Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact and Change in Mesoamerica and Beyond
Edited by Karen Dakin, Claudia Parodi and Natalie Operstein
[Studies in Language Companion Series 185] 2017
► pp. 30–54

Chapter 2
Spanish influence in two Tepehua languages

Structure-preserving, structure-changing, and structure-preferring effects

| SIL International & University of North Dakota

The kinds of change brought about by Spanish influence on two Tepehua (Totonacan) languages are of three types: structure-preserving change, including borrowing of all word classes; structure-changing processes in the phonology; and the structure-preferring influence of Spanish in progressive and applicative constructions. Nonfinite verb forms and other borrowed lexical items fit within existing structures. Changes in the phonology include loss of phonemic contrast as well as change from a three-vowel to a five-vowel system. Contact has also given some preference to the periphrastic form of the progressive, and prepositional phrases over applicatives. The features characterizing Spanish influence vary widely across the generations, reflecting growing bilingualism and interference from code switching.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Structure-preserving change
    • 2.1Basic borrowing
    • 2.2Incorporating Spanish verb forms
  • 3.Structure-changing influence
    • 3.1Loss of the uvular
    • 3.2Effect on syllable structure
    • 3.3From three vowel positions to five
    • 3.4Loss of contrast between voiced and voiceless laterals
    • 3.5Bilabials and orthography
  • 4.Structure-preferring influence
    • 4.1Progressive aspect
    • 4.2Applicatives and prepositions
  • 5.Final observations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.185.02wat
References
Adelaar, Willem F. H. & Muysken, Pieter C.
2004 The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2001 Language awareness and correct speech among the Tariana of northwest Amazonia. Anthropological Linguistics 43: 411–430.Google Scholar
Angeles M., Rafael et al.
2011 Kanajuu jats’oqnuti laka lhimasipijni: Leamos tepehua, tercera edición. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. [URL] (13 December 2014).
Aschmann, Herman P.
1946 Totonaco phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics 12: 34–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, Doris
1973 Otomi dependent clauses. In You Take the High Node and I’ll Take the Low Node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival. The Differences Between Main and Subordinate Clauses, Claudia Corum, Thomas Cedric Smith Stark & Ann Weiser (eds), 1–8. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Beck, David
2004 A Grammatical Sketch of Upper Necaxa Totonac. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Canger, Una
2009 Learning a second language first revisitado. In Entre las lenguas indígenas, la sociolingüística y el español: Estudios en homenaje a Yolanda Lastra, Martha Islas (ed.), 423–433. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael
1992 Linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of language contact, maintenance and loss. In Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages [Studies in Bilingualism 1], Willem Fase, Koen Jaspaert & Sjaak Kroon (eds), 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de la Cruz Tiburcio, Efraín et al.
2013 Vocabulario tepehua-español-tepehua. Xalapa: Academia Veracruzana de las Lenguas Indígenas.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy
2006 Using a private-sphere language for a public-sphere purpose: Some hard lessons from making a TV documentary in a dying dialect. [URL] (7 April 2008).
Heine, Bernd
2008 Contact-induced word order change without word order change. In Language Contact and Contact Languages [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7], Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds), 33–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard
2003 “Phonologization” and dephoneticization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 401–422. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn
1999 A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Mackay, Carolyn & Trechsel, Frank
2010 Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
2013 Uvular consonants. [URL] (23 December 2014).
McFarland, Teresa Ann
2009 The Phonology and Morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. PhD dissertation, Universtiy of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
McQuown, Norman A.
1990 Gramática de la lengua totonaca. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1988 Language Diversity in Space and Time. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy
1998 Connectives, coherence and relevance. In Current Issues in Relevance Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 58], Villy Rouchota & Andreas H. Jucker (eds), 11–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
2002 Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 638–668. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silvano Rivera, Galván
2012 Accidente en el campo. In Las lenguas totonacas y tepehuas, Paulette Levy & David Beck (eds), 43–56. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Smythe Kung, Susan
2007 A Descriptive Grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Tellez Guzman, Juan
2007 La’achaxan cuentoj yu laka lhichiwin ts’o’kanta: Seis cuentos escritos en tepehua. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. [URL] (13 December 2014).
Thomason, Sarah G.
2001 Language Contact. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Contact as a source of language change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 687–712. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Contact explanations in linguistics. In The Handbook of Language Contact, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 31–47. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Williams García, Roberto
1963 Los tepehuas. Xalapa, Veracruz: Universidad Veracruzana.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, Viola G.
1949 Learning a second language first. International Journal of American Linguistics 15: 106–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watters, James K.
1988 Topics in Tepehua Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2013 Transitivity, constructions, and the projection of argument structure in RRG. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald
2003 Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 57: 129–150.Google Scholar