrast with the educational structure sustained in Mexico from the 1940s to the 1970s, a period in which Spanish was the only vehicle through which one could hope to participate culturally in the country (Espinosa, 2005; Jiménez, 2006). (See Table 5 for a list of indigenous writers.) Unlike Mexican writers in Spanish, indigenous language Mexican writers demonstrate a political consciousness from the moment they decide to write in an indigenous language rather than in Spanish. Their political vision contrasts with the aesthetic or personal view of the writer who uses Spanish. In fact, this view is captured in the latest anthologies of indigenous literature. In 2004, Carlos Montemayor22 published La voz indígena. Antología de la literatura mexicana en lenguas indígenas [The Indigenous Voice. Anthology of Mexican Literature in Indigenous Languages]. This volume was the culmination of a long trip through the State of Oaxaca that started in 1980, when bilingual promoters asked Montemayor to assist in the editing of a set of indigenous texts collected by them in the North Range of Oaxaca. His experience with people who were contributors to and collectors of the material of the anthology made him change his opinion about Mexico. They were part of a Mexico he did not know. Their anger against anthropologists and ethnologists who had approached their com-

la-6.indd 188

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109


189

Table 5 Contemporary indigenous writers Language

Writers

Mayan

María Luisa Góngora Pacheco, Andrés Tec Chi, Miguel May May, Jorge Echeverría, Santiago Domínguez Aké, Vicente Canché Móo, Feliciano Sánchez Chan, Briceida Cuevas Cob

Chiapanecan

Jacinto Arias, Enrique Pérez López, Armando Sánchez Gómez, Diego Méndez Guzmán, Isabel Juárez Espinosa, Maria Roselia Jiménez

Zapotecan

Macario Matus, Francisco De la Cruz’, Irma Pineda, Jorge Magariño, Natalia Toledo, Rosendo Pineda, Andrés Henestrosa, Pancho Nácar, Gabriel López Chiñas

Nahua

Idelfonso Maya

Tarahumara

Dolores Batista

Purépecha

Joel Torres

Chontal

Isaías Hernández Isidro

Otomí

Jesús Salinas Pedraza

To learn about other writers see the website of the Association of Indigenous Language Writers. (SOGEM) http://www.sogem.org.mx

munities with an aggressive and arrogant attitude prompted him to search for writers who had a publishing history of at least 20 years, who had been awarded prizes or who had translated literature into other languages. At the present time, the linguistic vision of indigenous educators strengthens indigenous languages by encouraging indigenous people to let their voices be heard. (Gaceta electrónica del Colegio de San Luis, 2005). In 2005, Montemayor and Frischmann published Words of the True Peoples. Palabras de los seres verdaderos. This anthology launches indigenous literature into the international sphere, since it is a trilingual edition; that is, besides publishing in the original ILs, materials are also published in two languages of wider communication: English and Spanish. This multilingualism allows a wider public to have access to the cosmology, science, philosophy and religion of these indigenous communities. According to some IL writers, the challenge for the 21st century is to improve the quality of the written texts in ILs (Jiménez, 2001). At the present time, indigenous literature has contributed to a modest but very important distribution of the languages and cultures around the world. As Natalio Hernández, a Nahuatl writer, puts it ‘a new time is coming in which the original [indigenous] languages of Mexico will be able to dialogue with other languages, with dignity and respect, to enrich each other mutually’ (Jiménez, 2005). The effect of immigration on language distribution The effects of migration on the distribution of languages in Mexico can be divided into three periods: colonisation (the period from the arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico up to the moment at which Díaz became president of

la-6.indd 189

30/03/2007 14:43:00

CILP No: 109

190


Mexico); industrialisation (from the beginning of the administration of Díaz to the end of the administration of de la Madrid) and globalisation/glocalisation (from the beginning of the administration of Salinas to the present time). Colonisation At the time of the arrival of the Spaniards, other people of different origins were also present; i.e. African, English, Irish, Portuguese, among others. It is probable that some of those other ethnicities may have spoken some kind of Spanish pidgin, which may have served to permit communication among them. It is probable that they learned some indigenous languages to communicate with the natives, just as many members of various religious orders did. This process must have led to a diglossic situation between indigenous languages and Spanish at the beginning of the colonial period that gradually morphed into a language shift to Spanish. Around 1826, other Europeans started arriving in Mexico as the result of the ‘empresario’ (or entrepreneur) project which was marked by an intensive period of labour importation into the then contemporary agricultural Mexico. The entrepreneur was a special type of land agent, authorised by the government to recruit and settle immigrants who would be entitled to acquire ownership of land from Mexican authorities. A family received one ‘labor’ (177.1 acres) if they used the land for cultivation. If they also raised livestock, an additional ‘sitio’ (4,428.4 acres) was added to the ‘labor’. If the immigrant married a Mexican national, his holding was increased by an additional quarter of the total. This last fact had a major influence on the learning of Spanish among the foreigners and encouraged the formation and maintenance of family ties in Mexico. The land agent (empresario) who brought in the colonists received five ‘sitios’ plus five ‘labors’ for every hundred families he recruited. When a new town was planned, each settler was given a square block on which to build a home, while the land agent received two blocks. Many of the empresarios married into well-to-do families and soon became successful ranchers and entrepreneurs. One of the factors that made these early immigrants successful was that they tended to come from families of prosperous small farmers who were frustrated by high rents and low prices for their produce. Like the Spanish conquerors, many were second and third sons of the higher classes, denied access to land by the laws of primogeniture. They also owed some of their success to Mexicans who taught them how to raise cattle and how to extract products from this arid land. Because many of the immigrants were educated and skilled people, they were able to provide the leadership for community organisation and development. The colonies also had a sizable number of local Mexican residents who helped the newcomers to adjust to their new surroundings. At first, these new communities had very dense social networks with much of their interactions being in their native languages: English, French or German. Given the need to learn techniques for cultivating the land and raising cattle, they expanded their social networks to include local people who were speakers of ILs or Spanish in what were often asymmetrical relationships. Immigrants must have lived in a diglossic or triglossic situation, using their native language in the most familiar domains and using ILs and/or Spanish for more public domains.

la-6.indd 190

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109


191

Industrialisation As noted in the first section of Part IV, Díaz was interested in taking Mexico from the agricultural underdeveloped world to the industrial developed world. With this idea of progress in mind, he encouraged migration from Europe into Mexico. However, industrialisation also contributed to impoverish the rural regions, which caused internal migration from rural to urban contexts between the 1960s and 1970s; and then to such big cities as Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City in the 1980s. The discussion in this section will be divided into two basic parts: internal migration (from rural to urban) and external migration (from Mexico to the USA or other countries and from other countries into Mexico).

Internal Migration As speakers of Mazahua, Nahua and Otomí, rural migrants either had not learned Spanish or commanded only a very limited register. As a result, they usually obtained informal, very-poorly-paid jobs (Arizpe et al., 1986: 14–15). This situation led to the spread of Spanish as the language of social mobility, an idea which was dominant in educational policy from the administration of President Díaz to the administration of President Salinas. Policy over this long period emphasised Spanish and even foreign languages over indigenous ones. As a consequence, there has been a language shift from indigenous languages to Spanish.

External Migration From Mexico to the USA Although there had been migration to the United States since 1870, that migration pattern increased, first due to the Agrarian Law of 1920 and then due to the Cristero War (1926–1929). In 1929, the USA experienced a severe economic depression, putting an end to legal migration policy to the USA. (Chávez Galindo, 1998). Liberal migration policy was re-opened in 1942, during World War II, with the ‘bracero’ [labourer] programme which lasted for 22 years. When the bracero programme expired, intense migration of Mexicans to the USA began; that process has grown continually up to the present time (Nolasco, 1989). From Mexico to other countries During the Díaz administration (1877–1880; 1884–1911) the well-educated and wealthy Mexican elite migrated to Europe for study abroad, leading to the development of an academic, commercial and political bilingualism among the ruling sectors. It is probable that this enabled communication with foreign investors at that time. Foreign affairs would also have been conducted in English, French and German. From other countries to Mexico While there was a continuous internal migration to the larger cities (Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City), groups of migrants from Europe were also settling in the big cities. In 1848, the German community, for example,

la-6.indd 191

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109

192


founded the ‘German Casino’, and in 1894 they founded a school that maintained German standards for their children. Mexican children were also accepted into this school. During World War II, the school was closed, but not expropriated, by the Mexican Government. Other associations were founded afterwards, and these associations kept in close contact with each other. According to von Schirmeister (2004), Germans in Mexico define themselves as the German speaking community; that is, they created a community consisting of Austrians, Germans and Swiss. In this sense, they looked with pride on such institutions as the German Centre, the Patronage of the German Industry for Culture, a Chamber of Trade and Industry (CAMEXA), a German College (as well as other German and Swiss colleges), a German Club, a Regatta Club, a monthly bilingual journal (MITT [Mitteilungsblatt] founded in 1932), a Social Support Association (AASCA) and a house for the elderly (von Schirmeister, 2004). Around 1905 the school was incorporated into the Ministry of Education and much later, when junior and senior high schools were separated in 1925, the senior high school was incorporated under the UNAM regulations so that students were able to receive both Mexican and German diplomas. (See Colegio Alemán, 2005.) During the same period, immigration from other European countries – mainly France, Italy and Portugal – also occurred and contributed to social and cultural change in Mexico. Language policies were influenced by the decisions of the parents who sought for a bicultural and bilingual education for their children. Some of these children subsequently founded bilingual schools – e.g. the Colegio Americano [American College] and the Moderno Americano [American Modern] and the Liceo Francés [French Lyceum]. These schools were attended by middle class students. Some migrants, then, maintained their languages through the construction of stronger networks among the growing Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese and Portuguese communities embedded in a mainly Spanish language environment (Kanzleiter, 1996). Globalisation/Glocalisation At the end of the 1970s, European immigration to Mexico started to wane. Some Europeans saw a better economic panorama in their homelands. Others migrated to more developed countries. Most of the migrants (80%) to Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela stayed, but some of them remained in Chile, Cuba, Mexico and Uruguay. Of these, 38% were Italian, 28% Spanish and 11% Portuguese. However, intra-Latin American migration from Guatemala and El Salvador to Mexico started to grow until the 1980s, using Mexico as a bridge to reach the United States. Bridge migration through Mexico started to decline in the mid1990s and continued to do so until 2000. At present, many liberal professionals migrate to other countries because of better job opportunities. These migrants usually belong to the middle and upper middle class and have received a bilingual or trilingual education (Spanish and International languages). Observing the effects of migration, one can see the importance of social networks in the shift, maintenance and spread of languages in Mexico. Interest tends to be an important factor in determining the level of bilingualism in a community. Interest and attitude towards language maintenance, shift and

la-6.indd 192

30/03/2007 10:28:29

CILP No: 109


193

spread has mostly been economically determined, but there are strong identityrelated elements as well. There has been a shift from a nationalist perspective for preserving a language to a transnationalist view, where languages co-exist in a persistent diglossic situation. Foreign and indigenous languages have been used in private domains at home and with the foreign or local language communities they belong to as well as to perform activities within these domains. However, the regional use of Spanish is continuously transformed in its intonation, structure and rhythm by the presence of other languages.

Part V: Language Maintenance and Prospects This part of the monograph begins by tracing the main historical developments in language maintenance practice, and subsequently looks at current maintenance practices along with some of the factors having the greatest impact on language maintenance. Finally the future of ILs (indigenous languages) in Mexico in the light of these practices is discussed. Maintenance of indigenous languages The data presented in this monograph has indicated that there have been many attempts to preserve indigenous languages. These include measures mentioned by Garza Cuarón and Lastra (2000) that include: (1)

(2)

(3)

Teaching children to read in their own language, promoted by Lazaro Cardenas in the 1930s with the support of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). The first indigenous congress in Patzcuaro in 1940 which proposed the introduction of bilingual education (according to principles subsequently adopted by UNESCO). The founding of the National Indigenous Institute (INI) in 1948.

Nevertheless, the majority of activities supporting the maintenance of indigenous languages have come from non-governmental agencies, which receive some of their financial support from the SEP and other government institutions. Often, activities supporting ILs have been carried out by private individuals, in many cases, without any knowledge of the role of linguistics in formal language planning. The System of Indigenous Broadcasting (which belongs to the National Institute for the Development of Indigenous Peoples) reinforces the multicultural character of the Mexican nation, promoting the use of 31 different ILs. Every day, bilingual announcers address local problems by means of community and personal announcements, as well as through programmes that address various topics of concern to indigenous people, provide information capsules, and promote various language maintenance campaigns. In addition, several cultural centres exist for the promotion of indigenous culture; e.g. handicrafts and religious traditions, as well as traditional music and speech. These centres exist primarily in regions where tourism has become important, while in regions that have no local attractions they are less common. In order to change negative attitudes toward indigenous languages, it is important that there should be interest in teaching them. There are institu-

la-6.indd 193

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109

194


tions that teach different indigenous languages as second languages, usually in public universities, and usually to adults, but there have been privately organised courses as well. There is also a programme in Merida, Yucatan, for the teaching of Yucatec Mayan to primary school students. These examples represent isolated cases; the teaching of ILs has not yet attained uniform levels of importance nationwide. Literature in some indigenous languages already has a strong tradition, aside from the ancient codices. There is a substantial literary production in Nahuatl, especially that of Milpa Alta, near the national capital, where authors have written in this language since the 19th century. There is also a considerable literature in Yucatec Mayan, produced since colonial times. Over the last several decades, Mayan writers have made many attempts to resurrect their languages, as may be observed in Part IV. There is also some literature in other languages, including transcriptions from oral traditions. The difficulty, in many cases, is that these literary fragments are not available to a wide audience, since few speakers of indigenous languages can read their own language. For many years the teaching of literacy skills has only been carried out in Spanish; consequently, reading in ILs is not widespread. The current situation of maintenance and shift Considering the number of minority languages and dialects in Mexico, and considering language vitality and language shift, relatively few studies have been carried out by linguists, although such studies constitute a necessary prerequisite for future implementation of IL maintenance. In the following section, some insights into the problem and some examples of studies that have been carried out among different ethnic groups will be presented. The transmission of ILs, general attitudes and the possible role of education as factors in the processes of language vitality and shift will also be considered. The maintenance and spread of Spanish to future generations is intimately related to indigenous language shift. Pellicer (1999: 4) points out that, at the time of Mexican independence (1810), only 30% of the population spoke Spanish, while the rest spoke indigenous languages. Throughout the nineteenth century, such languages as Chiapaneco, Chuchona, Comanche, Concho, Guasave, Lipan, Opatata, Pochuteco and Tubar, among others, have disappeared. By the end of the 19th century (1895 census), only 17% of the population spoke indigenous languages while the rest spoke Spanish. The transmission of Spanish since 1900 has been constant. This fact is reflected in the striking percentages of indigenous monolinguals. At present only 17% of indigenous speakers are monolingual in their languages, while 83% are considered bilingual – that is, they have some knowledge of Spanish. This fact is also reflected in the relationship between indigenous monolinguals and those who also speak Spanish, i.e. bilinguals, as indicated in Table 6 (INEGI, 2001). The transmission of indigenous languages A significant cause of IL death has been the reduction or absence of transmission to future generations within the speech community. There are various studies into the shift from indigenous languages to Spanish; of particular interest are the following:

la-6.indd 194

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109


195

Table 6 Percentages of monolingual speakers of indigenous languages by gender Principal languages

Average for Men/Women

Men

Women

Total

16.9

12.6

21.2

Amuzgo

46.1

41.4

50.5

Tzeltal

41.4

32.2

50.8

Tzotzil

40.6

29.1

52.1

Tlapaneco

32.0

25.5

38.2

Cora

31.5

24.1

39.3

Chatino

30.3

23.5

36.7

Tojolabal

30.2

20.5

40.1

Chol

29.8

20.6

39.3

Mazateco

25.5

21.1

29.8

Mixe

25.0

19.1

30.5

Mixtecoa

23.0

17.9

27.6

Tepehuán

19.9

13.5

26.2

Tarahumara

18.0

11.2

25.3

Totonaca

16.4

12.0

20.6

Huave

16.3

14.5

18.2

Huichol

15.5

9.9

20.8

Náhuatl

13.8

9.9

17.6

Chinantecob

13.4

9.6

17.0

Purépecha

12.9

10.1

15.6

Zapotecoc

11.0

8.1

13.7

Huasteco

10.0

7.1

13.1

Zoque

9.4

6.5

12.4

Mayan

8.2

6.3

10.2

Cuicateco

7.7

4.5

10.7

Yaqui

6.0

4.7

7.6

Otomí

5.9

3.8

8.0

Mazahua

1.9

0.8

2.9

Mayo

0.7

0.4

1.0

Note: This table examines monolingualism in terms of Spanish. It does not include in the population those who did not specify whether they spoke Spanish or not. It also appears to exclude bilingual speakers of two indigenous languages. a Includes Mixtec, Coastal Mixtec, Mixtec of the Mixteca Alta, Mixtec of the Mixteca Baja, Mixtec of the Mazatec zone, Puebla Mixtec and Tacuate. b Includes Chinantec, Lanana Chinantec, Ojitlán Chinantec, Petlapa Chinantec, Usila Chinantec, and Chinantec of the National Valley. c Includes: Zapotec, Cuixtla Zapotec, Ixtlán Zapotec, Isthmus Zapotec, Zapotec del Rincón, Southern Tapotec, Valley Zapotec, and Viajano Zapotec. Source: INEGI, 2001

la-6.indd 195

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109

196


• Mayan (Terborg, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002, 2004). • Mayo (Moctezuma Zamarrón, 2001; Terborg & Martínez, 1988). • Nahuatl of Puebla (Hill & Hill, 1986). • Otomi (Terborg, 2004; Zimmermann, 1992). • Yaqui (Moctezuma Zamarrón, 2001). The following examples illustrate the problem of intergenerational transmission and the implications for the survival of ILs in Mexico more generally. Terborg’s study in the community of San Cristóbal Huichochitlán focuses on the Otomi language. San Cristóbal Huichochitlán is one of the 24 villages that form the area of Toluca. It is located in the western part of the State of Mexico (FN), 10 kilometres from the centre of the city of Toluca at 2,680 metres (c. 8,000 ft.) above sea level. According to the most recent Mexican census, San Cristóbal has 2,123 inhabitants. A language use questionnaire to evaluate participant’s knowledge of Otomi was read in Spanish to occupants of 25 San Cristóbal Huichochitlán homes and filled out by the researcher, and 168 speakers were found (representing 6% of the total population and nearly 10% of the population over five years of age). Speakers’ self-evaluative judgements of their own or others’ proficiency were used. The two monolingual Otomi families identified in the village did not form part of the corpus. As the results in Table 7 demonstrate, Otomi is still a vital language in this community. If adjacent categories are combined, it becomes clear that those people who speak a ‘little’ Otomi increased to 57.6%, and those who only ‘understand’ increased to 92.6%. It is important to note that only 7% of the population consists of Spanish monolinguals. This phenomenon suggests that there are few situations in which people may be excluded from conversations occurring in Otomi. Given the unequal distribution of demographics in the population, the total sample of those surveyed was divided into three ‘generational’ age groups, identified as A, (5–20 years of age); B, (21–40 years of age); and C (41 and over) representing 42%, 38%, 20% of the sample respectively, to provide adequate group size for comparative purposes, as the objectives of this survey called for a more precise analysis by the age group according to the level of Otomi. This division was necessary because of the high birth rate and low life expectancy within indigenous populations; most of the group members are under 30 years of age; i.e. there are relatively few members over 50 years of age. Within the group surveyed, no one is completely monolingual in Otomi. For example, only a few people said that they speak a ‘little’ Spanish and only one 72-year-old woman indicated that she only understood Spanish. Otomi has, as Table 7 Claims to language competence in Otomi of 168 speakers surveyed according to sex Otomí

Good

Low

Receptive only

None

Total

41 (53%)

7 (9%)

27 (35%)

2 (3%)

77 (100%)

Women

44 (48%)

4 (4%)

32 (35%)

11 (12%)

Total

85 (50.6%)

Men

la-6.indd 196

11 (6.55%)

59 (35.12%)

13 (7.74%)

91 (100%) 168 (100%)

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109


197

its main domain, the home rather than public domains. It is probable that many people reserve Otomi for speaking with particular persons, a characteristic that can lead to language shift. Otomi, consequently, seems to be becoming a private language. In addition, younger people do not often speak Otomi among themselves, and older people do not use Otomi when they speak to younger people. There are still some monolingual women, but they are from communities outside San Cristobal. This evidence suggests that the Otomi of San Cristóbal will probably not transmit Otomi to their children, a situation that will influence the future of language use. The only exposure that remains for younger generations consists of overheard adult conversation. To become an active speaker of the language it is necessary to use the language orally as well as to have passive listening skill. Thus, the transmission of Otomi to the next generation is doubtful. In addition to transmission of the language from one person to another, there is the factor of the economy in the village. The village is not self-sufficient as far as employment is concerned. In the context of employment outside of the village, Otomi speakers were not given job preference, especially for higher paid jobs. In short, one may say that language use within the community is continuously shifting from Otomi toward Spanish. Transmission of the indigenous language to the younger generation is practically non-existent. Previous research (Terborg, 1989) with another indigenous group, the Mayo in the State of Sonora, has also observed that language use is changing in a similar manner. More than half of the bilingual speakers speak Mayo with older people such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, and parents, while very few (about 10%) speak to these kin in Spanish. Half the sample population use Mayo when speaking to their peers (brothers, sisters and spouses). A change has been occurring in the use of Spanish with children; only 24% of adults spoke to their own children exclusively in Mayo, while 44% spoke to children exclusively in Spanish. The older generations tend to speak in Mayo to their children: no woman under the age of 30 spoke to her children only in Mayo, and only a few spoke in both languages – Mayo and Spanish. Another study of interest is that carried out on the Yucatan Peninsula (Terborg, 1992). Language shift was studied in two different villages, Xocen and Dzitás. Xocen is a small village with a population of about 1,000 inhabitants, with an unpaved road to the next town, Valladolid, 10 kms away, making travel difficult, particularly during the rainy season. Dzitás is a village with about 5,000 inhabitants and a railway station on the rail line to Merida, the capital of the State of Yucatan. There also were, in Dzitás, good roads allowing for bus travel. In these two villages, two stages of language shift were observed. In Xocen, 29% of the women between 15 and 29 years of age were monolingual in Yucatec Mayan. There were no monolinguals among the men of the same age, a phenomenon that may be identify as the first stage of language shift. In Dzitás, the second stage of language shift could be observed; the majority of the monolinguals in Mayan were older women who had apparently passed through the stage observed among the women of Xocen, but there were no longer any younger women in Dzitás who were monolingual in Mayan. In addition, a change in the attitude of women toward the indigenous language could be observed; as in Dzitás, in spite of being bilingual, the women promoted the use of the national language, Spanish, rather than their indigenous language.

la-6.indd 197

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109

198


These examples represent three distinct cases of language shift and of the reduction in, or lack of, intergenerational transmission. One can observe how the two stages of language shift are functioning. However, in spite of having only 8% monolingual speakers, Mayan is still strong in some villages and has the potential to be transmitted to the next generation. Contrary to what might have been predicted 20 years ago, Yucatec Mayan has emerged with new strength as can be seen in educational programmes for children in the capital of Merida. The language in these areas serves as a symbol of local identity for its speakers and those who associate with its speakers (Terborg, 1992, 1995, 1996c, 2004). There are other areas where languages that are observed to be endangered have been studied. Lastra (1999), for example, reports on language shift among the Chichimeco Jonaz speakers in the community of the Mision de Chichimecas in the state of Guanajuato. She divided the village into the Mision de Abajo and the Mision de Arriba to compare the progress of language shift. She found that in the Mision de Abajo only 3% of the primary school children speak the indigenous language while in the Mision de Arriba 60% of the primary school children speak the language. Within the population under 25 years of age, 30% speak the language, 20% do not speak it and 50% understand or speak very little. MacKay (1999) has studied Totonaco in the village of Yecuatla in the state of Veracruz. Her study focuses on social and economic factors and their impact on language shift. She reports these factors are working together to promote the speaking of Spanish in the village. Totonaco represents a stigmatised culture and language, and local identity does not depend on the use of Totonaco. The close knit networks in the community favour the use of Spanish. In contrast to previous reports, Velázquez Vilchis (2006) has found that use of the Atzinca language (Ocuilteco in Manrique’s classification) spoken in the State of Mexico is actually increasing among the younger generations. This is a phenomenon of great interest; it may indicate a new wave of transmission to the children of the indigenous community and hence may signify that ILs may enjoy a more promising future than had been previously believed. If the reported information is true this may be another case like the revival of Welsh, as for example reported by Crystal (1997: 119) and Edwards and Newcombe (2005). Attitudes toward indigenous languages One of the factors affecting the shift away from indigenous languages is the prevailing attitudes toward the languages and their speakers. When the speaker of an indigenous language acquires some knowledge of Spanish, s/he does not automatically become a citizen who faces no discrimination. Negative attitudes toward indigenous languages continue to function as those attitudes also extend to Spanish spoken with an accent that is recognisable as one associated with one of these languages. To this end, several different tests, known as matched-guise tests, have been developed. There are problems with such tests (see Saville-Troike, 1982: 170) since they do not always measure attitudes accurately. Nevertheless, the advantage of these instruments is that they can be administered quickly to a great number of subjects. The heart of these tests consists in presenting samples of the speech of several informants and having the subjects react by means of a questionnaire. For one such study (Terborg, 2004), two samples of men giving

la-6.indd 198

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109


199

directions in Spanish were recorded, one by a native Spanish speaker from the city of Toluca and the other by a speaker with an Otomi accent. The same bidialectal speaker was used for both recordings. The subjects, who were all speakers of Spanish from outside the community, listened to the samples and through several small questionnaires were asked about what they thought the probable employment of the speakers would be. After hearing the two samples, the subjects were asked to implement the following protocol: You are in charge of hiring employees for a company. You have to choose the proper job for each of the candidates you have just heard. The company produces electronic apparatus and wants to hire managers, engineers for the machinery, electricians, production workers, labourers, mechanics, delivery truck drivers, watchmen, a gardener, cleaning personnel, and collectors of rubbish from the work area. What job would you assign to each of these two candidates? The subjects were presented with a sheet with two lists of the aforementioned jobs so that they could choose an appropriate job for the supposed applicants – the speaker with the Otomi accent (OS) and the standard Spanish speaker (SS). This test was administered to 106 subjects. The results showed that 60% of the informants would have employed the SS in one the three highest positions (i.e. manager, engineer or electrician) while only 4% would have employed the SS in one of the lowest three positions. On the other hand, the OS would have been employed by 44% of the informants in the lowest position and only by 5% in the three highest positions. Of the results presented in Table 8, it is particularly difficult to speculate about the case of the driver, since the questionnaire did not specify whether the driver was a private chauffeur or a truck driver. From the data presented in Table 8, one can conclude that a person who speaks Spanish with an Otomi accent is at a disadvantage with respect to employment opportunities as opposed to a person who speaks standard Mexican Spanish; that Table 8 Assignation of jobs to the SS (Standard Spanish) and OS (Spanish with Otomi accent) speakers Occupation

Standard Spanish guise (Percentages)

Spanish with Otomi accent guise (Percentages)

1. Manager

11.32

0.00

2. Engineer

41.51

1.89

3. Electrician

7.55

2.83

4. Mechanic

1.89

4.72

3.77

22.64

24.53

12.26

7. Watchman

5.66

11.32

8. Gardener

0.94

10.38

9. Cleaner

1.89

9.43

0.94

24.53

5. Labourer 6. Driver

10. Rubbish collector

la-6.indd 199

30/03/2007 10:28:30

CILP No: 109

200


is, the attributes presumed to be associated with standard Spanish include higher levels of education, intelligence and capacity. This presumption is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of the subjects assigned the native Spanish speaker to better-paying jobs that require more training or even a university degree. At the same time, the person who spoke Spanish with an Otomi accent was assigned by most of the subjects to jobs that require little or no training. The majority of the subjects would assign the two speakers to very different types of jobs, suggesting that they do not feel that the two speakers are equal (Terborg, 2004). Throughout Mexico, attitudes to speakers of indigenous languages vary from open aggression to low intensity negative attitudes – i.e. ignoring their presence if they choose to speak their native language. The effect of education In many cases, public education can have an adverse effect on the maintenance of indigenous languages. There have been advances in the planning of bilingual education as the objectives of this type of education have changed over time. For this reason, it is difficult to analyse the effect of education on the displacement or maintenance of indigenous languages, since the objectives have not remained constant. When these objectives have changed, teaching has not always kept up with the changes. Monolingual indigenous children have greater difficulty in bilingual schools set up especially for them than bilingual children (Terborg, 1998). Edwards (1985: 169) argues that the power of education to maintain ethnic identity and the respective languages has always been overestimated. Similarly, with respect to the transition, it is not schooling that leads to proficiency in Spanish. Our informal observations and those of other researchers suggest that, in many cases, when monolingual children attend a bilingual school, they drop out before finishing the primary grades. Among the possible reasons are that it appears that they cannot take as much advantage of their classes, as they could had they learned Spanish, since the methodology of bilingual schools favours bilingual children at the expense of monolinguals. Many children and adolescents learn Spanish even though they do not attend primary school. One could ask whether it is possible for children to learn Spanish if their own parents do not speak it well. Often only one of their parents has some knowledge of the dominant language and uses it with the children. Contact with the Spanish-speaking population is encouraged. For example, a family from Xocen (Yucatan) sent its three daughters to school in the nearby city of Valladolid where the primary school was not bilingual. Their mother had limited receptive knowledge of Spanish, but could not speak it, while their father was relatively competent in Spanish. Nevertheless, when the daughters were in Xocen, they frequently used Spanish among themselves. They even used it with their little brother who spent the entire day with his mother and hence spoke Mayan. On several occasions during fieldwork, people who were proud of speaking Yucatec Mayan said that they only spoke Spanish with their children so that they would not have problems when they went to school. A similar phenomenon was found in San Cristobal Huichochitlan, where one may say that there is a negative correlation between education and knowledge of Otomi (see Table 9), since as the average number of years of schooling increases

la-6.indd 200

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109


201

Table 9 Years of schooling of inhabitants over 40 years of age Years of schooling*

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Total

Men

5

0

2

3

1

1

2

0

1

1

16

Women

10

1

1

3

1

1

1

0

0

0

18

Total

15

1

3

6

2

2

3

0

1

1

34

*The first line give the years of primary school completed. Grades seven to nine correspond to grades one to three of secondary school Table 10 Years of schooling in inhabitants from 21 to 40 years of age Years of schooling

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Pr

Total

Men

0 0 1 1 0 0 10 1 1 12 2 28 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 35.7% 3.6% 3.6% 42.9% 7.1% 100.0%

Women

4 1 2 3 2 0 12 0 1 10 2 37 10.8% 2.7% 5.4% 8.1% 5.4% 0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 2.7% 27.0% 5.4% 100.0%

Total

4 1 3 4 2 0 22 1 2 22 4 65 6.2% 1.5% 4.6% 6.2% 3.1% 0.0% 33.8% 1.5% 3.1% 33.8% 6.2% 100.0%

The first line gives years of schooling. Grades seven to nine correspond to grades one to three of secondary school and Pr refers to at least some years of post-secondary education

(that is, among those aged from 5 to 20), proficiency in Otomi decreases. It is also notable that, among older inhabitants (those over 41 years of age) who have had less schooling, 100% speak Otomi. This fact may be due to a lack of educational opportunities in the past, and the correlation may not be causal, since while the phenomenon is uncommon in many indigenous populations, it is also uncommon in rural Spanish-speaking areas. The great majority (80%) of those between the ages of 21 and 40 are bilingual Otomi-Spanish speakers, while 20% are Spanish monolinguals. Since this is the sector of the population that can choose which language will be transmitted to the younger generations, this population is of particular interest in understanding the possible relationships between knowledge of Otomi and schooling. In the entire group (n = 65), 12 individuals finished only the third year of primary school or less. These 12 represent 18.5% of the total and include four individuals with no formal schooling at all. The remaining eight are Otomi speakers. Nevertheless, of the people who cannot be considered full Otomi speakers (14), all finished the sixth year of primary school (with one exception; a woman whose L1 was not Otomi who only finished the third year). Of these people, six finished secondary school, and, of those six, one even finished preparatory school (upper level secondary education); that is, among those who did not speak Otomi, none who had no formal education at all, and 90% (of a population of 14 individuals) finished primary school or went further (see Table 10).

la-6.indd 201

26/04/2007 12:15:26

CILP No: 109

202


Of the Otomi speakers, 25% did not finish primary school – that is, did not reach the sixth year or had no formal education. It is noteworthy that this group consists mainly of women, since the majority of men did finish basic education, independently of whether they were Otomi speakers or not. The level of formal schooling attained by a member of the population under study correlates strongly with that person’s age, since access to formal schooling in the region is a recent development. It is also true, however, that older persons are also much more likely to be Otomi speakers. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a causal link between being a speaker of Otomi and not having attained a high level of formal schooling. Having said that, the perception of the community is that these two factors are linked and that knowing Otomi has a direct and negative influence on the ability to do well at school. This belief makes parents reluctant to transmit Otomi to their children. It would seem clear from this behaviour that the provision of schooling in Spanish contributes to the process of language shift. Finally, one can say that, while there is some correlation between language and education, being an Otomi speaker does not prevent one from acquiring formal education or training as long as one has some knowledge of Spanish. However, a causal relationship cannot be said to exist between knowledge of Otomi and lower levels of schooling, since both conditions are more probably caused by external factors such as access to schooling. Nonetheless, the community perceives the existence of such a link, since, in their experience, a person who speaks Otomi probably also has a lower level of schooling than do those who are monolingual in Spanish. This belief may be included among the many factors that are promoting language shift. In the case of Tzeltal in Chiapas, McCaa and Mills (1999) report on a specific case: The parents speak Tzeltal as well as Spanish, although they never attended school and remain illiterate. Their sons, ages 7 and 9, are also bilingual, attend school and are literate. The daughters, aged 10 and 13, are likewise literate and attend school, but do not speak the mother tongue, according to the census enumeration form. If this family is typical, education appears to be the enemy of vernacular languages in Chiapas. (McCaa & Mills, 1999: 118) The authors have found many similar cases, although age seems to be a determining factor. It is undeniable, in the light of the previous discussion, that public education is a destabilising factor for indigenous languages which, while it may not have a direct influence on the change of linguistic attitudes among children, clearly it has an indirect influence by forcing the parents to introduce Spanish in the home. To conclude this section, the impact of practices of language transmission, attitudes and the role of formal education for the maintenance of ILs in Mexico have been discussed. From this analysis, it would seem clear that all of these factors influence the likelihood of language maintenance and language shift, and interact in complex and varied ways within a given speech community.

la-6.indd 202

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109


203

The future of indigenous languages Hamel comments that it was almost impossible a few decades ago to imagine: . . . that in Mexico, a country of institutionalised indigenism, with the largest state apparatus in Latin America, an indigenous insurrectional movement such as the Ejército Zapatista de la Liberacion Nacional (EZLN) would manage to reach a wide audience and achieve recognition, and make significant contributions to national political debate . . . (Hamel, 2000: 2) At present, EZLN has specific institutions and programmes for indigenous education that support the preservation and development of indigenous cultures and languages, although, for the time being, these are mere statements of intent and have yet to be put into practice. There is a substantial amount of language policy research that supports indigenous languages, creating an impression that there is interest in maintaining ILs. In spite of the previously mentioned efforts, languages are disappearing, as Otomi in the Valley of Mexico shows. The efforts mentioned have also been criticised as insufficient. It must be made clear that many of these efforts remain isolated, like islands that maintain hope, but in reality they have not contributed much to the maintenance and development of indigenous cultures. Instead of being an engine for the development of the indigenous population, they serve as a means of soothing the conscience of the state. ‘It is possible to reproach the Mexican Government for the fact that it openly impedes the advancement of Indians within their own culture, or deny that it has institutions charged with promoting the well-being of indigenous communities’. (Garza Cuarón & Lastra, 2000: 157–8). Many important questions came to light with the Zapatista movement, since the movement demanded that mestizos be obliged to have at least a basic knowledge of the indigenous language spoken in the area in which they live (Pellicer, 1999: 11). These are fundamental questions for indigenous linguistic rights. Barriga and Parodi arrive at the following conclusions: Up to the present there has been a marked tendency (open or hidden) toward the incorporation of the indigenous population into the dominant society. The decisions have been unilateral, leaving the indigenous citizens out of the decision-making process or only making them believe that they are participants. Official discourse promotes a bilingual-bicultural policy which is, in essence, a Castilianisation disguised as the teaching of literacy that promotes an asymmetric bilingualism that gradually eliminates aboriginal languages. (Batalla, cited in Barriga & Parodi, 1999: 29) Lara even goes so far as to state that there is no ‘linguistic policy’ in Mexico, in spite of the existence of sufficient scientific evidence to formulate such a policy; Lara offers as some of the reasons: the lack of a clear idea ( . . . ) on behalf of many Mexican anthropologists

la-6.indd 203

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109

204


and linguists of how to use this evidence as the basis for such a policy, ( . . .) and the antidemocratic, authoritarian, paternalistic and corrupt characteristics of the governments we have suffered under up to the present. (Lara, forthcoming) It is difficult, given this panorama, to make any prediction about the future of indigenous languages. It is probable that many of them will disappear during the course of this new century simply because they lack vitality. However, there are languages that, with adequate planning, could have a future, above all Mayan, Nahuatl, P’urepecha, Zapotec and several languages in the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Considering, however, the political changes that have occurred, contrary to expectations there may yet be viable actions and goals that would lead to a plan to maintain such languages.

Prospects in Language Planning As we have tried to show in this monograph, the language situation in Mexico represents a highly heterogeneous panorama with many contrasts and contradictions. It may, nonetheless, be true that language planning in Mexico is slowly acquiring some degree of continuity despite changes in the political arena. The most important progress can be seen in the field of indigenous languages. Recent events, including the new law on indigenous language rights (which elevates ILs to the status of national languages) and the foundation of the INALI, provide a framework for the coordination of actions to promote minority language maintenance. Obviously, in the course of achieving this objective many problems will be encountered and extensive surveys in ethnography of communication are essential to success. On the topic of foreign languages, while it is clear that Mexican society usually considers the learning of foreign languages as an economic and cultural added value, the promotion of additive plurilinguism could be reinforced. It is essential that social organisations like the media, schools and families support the learning of languages with a clearer awareness of the purposes that these languages serve. Research is needed at the macro, meso and micro level to inform the public and the authorities of specific language needs in the language communities, in order to design appropriate syllabi, like the research conducted by Smith (forthcoming) for the special case of migrants to the USA. Moreover, it would be advantageous to have documented case studies of locally designed programmes and their results. The construction of national and local language policies requires academic networks to cover all aspects of foreign language teaching which would help to counterbalance the prevailing centralist view of education in Mexico. Regarding Spanish, we can see how Mexican scholars, government authorities, students and professionals need to develop language skills for specific purposes. It is usually believed that being native speaker of Spanish is sufficient to become a skilled writer or speaker of the language in different domains. Therefore, much research is needed in the different linguistic contexts in Mexico to be able to make informed decisions to improve the teaching of Spanish. Also we consider that an ecological vision of the interactions between Spanish, international languages and indigenous languages will be necessary.

la-6.indd 204

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109


205

Acknowledgements This monograph was supported by a research project grant on the vitality indigenous languages in Mexico (PAPIIT IN402706), funded by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Department of Applied Linguistics at the Learning Centre for Foreign Languages (CELE-UNAM). We would like to thank Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf Jr for their many suggestions and Phyllis Ryan for her contribution to revising an earlier version of this monograph. We would also like to thank Elba, Roly, and Quique for their diligent work with the references. The usual disclaimers apply. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Roland Terborg, Department of Applied Linguistics, Centro de Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico. Notes 1. An important Mexican research centre. 2. Also see Barrera Vásquez, 1980; García Fajardo, 1984; Lope Blanch, 1987. 3. The government identifies 62 languages, but linguists challenge this estimate, claiming that the number is probably higher. 4. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica – National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics. 5. There are some areas outside of the state of Oaxaca where these languages are spoken, but they are of lesser importance. Most are settlements with a fluctuating immigrant population like those in California. 6. For Yucatec Mayan, see e.g. Swadesh et al. (1991). 7. Leonardo Manrique has been one of the most important descriptive linguists in Mexico for the last few decades, and his work is dedicated to the classification of indigenous languages. 8. Chontal means ‘stranger’ and is the name that the Aztecs used for groups in Tabasco and Oaxaca. However the two languages bearing this name are not related to one another. 9. Milpa Alta and Xochimilco are districts of Mexico City. 10. Castilianisation was an institutional programme initiated by José Vasconcelos in 1921 during his period as Minister of Education at the SEP. The programme aimed to impose Spanish on indigenous communities through rural schools. 11. International schools are Mexican schools that incorporate international standards into their education curricula so that students of immigrants who study abroad are able to integrate to the culture and academic life of their home countries once they return to their places of origin. 12. The vision of this type of schools is to incorporate the values of both cultures in the curriculum and the school’s environment. In addition, these schools are not restricted to the children of immigrants. Some wealthy Mexican families are interested in this type of education and are attracted by the quality of education that children can acquire in these schools. However, they may not share the cultural values and traditions of their home country, causing a conflict in children’s identity. 13. The UNAM has a junior high school ‘Secundaria 2’ [Junior High School, 2] where English is taught as a foreign language at a rate of three hours a week. 14. For example, according to the General Office of School Administration (DGAE) at the UNAM, some of the programmes such as Architecture require a certificate of reading comprehension in English or French from the Centre of Foreign Languages or from the Faculty of Architecture. However, the Faculty’s website states that there is no language requirement. Then, when the information was requested by phone,

la-6.indd 205

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109

206

15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22.

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1 a spokesperson representing the school authorities said that students should hold a certificate of reading comprehension in any language (Suárez, 2004). The nine universities participating in this study (N = 4,438) were the UPN (National Pedagogical University – 619 students), ITAM (Institute – 194 students), UAM (Metropolitan Autonomous University – 665 students, COLMEX (College of Mexico – 25 students), UVM (Mexican Valley University – 496 students), ENAH (National School of History and Anthropology – 242 students), ITT (Technological Institute of Tlalnepantla – 242 students), IPN (National Polytechnic Institute – 862 students), UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico – 1,093 students). A new exchange programme for Mexican secondary school and university students reported by the Portal SEP in recent years is only for those who have a certain level of English and who can afford to pay certain expenses such as the airfare. (Maria Paz Berruecos, Mariano Díaz Gutiérrez, Joaquín Figueroa, Graciela Murillo and Gloria Ruiz de Bravo Ahuja). GEPUS was a three-book series designed mainly by foreign linguists for Mexican university students, published in 1986 and used at the CELE until 1994, when commercial books were substituted for this series. An exception to this rule is the work carried out by the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City, where some education specialists have used the framework critically and worked on a syllabus of English for their university. The syllabus is still in the pilot stage; results will be expected in a few years. This commission is integrated by a proprietary adviser, counsellor, consultant and a substitute from the CAAHyA, representatives of professors, appointed by the Coordinator (Elizabeth Luna Traill); an academic representative from each of the following eight entities: la Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Acatlán, la Escuela Nacional de Estudios Profesionales Aragón, la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza, el Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades, la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria and el Centro de Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras; appointed by the director of each of the entities; and three specialists in the Field of Foreign Languages, appointed by the Coordinator. The Gaceta (Bulletin) UNAM is a bulletin of information published by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) about important events, regulations and decisions taken by the different Chairs of Councils of the University. Carlos Montemayor is a writer and historian who is a member of the Royal Mexican and Spanish Academies of Language. Some of his works as narrator, essay writer and translator are: Mal de piedra [Stone Evil], Guerra en el paraíso [War in Paradise], Los informes secretos [Secret Reports], La rebelión indígena en México [Indigenous Rebellion in México] and Rehacer la historia [Re-making History] and his direct translation from Latin of Carmina Burana. In 2001 he co-ordinated the most important anthology of indigenous literature bringing together the work of 32 authors, in 10 indigenous languages (Maya, Tzetzal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Nahuatl, Zapoteco del Itsmo, Zapoteco de la Sierra, Mazateco, Huichol and Hñahñu): La voz profunda. Antología de la literatura mexicana en lenguas indígenas. [Deep Voice. Mexican Literary Anthology in Indigenous Languages] Editorial Joaquín Mortiz, México, 2004.

References Acevedo Conde, M.L. (1997) Políticas Lingüísticas en México de los años cuarenta a la fecha. [Language policies in Mexico from the forties to the present day]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México [Language Policies of Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada Ediciones-CEICH UNAM. Aguirre Beltrán, G. (1981) A brief history of the Instituto Lingüística de Verano [A brief history of the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Mexico]. Revista del Instituto de Lingüística de Verano América Indígena [Journal of the Summer Institute of Linguistics: Indigenous America], 3, 31–40. Aguirre Beltrán, G. (1983) Humboldt y el Relativismo Lingüístico, Lenguas Vernáculas, Su uso y Desuso en la Enseñanza: La Experiencia de México [Humboldt and Linguistic Relativism;

la-6.indd 206

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109


207

Vernacular Languages, their Use and Disuse in Teaching:The Experience in Mexico]. Mexico City: Casa Chata. Alvarado M.E. and Velázquez, P. (2002) El español de las mayorías y de las minorías en México: Crónica de una política de la enseñanza del español [The Spanish of majority and minority groups in Mexico: A chronicle of the policy on teaching Spanish] In M. Pérez Gutiérrez and J. Coloma Maestre (eds) El Español, Lengua del Mestizaje y la Interculturalidad. Actas de la Asociación Para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera [Spanish, the Language of Interraciality and Interculturality. Acts of the Association on the Study of Spanish as a Foreign Language]. Murcia: ASELE. Anaya, G. (1987) Lenguas de México: Su clasificación [The languages of Mexico: Their classification]. Revista México Indígena 17, 3–7. Anaya Pérez, M.A., Bautista Zane, R. and Méndez Zavala, A. (2004) . . . Y me lo Contó mi Abuelita [ . . . And my Grandmother Told me]. Chapingo: Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo. Arana de Swadesh, E. (1975) La investigación de las lenguas indígenas de México [Researching indigenous languages in Mexico]. In E. Arana de Swadesh et al. (eds) Las enguas de México Tomo I [The Languages of Mexico: Vol. I]. Mexico City: SEP/Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Arizpe, L., Bustamante, J., Nolasco, M. and Valdés, L.M. (1986) México indígena. Migraciones [Indigenous Mexico: Migrations]. Revista del Instituto Nacional Indigenista 13, 23–37 Asociació d’Escriptors en Llengua Catalana (2004) Literatura maia contemaporània de la península del Yucatán (autors, gèneres i publicacions) [Contemporary Mayan literature from the Yucatán Peninsula (authors, genres and publications)]. On WWW at http://www.escriptors.com/pagina.php?id_text=285&imprimeix=si. Accessed 11.05. Aubage, F. (1987) Los alcances de una política de educación bicultural y bilingüe [The achievements of a bicultural bilingual policy]. In L. Aubage (de) Dominación y Resistencia Lingüísticas en Oaxaca. [Language Domination and Resistence in Oaxaca]. Oaxaca: SEP, UABJO. Báez, G.E. and Rojas, A.L. (2005) Proyecto enseñanza del español en México [A project to teach Spanish in Mexico]. Paper presented at Primer Encuentro Problemas y Perspectivas sobre la Enseñanza del Español [First Encounter of Problems and perspectives on the teaching of Spanish]. Mexico City: UNAM Barrera Vásquez, A. (1979) Estudios Lingüísticos [Studies in Linguistics] (vol. 1). Mérida: Fondo Editorial de Yucatán. Barrera Vásquez, A. (1980) Estudios Lingüísticos. Obras Completas [Studies in Linguistics: The Complete Works] Vol. 1. Mérida: PESIP/Arte y Comunicación. Barriga, R. and Parodi, C. (1999) Alfabetizacíon de indígenas y política linguística entre discursos. In A. Herzfeld and Y. Lastra (eds) Las causas d socioles de la desaparción y del mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de Amèrica [The Social Origins of the Disappearance and the Maintenance of the Languages in American Nations]. Hermisillo: Universidad de Sonera. Bazant, J. (1981) Breve Historia de México; de Hidalgo a Cárdenas [A Brief History of Mexico: From Hidalgo to Cardenas]. Mexico City: Premia. Becerril, A. (1988) El cine [The cinema]. México Indigena 15, 23–8. Boltvinik, J. (2005) La pobreza en México [Poverty in Mexico]. On WWW at http://www. jornada.unam.mx/2005/11/18/032o1eco.php. Accessed 03.06. Brambila Rojo, O.F. (2003) Análisis de la Metodología de Enseñanza del Náhuatl Como Lengua Meta en los Siglos XIX y XX [Analysis of the Methodology Used to Teach Nahuatl in the 19th and 20th century]. Mexico City: UNAM. Brambila Rojo, O.F. (2004) Las actitudes sociolingüísticas y la enseñanza de lenguas indígenas; Un estudio de caso [Sociolinguistic attitudes and the teaching of indigenous languages: A case study] Sintagma 4, 24–37. Bravo Ahuja, G. (1977) La Enseñanza del Español a los indígenas Mexicanos [Teaching Spanish to the Indigenous People of Mexico]. Mexico City: Colegio de México

la-6.indd 207

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109

208


Campbell, L. (1997) American Indian Languages. The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. Carbó, T. and Salgado, E. (forthcoming) ¿Invisibilidad de las lenguas indígenas en la prensa nacional mexicana o el recuento de un olvido? (1984–1995) [Invisibility of indigenous languages in the Mexican national press or the story of a poor memory? (1984–1995)]. In R. Terborg and L. García Landa (eds) Los Retos de la Planificación Lingüística en el Siglo XXI [The Challenges of Language Planning in the 21st Century]. Mexico City: CELE, UNAM. CENEVAL (2006) Centro Nacional de Evaluación para la Educación Superior [National Centre for the Evaluation of Higher Education]. Resultados Educativos: La secondaria (2003−2004). [Educational Results: Junior High School (2003−2004)], Mexico. Cienfuegos Salgado, D. (2004) Políticas y Derechos Lingüísticos [Language Policy and Language Rights]. Mexico City: Porrua. Cifuentes, B. (1998) Historia de los Pueblos Indígenas en México: Letras sobre voces [A History of the Indigenous Peoples of Mexico: Letters and Voices]. Mexico City: CIESAS. Cifuentes, B. and Ros, M.C. (1993) Oficialidad y planificación del Español: dos aspectos de la política del lenguaje en México durante el siglo XIX [Official status and planning of the Spanish language in Mexico during the 19th century]. Iztapalapa 29, 135–46. Colegio Alemán (2005) On WWW at http://www.humboldt.edu.mx/colegio/integracion_directa/index.html. Accessed 03.06. Colegio de México (2005) Congreso Internacional Sobre Lenguas Neolatinas en la Comunicación Especializada [International Congress of Neolatin Languages in Specialized Areas of Communication]. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas [National Commission for the Development of Indigenous People] (2004). On WWW at http://cdi.gob.mx/ ini/radiodifusoras.html. Accessed 02.05. Company, C. (2005) El siglo XVIII y la identidad lingüística de México [Eighteenth century and Mexican language identity]. Conference presented on November, Mexico City: UNAM. Consejo Estatal de Pueblos Indígenas (1999) Nfino Hñähñu. Cuentos Indígenas. Relato Indígena Otomí-español [Indigenous Tales. Otomí-Spanish Narration]. Mexico City: VI Fondo de Coinversión Social. Contreras, I. (1986) Bibliografía Sobre la Castellanización de los Grupos Indígenas de la República Mexicana [Bibliography for the Hispanisization of Indigenous Groups in the Mexican Republic] (vol. 2). Mexico City: UNAM. Coronado, G. (1997) Medidas oficiales hacia la educación bilingüe [Official measures towards bilingual education]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México. [Language Policies in Mexico. Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada Ediciones, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, UNAM. Chávez Galindo, A.M. (1998) La Nueva Dinámica de la Migración Interna en México de 1970 a 1990 [The New Dynamic of Internal Migration in Mexico from 1970 to 1990]. Cuernavaca: UNAM, Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. Chepetla, T. (2005) La planificación de la enseñanza del inglés en primarias públicas y secundarias generales de Morelos [The planning of English language teaching in public primary and secondary schools in Morelos]. Tlacuilo, Boletín Informativo Universidad Pedagógica Nacional [Tlacuilo: The Informative Bulletin of the National University of Pedagogy] 30, 1–12. Crhová, J. (2004) Actitud Hacia la Lengua. Estudio Sociolingüístico Sobre la Actitud Hacia las Lenguas Indígenas, el Español y el Inglés (el Caso de Tijuana) [Attitudes Towards Language: A Sociolinguistic Study of Attitudes Towards Indigenous Languages, Spanish and English (the Case of Tijuana)]. Mexicali: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Municipal de Arte y Cultura de Tijuana, PACMYC, Instituto de Cultura de Baja California. Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press De Gortari Krauss, L. (1997) Alcances y limitaciones de las políticas de educación en zonas indígenas en la actualidad [Contemporary achievements and limitations of

la-6.indd 208

30/03/2007 10:28:31

CILP No: 109


209

educational policy in indigenous areas]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México [Language Policies in Mexico. Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada, UNAM. Del Val, J. (1999) El fin del indigenismo, los derechos indígenas y la reforma del Estado [The end of indigenism, indigenous rights and State Reform].Paper presented at Reunión de trabajo de la Comisión de Asuntos Indígenas [Working session of the Commission of Indigenous Affairs], UNAM, Mexico City. Del Val, J. and Mendizábal, E. (2004) Proyecto Docente México, Nación Multicultural [Teaching Project: Mexico, Multicultural Nation]. Mexico City: UNAM Desmet Argain, C. (forthcoming) Vicisitudes en torno a los derechos lingüísticos en México [Vicissitudes of linguistic rights in Mexico]. In R. Terborg and L. García Landa (eds) Los Retos de la Planificación Lingüística en el Siglo XXI [The Challenges of Language Planning in the 21st Century]. Mexico City: CELE/UNAM. Díaz Couder, E. (1997a) El programa de Maestría en Lingüística Indoamericana [The program of the Masters in Indoamerican Linguistics]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México [Language Policies in Mexico: Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada, UNAM. Díaz Couder, E. (1997b) Plurilinguisme et État-nation au Mexique [Multilingualism and nation-state in Mexico]. DiversCité Langues. On WWW at http://www.uquebec.ca/ diverscite. Accessed 02.06. Díaz, C. (2004) Da Tlane clases de inglés [Tlane gives English lessons]. Reforma (7 September), 2. Dirección General de Educación Indígena (1986a) Bases Generales de la Educación Indígena [Basic Principles in Indigenous Education]. Mexico City: SEP. Dirección General de Educación Indígena (1986b) Programa Para la Modernización de la Educación Indígena, 1990–1994 [Program for the Modernization of Indigenous Education, 1990–1994]. Mexico City: SEP. Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. New York: Basil Blackwell. Edwards, V, and Newcombe, L.P. (2005) Language transmission in the family in Wales. Language Problems and Language Planning 29 (2), 135–50. Emilson, E., Hildreth, A., Ryan, P., Shaw, A., Buck, M. and Ormsby, D. (1990) Into English. A General English Program for University Students I. Mexico City: CELE, UNAM. Espinoza Carvajal, M.E. (2002) La escuela primaria en el siglo XX. Consolidación de un inventos [Elementary school in the twentieth century. Consolidation of an invention.] In L.E. Galván Lafarga Diccionario de la Historia de la Educación en México [Dictionary of the History of Education in Mexico]. Mexico: UNAM, CIESAS, CONACYT. Estrada Cortés, E. (2004) Programa de homologación. Unpublished. Felix Báez, J. (1989) Los grapos étmicos y las política indigenistas de la colonia del porfiridto [Ethnic groups and indienist policies during the Porfirian Colony]. In Mexico Indígenos [Indigenous Mexico] Instituto Nacional Indigenisto, No. 26, Year V, Jan−Feb, 10−17. Fernández-Vega, C. (2006) El concentrado mercado de la TV no necesita ni un megahertz más [The monopoly of TV market needs no single megahertz]. La Jornada March, 44. Gaceta UNAM [UNAM Gazette] (2003) 16 June. On WWW at http://www.dgcs.unam. mx/gacetaweb/historico.html. Accessed 11.05. Gaceta UNAM [UNAM Gazette] (2005) 3 November. On WWW at http://www.dgcs. unam.mx/gacetaweb/historico.html. Accessed 03.06. García Fajardo, J. (1984) Fonética del Español de Valladolid, Yucatán [The Phonetics of Spanish in Valladolid, Yucatan]. Mexico City: UNAM. García Landa, L. (2005) Comisión Especial de Lenguas ¿Y el español? [The Special Commission for Languages. What about Spanish?]. Paper presented at Primer Encuentro Problemas y Perspectivas sobre la Enseñanza del Español [First Encounter on Problemas and Perspectives on Spanish Language Teaching], UNAM, Mexico City. García Landa, L. and Terborg, R. (2004) ¿Ha cambiado el panorama de lenguas extranjeras en México desde la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Libre Comercio? [Has the view of foreign languages changed in Mexico under NAFTA?]. In G. Tremblay (ed.) PANAM Industries Culturelles et Dialogue des Civilisations dans les Amériques [PANAM

la-6.indd 209

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109

210


Cultural Industries and Dialogue of the Civilizations in the Americas].Quèbec: Presses de l’Université Laval. García Landa, L. et al. (2004) Diagnóstico de formación de profesores [A diagnostic of teacher development programs].Unpublished. Mexico City: CELE/UNAM. Garza Cuarón, B. (ed.) (1997) Políticas Lingüísticas de México [Language Policies of Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada-CEICH UNAM. Garza Cuarón, B. and Lastra, Y. (2000) Lenguas en peligro de extinción en México [Endangered languages in Mexico]. In R. Robins, M. Uhlenbeck and B. Garza Cuarón (eds) Lenguas en Peligro [Languages in Danger]. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. González Robles, R.O., Vivaldo Lima, J. and Castillo Morales, A. (2004) Competencia Lingüística en Inglés de Estudiantes de Primer Ingreso a Instituciones de Educación Superior del Área Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México [The English Language Proficiency of FirstYear University Students in Mexico City and the Metropolitan Area]. Mexico City: ANUIES, UAM-I González Trejo, G. (2006) Procesos de vinculación que articulan el escenario de la clase de inglés en la escuela secundaria: un acercamiento etnográfico [Bonding processes that set the scene in the secondary English language classroom: An ethnographic approach]. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Mexico City: UNAM. Grenoble, L. and Whaley, L. (eds) (1998) Endangered Languages. Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Growth Competitiveness Index rankings 2005 and 2004 comparisons (2005) On WWW at http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Growth+Competitiven ess+Index+rankings+2005+and+2004+comparisons. Accessed 01.06. Guzmán Betancourt, I. (1997) Las ideas sobre las lenguas indígenas en el México virreinal [Ideas about indigenous languages in pre-independence Mexico]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México [Language Policy in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada-CEIICH UNAM. Gynan, S.N. (2001) Language planning and policy in Paraguay. Current Issues in Language Planning 1, 47–132. Hamel, R.E. (1981) La castellanización en México: Política del lenguaje y educación [Castilianization in Mexico: Politics of language and education]. KHIPU 7, 26–37. Hamel, R.E. (1983) El contexto sociolingüístico de la enseñanza y adquisición del español como segunda lengua en escuelas indígenas bilingües [The sociolinguistic context of teaching and acquisition in bilingual indigenous schools]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada Número Especial [Studies in Applied Linguistics: Special Issue], 37–104. Hamel, R.E. (1984) Conflicto sociocultural y educación bilingüe [Sociocultural conflict and bilingual education]. International Social Science Journal 99, 113–28. Hamel, R.E. (1993) Políticas y planificación del lenguaje: una introducción. [Language policy and planning: An introduction]. Iztapalapa 29, 5–39 Hamel, R.E. (1998) Políticas del lenguaje y estrategias culturales en la educación indígena [Language policy and cultural strategies in indigenous education]. In IEEPO (ed.) La Educación Indígena Hoy. Inclusión y Diversidad [Indigenous Education Today: Inclusion and Diversity].Huaxyácac 4, 106–36. Hamel, R.E. (2000) Políticas del lenguaje y educación indígena en México. Orientaciones culturales y estratégias pedagogicas en una época de globalización [Language policy and indigenous education in Mexico. Cultural, strategic and pedagogic guidelines for a globalised era]. In R. Bein and J. Bonn (eds) Políticas Lingüísticas. Norma e Identidad [Language Policy. Norms and Identity]. Buenos Aires: UBA. Hamel, R.E. (2003a) Regional blocs as a barrier against English hegemony? The language policy of Mercosur in South America. In J. Maurais and M.A. Morris (eds) Globalizing Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamel, R.E. (2003b) El Español como Lengua de las Ciencias Frente a la Globalización del Inglés. Diagnóstico y Propuestas de Acción Para una Política Iberoamericana del Lenguaje en las Ciencias [Spanish as a Scientific Language in Contrast with the Globalization of English: Daiagnostic and Proposals for Action for a Latin-American Policy of Language in Science]. Mexico City: UAM.

la-6.indd 210

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109


211

Hamel, R.E. and Muñoz, H. (1981) Bilingüismo, educación indígena y conciencia lingüística en comunidades otomíes del Valle del Mezquital, México [Bilingualism, indigenous education and language awareness in the Otomi communities of the Mezquital Valley]. Estudios Filológicos [Studies in Philology] 16, 127–62. Hamel, R.E. and Muñoz, H. (1982) Conflit de diglossie et conscience linguistique dans des communautés indiennes bilingues au Mexique [Diglossia and language awareness in bilingual indigenous communities in Mexico]. In N. Dittmar and B. Schlieben-Langue (eds) Die Soziolinguistik in den Romanischensprachigen Ländern – La Sociolinguistique dans les Pays de Langue Romane [Sociolinguistics in Romance Language Countries]. Tübingen: Narr. Hamel, R.E. and Muñoz, H. (1986) Perspectivas de un proceso de desplazamiento lingüístico: El conflicto otomí-español en las prácticas discursivas y en la conciencia lingüística [Perspectives of a process of language shift: the conflict between Spanish and Otomi in discourse practices and language awareness]. Estudios Sociológicos [Studies in Sociology] 11, 215–40. Hamel, R.E. and Muñoz, H. (1988) Desplazamiento y resistencia de la lengua otomí: El conflicto lingüístico en las prácticas discursivas y la reflexividad [Language shift and maintenance of Otomi: The language conflict in discourse practice and reflexivity]. In R.E. Hamel, Y. Lastra de Suárez and H. Muñoz (eds) Sociolingüística Latinoamericana [Latin-American Sociolinguistics]. Mexico City: UNAM. Hamel, R.E. and Carrillo Avelar, A. (2003) Práctica pedagogica y desarrollo de un currículum intercultural bilingüe en escuelar P’urhepechos de Michoacán [Pedagogical Practice and Bilingual Intercultural Syllabus Design in P’urhepecha Schools in Michoacan). Unpublished document. Hamel, R.E., Brumm, M., Carrillo Avelar, A., Loncon, E., Nieto, R. and Silva Castellón, E. (2004) ¿Qué hacemos con la castilla? La enseñanza del español como segunda lengua en un currículo intercultural bilingüe de educación indígena [What do we do with the Castille? The teaching of Spanish as a Second Language in a bilingual intercultural program of indigenous education]. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa [Mexican Journal of Educational Research] 20, 87–107. Heath, S.B. (1972) Telling Tongues. Language Policy in Mexico, Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers College Columbia University Press. Heath, S.B. (1986) La Política del Lenguaje en México: De la Colonia a la Nación [Language Policy in Mexico: Colony to Nation]. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Hekking, E. (1995) El Otomí de Santiago Mexquititlán: Desplazamiento Lingüístico, Préstamos y Cambios Gramaticales [The Otomi of Santiago Mexquititlán: Linguistic Shift, Borrowing and Gramatical Change]. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT). Hernández, F. (2004) Pondrán en marcha programa para aprender inglés en primarias en Hidalgo [A Program to learn English in Elementary Schools in Hidalgo is launched]. El Sol de México (2 August), 6. Hill, J.H. and Hill, K.C. (1986) Speaking Mexicano; Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. INEA (2006) Instituto Nacional para la Educación de los Adultos [National Institute of Adult Education]. On WWW at www.inea.gob.mx. Accessed 02.06. INEGI (2000) Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografía e Informática [National Institute for Statistics, Geography and Information] XII Census General de Población y Vivienda, tabulados básicos. Aguascalientes, Aags., 2001. [12th General Census of the Population and Housing, basic tables, Aguascalientes]. On WWW at http://www. inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/tematicos/mediano. Accessed 12.05. INEGI (2001) Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografía e Informática [National Institute for Statistics, Geography and Information], Mexico. On WWW at http://dgcnesyp. inegi.gob.mx/bibliografia/BSitDem.html. Accessed 02.05. INEGI (2004) Volumen y porcentaje de la población según profese alguna religión o algún tipo de religión [Volume and percentage of population who professed a religion or type of religion]. On WWW at http://www.inegi.gov.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/ tematicos/mediano/anu.asp?t=mrel01&c=2581. Accessed 11.05.

la-6.indd 211

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109

212


Iturralde, D. (2003) Desarrollo indígena: Los retos del final del siglo [Indigenous development: The challenges at the turn of the century]. In F. Latirgue and A. Quesnel (eds) Las Dinámicas de la Población Indígena. Cuestiones y Debates Actuales en México [The Dynamic of the Indigenous Population: Questions and Debates in Mexico]. Mexico City: CIESAS-IRD-Miguel Ángel Porrúa. Jiménez, A. (2001) Las lenguas comienzan a romper un silencio de cinco siglos [Indigenous languages break a five century-long silence]. La Jornada (30 April), 3. Jiménez, A. (2005) Un hito, el resurgimiento de la literatura indígena [The reappearance of indigenous literature]. La Jornada, April 30. Jiménez, L. (2006) Lenguas y culturas en peligro [Languages and cultures in danger]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep/_02Uni210606/7720?op=1. Accessed 03.06. Kanzleiter, B. (1996) Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kaffeebarone in Chiapas [History of the German coffee barons in Chiapas]. ILA 195, 5. Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, Jr., R.B. (1997) Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lacorte, M. (forthcoming) Política y lenguaje en el español de Estados Unidos: ¿Globalidad o falta de realidad? [Politics and language in the Spanish of the United Status: A global perspective or out of touch with reality?]. In R. Terborg and L. García Landa (eds) Los Retos de la Planificación del Lenguaje en el Siglo XXI [The Challenges of Language Planning in the 21st Century]. Mexico City: CELE/UNAM. Lara, L.F. (forthcoming) ¿Por qué no hay una política lingüística de México? [Why is there no language policy in Mexico?]. In Terborg, R. and García Landa, L. (eds) Los Retos de la Planificación del Lenguaje en el Siglo XXI [The Challenges of Language Planning in the 21st Century]. Mexico City: CELE/UNAM. Lastra, Y. (1992) El Otomí de Toluca [The Otomi of Toluca]. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM. Lastra, Y. (1999) La vitalidad del chichimeco jonaz [The vitality of Chichimeco Jonaz] In A. Herzfeld and Y. Lastra (eds) Las Causas Sociales de la Desaparición y del Mantenimiento de las Lenguas en las Naciones de América [The Social Origins of the Disappearance and the Maintenance of the Languages in American Nations]. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. Lastra, Y. (2003) [1992] Sociolingüística Para Hispanoamericanos: Una Introducción [Sociolinguistics for Latinamericans: An Introduction]. Mexico City: Colegio de México. Ley Federal de Cinematografía (1998) On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/ resources/LocalContent/11513/13/ley_federal%20_cinematografia.htm. Accessed 09.05. Lope Blanch, J.M. (1975) La lengua española [The Spanish language]. In M. Romero Castillo et al. (eds) Las Lenguas de México, II [The Languages of Mexico II]. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Lope Blanch, J.M. (1987) Estudios Sobre el Español de Yucatán [Studies of Yucatán Spanish]. Mexico City: UNAM. Lope Blanch, J.M. (1990) Atlas Lingüístico de México [Linguistic Atlas of Mexico]. Vol. 1. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Lope Blanch, J.M. (1992) Atlas Lingüístico de México [Linguistic Atlas of Mexico]. Vol. 2. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Lope Blanch, J.M. (1994) Atlas Lingüístico de México [Linguistic Atlas of Mexico]. Vol. 3. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. MacKay, C. (1999) Dos casos de mantenimiento lingüístico en México: El totonaco y el véneto [Two cases of language maintenance in Mexico: Totonaco and Veneto]. In A. Herzfeld and Y. Lastra (eds) Las Causas Sociales de la Desaparición y del Mantenimiento de las Lenguas en las Nociones de América [The Social Origins of the Disappearance and the Maintenance of the Languages in American Nations]. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. Manrique Castañeda, L. (1982) Política Lingüística y Planeación Lingüística [Language Policy and Language Planning]. Vol. 8. Mexico City: SEP. Manrique Castañeda, L. (1997) Clasificación de las lenguas indígenas de México y sus

la-6.indd 212

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109


213

resultados en el censo de 1990 [Classification of the indigenous languages of Mexico in the 1990 census]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas de México [Language Policies in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada. May, M. (1997) La escritura de la literatura maya-yucateca contemporánea [Maya-Yucatecan contemporary literature] In B. Garza Cuarón (ed) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México. [Language Policies in Mexico. Democracy in Mexico] Mexico City: UNAM. McCaa, R. and Mills, H.M. (1999) Is education destroying indigenous languages in Chiapas? In A. Herzfeld and Y. Lastra (eds) Las Causas Sociales de la Desaparición y del Mantenimiento de las Lenguas en las Nociones de América [The Social Origins of the Disappearance and the Maintenance of the Languages in American Nations]. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. McConnell, G. and Roberge, B. (1994) Atlas International de la Diffusion de l’Anglais et du Français. L’Enseignement [International Atlas of the Spread of English and French: Teaching]. Quèbec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Mejía, F. (1997) Historia mínima de la radio [Radio short story]. On WWW at http:// www.efrenrubio.com/radio-historia.htm. Accessed 02.05. Misawa, T. (2001) Reproducción social y cultural de las familias de los inmigrantes japoneses en México: su impacto sobre la conformación de las expectativas de las relaciones intergeneracionales de los nisei [Social and cultural reproduction within Japanese immigrant familias in Mexico: The impact of expectations on the intergenerational relationship. On WWW at http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn-94-52.htm. Accessed 03.06. Moctezuma Zamarrón, J.L. (2001) De Pascolas y Venados. Adaptación, Cambio y Persistencia de las Lenguas Yaqui y Mayo Frente al Español [On Pascolas and Deers. Adaptation, Change and Revitalization of Yaqui and Mayo Languages in Contact with Spanish]. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno. Montemayor, C. (2005) La Voz Profunda: Antología de la Literatura Mexicana en Lenguas Indígenas [The Deep Voice: An Anthology of Mexican Literature in Indigenous Languages]. Mexico City: Editorial Joaquín Mortiz. Montes, R. (2006) Agresión a los medios de comunicación indigenas. La Jornado March, 38. Moreno de Alba, J.G. (2003) La Lengua Española en México [The Spanish Language in Mexico]. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Moreno de Alba, J. and Ezcurdia, M. (2005) Projecto Lenguajes, Comunicacíon e Identidad [Language, Communication and Identity Project]. Instituto de Investigacionces Filológicas e Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Mexico City: UNAM. Moreno Toscano, A. (1981) El siglo de la conquista [The century of the conquest]. In Centro de Estudios Históricos (ed.) Historia General de México (Tomo 2) [General History of Mexico, Vol. 2]. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Munguía Zatarain, I. (1995) El préstamo de las lenguas cahitas, en el español de México [Cahita languages loans in Mexican Spanish]. In I. Munguía Zatarain and J. Lema (eds) Serie de Investigaciones Lingüísticas I [Series of Linguistic Research I]. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana. Muntzel, M. and Lozano, A. (2005) Lineamientos para una currícula universitaria de lengua y cultura indígena [Guidelines for a university syllabus in indigenous language and culture]. Paper presented at 1er Congreso de Sociolingüística y Sociología del Lenguaje [1st Congress of Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language], UNAM, Mexico City, 11 August. Muñoz, H. (ed.) (1987) Funciones Sociales y Conciencia del Lenguaje [Social Functions and Language Awareness]. Xalapa: Universidad de Veracruz. Muñoz, H. (2001) Políticas y prácticas educativas y lingüística en regiones indígenas de México [Policy and educational and linguistic practice in Mexican indigenous regions]. Paper presented at Seminario sobre Políticas Educativas y Lingüísticas en México y Latinoamérica [Seminar on Educational and Linguistic Policies in Mexico and Latin America], UNESCO, Mexico City. Muñoz, H. (2002) Interculturalidad en la educación, multiculturalismo en la sociedad: ¿Paralelos o convergentes? [Interculturallity in education, multiculturallity in society: parallels or convergents?]. In H. Muñoz et al. (eds) Rumbo a la Interculturalidad en la

la-6.indd 213

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109

214


Educación [Towards Intercultural Education]. Mexico City: Maestría en Sociolingüistica en la Educación Básica y Liingüistica, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, unidad Oaxaca. Naciff, C. (2004) Maestros de Hidalgo trabajarán en EU para enseñar a los hijos de migrantes mexicanos [Hidalgo teachers work in the US teaching immigrant’s children]. Crónica, 27 July, 31. Nahmad, S. (1997) Impactos de la reforma al Artículo 4º constitucional sobre las comunidades indígenas [Impact of the reform to Article 4 of the constitution about indigenous communities] In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México [Language Policies in Mexico. Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: UNAM. Nolasco, M. (1989) La migración y los indios en los censos de 1980 [Migration and indigenous peoples in the 1980 census]. México Indígena. Instituto Nacional Indigenista 26, 22–9. Ornelas, C. (1995) El Sistema Educativo Mexicano. La Transición de Fin de Siglo [Mexican Educational System. Transition at the End of the Century]. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Patthey-Chavez, G.G. (1994) Language policy and planning in Mexico: Indigenous language policy. In W. Grabe et al. (eds) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14, 200– 220. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pellicer, D. (1997) Derechos lingüísticos en México: Realidad o utopía [Linguistic rights in Mexico: Reality or utopia]. Conference presented at the XX International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association in Guadalajara, México. Pellicer, D. (1999) Derechos lingüísticos y supervivencia de las lenguas indígenas [Language rights and the survival of indigenous languages]. In A. Herzfeld and Y. Lastra (eds) Las Causas Sociales de la Desaparición y del Mantenimiento de las Lenguas en las Nociones de América [The Social Origins of the Disappearance and the Maintenance of the Languages in American Nations]. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora. Pérez González, B. (1975) Clasificaciones lingüísticas [Linguistic classifications]. In E. Arana de Swadesh et al. (eds) Las Lenguas de México (Tomo I) [The Languages of Mexico Vol. I]. Mexico City: SEP/INAH, Pimentel, F. (1864) Memorias Sobre las Causas que han Originado la Situación Actual de la Raza Indigena en México y Medios Para Remediarla.[Proceedings on the Origins that have Influenced the Current Situation of Indigenous Races in Mexico and Some Possible Solutions]. Mexico City: Imprenta Andrade y Escalante Plan de estudios actualizado, Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades, UNAM [Updated Curriculum of the College of Sciences and Humanities] (1996). Plascencia, C. (1988) La presencia de la radio [The presence of radio]. México Indígena [Indigenous Mexico] (special issue), 37–41. Portal SEP (2005) Darán oportunidad a migrantes mexicanos en EU para acceder al sistema educativo [Mexican migrants in the US are given an opportunity to access educational system]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol4491104/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Destina SEP 8.4 millones de pesos adicionales para la educación de niñas y niños migrantes [The SEP invests an additional 8.4 million pesos in migrant children’s education]. On WWW at http.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol12920903/ 7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Diseñan modelo educativo integral con enfoque intercultural a familias de jornaleros migrantes [Integral educational model for migrant laborers is designed with an intercultural approach]. On WWW at http.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/ sep_Bol12920903/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Diseñarán México y Utah sistema de estándares para evaluar competencias académicas de niños migrantes [A system of standards for evaluating academic competences of immigrant children]. On WWW at http://www.gob.mx/ res/sep/sep_Bol2760903/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Enriquecerá experiencia española la atención educativa intercultural a niños migrantes mexicanos [The Spanish experience will enrich intercultural educational attention to children]. On WWW at http://sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_ Bol30090804/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05.

la-6.indd 214

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109


215

Portal SEP (2005) Incentiva la SEP en el DF la integración de niños indígenas migrantes [Encourages the SEP in Mexico City the integration of indigenous migrant children]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol10980304/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Lista para iniciar operaciones la primera universidad intercultural del país en el Estado de México [Intercultural University in the State of Mexico]. On WWW at http.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol12920903/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Ofrece SEP becas para perfeccionamiento de la enseñanza del idioma inglés en escuelas secundarias y normales [The SEP offers scholarships for English teacher development in public secondary schools and normal schools]. On WWW at http.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol12920903/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Plan y programas de estudio de educación secundaria, Español. [Secondary education syllabus]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/ sep_481_espanol/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Programa de enseñanza de inglés en nivel primaria [Elementary education syllabus]. On WWW at http.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol12920903/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Promueven creación de red binacional México-EU para superar rezago educativo de migrantes [Creation of a Mexican–US binational network]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/res/sep/sep_Bol10980304/7719?op=1. Accessed 01.05. Portal SEP (2005) Recomendarán acuerdo binacional para ampliar acceso a educación superior de jóvenes migrantes [Binational accord is recommended for increasing access to higher education]. On WWW at http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/sep/sep_ Bol3351003. Accessed 01.05. Ramírez, R. (1976) La Escuela Rural Mexicana [Mexican Rural Schools]. México: Septentas. Redfield, R. (1977) Los mayas actuales de la Peninsula Yucatanense [The current Mayans of the Yucatan peninsula]. In Government of Yucatan (ed.) Enciclopedia Yucatanense (Tomo VI) [Encyclopedia of Yucatan, Vol. VI]. Mexico City: Gobierno de Yucatán. Reed, N. (1971) La Guerra de Castas de Yucatán [The Caste War of Yucatan]. Mexico City: Era. Reforma integral de la educación secundaria [Integrative reform of junior high school education, RIES] (2005). On WWW at http://www.ries.dgdc.sep.gob.mx. Accessed 11.05. RIES (2005) Reforma integral de la Educación Secundaria [Integral reform of senior high schools]. On WWW at http://www.ries.dgdc.sep.gob.mx/doc/docbase.pdf. Accessed 12.05. Rodríguez Martínez, J.F. (1999) Leyendas de Zacatecas. Cuentos y Relatos [Legends of Zacatecas. Tales and Stories]. Zacatecas: Roma. Romero Castillo, M. (1975) Las lenguas mayas de México [The Mayan languages of Mexico]. In M. Romero Castillo et al. (eds) Las Lenguas de México, II [The languages of Mexico II]. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia [Nacional Institute of Anthropology and History]. Saville-Troike, M. (1982) The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Scheffler, L. (1992) Los Indígenas Mexicanos [Indigenous Mexicans]. Mexico City: Panorama. Secretaría de Educación Publica [Education Secretary] (1990) Programa de Desarrollo Educativo 1995–2000. [Program of Educational Development 1995–2000] Mexico City: SEP. Secretaría de Educación Pública [Education Secretary] (1997) Atlas de Geografía Universal [World Geography Atlas]. Mexico City: SEP. Secretaría de Educación Publica [Education Secretary] (2001) Programa de Desarrollo Educativo 2001–2006 [Program of Educational Development 2001–2006]. Mexico City: SEP. Secretaría de Educación Publica [Education Secretary] (2005) On WWW at www.sep. gob.mx. Accessed 03.06. Secretaría de Gobernación [Home Secretary] (2006) Programa Nacional de Derechos Humanos [National Program of Human Rights]. On WWW at http://www.derechos-

la-6.indd 215

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109

216


humanos.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid = 64. Accessed 03.06. SIL (2006) On WWW at http://www.wycliffe.org. Accessed 03.06. Smith, P. (forthcoming) Transnacionalismo, bilingüismo y la planificación lingüística en contextos educativos mexicanos [Transnationalism, bilingualism and language planning in the context of Mexican education]. In R. Terborg and L. García Landa (eds) Los Retos de la Planificación del Lenguaje en el Siglo XXI [Challenges of Language Planning in the 21st Century]. Mexico City: CELE /UNAM. Sommer, B.A. (1991) Yesterday’s experts: The bureaucratic impact on language planning for Aboriginal bilingual education. In A. Liddicoat (ed.) Language Planning and Policy in Australia. Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Suárez, P. (2004) La escuela: Escenario de actitudes lingüísticas. El caso de una escuela secundaria pública en Xochimilco [The school: Setting for language attitudes. The case of a public secondary school in Xochimilco ]. Unpublished. Swadesh, M., Álvarez, M.C. and Bastarrachea, J.R. (1991) Diccionario de Elementos del Maya Yucateco Colonial [A Dictionary of Colonial Yucatan Mayan]. Mexico City: UNAM. Terborg, R. (1987) Enseñanza de elementos gramaticales en escuelas indígenas mayas [The teaching of grammar at Mayan indigenous schools]. Colección Pedagógica Universitaria [Pedagogical University Collection] 15, 213–24. Terborg, R. (1989) Mantenimiento y desplazamiento de lenguas indígenas en México [Maintenance and shift of indigenous languages in Mexico]. Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 35, 5–53. Terborg, R. (1992) El papel de la mujer en el cambio lingüístico [The role of women in language change]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 15 & 16, 242–53. Terborg, R. (1993) La identidad étnica en conflicto con la ‘facilidad compartida’ [Ethnic identity in conflict with the ‘common routine’]. In H. Muñoz and R. Podestá Siri (eds) Contextos Étnicos del Lenguaje; Aportes en educación y etnodiversidad [Ethnic Contexts of Language: Contributions in Education and Ethnodiversity]. Oaxaca: Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez. Terborg, R. (1994a) Educación pública y desplazamiento de lenguas minoritarias [Public education and minority language shift]. Colección Pedagógica Universitaria [Pedagogical University Collection] 22, 141–8. Terborg, R. (1994b) Mantenimiento de la lengua minoritaria o de la identidad étnica [Maintenance of the minority language or ethnic identity]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada [Studies in Applied Linguistics] 19 & 20, 151–61. Terborg, R. (1995) La ‘presión monolingüe’ y el ‘papel de la mujer’ como factores del conflicto entre lenguas [’Monolingual pressure’ and ‘the role of women’ as factors of conflict between languages]. In I. Murguía and J. Lema (eds) Serie de Investigaciones Lingüísticas I [Series of Linguistic research I]. Mexico City: UAM, División de Ciencias y Humanidades. Terborg, R. (1996a) La utopía del bilingüismo estable en regiones indígenas: Un análisis de su realidad [The utopia of stable bilingualism in indigenous regions: An analysis of their reality]. In Actas del X Congreso Internacional de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de la América Latina [Acts of the 10th International Congress of the Latin American Association of Linguistics and Philology]. Mexico City: UNAM Terborg, R. (1996b) Transculturación e impacto cultural [Transculturation and cultural impact]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada [Studies in Applied Linguistics] 23–4, 272–9. Terborg, R. (1996c) Identidad e impacto cultural [Identity and cultural impact]. Dimensión Antropológica 3, 113–45. Terborg, R. (1998) El ritual en el mantenimiento de lenguas indígenas [Ritual in the maintenance of indigenous languages]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada [Studies in Applied Linguistics] 29, 155–63. Terborg, R. (1999) Langues en contact, passage d’une langue à une autre et inconvénients pour les locuteurs [Languages in contact; shift and its effect on speakers]. Terminogramme 87, 25–35. Terborg, R. (2000a) ¿Y esto qué tiene que ver? Algunas reflexiones acerca de la interrelación entre la enseñanza de lenguas y campos no afines [What does this have to do

la-6.indd 216

30/03/2007 10:28:32

CILP No: 109


217

with anything? The negation of transdisciplinarity in applied linguistics]. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada [Studies in Applied Linguistics] 30 & 31, 271–84. Terborg, R. (2000b) The usefulness of the concept of competence in explaining language shift. On WWW at http://www.linguistik-online.com. Accessed 03.05. Terborg, R. (2002) Besteht ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Verdrängung von Minderheitensprachen und dem Fremdsprachenunterricht? [Is there a relationship between minority language shift and language teaching?] In H. Weydt (ed.) Langue – Communauté – Signification, Approches en Linguistique Fonctionelle. Actes du XXVème Colloque International de Linguistique Fonctionelle [Language-Community-Meaning: Approaches in Functional Linguistics]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Terborg, R. (2004) El desplazamiento del otomí en una comunidad del municipio de Toluca [The shift of Otomi in a community near Toluca]. Unpublished Phd Thesis, UNAM, Mexico City. Terborg, R. and Martínez, C. (1988) Identidad y lenguaje en la comunidad de los mayos [Language and identity in the Mayo community]. In Memoria del X Coloquio de las Literaturas del Noroeste [Proceedings of the 10th Colloquium of the Literature of the North West]. Hermosillo: University of Sonora. Terborg, R. and Velázquez Vilchis, V. (2005) Enseñanza de lenguas y su impacto en la ecología lingüística [The teaching of languages and its impact on the language ecology]. In Estudios in Lingüística Aplicada [Studies in Applied Linguistics] 41, 39–54. Tosi, A. (2004) The language situation in Italy. Current Issues in Language Planning 5, 247–335. Velasco-Márquez, J. (2006) A Mexican viewpoint on the war with the United States. On WWW at http://pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/ d2geng.html. Velázquez Vilchis, V. (2006) La situación de desplazamiento del otomí, matlazinca y atzinca en el Estado de México [The situation of language shift of Otomí, Matlazinca and Atzinca in the State of Mexico]. Paper presented at VI Coloquio de Lingüística en la ENAH. Villa Rojas, A. (1977) Los mayas del actual territorio de Quintana Roo [The Mayas in present day Quintana Roo]. In F. Luna (ed.) Enciclopedia Yucatanense. Vol. VI [The Encyclopedia of Yucatán. Vol VI]. Mexico City: Gobierno de Yucatán. Villoro, L. (1976) La revolución de independencia [The Independence Revolution]. In D. Cosío Villegas et al. (eds) Historia General de México. Vol. 1 [A General History of Mexico, Vol 1]. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. von Schirmeister, E. (2004) Alemanos en Latinoamérica [Latin Women in Latin America] MATT, December 6. Warman, A. (2003) Los Indios Mexicanos en el Umbral del Milenio [The Indians of Mexico on the Threshold of the New Millenium]. México City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Zamora, S. (2004) La evolución en los últimos cinco siglos [Education in the last five centuries] On WWW at http://www.elcastellano.org/evolucion.html. Accessed 02.06. Zavala, S. (1997) Poder y lenguaje desde el siglo XVI [Power and language since the 16th century]. In B. Garza Cuarón (ed.) Políticas Lingüísticas en México. La Democracia en México [Language Policies in Mexico. Democracy in Mexico]. Mexico City: La Jornada, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, UNAM. Zilli Manica, J.B. (2002) Italianos en México [Italians in Mexico]. Xalapa: Concilio. Zimmermann, K. (1992) Sprachkontakt, ethnische Identität und Identitätsbeschädigung. Aspekte der Assimilation der Otomí-Indianer an die Hispanophone Mexikanische Kultur [Languages in Contact, Ethnic Identity and Threatened Identity: Aspects of Assimilation of Otomi Indians to Spanish Speaking Mexican Culture]. Frankfurt/M: Vervuert. Zimmermann, K. (1999) Política del Lenguaje y Planificación para los Pueblos Amerindios. Ensayos de Ecología Lingüística [Language Policy and Planning for the Amerindian People. Essays in Linguistic Ecology]. Madrid: Iberoamericana.

la-6.indd 217

30/03/2007 10:28:33


CIP014

Language Planning and Policy in Paraguay Shaw N. Gynan Department of Modern and Classical Languages, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225-9057, USA Paraguay is unique among the countries of the Americas in that nearly 90% of the largely non-indigenous population speaks an indigenous language, Guaraní. The majority of the country is also bilingual in Guaraní and Spanish. Since the end of Stroessner’s 35 years of dictatorship in 1989, Paraguay has made significant progress in language planning and policy within a more democratic framework. An initiative to implement universal, two-way bilingual education in Guaraní and Spanish has resulted in the widespread, if still somewhat limited, use of Guaraní in the classroom. Despite disagreement over the purism of textbook Guaraní, the programme has been received positively by parents, students, and teachers. As documented in a recent report on human rights in Paraguay (United States Department of State, 2000), the situation of indigenous populations is precarious. Their survival will depend not only on more clearly articulated language policy that upholds their linguistic rights, but as well on support by the government of other basic human rights, such as preventive medical care and land reform.

The Language Profile of Paraguay Spanish, the official language de facto Since 1992, the Republic of Paraguay has had two official languages: Spanish and Guaraní; however, Spanish is the de facto language of government and is the primary official language. Spanish, one of the world’s five largest languages, belongs to the Romance family, having evolved directly from Latin. After the Roman invasion of the Iberian peninsula in pursuit of Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), Latin was established as the language of government and commerce (Starr, 1991: 483–4). Two centuries later, most indigenous languages had disappeared, leaving Latin the predominant tongue. In the subsequent millennium, the Roman vernacular, called Vulgar Latin, evolved into Romance, which gave rise to constituent dialects, of which Castilian emerged dominant and formed the basis of later varieties of Spanish. Although the fifth century Visigothic invasion and their 300-year administration of the Iberian Peninsula after the fall of the Roman Empire had little linguistic impact on Romance, the invasion in 711 CE by the Moors resulted in the southern third of what is contemporary Spain being separated culturally and politically from the north. The Andalusian dialect developed distinctive characteristics: aspiration of /s/, yeísmo (loss of distinction between /l/ and /y/) and seseo (loss of distinction between /q/ and /s/). The Spanish language was enriched with some 4000 Arabic loanwords, reflecting the high sociocultural development of the occupying force. During the Spanish reconquest, the Castilian dialect was developed and functionally expanded. Solé (1992: 56) attributes the earliest Hispanic linguistic 218 Language Planning and Policy in Paraguay


CIP014


CIP014

Language Planning and Policy in Paraguay

219

nationalism to Alfonso X (‘Alfonso the Wise,’ 1221–1284), the first Iberian monarch to rule over a nearly united Christian Spain, until whose reign most writing was in Latin or Arabic (and to a lesser extent in Hebrew). Alfonso X oversaw the Spanish translation from Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew of song, history, law, and science (Solé, 1992: 59). By the end of the 15th century, when the Moors were expelled from Granada, Antonio de Nebrija had completed his Spanish grammar, in the prologue of which is a passage that makes explicit the role of the Spanish language in the expanding empire: When I think about this carefully, most Illustrious Queen, and I place before my eyes the antiquity of all the things that for our edification and memory were written, I find one thing and come to this inescapable conclusion: that language has always been the companion of empires; in that way it has followed them, and together they began, grew, and flourished, and after, together, both of them fell (Nebrija, 1492 (ed. Quilis, 1980), cited in Nieto Jiménez, 1995: 10 (author translation1)). Nieto Jiménez observes that three centuries after Alfonso’s development of the Spanish language, Latin reigned as the language of higher education. Thus, despite royal pronouncements in favour of Spanish, competition with Latin continued throughout the sixteenth century. Spanish was spoken in 1992 by over 2.3 million people in Paraguay, nearly 90% of whom live in households where Guaraní is also spoken (see Table 1). Paraguayan Spanish shares many features with Argentinean Spanish, and the weak consonantism of coastal American Spanish. At the phonetic level, Paraguayan Spanish is characterised by aspiration or omission of /s/ in syllable final position, and slit fricative pronunciation of the voiced palatal phoneme traditionally represented as /y/ (de Granda, 1992). The pronunciation of /b/, /d/, and // intervocalically is extremely lenis, often omitted entirely. The palatal lateral phoneme /l/ is heard in all positions, although it may be disappearing among the younger generation. There is substrate influence on Paraguayan Spanish by Guaraní: the voiceless glottal stop, called puso in Guaraní, and heard infrequently in most dialects of Spanish, is common in Paraguayan Spanish, separating a word that ends in a vowel from a word that begins with a vowel (see Thon, 1989). Morphologically, Paraguayan Spanish lacks a second person informal plural form, as do all dialects of American Spanish. The second person singular informal vos persists, with complete verb endings in the present indicative and imperative (Choi, 1998: 82–3). Choi notes that, among bilinguals, because of interference from Guaraní, which has no distinction between informal and formal second person singular, the informal pronoun predominates. De Granda (1992) reports certain Guaraní morphemes, such as the imperfective, progressive particle -hina, in Paraguayan Spanish. Among Spanish-dominant or monolingual Spanish speakers there is evidence of replacement of the imperfect subjunctive by the present subjunctive. Choi (1998: 126–7, 131) also reports influence of the system of clitic pronouns on the Spanish of Paraguayan bilinguals, as well as effects on Spanish negation, prepositions, and possessive structures. In these instances, it is not Paraguayan Spanish but the Spanish of Guaraní-dominant bilinguals where the interference from the substrate language is observed.


224,790

San Pedro 39.3

80.5

25.4

61.9

40.9

42.0

44.2

64.2

54.4

68.9

12.1

43.4

75.9

67.4

14.3

2.4

46.9

28.5

57.6

% 3,376

2,010,853

47,245

29,294

76,659

38,728

47,523

159,898

53,188

86,629

44,458

683,682

17,296

25,460

105,668

3,459

357,785

39,340

191,165

48.9

16.9

47.0

37.0

55.9

54.2

42.7

33.1

43.8

26.8

79.3

16.8

19.8

27.5

12.8

73.5

39.6

47.2

29.4

%

Bilingual N

261,118

1,706

1,793

1,992

2,184

3,024

32,953

3,076

3,059

3,028

69,893

1,909

724

4,213

1,082

104,225

5,266

20,840 5.3

5.2

1.3

%

6.4

0.6

2.9

1.0

3.2

3.4

8.8

1.9

1.5

1.8

8.1

1.9

0.6

1.1

4.0

21.4

Spanish 151

N 25

134,639

198

20

27

10

37

6,740

213

15

3,266

216

34,376

4,232

7,429

87

1,051

7,724

68,973

3.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.1

0.0

2.0

0.0

33.4

3.3

1.9

0.3

0.2

7.8

17.0

0.2

%

Portuguese N

Other

91,276

5,399

15,395

305

67

269

9,647

1,054

541

839

3,823

4,591

590

7,886

18,631

12,257

431

8,239

1,312

N

2.2

1.9

24.7

0.1

0.1

0.3

2.6

0.7

0.3

0.5

0.4

4.5

0.5

2.1

68.7

2.5

0.4

2.0

11.4

%

Total

4,111,991

279,338

62,337

207,213

69,326

87,724

374,746

160,559

197,802

165,833

861,695

102,820

128,890

384,223

27,127

486,941

99,333

404,600

11,484

N


Source: Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1995c: 1–10; totals exclude individuals who were not in the country or who provided incomplete data

1,614,105

15,835

Total

128,230

Itapúa

Pres. Hayes

165,508

Guairá

Paraguarí

103,028

Cordillera

36,871

107,558

Concepción

28,337

114,242

Central

Ñeembucú

104,081

Canindeyú

Misiones

97,884

44,648

Caazapá

3,868

259,027

11,623

Asunción

Caaguazú

46,572

Amambay

Boquerón

115,383

6,620

Guaraní

Alto Paraná

Alto Paraguay

N

Table 1 Departments of Paraguay by home language


100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

%

220



CIP014


221

The Paraguayan Spanish lexicon conserves a standard vocabulary, especially in writing. At the discursive level of analysis, many writers have claimed that Spanish and Guaraní are functionally differentiated by bilinguals in a manner similar to the low and high varieties of a diglossic situation. There is evidence that Spanish is used by bilinguals in public situations and that Guaraní is reserved by many bilinguals for the expression of humour and intimacy (Rubin, 1968). Further research is warranted in this area. Guaraní, the official language de jure Paraguayan Guaraní, the second official language of Paraguay, belongs to the Tupí-Guaraní family of languages and is spoken today by some 3.6 million people in Paraguay (see Table 1). Despite the official status of the language (the 1992 Constitution is actually published in Guaraní as well as in Spanish), Paraguayan Guaraní is not used as the main vehicle of written documentation of governmental proceedings, regulations, or proclamations and is therefore an official language in a limited sense, but has a significant nationalist function in Paraguay (Bolke Turner, 1995; Fasold, 1984; Garvin & Mathiot, 1956; Rubin, 1968; Solé, 1995). Spanish contact with the Guaraní occurred sporadically before Asunción was founded in 1537. At the time, the population of speakers of languages from the Tupí-Guaraní family was large, as many as 2 million, extending from the Paranapanema River in Brazil to the River Plate that divides present-day Uruguay and Argentina, as well as from the Atlantic to the eastern foothills of the Andes (Melià, 1992: 20–21). The lands where the closely related members of the Tupí-Guaraní family were spoken did not constitute a country in the modern sense of the word, but there was significant ethnolinguistic unity and communication among the widely separated peoples of the region. Early observers noted the supradialectal function of Guaraní; however, the European colonists were slow to realise the extent of the linguistic ecology they had penetrated. The initial population of Spanish speakers in Paraguay was nearly entirely male and quite small. Even by 1544 there were only 600 Spaniards in Asunción (Raine, 1956: 28). Guaraní men freely gave women to the new settlers, bestowing upon them the title of tovaja, brother-in-law (Raine, 1956: 9, 38). The remote location of Asunción and the preponderance of Guaraní left the Spanish speakers culturally and linguistically overwhelmed. In the ensuing years the native population was severely reduced by war, slavery, mistreatment, and pestilence (Melià, 1992: 21), and from the outset of their incursion into Guaraní territory, Spaniards established their political and military hegemony in the name of the crown and God. Guaraní remains typologically distinct from Spanish, despite the centuries of contact that have exerted significant influence on the subordinate language. Guaraní maintains a system of 12 vowel phonemes, seven of which do not exist in Spanish, including a high central vowel and a full series of nasalised vowels. The language also has a phonemic voiceless glottal stop and a series of voiced nasalised stops. Overt structural case-marking of noun phrases (NP) is evident especially in the pronominal system. While full referential noun phrases show neither



222

CIP014


case nor gender, and often no number, they accept several inflexions and function as stative verbs. The morphology of active verbs (and predicate nominatives) is complex. Even after 460 years of contact with Spanish, the morphological structure of the language is intact and highly productive, although Melià (1992: 64) reports that comparison of the 18th century grammar of Restivo (1890) with the 20th century grammar of Guasch (1956) reveals morphemes that have fallen into disuse. Person/number and causative inflexion are prefixal, whereas tense, aspect, and interrogative marking are suffixal. Negation may be described as circumfixal, since it consists of a prefix and a suffix. The suffixal part of the negative morpheme may be varied to indicate contrasts in tense. As with many morphologically rich languages, the null subject parameter in Guaraní allows for pro-drop. Also like Spanish, Guaraní is an SVO language; however, the language uses postpositions in contrast to the prepositions of Spanish. Relativisation and subordination are realised by means of suffixes on the subordinate verb, and in this sense the language is also left-branching; objects of subordinate verbs follow the suffixal markers of subordination. The grammatical structure of Guaraní is well documented in traditional grammars (Ayala, 1993; Krivoshein de Canese, 1983), as well as in a pedagogical grammar with a tape programme (Ortiz et al., 1990). Velázquez-Castillo (1996) has published a grammar of possession, which represents the most complete description available. Paraguayan Guaraní is distinct from indigenous varieties of Guaraní, primarily because of lexical influence from Spanish. Months, days, most numbers, and many terms associated with the influence of European-introduced flora and fauna and the technical nature of modern society are incorporated into the language. There is a vigorous purist movement, and corpus planners have coined scores of Guaraní-derived neologisms to replace Hispanisms. In Melià’s analysis (1992), the most significant influence of Spanish on Paraguayan Guaraní is in the lexicon, and by extension, the semantic and discursive structure of the language. There is debate as to the distinction between Paraguayan Guaraní and jopara.2 To date, the only study on the mutual structural influence of these two languages to account systematically for the degree of dominance in the other language of the informants is by Choi (1998). Until Choi’s study, much had been made of substrate Guaraní influence on Spanish, but whether the Spanish being recorded was that of native Spanish speakers and not Guaraní speakers of Spanish as a second language was unclear (see, for example, de Granda, 1996). With respect to the Hispanisation of Guaraní, other than borrowing from Spanish and code-switching by bilinguals, evidence for structural convergence with Spanish is stronger at the level of performance than at that of competence. One illustration of the resistance of Guaraní structure to convergence with Spanish is in intonation. Interrogative force is expressed morphologically in Guaraní and intonationally in Spanish. Expert informants declare that Spanish question intonation is not used in Guaraní. The learner of Guaraní as a second language recognises the interrogative morphemes -pa and -piko, because questions sound like declaratives, making recognition of the interrogative morphemes essential for comprehending basic discursive function. Another example of structural robustness is the agglutinative morphology of verbs (and



CIP014


223

predicate nominatives), which has been simplified but is still complex. Krivoshein de Canese (1983: 83) provides the example Nomboguataseveitapahina which means ‘Don’t you want to make him walk any more?’. Analysis of transcripts of interviews of native speakers (see, for example, Comisión Nacional de Rescate y Difusión de la Historia Campesina (National Commission on Recovery and Dissemination of Rural History), 1991) reveals that rural Guaraní monolinguals use this complex system spontaneously. Despite this, the perception that Paraguayan Guaraní has converged with Spanish is widespread. Some claim that Paraguayan Guaraní has been replaced entirely by jopara, but the evidence does not support this claim (Gynan, 2000). Because Guaraní lacks a copula, predicate nouns can be inflected for tense, mood, and aspect, in a manner similar to that of verbs. Full referential expressions are also overtly marked for accusative case. Children in urban bilingual households may fail to acquire fully the inflexions of Guaraní, just as, for example, Spanish-speaking children raised in the US fail to acquire fully the subjunctive. Nevertheless, the fact that the basic morphological and syntactic features of the language remain intact in the rural interior argues against deep structural convergence. De Granda (1990, 1996) presents a hypothesis of widespread and deep structural convergence between the two languages, a conclusion rejected by Choi (1998). The outcome of the debate has potential consequences for language planning. De Granda (1980–81) claims that the purist version of Guaraní used for writing is so distant from the converged spoken norm that planners risk provoking a situation of diglossia. Choi argues that convergence of Guaraní with Spanish is not nearly as deep as claimed by de Granda; however, structural features of Paraguayan Guaraní that find their origin in the Spanish superstrate have strong symbolic significance and complicate the issue of corpus planning (Gynan, 2000). Portuguese, a major minority language Portuguese, a major world language belonging to the Romance family and spoken by over 140 million people in Brazil, is the native tongue of 134,639 Paraguayans according to the 1992 census. There are census districts in eastern Paraguay bordering on Brazil where speakers of Portuguese constitute the largest language group (departmental data on Portuguese use are provided in Table 1). Portuguese has no constitutional status in Paraguay, and its speakers present the highest rates of mobility and illiteracy. Whereas Spanish, Guaraní, and indigenous languages have supporters who have had input to the development of language policy at the Ministerio de Educación y Culto (MEC, Ministry of Education and Religion), there appears to have been a lack of defenders of the rights of Portuguese speakers. Many Paraguayan speakers of Portuguese are quite poor and confined to rural areas. Lesser minority languages Several indigenous languages other than Paraguayan Guaraní are spoken in Paraguay, for an understanding of which Melià’s (1997) analysis is indispensable. The summary of indigenous language data from the Paraguayan census, estimates by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL, 1996), and Melià’s analysis are presented in Table 2. The 1992 Paraguayan census lists 17 indigenous ethnic


CIP014



224

Table 2 Traditional language use by indigenous peoples of Paraguay Tupí-Guaraní family

Avá Katú Eté (Chiripá)

7,000

11,172

4,744

7,000

17,378

10,000

9,962

Chiriguano (Guarayo)

1,254

2,000

1,783

639

900

1,419

1,827

1,800

1,481

Sub-total

23,408

28,700

43,195

Angaité

1,647

4,000

1,904

84

500

84

Lengua (Enxet)

9,501

9,500

12,454

Sanapaná

1,063

2,900

2,421

Toba-Maskoy (Enenxet)

2,057

2,500

11,267

781

800

1,030

15,133

20,200

29,160

229

500

259

1,061

1,000

934

Toba-Qom Sub-total Manjuy (Chorote) Maká Chulupí (Nivaclé)

7,934

18,000

5,320

Sub-total

9,224

19,500

6,513

Ayoreo

814

3,000

1,655

Chamacoco

908

1,800

1,266

1,722

4,800

2,921

49,487

73,200

81,789

Sub-total Total

6,918

8,026

Guaná

Zamucoan family

Melià

Pai-Tavyterá

Tapieté (Ñandeva)

Mataco-Guaicurú family

SIL

Mbyá

Aché (Guayakí)

Maskoian family

1992 census

All indigenous languages

groups, with a total of 49,487 members (see Table 2). This amounts to 1.2% of the total 1992 population of 4,152,588. These numbers do not necessarily represent fluent speakers of the languages traditionally associated with the ethnic group, and the figures may not be reliable. Hamel (1995a: 273, 285) reports that 2.3% or 40,000 Paraguayans were Amerindian. If that proportion were based on the 1982 population total, which was 3,029,830, then dividing the total by 40,000 would yield 1.3%. Even using the 1982 figure of 2,565,850 (people five and over for whom language data were available), only 1.6% of the Paraguayan population would be of indigenous ethnolinguistic identity. Those familiar with Hamel’s report (1995a) should not conclude on the basis of a comparison of Hamel’s figures and those presented here from 1992 that the proportion of indigenous peoples in Paraguay dropped precipitously in the 1980s. The SIL estimates totalling 73,200 indicate significant undercounting by the Paraguayan census. Melià’s analysis of a number of other sources leads him to conclude that there are 79,070 (or 81,789 if one counts each ethnolinguistic group provided in Melià’s analysis, as shown in Table 2) people who identify as belonging to an indigenous ethnic group (Melià, 1997: 406).



CIP014


225

Melià’s detailed analysis, based on a number of other studies, some independent and others governmental, points to consistent undercounting of indigenous groups in Paraguay. Melià posits a number of reasons: reluctance to be counted; mobility, dispersal, and fragmentation of indigenous communities; changing ethnic self-identification; shifting toponyms; and lack of anthropological linguistic training on the part of some census-takers. The indigenous languages of Paraguay belong to at least four families (SIL, 1996). The largest is the Tupí-Guaraní family, of which there are about 25,000 speakers. According to Melià (1992: 245), Of the former Guaraní provinces, four peoples have conserved their fundamental ethnic ways of being, founded and expressed in their own language and culture. They are the Avá Katú Eté, the Mbyá, the Pai-Tavyterá and the Chiriguano. The Avá Katú Eté, referred to as Chiripá (see Melià, 1992: 245), number 6,918. In 1991, the SIL counted 7000 and at least 4000 in Brazil. Melià reports 1009 families. Since the average family size of the Avá is 4.5, this yields another 4540 persons, from whom some 147 must be subtracted. The result, shown in Table 2, is 11,172. Melià attributes the miscount to population displacement caused by hydroelectric plant construction and name confusion. The number speaking Mbyá is 4744. The SIL reported 7000, in addition to 5000 in Brazil. Melià documents undercounting in nine departments, and although he summarises the undercount at 6135 (1997: 119), his own analysis (1997: 106–19) adds up to 12,634. Adding these to the official figures, we derive a Mbyá population of 17,378. Undercounting of this group is ascribed to the reticence of the Mbyá to participate in the census, and their wide geographical distribution throughout the country. The Paraguayan census counted 8026 Pai-Tavyterá speakers. The SIL reported over 10,000. Melià attributes the undercounting to recent changes in toponyms back to traditional names. The Chiriguano, who appear in the census under the pejorative name of Guarayo (see Melià, 1992: 250), number 1254 according to the Paraguayan census, but the SIL estimated 2000 and another 30,000 evenly divided between Argentina and Bolivia. Melià reports a figure similar to that in the SIL count. Other members of the Guaraní family include the Aché, who officially number 292, and are also referred to pejoratively as Guayakí. The SIL reported 900 speakers in 1995. Melià (1997: 99) cites a study by Godoy that reports 240 families; based on an average of 5.9 persons per family, there would be 1419 speakers of this language. The Tapieté are closely related to Chiriguano, and officially number 1827. The SIL reported a similar figure; however, Melià notes that the Chiriguano population of Filadelfia was counted erroneously as Tapieté. Adding the speakers of Aché and Tapieté to the indigenous varieties of Guaraní identified by Melià, according to the Paraguayan census, of the 49,487 Paraguayans identified as belonging to indigenous groups, 22,861 or 46.2% speak languages belonging to the Guaraní family (Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1994: 828; also, see Gynan, 1998b). The Paraguayan census data show the Mascoian family, with over 15,000 speakers, to be the second largest. It includes speakers of Angaité (1647, but SIL reported 4000 in 1991), Guaná (84; SIL reported 500–600 in 1991), Lengua (9501;


CIP014


226


SIL reported a similar number in 1991), Sanapaná (1063, but the SIL listed 2900 in 1991), Toba-Maskoy (2057; SIL listed 2500). The department of Alto Paraná, as cited in Melià, reports a much higher number of Toba-Maskoy, which we list here, but Melià cautions that the undercounting may be the result of mobility of the population in search of work. The Toba-Qom number 781 (SIL reported another 15,000 in Argentina). The SIL also reported the existence of a Maskoy pidgin spoken in Puerto Victoria, describing it as a ‘mixed language formerly used in a tannin factory with Lengua, Sanapana, Angaité, Guaná, and Toba-Maskoy influences’ (SIL, 1996). The Mataco-Guaicurú family is the third largest. The SIL reports undercounting of Nivaclé, but Melià’s analysis in this case produces results far closer to the Paraguayan census figures. The Mataco-Guaicurú family includes: · Manjuy (also referred to as Chorote), speakers of which number 229 according to the Paraguayan census; the SIL reports 500 and a total of 2000 speakers, most of whom live in Argentina. · Maká, 1061; The SIL reported a similar figure in 1991; Melià notes that some Mbya were incorrectly counted as Maká (1997: 153). · Nivaclé (pejoratively referred to as Chulupí) has 7934 speakers according to the Paraguayan census. The SIL reported another 10,000 speakers of this language in Paraguay and 200 more in Argentina, but Melià cites sources that document overcounting of this community. The Zamucoan family, the smallest in Paraguay, includes Ayoreo, which the census reports as having 814 speakers. The SIL reported 3000 in Paraguay, 1991, and another 1000 in Bolivia. Melià cites two studies that show that there are closer to 1700 speakers. There are 908 Chamacoco, but 1800 in 1991 according to the SIL. Melià presents a lower figure, but still higher than that of the census. Finally, the SIL reported 38,000 speakers of Plautdietsch (Mennonite Low German) in Paraguay. The Paraguayan census does not include a count of members of this community, who live nearly in their entirety in small Mennonite farming enclaves in the interior of the country. They are as likely as not to be bilingual not with Spanish but with Guaraní or other indigenous languages. Their urban presence is most significant in the Chaco town of Filadelfia. Although their numbers are not large, their villages are conspicuous features of the rural interior (see Ramírez Russo, 1983). Major religious languages Spanish and Guaraní are major languages of religion. Spanish predominates in urban areas. Guaraní has a long history as a religious language in Paraguay and is still used during services in rural sectors. In the late 16th century, Franciscans and Jesuits translated the Bible and catechism into Guaraní and produced grammars and dictionaries of the language. The Jesuit mission system of the early 17th century was managed in Guaraní. The language was ‘cleansed’ of indigenous religious vocabulary, although some names of gods continued to be used in the new version. The name of Tupã, a minor god of thunder, was borrowed by Jesuits to refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. The Virgin Mary is translated as Tupã Sy, the mother of Tupã (Melià, 1992: 74–5). The Magellanic



CIP014


227

Clouds are still referred to in Guaraní as Tupã-Sy Ykua, the Spring of the Mother of God. Jesuit mission work, beginning in the 16th century and continuing throughout the 17th century, was so successful that, by 1732, 141,182 Guaraní lived in the missions (Maeder, 1989: 61; cited in Melià, 1992: 95). After the 1768 expulsion of the Jesuits, the Guaraní-speaking dwellers of the missions left to eke out their existence in the rural interior (Maeder, 1982: 87; cited in Melià, 1992: 97). The missions are a major factor in explaining the unique situation of an indigenous language spoken by an essentially non-indigenous population (Melià, 1992: 12). The major languages of literacy Spanish is the major language of literacy in Paraguay. Most governmental documents are produced in Spanish. Paraguay has been home to a number of internationally recognised writers, the most well-known being Augusto Roa Bastos, who produced many of his Spanish-language novels in exile, including Yo, El Supremo (I, the Supreme One). Several newspapers, journals, and magazines are published in Spanish. The language has been, until relatively recently, the only medium of literacy education. Despite progress with programmes of mother tongue literacy instruction in Guaraní at the primary level, as well as the much-publicised doctorate programme in Guaraní at National University, Spanish is used almost exclusively in higher education. While Spanish predominates in activities involving literacy in Paraguay, the status of written Guaraní has improved markedly over the last 20 years, undergoing an important revival. The orthography has been simplified somewhat, and purist corpus planners defend a standard Paraguayan Guaraní devoid of most Spanish loanwords. Because of the differences between the written and spoken varieties of Guaraní, some researchers (especially Bolke Turner, 1995; de Granda, 1980–81) argue that Paraguay represents a case of double diglossia. Spanish is the H variety, Guaraní is the L variety, and written Guaraní is a ‘dummy high’. Gynan (1998c) defends the high written variety as more than a dummy high, emphasising the many people who actually use the language; nevertheless, some believe that the written variety has been unrealistically purified and is unrepresentative of the people’s language. There are a few hundred books published in Guaraní. Most are short works: poetry, stories, and dramatic works. The theatrical tradition is notable, and plays written in Guaraní are still staged. There are dictionaries of technical terminology and descriptive or pedagogical grammars of Guaraní. The language is used in radio and television programmes, in special sections of national newspapers, for the names of streets and on business signs everywhere (many of these are documented in CNB, 1997: 158–70), and a primary school curriculum has been developed to impart literacy in the language for its native speaking children. Of special note is the bilingual review Ñemity~ (Seed), published in Guaraní and Spanish since 1977 and featuring poetry, folklore, and editorial statements on aspects of language policy in Guaraní. Spanish is reserved for articles on grammatical and sociolinguistic aspects of Paraguayan bilingualism. The rural-urban dimension Scholars of bilingualism in Paraguay have long recognised the significance of


276,078

1,614,105

Total

502,724

24.5 261,118

232,231

1.4

%

6.4

11.3

Spanish 28,887

N

4

4

DF

134,639

18,066

116,573 3.3

0.9

5.7

%

Portuguese N

Other

91,276

27,032

64,244

N

Total

4,111,991

2,061,536

2,050,455

N

0.0

0.0

Probability

2.2

1.3

3.1

%

100

100

100

%


Source: Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1995a: 1–7; Note: While the total population of Paraguay was 4,152,558 people, the figure of 4,111,991 is used, since that corresponds to the total number of individuals living in individual households, and not collective households. Analysis of language use is available only for individual households.

1563091.4

48.9

73.2

Likelihood ratio chi-square

Value

2,010,853

1,508,129

%

Bilingual N

1446943.1

39.3

13.4

65.3

%

Pearson chi-square

Test statistic

1,338,027

Urban

Guaraní

Rural

N

Table 3 Population of Paraguay by area and home language


228



CIP014


229

the urban-rural dimension for an understanding of the language situation there. Frequently cited statistics for Paraguay as a whole on the numbers of speakers and the stability of this situation are misleading (Solé, 1991). As Table 3 shows, the well-known distribution of languages nationally contrasts with distributions of languages in the rural and urban sectors. Chi-square tests between languages across the urban–rural dimension indicate that these variables are significantly related. Since 1950, the relative numbers of speakers of Guaraní, Spanish, and other languages at the national level have remained roughly constant: 40% Guaraní monolingualism, 5% Spanish monolingualism, 50% Guaraní-Spanish bilingualism, and 5% other languages. (Solé (1995: 127) makes this same point about the first three census surveys.) The rural sector presents a very different distribution pattern. Fully 65.3% of rural dwellers lived in monolingual Guaraní households in 1992. Only 1.4% were monolingual in Spanish, and the incidence of Guaraní-Spanish bilingualism is only 24.5%. In the rural sector Portuguese speakers outnumber Spanish monolinguals four to one. In the urban sector only 13.4% of the population is monolingual in Guaraní, and 73.2% lives in bilingual households. People in monolingual households comprise only 11.3% of the urban population, but just over 20 percent in Asunción. The 1992 census displays, for the first time in Paraguay’s history, a predominantly urban population, although only slightly so. This trend favors urban growth, and thus bilingualism and Spanish monolingualism. The post-Stroessner period has been marked by economic upheaval in the countryside (Paraguay (MEC/VE/PMCES), 1998: 11). The collapse of agriculture because of excessive supply of and decreasing demand for cotton, traditionally a major cash crop, has caused prices to fall (Galeano, 1997: 19–22). The result has been a flight of population from rural to urban areas. Galeano’s analysis of the 1992 census data on internal migration partially reveals the extent of the movement of rural populations to urban areas. Of the 56,733 people who moved from other parts of Paraguay to Asunción, only 17.4% were from rural areas. This pattern fits well with another observed by Galeano, that internal migration in Paraguay occurs more frequently among those with more education. The average number of years of schooling among non-migrants is 4.2 years, whereas among migrants the average is 5.1 years (Galeano, 1997: 117). With respect to the linguistic dimension of migration, one finds higher rates of migration among bilingual populations than among monolingual Guaraní (refer to the discussion in this monograph of the migration data of language subpopulations presented in Table 10 below). The reliability and validity of language census data from Paraguay are questionable, as shown by Melià’s analysis of the indigenous census. With respect to reliability of language census data, Nelde has noted in other circumstances that: ‘[I]n areas where political or socioeconomic conditions are to the disadvantage of the minority, they can often be biased’ (1986: 472). While speakers of Guaraní are not a minority in Paraguay, and Guaraní monolinguals are disadvantaged socioeconomically, the bias in reporting of language behaviour might be to exaggerate use of Guaraní, given its nationalistic function. The validity of census questions is also a concern, as noted in Gynan (1998c). Fasold (1984) observed that a change in the language question of the 1950 census from one about knowledge to one about habitual use in 1962 caused problems of comparability. Because a person may


CIP014



230

Table 4 Language use by Paraguayans aged five and older, 1950–1992 Census year 1950 Speakers

1962 %

Speakers

1982 %

Speakers

1992 %

Speakers

%

Total, Paraguay

1,328,452

1,819,103

3,029,830

4,152,588

Total, five and older

1,110,812

100.0 1,504,756 100.0

2,565,850

100.0 3,503,650

100.0

Guaraní only

414,032

37.3

648,884

43.1

1,029,786

40.1 1,345,513

38.4

Guaraní-Spanish

633,151

57.0

761,137

50.6

1,247,742

48.6 1,736,342

49.6

Spanish only

48,474

4.4

61,570

4.1

166,441

6.5

227,204

6.5

Other languages

15,155

1.4

33,165

2.2

121,881

4.8

194,591

5.6

Source: See Note 3

know two languages but habitually use only one, rates of bilingualism would be affected, perhaps decreasing artificially. A glance at Table 43 shows that there was a notable apparent decrease in bilingualism between 1950 and 1962. The language use question on the 1962 census was reused for the 1982 census, but the comparison between 1982 and 1992 figures is difficult due to a change in referent. In 1982 (and in 1962), individuals were identified as to the language they habitually used. In 1992, households were identified as to the language used. The published census figures did not identify individuals’ language use. As explained in Gynan (1998c), the only way to compare 1982 and 1992 figures was to identify individuals by the language of the household. This also made possible the analysis of home language use by area, age, sex, school, and occupation. Despite the difficulties occasioned by the change, information on home language use ‘… does enable predictions of future use of the languages concerned’ (Clyne & Kipp, 1997: 451). The Paraguayan census bureau plans to use the 1992 method in the 2002 survey. Recent Paraguayan scholarship from the Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos (CEPES, Paraguayan Centre for Sociological Studies) calls into question the high rates of Guaraní monolingualism indicated by census figures over the last 40 years: The Paraguayan linguistic situation, rather than a dichotomised reality – monolingual Guaraní versus monolingual Spanish – is better described as a communicative continuum, at each end of which are located cases of absolute monolingualism representing an extremely small number of individuals, and with a clear tendency toward disappearance in the case of Guaraní monolingualism (and conversely of increase in the case of Spanish monolingualism) (Paraguay (MEC/VE/PMCES), 1998: 15). This opinion is shared by other Paraguayan students of bilingualism. The vitality of Guaraní monolingualism may be decreasing, but the CEPES study



CIP014


231

argues, relying instead on the logical force of the argument, that pure monolingualism is a reductionist category and therefore nearly self-eliminating as a phenomenon. In defending the notion of rural monolingualism in Guaraní, one may be guilty of, in Mühlhäusler’s words (1996: 5), ‘a very serious trespass on the linguistic ecology of an area’. Nevertheless, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Paraguayans are reporting that they use only Guaraní at home is a strong statement about the linguistic ecology of the rural sector. Even the authors of the 1998 CEPES study on secondary school improvement admit that many so-called bilinguals are functional only in Guaraní. Since in the 1992 census households and not individuals were identified as bilingual, official identification as bilingual includes a continuum of language abilities in Paraguay’s co-official languages. Cartographic representations of language distribution Details of language distribution in Paraguay by department were presented in Table 1, but the patterns of Guaraní monolingualism and Guaraní-Spanish bilingualism are clearer when represented cartographically. Figure 1, based on data from Table 1, shows the distribution of individuals who live in monolingual Guaraní households.4 Only 3% of the country’s citizens live in the three large, sparsely populated departments of the Chaco (Boquerón, Presidente Hayes and Alto Paraguay. Those departments are provided for completeness. Darker shading on the maps indicates higher percentages of Guaraní speakers. The enlargement of the map of Asunción and the surrounding census districts of Central Department illustrates the low proportion of Guaraní monolingualism in the capital. Leaving the Central Department, one enters the heart of the Guaraní-speaking territory. These are the departments of Cordillera, Paraguarí, San Pedro, Concepción, Caazapá, Guairá, and Caaguazú, where a majority of the population is monolingual in Guaraní. (Refer to Table 1 for the population counts and percentages.) San Pedro is especially distinguished among these departments as the site of the highest rate of monolingualism in Guaraní – 80.5%. The traveler to the rural interior is struck by the preponderance of Guaraní and the need to rely on bilingual interpreters. The interior is dotted with small urban areas, and the close correlation between incidence of bilingualism and urban development is everywhere obvious. The schools, businesses, churches and administrative offices of rural towns are havens for Spanish, but a stroll down a dirt road leading from the centre square takes one into the monolingual Guaraní world. The claim that Guaraní monolingualism is rare must be studied, especially in the many rural census districts where 90% of the households were identified as monolingual in Guaraní. As one approaches the border with Brazil to the east and Argentina to the south, rates of Guaraní monolingualism decrease to 40%, with the exception of Alto Paraná, in which Ciudad del Este has a sizeable urban population, a higher rate of bilingualism, and a lower rate of Guaraní monolingualism. Portuguese use constitutes 17%, the highest of any department. The pattern of shading is similar to that found on a map of rural population, since Guaraní monolingualism is clearly a feature of rural areas. The map in Figure 2 represents distribution of bilingualism in Paraguay by the 217 census districts. By comparing the maps in Figures 1 and 2, it becomes appar-



232

CIP014


Figure 1 Population of Paraguay by department and monolingual Guaraní population, 1992 (with close-up of Central Department Census Districts)

ent that Guaraní monolinguals and Guaraní-Spanish bilinguals are in complementary distribution. The pattern of bilingual use in the urban sectors of the capital and Central Department is the reverse of that of low rates of Guaraní monolingualism. In Figure 2, the total lack of shading in many districts of the traditional Guaraní-speaking areas indicates low rates of bilingualism where Guaraní monolingualism is highest. Conversely, as one approaches the border with Argentina, as shown on the map in Figure 2, the census districts are shaded more darkly, exactly where monolingualism in Guaraní decreases. Only in Asunción are rates of Spanish monolingualism high, and even there the vast majority is bilingual. The map in Figure 2 is the most detailed image to date of the inroads that Spanish has made into the rural heart of Paraguay. The urban areas of Asunción and the Alto Paraná Department are linked by a line of darker shaded census districts. These correspond to the areas through which a highway connects the two urban areas. As routes are improved, contact between the urban and rural



CIP014


233

Figure 2 Guaraní-Spanish bilingualism in Paraguay, with close-up of Asunción and Central Department (shading of census districts is intended only as an approximate representation of percentage bilingualism)

sectors increases, favouring an increase in Spanish use. The rivers serve as conduits of the Spanish language, so as one follows the Paraguay River north of Asunción, rates of bilingualism in heavily Guaraní monolingual San Pedro are highest along its banks. In some half dozen census districts (in and near Alto Paraná on the Brazilian border), the language of the majority is Portuguese, and approaches or exceeds 70%.

Language Spread The map of bilingualism by census district shown in Figure 2 reflects the limited spread of Spanish to the interior. Asunción, with its 21.4% rate of Spanish monolingualism has been and remains the Spanish-speaking centre of the nation. The reasons for the lack of Spanish spread are explored in this section. The languages of the educational system Education in Paraguay, especially in the rural interior, but also in the urban sector, has been poorly funded throughout Paraguay’s history. To the extent that



234

CIP014


the language-in-education spread policy is responsible for hastening the process of shift from the subordinated language to the colonising language, Spanish spread in Paraguay has not occurred because of low levels of education. The reasons are found in the historical context of Paraguayan bilingualism over the last five centuries which indicates that politically motivated rural economic policy has favoured the spread and maintenance of Guaraní. Until the end of the 20th century, Paraguayan elementary education was conducted nearly exclusively in Spanish, despite the fact that many children were being raised in monolingual Guaraní households. The challenge posed by Paraguay’s situation of language contact is shown in Table 5. Paraguay’s urban population is young. Of the two million urban residents, nearly half are under 20. The monolingual Guaraní population is even younger – the majority are under 20. Many of the 141,628 youngsters in urban monolingual Guaraní households do not know Spanish well, and will require a Guaraní literacy programme to accommodate their linguistic needs. Although many of the 700,000 urban bilingual children will respond well to literacy education in Spanish, thousands are dominant in Guaraní, and need to be evaluated to determine the appropriate language programme. Compounding the urban challenge is the massive problem of the language of education in the rural sector. The majority of people in the rural sector live in monolingual Guaraní households and are under the age of 20. In 1992, 757,397 children were being raised in rural monolingual Guaraní households. For these children, literacy instruction in Spanish has amounted to de facto submersion with predictable results: high rates of absenteeism and early dropout. Although Paraguay’s Ministry of Education cites other reasons for these problems, research conducted under its auspices concludes that language is a significant factor in early and widespread failure at the elementary level (Paraguay (MEC/DGE/OAS), 1978: 77). In contrast with the urban bilingual population, which is more Spanish-dominant, the rural bilingual population will tend to be Guaraní-dominant, requiring assessment of language ability for placement. Another challenge, which receives scant mention in Paraguayan language policy documents, is the presence in the rural sector of over 116,000 speakers of Portuguese. Language education in Paraguay has begun to change. In 1994 Paraguay instituted a programme of maintenance bilingual education. As reported in MEC documents that are summarised in Gynan (1998b), in 1994 there were 7058 children enrolled in Guaraní-Spanish bilingual education. Members of the Comisión Nacional de Bilingüismo (CNB) (National Bilingualism Commission) explained that these experimental programmes were close to urban areas for reasons of access. Many of the Guaraní areas are reached only by dirt roads that become impassable after subtropical downpours. Of the 118 schools, 40 were in Central Department. None were in the predominantly Guaraní monolingual departments of San Pedro, Concepción, or Caazapá. In Table 5, the group of children from ages 0 to 19 has been divided into five-year cohorts in order to make clearer the demographic context of the original 1994 bilingual programme. In each of the five-year age cohorts there are roughly 250,000 Guaraní monolinguals, an equal number of bilinguals, and under 35,000 Spanish monolinguals. In the urban sector, there were nearly 40,000 children four years old or younger who were being raised in monolingual households.


319,041

168,001

20 to 39 years

40 to 59 years

1,611,996

Total

100.0

82.9

5.7

10.4

19.8

7.1

11.7

14.0

14.2

17.1

1.6

2.3

4.4

1.5

2.3

2.5

2.5

%

2,001,891

504,142

31,831

68,097

139,846

43,532

65.088

77,242

78,506

1,497,749

104,810

216,223

478,030

142,445

173,681

186,991

25.2

1.6

3.4

7.0

2.2

3.3

3.9

3.9

74.8

5.2

10.8

23.9

7.1

8.7

9.3

9.8

%

100.0

Bilingual

195,569

N

259,207

29,016

1,338

3,652

9,177

2,346

3,307

4,439

4,757

230,191

13,571

34,154

77,158

22,066

25,563

28,601

11.2

0.5

1.4

3.5

0.9

1.3

1.7

1.8

88.8

5.2

13.2

29.8

8.5

9.9

11.0

11.2

%

100.0

Spanish

29,078

N

133,840

116,033

3,386

15,388

37,602

12,353

14,540

16,012

16,752

17,807

540

2,234

6,080

1,932

2,098

2,343

2,580

100.0

86.7

2.5

11.5

28.1

9.2

10.9

12.0

12.5

13.3

0.4

1.7

4.5

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.9

%

Portuguese N

Total

4,097,758

2,049,326

132,280

265,042

524,491

179,916

278,143

331.524

337,930

2,048,432

147,521

295,264

640,542

193,817

240,427

261,162

269,699

N

100.0

50.0


3.2

6.5

12.8

4.4

6.8

8.1

8.2

50.0

3.6

7.2

15.6

4.7

5.9

6.4

6.6

%

Sources: Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1995c: 8–22; Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1995b: 1–542 Note: Totals include speakers of other languages and exclude individuals who were not in the country or who provided incomplete data.

1,336,006

Subtotal rural

91,567

115,026

15–19 years

60 years and older

187,932

10–14 years

26,335

60 years and older

225,773

37,419

40 to 59 years

228,666

70,608

20 to 39 years

5–9 years

24,731

15–19 years

275,990

36,477

10–14 years

Rural 0–4 years

40,632

5–9 years

Subtotal urban

39,788

Guaraní

Urban 0–4 years

N

Table 5 Urban and rural population of Paraguay by age and home language


Language Planning and Policy in Paraguay 235

CIP014



236

Therefore, some 8000 children a year would enter the school system in need of Guaraní instruction. Another 40,000 bilingual children would enter each year and, estimating conservatively that 10% of children from urban bilingual households would be dominant in Guaraní, there would be a total of 12,000 children in need of Guaraní instruction in the urban sector. In the rural sector, 228,666 of the 337,930 in the youngest age cohort, or 67.7%, were being raised in households monolingual in Guaraní. Dividing the 228,666 children by the five years of the cohort, we get approximately 45,000 Guaraní monolinguals who would enter rural schools each year. Assuming that around a third of the 15,000 rural bilinguals entering each year would be dominant in Guaraní, around 50,000 children from the rural sector entering the school system each year would need Guaraní instruction. Adding the 12,000 urban Guaraní-speaking children, there are some 62,000 children who will enter the school system each year with little or no ability in Spanish. In 1998, as shown in Table 6, the programme in Guaraní mother-tongue education was reaching 10,561 children, around 17% of the target population. Consultation with Ministry of Education personnel (February, 2001) indicates that the percentage of coverage has not increased during the last two years. The figure of two-thirds rural Guaraní monolingualism is for the sector as a whole. In some departments and census districts, the figure is much higher. In the departments of Concepción, San Pedro, Guairá, Caaguazú, and Caazapá, over 80% of children between the ages of 0 and 4 are from households monolinTable 6 Enrolment in the Guaraní-speaking modality of bilingual education, 1998 First basic cycle Department

Grade 1

Concepción

Grade 2

Second basic cycle

Grade 3

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Total

1,114

983

661

669

76

55

3,558

San Pedro

546

346

306

248

55

67

1,568

Cordillera

848

679

773

786

557

48

3,691

Guairá

1,225

845

841

670

371

231

4,183

Caaguazú

2,156

1,871

1,270

1,325

691

0

7,313

Caazapá Itapúa Misiones

68

64

66

67

0

0

265

464

424

379

459

0

0

1,726

140

146

138

120

58

0

602

1,391

966

767

774

454

0

4,352

Alto Paraná

933

838

729

913

503

0

3,916

Central

567

601

514

1,146

1,147

63

4,038

Paraguarí

¥eembucú

0

0

0

95

0

0

95

Amambay

249

202

200

96

0

0

747

Canindeyú

381

190

85

51

0

0

707

Other

479

400

390

269

143

50

1,731

10,561

8,555

7,119

7,688

4,055

514

38,492

510

435

374

391

192

35

1,937

Total pupils Total teachers

Source: Paraguay (MEC), 1998



CIP014


237

gual in Guaraní (Table 7). The challenge to the government to provide appropriate education to children in these areas is particularly acute. Until 1994, excepting some experimental programmes, there was no programme of Guaraní mother-tongue literacy. The years of de facto submersion in Spanish literacy are in evidence in the census data (Table 8). Literacy is liberally defined as completion of second grade: ‘Those individuals ten years and older who had not completed the second grade at the moment [when the census was taken] are considered to be illiterate’ (Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1994: 836). Comparing the row per cents in Table 8, even with a liberal definition of literacy, the differences by language are obvious. For most language use groups, rural illiteracy is twice as high as urban illiteracy. The exception is Guaraní, for which the rate of illiteracy is three times as high as for bilinguals and Spanish monolinguals. In the case of speakers of Portuguese and other languages, the rate of illiteracy is from four to five times higher. Table 9 reveals another dimension along which behaviour is differentiated by language in Paraguay. Whereas nearly 92% of the bilingual children and 96% of the Spanish monolingual children between the ages of 7 and 14 are in school, only around 82% of the Guaraní monolinguals are in school. This figure may seem high, but Guaraní-speaking children are disproportionately underserved. Of the 119,611 children between the ages of 7 and 14 not in school, 67,353 or 56.3% are from monolingual Guaraní households. The objectives of language education and methods of assessment As of 1994, the objective of language education at the elementary level in Paraguayan schools is to achieve universal ‘coordinate bilingualism’. This term appears numerous times, and the exact meaning of the compound-coordinate distinction in this context is important to specify. (See Gynan, 1998b for a fuller analysis of the use of this term.) Paraguayan language planners view the two languages as expressive of different sociocultural realities; thus, even the individual who is fluently bilingual from the earliest stages of acquisition cannot really have equal facility in the two languages. Coordinate, not compound, bilingualism is the objective. Paraguayan language policy writers argue that the differentiation between the two languages leaves Guaraní at a functional disadvantage, since Spanish is developed more fully in both reading and writing, whereas Guaraní retains a largely oral function (Paraguay (MEC/SSE/DC/ETEB), 1995). The goal of universal coordinate bilingualism is far from being achieved. Since 1998 Paraguay’s Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) has been decentralising and therefore has only limited authority in this matter. MEC provides all textbooks and money for salaries, receives all grades assigned by schools, and may deny certification to those districts that have not implemented at least some level of instruction in Guaraní. Consequently, Guaraní instruction is available in the great majority of public schools in Paraguay. Some of the barriers to bilingual education have been documented in a study of 90 Spanish modality programmes, 50 Guaraní modality programmes, and 10 ‘active schools’ (Paraguay (MEC/UCP), 2000). The study documents three educational styles (teacher as communicator, engineer, or entrepreneur), as well as student, parent, teacher, community, and school attitudes (p. 60). Comparisons of Spanish and Guaraní schools show no notable differences in objectives or style


2,861

5,177

7,249

2,002

559

732

Ñeembucú

Amambay

Canindeyú

Pres. Hayes

Boquerón

Alto Paraguay 67.7

65.8

17.5

31.7

51.2

78.1

57.5

30.0

46.7

73.0

65.5

59.7

83.9

80.9

81.7

67.3

87.2

88.1

%

78,506

180

392

2,045

1,500

627

2,093

16,894

6,320

6,316

2,292

15,030

2,338

6,776

3,215

6,365

4,311

1,812

Bilingual

23.2

16.2

12.3

32.4

10.6

9.5

42.1

66.3

21.4

26.7

33.5

32.0

12.1

13.9

17.2

31.9

10.2

9.0

%

4,757

9

155

81

150

37

13

850

486

58

36

2,171

49

254

77

109

182

40

Spanish

1.4

0.8

4.9

1.3

1.1

0.6

0.3

3.3

1.6

0.2

0.5

4.6

0.3

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.2

%

16,752

2

5

2

4,442

779

2

2

8,459

1

0

1,054

646

898

31

0

23

406

Portuguese

5.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

31.3

11.7

0.0

0.0

28.6

0.0

0.0

2.2

3.3

1.8

0.2

0.0

0.1

2.0

%


Source: Paraguay (STP/DGEEC), 1995b: 1–542 Note: ‘Other’ includes individuals who were not in the country or who provided incomplete data.

228,666

7,632

Total

13,781

Itapúa

Central

28,085

Caazapá

Alto Paraná

16,243

Caaguazú

4,478

39,383

Guairá

17,262

15,230

Cordillera

Paraguarí

13,443

San Pedro

Misiones

17,680

36,869

Concepción

Guaraní

Department

Table 7 Rural population of Paraguay, ages 0 to 4, by department and home language


9,249

189

2,080

2,185

829

12

5

85

492

24

30

701

89

1,377

95

48

888

120

Other

2.7

17.0

65.2

34.6

5.9

0.2

0.1

0.3

1.7

0.1

0.4

1.5

0.5

2.8

0.5

0.2

2.1

0.6

%

337,930

1,112

3,191

6,315

14,170

6,632

4,974

25,463

29,538

23,661

6,836

47,041

19,365

48,688

18,648

19,965

42,273

20,058

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

%

238


161,089 80,395 241,484

Urban

Total

4,587

Total

Rural

3,438

Urban

22,650

Total 1,149

2,079

Rural

20,571

Urban

Total

Rural

1,217 12,179

Urban

133,127

Total 10,962

26,612

Rural

106,515

Urban

68,941

Total

Rural

47,049

Urban

N 21,892

Rural

E:\Stephen Cracknell\Mes documents\cilp\latin-america\la-7-ventura8.vp 26 April 2007 12:21:55

Mantel Haenszel chi-square 2346.0 Probability

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay

Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts

Language Planning & Policy In Europe Vol.1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy in Europe Vol 3: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy (Language Planning and Policy)

Trade Policy Reforms in Latin America

Social Policy Reform and Market Governance in Latin America

Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America

Latin America after Mexico: quickening the pace

Language policy and language planning: from nationalism to globalisation

Modern Political Economy And Latin America: Theory And Policy

Global Etiquette Guide to Mexico and Latin America

Social Town Planning: Planning and Social Policy

Regional Policy and Planning in Europe

Globalization and Uncertainty in Latin America

Archaeology in Latin America

Latin America In Crisis

Latin America in Crisis

Cities and Society in Colonial Latin America

Race and Nation in Modern Latin America

AIDS in Latin America

Dependency and Development in Latin America

Heroes and Hero Cults in Latin America

Globalization and Uncertainty in Latin America

Civil Society and Democracy in Latin America

Cyborgs in Latin America

Language Planning and Policy in Latin America: Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay

Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts

Language Planning & Policy In Europe Vol.1: Hungary, Finland and Sweden (Language Planning and Policy)

Language Planning and Policy in Europe Vol 3: The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy (Language Planning and Policy)

Trade Policy Reforms in Latin America

Social Policy Reform and Market Governance in Latin America

Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America

Latin America after Mexico: quickening the pace

Language policy and language planning: from nationalism to globalisation

Modern Political Economy And Latin America: Theory And Policy

Global Etiquette Guide to Mexico and Latin America

Social Town Planning: Planning and Social Policy

Regional Policy and Planning in Europe

Globalization and Uncertainty in Latin America

Archaeology in Latin America

Latin America In Crisis

Latin America in Crisis

Cities and Society in Colonial Latin America

Race and Nation in Modern Latin America

AIDS in Latin America

Dependency and Development in Latin America

Heroes and Hero Cults in Latin America

Globalization and Uncertainty in Latin America

Civil Society and Democracy in Latin America

Cyborgs in Latin America

Recommend Documents