Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 34:1 (2017) ► pp.40–78

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Language mixing and genetic similarity

The case of Tojol-ab’al

 | University of Texas at Austin
Published online: 25 April 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.1.02law
Abstract
Definitions of ‘mixed’ or ‘intertwined’ languages derive almost entirely from studies of languages that combine elements from genetically unrelated sources. The Mayan language Tojol-ab’al displays a mixture of linguistic features from two related Mayan languages, Chuj and Tseltal. The systematic similarities found in related languages not only make it methodologically difficult to identify the source of specific linguistic features but also mean that inherited similarity can alter the processes and outcomes of language mixing in ways that parallel observed patterns of code-switching between related languages. Tojol-ab’al, therefore, arguably represents a distinct type of mixed language, one that may only result from mixture involving related languages.
Résumé
Les définitions des langues « entremêlées » ou « mixtes » proviennent presque toutes d’études de langues qui combinent des éléments provenant de sources génétiquement non apparentées. La langue maya tojol-ab’al présente un mélange de caractéristiques linguistiques de deux langues mayas apparentées, le chuj et le tseltal. Les similitudes systématiques qui se retrouvent dans des langues apparentées rendent non seulement difficile, méthodologiquement, l’identification de la source des caractéristiques langagières spécifiques, mais encore ces similitudes héritées peuvent-elles également modifier les processus et les résultats du mélange des langues, aboutissant à des situations proches des schémas observés d’alternance codique entre langues apparentées. Par conséquent, le tojol-ab’al représente un type distinct de langue mixte, qui peut résulter du croisement de langues apparentées.
Zusammenfassung
Definitionen von „gemischten“ oder „verflochten“ Sprachen stammen fast ausschließlich aus Studien zu Sprachen, die Elemente aus genetisch nicht verwandten Quellen kombinieren. Die Maya-Sprache Tojol-ab’al weist eine Mischung aus sprachlichen Elementen von zwei verwandten Maya-Sprachen auf, Chuj und Tzeltal. Die systematischen Ähnlichkeiten dieser verwandten Sprachen machen es nicht nur methodisch schwierig, die Quelle der spezifischen sprachlichen Merkmale zu identifizieren. Die genealogische Ähnlichkeit kann auch die Prozesse und Ergebnisse von Sprachmischung in einer Weise verändern, so dass sie bestimmten Mustern von Code-Switching zwischen verwandten Sprachen gleicht. Tojol-ab’al stellt daher einen bestimmten Typ Mischsprache dar, der wohl nur aus einer Mischung verwandter Sprachen hervorgehen kann.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mixed languages
  • 3.Tojol-ab’al and language contact
  • 4.Similarities with Chuj and Tseltalan
    • 4.1Shared phonological innovations
    • 4.2Shared morphosyntactic innovations
      • 4.2.1Person marking
      • 4.2.2Position of the absolutive
      • 4.2.3Plural
      • 4.2.4Aspectual system
        • 4.2.4.1Completive
        • 4.2.4.2Incompletive
        • 4.2.4.3Progressive and potential
        • 4.2.4.4Perfect
        • 4.2.4.5Irrealis and imperative
      • 4.2.5Category suffixes
      • 4.2.6Voice
      • 4.2.7Prepositions
      • 4.2.8Negation
    • 4.3Lexicon
      • 4.3.1Basic vocabulary
      • 4.3.2Extended vocabulary
      • 4.3.3Discussion of lexical similarity
  • 5.Historical context of Tojol-ab’al
  • 6.Tojol-ab’al in the context of Lowland language contact phenomena
  • 7.Code-switching, compartmentalization and processes
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (76)
References
Adams, Walter Randolph. 1988. Religious practices of southeastern Chiapas and Tzeltal-Tojolabal interactions. In Lyle Campbell, The linguistics of Southeast Chiapas, Mexico (Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 50), 183–198. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adell, Eric & Danny Law. 2015. Lexical similarity and the history of Tojol-ab’al. Paper presented at CILLA 7, Austin, Texas, October 29–31, 2015.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language 75(3). 451–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith & Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds.). 2010. La predicación secundaria en lenguas de Mesoamérica. México: CIESAS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1999. From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4). 309–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter & Maarten Mous (eds.). 1994. Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker, (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 107–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barrett, Rusty. 2002. The Huehuetenango sprachbund and Mayan language standardization in Guatemala. In Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha & Keiko Yoshimura (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Chicago Linguistics Society: The panels, 309–318. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bricker, Victoria. 1977. Pronominal inflection in the Mayan languages (Middle American Research Institute Occasional Papers 1). New Orleans: MARI, Tulane University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Brant Gardner. 1988. Coxoh. In Lyle Campbell (ed.), The linguistics of southeast Chiapas, Mexico (Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 50), 315–338. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1988. The linguistics of southeast Chiapas, Mexico (Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 50). Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing. In Henk Aertsen & Robert Jeffers (eds.), Historical linguistics 1989, 91–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. Smith-Stark. 1986. Mesoamerica as a linguistic area. Language 621. 530–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contreras García, Irma. 2001. Las etnias del estado de Chiapas. México: UNAM-IIB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curiel Ramírez del Prado, Alejandro. 2007. Estructura de la información, enclíticos y configuración sintáctica en Tojol’ab’al. MA thesis, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, México.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dakin, Karen. 1988. Las lenguas kanjobalanas, polémicas clasificatorias. In Aurora M. Ocampo (ed.), Studia Humanitas: Homenaje a Rubén Bonifaz Nuño, 111–133. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against creole exceptionalism. Language 79(2). 391–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Against creole exceptionalism (redux). Language 80(4). 834–839. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, G. R. & Djoehana Oka. 1979. A new kind of language hybrid? Pacific Linguistics (Series A) 571. 247–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epps, Patience, John Huehnergard & Na’ama Pat-El. 2013. Introduction: Contact among genetically related languages. Journal of Language Contact 61. 209–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golovko, Evgeniy V. 1994. Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut: an Aleut-Russian mixed language. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 113–121. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Language contact and group identity: The role of ‘folk’ linguistic engineering. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. 177–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas. American Dialect Society. University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1988. It’s my own invention: A comparative grammatical sketch of Colonial Tsotsil. In Robert Laughlin, The great Tzotzil dictionary of Santo Domingo Zinacantan (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 31), 79–121. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopkins, Nicholas. 2006. Review of The linguistics of Maya writing , Søren Wichmann (ed.). Anthropological Linguistics 48(4). 404–412.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). 2015. Encuesta Intercensal[URL] (accessed Dec. 26, 2016).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Justeson, John S., William M. Norman, Lyle Campbell & Terrence Kaufman. 1985. The foreign impact on Lowland Mayan language and script. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1969. Some recent hypotheses on Mayan diversification (Working Paper 26). Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1971. Tzeltal phonology and morphology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associated areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology 8(1). 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas Mayances con referencia especial al K’iche’. In Nora C. England & Stephen R. Elliott (eds.), Lecturas sobre la lingüística Maya, 59–114. La Antigua Guatemala: CIRMA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence & William M. Norman. 1984. An outline of Proto-Cholan phonology, morphology and vocabulary. In John Justeson & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing (Institute for Mesoamerican Studies 9), 77–166. Albany: State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Linguistic inheritance, social difference, and the last two thousand years of contact among Lowland Mayan languages. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Mayan historical linguistics in a new age. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(3). 141–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Law, Danny, John Robertson, Stephen Houston, Marc Zender & David Stuart. 2014. Areal shifts in Classic Mayan phonology. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(2). 357–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenkersdorf, Gudrun. 1986. Contribuciones a la historia colonial de los Tojolabales. In Mario Humberto Ruz (ed.), Los legítimos hombres: Aproximación antropológica al grupo tojolabal, vol. 41, 13–102. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López Ixcoy, Candelaria Dominga (Saqijix). 1997. Ri Ukemiik ri K’ichee’ Chii’: Gramática K’ichee’. Guatemala: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateo Toledo, Eladio. 2008. The family of complex predicates in Q’anjob’al (Maya): Their syntax and meaning. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 361. 281–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Mixed languages: Re-examining the structural prototype. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 151–175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker (eds.) 2003. The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maxwell, Judith. 1982. How to talk to people who talk funny: The Chuj (Maya) solution. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 2008. Mixed languages as outcomes of code-switching: Recent examples from Australia and their implications. Journal of Language Contact THEMA 21. 187–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick & Felicity Meakins. 2005. Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 9–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Universals of language contact. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, 94–122. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 1994. Ma’a or Mbugu. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 175–200. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In Arnold Highfield & Albert Valdman (eds.), Historicity and variation in creole studies, 52–78. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Media Lengua. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 207–211. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2000. What matters: The out of sight in mixed languages. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 31. 119–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Contact linguistics, bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena. In Yaron Matras and Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 73–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Shannessy, Carmel. 2005. Light Warlpiri: A new language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The role of code-switched input to children in the origin of a new mixed language. Linguistics 50(2). 305–340.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Typological and social factors influencing a new mixed language, Light Warlpiri. In Gerald Stell & Kofi Yakpo (eds.), Code-switching between structural and sociolinguistic perspectives, 289–304. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polian, Gilles. 2004. Elements de grammaire du Tseltal. Ph.D. diss., Université Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. El sufijo ­uk y la diversificación de la modalidad irrealis en tseltal. Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America 3. 1–26. Austin, Texas: CILLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español. Linguistics 181. 581–618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, John S. 1977. A proposed revision in Mayan subgrouping. International Journal of American Linguistics 43(2). 105–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. The history of tense/aspect/mood/voice in the Mayan verbal complex. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruz, Mario Humberto. 1981. Los legítimos hombres: Aproximación antropológica al grupo tojolabal, vol. 11. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Mayas, UNAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 1989. Las lenguas del Chiapas colonial: manuscritos en la Biblioteca Nacional de Paris. Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Filologicas, Seminario de Lenguas Indigenas, UNAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1994. KiMwani at the southern fringe of KiSwahili. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 239–244. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumann, Otto G. 1981. La relación lingüística Chuj-Tojolabal. In Ruz, Mario Humberto (ed.), Los legítimos hombres: Aproximación antropológica al grupo Tojolabal, 129–169. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Mayas, UNAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1983. Algunos aspectos de la relación Chuj-Tojolabal. In Lorenzo Ochoa & Thomas A Lee. Jr. (eds.), Antropología e historia de los Mixe-Zoques y Mayas: Homenaje a Frans Blom, 355–363. México: Universidad Autónoma de México; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thom. 1978. The Mayan antipassive: Some facts and fictions. In Nora C. England (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics, 169–187. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2003. Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 271–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 21–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bree, Cor. 1994. The development of so-called Town Frisian. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 69–82. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek naar Taal en Taalgebruik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2006. Mayan historical linguistics and epigraphy: A new synthesis. Annual Review of Anthropology 351. 279–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Polian, Gilles
2024. El “tseltal” de Venustiano Carranza, Chiapas: caracterización de una variante divergente de tsotsil . Cuadernos de Lingüística de El Colegio de México 11 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Grant, Anthony P.
2020. Contact and Language Convergence. In The Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Guerrero Martínez, Fernando
2020. Reflexiones en torno a la historia de las relaciones entre tojolabales, tseltales y chujes. Revista pueblos y fronteras digital 15 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Khan, Geoffrey
2020. Contact and change in Neo-Aramaic dialects. In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350], ► pp. 387 ff. DOI logo
Law, Danny
2020. Contact and Mayan Languages. In The Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 613 ff. DOI logo
Law, Danny
2020. Pattern borrowing, linguistic similarity, and new categories: Numeral classifiers in Mayan. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue