Summary Objectives Context Methodology Results

Context

Upper Necaxa is a member of the Totonac-Tepehua family of languages, an isolate linguistic group of Northern Puebla State, Mexico, and adjacent areas of Veracruz and Hidalgo. It is currently spoken by around 3,400 people, most aged 40 or older, in four communities—Patla, Chicontla, Cacahuatlán, and San Pedro Tlaloantongo—in the Necaxa River Valley in northeastern Puebla State. All but the oldest speakers are bilingual, and in most households the language of child-rearing has been switched to Spanish by parents who see proficiency in the dominant language as an advantage for their children. At least one other Totonacan language (Misantla Totonac) has only a handful of speakers remaining (MacKay 1999) while another (Ozumatlán) is spoken by fewer than 2,000 people (Gordon 2005). Most of the indigenous languages of Mexico, like the majority of the world’s languages, are in grave danger of extinction, with potentially tragic results for scientists and speakers of these languages alike (Krauss 1992).

The Totonacan branch of the Totonac-Tepehua family has traditionally been analyzed as consisting of three or four mutually unintelligible languages—Misantla, Papantla, and Sierra (Arana 1953; García Rojas 1978), the last group sometimes being subdivided into Northern and Southern Sierra. Recent work indicates that the separation within some of these varieties is great enough to prevent naïve mutual intelligibility, the usual criterion for the classification of speech varieties as separate languages. The distinctions between Upper Necaxa and other members of the Northern Sierra group, within which it has been classified, seem particularly marked and include a number of distinctive lexical, grammatical and phonological changes (Gordon 2005; Beck 2000a, 2006c). In some cases, the divergent features of UNT seem to link it more to Southern Sierra and Papantla, suggesting that it may be in some sense an inter-mediate variety crucial for accurate historical reconstruction, a project currently being undertaken in collaboration with colleagues in Computing Sciences at the University of Alberta (Kondrak, Beck & Dilts 2007). As a result of the PI’s research to date, UNT has been recognized by the Mexican government through INALI (Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas), and has recently been assigned an ISO language code (TKU), as has a neighboring Totonacan language, Tecpatlán Totonac (ISO TCW).

Until fairly recently, the Totonac-Tepehua family has been largely undescribed. The earliest work is a grammar written by a Spanish priest (Bonilla 1752). A few languages of the family have been studied by evangelical missionaries from the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), who have produced three moderate-sized dictionaries (Aschmann 1962, 1973; Reid & Bishop 1974) and some articles on specific topics (e.g. Aschmann 1946a, 1946b, 1952-53, 1963; Aschmann & Wonderly 1952; Bishop 1979). The first grammatical work on Totonac by an academically-trained linguist is a study of a variety of Sierra Totonac (Coatepec), written in the 1940s and re-printed in Spanish as McQuown (1990), while aspects of Tlachichilco Tepehua grammar are dealt with in Watters (1985, 1987, 1988). Northern Totonac has received no previous attention from linguists, although the Apapantilla variety has been documented to some extent by members of the SIL (Reid et al. 1968; Reid 1979, 1991; Bishop & Reid 1979).

More recently, there has been an increased interest in the language family among academics. New stud-ies are currently underway of Pisa Flores Tepehua and of the Sierra Totonac varieties spoken in Zapotitlán and Filomeno Mata. Misantla Totonac is described by MacKay (1991, 1994, 1999) and Papantla Totonac has been written on by Levy (1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2003, 2004), while Huehuetla Tepehua is the subject of a recent PhD dissertation (Smythe Kung 2007). An MA thesis from CIESAS (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social) examined the acquisition of Olinta Totonac (Tino Antonio 2006), and another CIESAS student is working on the Totonac of Ozelonacaxtla. May 2007 saw the first ever International Conference on Totonac-Tepehua Languages, with 11 participants from Canada, the United States, and Mexico, including three graduate students and three native speakers of different Totonacan languages.

Previously undescribed, UNT is now beginning to surface in the academic literature (Beck 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2007a, 2007b, to appear a, to appear b, to appear c, in progress). As a result of previous SSHRC-sponsored projects, the PI currently has a lexical database of more than 8,900 entries and has recorded some 19,676 word-tokens and example sentences, as well as 12 hours of oral texts (folk tales, personal narratives, and interviews), 3 hours of which have yet to be transcribed and analyzed. This research has shown UNT to be a typologically unusual language with a number of structural features that set it apart even from its sister languages. Phonologically, the language makes distinctions in vowels for both length and laryngealization, and has an unusual consonantal inventory including three ejective fricatives (/s’/, /ʃ’/, and /ɬ’/) but no ejective stops (Beck 2006c). Morphologically, UNT is a polysynthetic agglutinating lan-guage whose verbs combine 10 prefixal positions with 14 suffixal positions (Beck, Holden & Varela n.d.), many affixes showing variable rather than templatic ordering (Beck to appear c). Others occur in conventionalized combinations with non-transparent meanings — essentially, morphological idioms (Beck 2007a). The language also makes use of bodypart prefixation in locative and other constructions (Beck 2004), and compounds active verbs with stative posture verbs to create complex aspectual expres-sions that go well beyond the possibilities predicted by most current theories of aspect (Beck 2003b). UNT lacks both nominal case and prepositions but allows up to five non-oblique objects, all of which appear to be equally ranked for the purposes of syntactic processes (Beck 2006b, 2007b). The documentation of these and other features will provide theorists with an important source of challenging data from a language whose properties are markedly different from those familiar to linguists working on more commonly-described linguistic families.

The same holds true for the study of language acquisition. 27 hours of naturalistic child language data (three children aged 2;6 – 3;0, taped bi-weekly over a three month period) have been collected and tran-scribed by a PhD student, Vianey Varela, and an additional 10 hours of video were made of children of various ages performing experimental tasks. Current studies of language acquisition are based almost entirely on data from European languages, and many claims about universal patterns and sequences in acquisition and how they are subsumed by the ontological development of human cognition are untested with languages and cultures outside the Western mainstream. On the rare occasion that data from the acquisition of American indigenous languages are brought to bear on these claims, the data usually challenge or refute them (e.g. Allen & Crago 1996; de León 2001). In the case of UNT, for example, the data already show that the most common locative structure used by adults is not a productive part of the language of children before the age of 10 (Varela & Klint 2006; Varela 2007), while most theories assert that the major structures of a language are acquired at a much earlier age. Since the intergenerational transfer of the language in a naturalistic form is now a minority choice, the acquisition of the language will vanish long before the language itself does, which makes documenting acquisition an imperative component of this research programme.

Bibliography

  • Allen, S. & Crago, M. 1996. Early passive acquisition in Inuktitut. Journal of Child Language 23, 129 – 55.
  • Arana, E. 1953. Reconstrucción del prototonaco. I. Bernal, Huastecos, totonacos y sus vecinos. Revista mexicana de estudios antropológicos 23, 123 – 130.
  • Aschmann, H.P. 1946a. Totonac categories of smell. Tlalocan 2, 187–89.
  • 1946b. Totonac phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 12, 34–43.
  • 1952–53. Los dos niveles de composición en el verbo totonaco. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 13, 119–22.
  • 1962. Vocabulario totonaco de la Sierra. Mexico: SIL.
  • 1963. The snake that gives money: A Totonac myth. Tlalocan 4, 236–38.
  • 1973. Diccionario totonaco de Papantla. Mexico: SIL.
  • Aschmann, H.P. & Wonderly, W.L. 1952. Affixes and implicit categories in Totonac verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 18, 130–45.
  • Beck, D. 1999a. Person, plurality, and speech-act participant in Totonac verbal paradigms. M. Caldecott, S. Gessner, & E-S Kim, Proceedings of WSLCA 4, 1–10. Vancouver: UBCWPL.
  • 1999b. The typology of parts of speech systems: The markedness of adjectives. PhD dissertation, Uni-versity of Toronto.
  • 2000a. The emergence of ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Presented to the CLA.
  • 2000b. Syntax, semantics, and typology of adjectives in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Linguistic Typology 4, 213 – 50.
  • 2001a. Heterogeneous person-hierarchies in Upper Necaxa Totonac. S. Oh & N. Sawai (Eds.), Proceedings of WSCLA 6, 1 – 8. Vancouver: UBCWPL.
  • 2001b. Person-hierarchies and the origin of asymmetries in Totonac verbal paradigms. Linguistica At-lantica 23, 1 – 33.
  • 2001c. Primer vocabulario práctico del idioma totonaco del Río Necaxa. Edmonton: University of Alberta. (185pp)
  • 2002. The typology of parts of speech systems: The markedness of adjectives. Routledge Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Routledge.
  • 2003a. Conceptual autonomy and the typology of parts of speech in Upper Necaxa Totonac and other languages. G. Casad & G. Palmer (eds.), Bringing Non-Indo-European Languages into Focus: Studies in Cognitive Linguistics, 135 – 56. Berlin: Mouton.
  • 2003b. Complex predicates in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Atlanta.
  • 2004. Upper Necaxa Totonac. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
  • 2006a. What to do with the ideophones?: A problem of lexical classification from Upper Necaxa To-tonac. L. Wanner (ed.), Festschrift for Igor Mel’čuk, 1 – 42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • 2006b. Control of agreement in multi-object constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Atsushi Fuji-mori & Maria Amelia Reis Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Con-stituency in the Languages of the Americas, 1 – 11. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguis-tics.
  • 2006c. The emergence of ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Robert Kirchner (ed.), Uni-versity of Alberta Working Papers in Linguistics 1.
  • 2007a. Morphological phrasemes in Totonacan inflection. Papers for the 2007 International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almananch, Sonderband 69.
  • 2007b. Voice and agreement in multi-object constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Memorias de IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Hermosillo, Mexico: University of Sonora.
  • 2008. Ideophones, adverbs, and predicate qualification in Upper Necaxa Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics 74, 1 - 46.
  • to appear b. Adverb quantification and qualification in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.
  • to appear c. Variable ordering of affixes in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Proceedings of WSCLA 12. Van-couver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.
  • in progress. Upper Necaxa Totonac Dictionary. Ms., 650 pages. University of Alberta.
  • Beck, D., Holden, J., & Varela, V. n.d. Upper Necaxa Totonac non-derivational morphology. Ms. (130 pp), University of Alberta.
  • Beck, D., & Lam, Y. (in press). Language loss and linguistic suicide: A case study from the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. In Sarah Cummins, Brigit Janoski, and Patricia A. Shaw (eds.), All the Things You Are: A Festschrift for Jack Chambers. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.
  • Bishop, R.G. 1979. Tense-aspect in Totonac narrative discourse. L.K. Jones, Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages 1, Discussion, 31–68. Dallas: SIL.
  • Bishop, R,G., & A.A. Reid. 1979. The boa: Northern Totonac. L.K. Jones, Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages 2, Texts, 97–178. Dallas: SIL.
  • Bonilla, Z. 1752. Arte de la lengua totonaca.
  • de Leon, L. 2001. Why Tzotzil (Mayan) children prefer verbs: The role of linguistic and cultural factors over cognitive determinants. Proceedings of IASCL 8, 947 – 69. Somerville: Cascadilla.
  • Escalona Gutiérrez, E. 2004. Lengua y cultura: La classificación botánica totonaca. MA thesis, INAH, Mexico.
  • García Rojas, B. 1978. Dialectología de la zona totonaco-tepehua. Honours thesis: ENAH, Mexico.
  • Gordon, R.G. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, fifteenth edition. Dallas: SIL.
  • Ichon, A. 1969. La religión de los totonacos de la sierra. Mexico: Insitituto Nacional Indigenista.
  • Kondrak, G., Beck, D. & Dilts, P. 2007. Creating a comparative dictionary of Totonac-Tepehua. In John Nerbonne, T Mark Ellison, Grzegorz Kondrak (eds.), Computing and Historical Phonology: Pro-ceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Morphology and Phonology, 134–141. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Krauss, M. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68, 4 – 10.
  • Lam, Yvonne. (to appear). The straw that broke the language’s back: Language shift in the Upper Necaxa Valley of Mexico. International Journal of Sociology of Language.
  • Levy, P. 1987. Fonología del totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. Mexico City: UNAM Press.
  • 1990. Totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. Mexico City: Colegio de México.
  • 1992. Adjectives in Totonac: Descriptive statement and typological considerations. International Journal of American Linguistics 58, 269 – 98.
  • 1994. La base verbal en totonaco. C.J. MacKay & V. Vásquez, Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, 227 – 62. Mexico City: UNAM Press.
  • 1996. Compuestos verbales en totonaco: ¿Incorporación nominal? Z. Fernandez, M. Figueroa, & G. López, III Encuentro de lingüística en el Noroeste. Tomo 1, 97 – 117. Hermosilla: Unison.
  • 1997. El conejo que quería ser grande, un cuento en totonaco de Papantla. Tlalocan 12, 291 – 312.
  • 1999a. From ‘Part’ to ‘Shape’: Incorporation in Totonac and the issue of classification by verbs. Inter-national Journal of American Linguistics 65, 127- 75.
  • 1999b. ‘Where’ rather than ‘what’: Incorporation of ‘parts’ in Totonac. D. Payne & E. Barshi (eds.), External Possession, 325 – 38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  • 2002a. “‘Hacer algo de metiche’: ¿Una posible fuente de causativo?”. Memorias de Jornadas Filológicas 2000, 425 – 38. México: UNAM. Pp.
  • 2002b. El aplicativo Dativo/Benefactivo en totonaco de Papantla. Memorias del VI Encuentro Interna-cional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Tomo I, 175 – 94.
  • 2002c. Cuando un especificador funciona como un determinante: el caso del totonaco. P. Levy (ed.) Del cora al maya yucateco: Estudios lingüísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, 403 – 36. Mexico: UNAM.
  • 2003. Parts in Papantla Totonac and the genesis of systems of Numeral Classification. A. Aikhenvald (ed.), Sprachtypologie Universalienforschung, volumen Nominal Classification.
  • 2004. Adjectives in Papantla Totonac. R.M.W. Dixon & A. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, 147 – 76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • MacKay, C.J. 1991. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. 1994. A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 369–419. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press
  • MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  • McQuown, N.A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. Mexico City: UNAM Press.
  • Mel’čuk, I.A. 1964. Obobshchenie ponjatija frazeologizma (morfologicheskie “frazeologizmy”). L.I. Rojzenzon (ed.), Materialy konferencii "Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennogo jazykoznanija i lingvis-ticheskoe nasledie E.D. Polivanova", 89 – 90. Samarkand: Samarkandskij Gosurdarstvennyj univer-sitet.
  • Palancar, Enrique. 2006. Property concepts in Otomi: A language with no adjectives. International Journal of American Linguistics 72, 325 – 366.
  • Reid, A.A. 1979. Dynamics of reported speech in Totonac. L.K. Jones, Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages 1, Discussion, 293–328. Dallas: SIL.
  • 1991. Gramática totonaca de Xicotepec de Juárez, Puebla. Mexico: SIL.
  • Reid, A.A., & Bishop, R.G, 1974. Diccionario totonaco de Xicotepec de Juárez, Puebla. Mexico: SIL.
  • Reid, A.A., Longacre, R.E., & Button, E.M. 1968. Totonac: From clause to discourse. Norman: SIL.
  • Smythe Kung, S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. PhD dissertation, UT Austin. Tino Antonio, Jorge. 2006. El uso infantil de los verbos de postura corporal con función locativa en To-tonaco de Olintla, Puebla. MA Thesis, CIESAS, Mexico.
  • Varela, V. 2007. How late is late in acquisition? Evidence from a Mexican Indigenous Language. A Supplement to the Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development. Heather Caunt-Nulton, Samantha Kulatilake and I-Hao Woo (eds.).
  • Varela, V. & Klint, R. 2006. The ribbon sits on the candle’s shin. The Acquisition of Basic Locative Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. March 31– April 2. Watters, J. 1985. Studies of the Tepehua verb. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
  • 1987. Underspecification, multiple tiers, and Tepehua phonology. A. Bosch, B. Need & E. Schiller, Papers from the 23rd annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, part 2: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, 388–402. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Žolkovskij, A.K. and Mel’čuk, Igor A. (1965). O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija 5, 23-28.