Language Policy and Planning in Latinamerica

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 Queens-
land, QLD 4072 Australia <rbaldauf4@bigpond.com>
Robert B. Kaplan
Professor Emeritus, Applied Linguistics, University of Southern California
Mailing Address: PO Box 577, Port Angeles, WA 98362 USA <rkaplan@
olypen.com>
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 indig-
enous 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 intercultur-
alism and bilingualism;
• they all experienced religious conversion into Christianity – particularly
into Catholicism. Missionary work had a huge effect on the socio-genesis
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 Christian-

ity, 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 sub-
sequent 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 increas-
ingly 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 indig-
enous 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 assimi-
late 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 Language Planning and Policy in Latin America, Vol. 1
more than four hundred years of contact with Spanish under hugely unfavora-
ble 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 upper-
class 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. the dynamic and shifting relationships between languages and their
speakers;
2. the continued loss of indigenous languages and the on-going transition
towards Spanish monolingualism;
3. the continually, and at times rapidly, shifting politics and practices con-
cerning language and education;
4. the long-standing gaps between official policy and rhetoric concerning
indigenous populations and languages on the one hand, and implementa-
tion of programs 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.
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 unprece-
dented 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

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. Fur-
thermore, the languages spoken in the Andean and Amazonian regions may
be referred to as ‘native’, ‘autochthonous’, ‘vernacular’, ‘indigenous’, ‘unoffi-
cial’, ‘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 organi-
sations 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 Ecuado-
rian state being defined as ‘one and indivisible.’
Adding to the somewhat confused and confusing state of affairs, the Confe-
deración 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 pro-
cedures 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

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 sophisti-
cated 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 Quichua Runa Shimi/Quichua
Carchi
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

In addition to the indigenous languages, there are also a number of newer

varieties, developed as the result of intense language contact. The best docu-
mented 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 rela-
tively 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 popu-
lation; 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 con-
tinents; 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 demograph-
ics, 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 popula-
tion, 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 par-
ticularly 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

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 compul-
sory 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-indig-
enous 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 facili-
tate 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

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 admin-
istrative structure was implemented to support these legislative decisions and
meaningful use of indigenous languages in education – a dedicated adminis-
trative 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 popu-
lation 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 govern-
ment; 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

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,
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.
‘Globalisation’ and the process of cultural erosion that it implies may be char-
acterised 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 simul-
taneously 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 collabora-
tion 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 indig-
enous 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 inhabit-
ants, 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 socio-
economic systems define national culture in terms of the country’s Hispanic
la-3.indd 14 26/04/2007 12:02:28

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 consist-
ently 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

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 com-
municable 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 revo-
lutionary 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 present-
day 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 popu-
lation 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 con-
servative 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

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 Zap-
atistas 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

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. 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’.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The fourth area lies around the Gulf of Mexico, comprised of 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.
5. The fifth dialectical area includes the Yucatan and Quintana Roo. A glottal
stop typical of Yucatan Mayan but unknown in Spanish is used.
6. 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 indispen-
sable 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

written grammars were developed on the patterns of Latin and Spanish, and
therefore failed to capture accurately the structure of many languages. Further-
more, the lack of homogeneity in spelling suggests that standard orthographies
were not developed. Collections of grammar, structure and vocabulary that sub-
sequently 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 transpor-
tation 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 indig-
enous 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

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 com-
munities. 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, non-
monotheistic 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 intro-
ducing Protestantism into indigenous communities. In some ways this has
given rise to a polemical debate; the SIL has been accused of changing the indig-
enous 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 conse-
quently 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

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 mul-
tilateral 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 bicul-
tural school programs, the tolerance of traditional medicine and the exploration
of alternative models for agricultural and handicraft production. Ideally, policy-
making 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 notwith-
standing, it is probably not true that the representatives of the Crown believed
la-3.indd 21 26/04/2007 12:02:29

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 ‘civilisa-
tion’ – a clear case of paternalism.
While most of the policies prevailing throughout this period were assimi-
lationist, there were, essentially, two different approaches to achieving
Castellanisation among the indigenous population. The direct approach main-
tained 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 Castel-
lanisation 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 anthropolo-
gists 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

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 multicul-
tural 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 indig-
enous 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 corre-
sponding 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 govern-
ment 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 govern-
ment 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 subordi-
nation, 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-deter-
mination 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, employ-
ment and self-sustaining economic practices in indigenous pueblos.
la-3.indd 23 26/04/2007 12:02:29

• 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 tradi-
tional 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 par-
ticipation 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 intro-
duced 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 rec-
ognised. 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 activi-
ties. 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

to have access to compulsory bilingual and intercultural education and to an

educational system that respects the dignity and identity of people independ-
ent 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 informa-
tion. 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

higher education and indigenous universities in addition to the Secretaries of

Education, of the Treasury, of Public Credit, of Social Development and of Com-
munication 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. The monolingual indigenous population is decreasing, while the number
of indigenous Spanish bilinguals is increasing.
2. The indigenous migration to urban centres is now more likely to be
permanent rather than temporary.
3. The discourse spaces available to bilinguals do not favour the use of indig-
enous languages, and new spaces are not being created to encourage their
use.
4. 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. Inter-
nally, Spanish is the only language that is consistently spoken and understood
throughout the entire country; hence, the ability to use Spanish communica-
tively 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 indig-
enous languages to the status of national languages) and the foundation of the
la-3.indd 26 26/04/2007 12:02:30

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 ini-
tiatives have been taken in the field of foreign and Spanish language teaching,
there is no ecological vision of the interactions between Spanish and interna-
tional 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. Histori-
cally, 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 contem-
porary 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

c. 2 million speakers. Europeans were slow to understand the extent of the

linguistic ecology they had entered. Paraguayan Guarani is distinct from indig-
enous 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 pop-
ulation 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 semi-
nomadic 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 (Guarani-
speaking) 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 Jean-
Jacques 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

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 pres-
idency 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 bilingual-
ism 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

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 linguisti-
cally; 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 pre-
dominates 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 news-
papers, 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

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 facili-
tate 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 sit-
uations 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 mono-
lingualism 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

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 indi-
viduals 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 devel-
oping 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

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 Uni-
versity 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 eco-
logical 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. Horn-
berger (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

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 nation-
state. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 10 (1), 33–46.
King, K. A. (1999) Language revitalisation processes and prospects: Quichua in the Ecua-
dorian 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). Buckin-
gham, 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. Inter-
national 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

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 devel-
opment 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 moderniza-
cion 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 lin-
guistico 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 inves-
tigacion 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 sociolin-
guistic framework]. Alteridades 5 (10), 79–88.
Hamel, R. E. (1995) Derechos linguisticos como derechos humanos: debates y perspec-
tivas [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. Mul-
tilinguismo 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 Univer-
sity 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

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 [Lin-
guistic 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 organiza-
tional 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 indig-
enous 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 indig-
enous 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 Univer-
sity 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

[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 Interna-
cional 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 [Bilin-
gualism 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 [Con-
siderations 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 bilin-
gualism 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 Lin-
guisticos 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

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 Uni-
versity Press.
Schmidt, C. (1999) Deutsch in Paraguay [German in Paraguay]. In A. Raasch (ed.) Deutsch
und Andere Fremdsprachen-International LanderBerichte-Sprachenpolitische Analysen-Anre-
gungen [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 Implica-
tions (pp. 70–83). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
la-3.indd 38 26/04/2007 12:02:31

Language Policy and Planning in Latinamerica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Policy and Planning in Latinamerica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Policy and Planning in Ecuador,

Mexico and Paraguay: Some Common

Richard B. Baldauf Jr.

• they are all in Latin America;

la-3.indd 6 26/04/2007 12:02:27

of languages. This is not to say that, prior to colonialism and Christian-

la-3.indd 7 26/04/2007 12:02:28

la-3.indd 8 26/04/2007 12:02:28

Ecuador (other than Spanish) are ambiguously defined as ‘minority languages,’

la-3.indd 9 26/04/2007 12:02:28

Other Indigenous Languages

Region Province Nationality Language

la-3.indd 10 26/04/2007 12:02:28

In addition to the indigenous languages, there are also a number of newer

la-3.indd 11 26/04/2007 12:02:28

la-3.indd 12 26/04/2007 12:02:28

• developing pedagogical materials;

la-3.indd 13 26/04/2007 12:02:28

the result of negotiations and compromises, and as embedded in larger debates

la-3.indd 14 26/04/2007 12:02:28

heritage. However, although Mexico is the world’s largest Spanish speaking

la-3.indd 15 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 16 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 17 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 18 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 19 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 20 26/04/2007 12:02:29

la-3.indd 21 26/04/2007 12:02:29

the indigenous languages to be unsophisticated or primitive, especially during

la-3.indd 22 26/04/2007 12:02:29

of colonial Mexico shows that it is important not to underestimate the power

• Political: the recognition of an inclusive government and the introduction

la-3.indd 23 26/04/2007 12:02:29

• Cultural: the decision to guarantee the maintenance of the indigenous

la-3.indd 24 26/04/2007 12:02:29

to have access to compulsory bilingual and intercultural education and to an

• To design strategies and instruments for the development of indigenous

This section also requires the Institute to be instrumental in researching

la-3.indd 25 26/04/2007 12:02:30

higher education and indigenous universities in addition to the Secretaries of

la-3.indd 26 26/04/2007 12:02:30

National Institute for Indigenous Languages (which provide a framework for

la-3.indd 27 26/04/2007 12:02:30

c. 2 million speakers. Europeans were slow to understand the extent of the

la-3.indd 28 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 29 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 30 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 31 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 32 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 33 26/04/2007 12:02:30

Hornberger, N. H. and King, K. A. (1998) Authenticity and unification in Quechua

la-3.indd 34 26/04/2007 12:02:30

la-3.indd 35 26/04/2007 12:02:30

J. Maurais and M. A. Morris (eds) Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 143–156).

la-3.indd 36 26/04/2007 12:02:31

[Malintzin: Bilingualism and literacy in Sierra de Tlaxcala (Mexico)]. Language Problems

la-3.indd 37 26/04/2007 12:02:31

la-3.indd 38 26/04/2007 12:02:31

You might also like