Classification of Mixtec languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The distribution of various Mixtec languages and their classification per Glottolog
Regions and districts of Oaxaca

The internal classification of Mixtec is controversial. Many varieties are mutually unintelligible and by that criterion separate languages. In the 16th century, Spanish authorities recognized half a dozen lenguas comprising the Mixtec lengua. (See #Classical Mixtec.) It is not clear to what extent these were distinct languages at the time. Regardless, the colonial disintegration of the Mixtec nation and resulting isolation of local communities led to the rapid diversification of local dialects into distinct languages. Below are some attempts at Mixtec classification by various scholars.

Geographic divisions[]

Josserand (1983:106) lists 5 major geographic (not linguistic) divisions of Mixtec, which together cover a total of about 25,000 square kilometers. Enclaves of Amuzgo, Trique, Cuicatec, Ixcatec, and Chocho speakers are scattered nearby.

  1. Puebla Mixtec
  2. Guerrero Mixtec
  3. Mixteca Baja
  4. Mixteca Alta
  5. Mixteca de la Costa

Colonial divisions[]

De los Reyes, in his Arte de Lengua Mixteca (1593), spoke of half a dozen lenguas in the Mixtec lengua. To these, his contemporaries added the dialects of Guerrero:[1]

  • the lengua of Teposcolula, including the major communities of Tamazulapan, Tilantongo, Texupa, and (Jiménez-Moreno: –Tilantongo; the prestige dialect chosen by de los Reyes)
  • the lengua of Yanhuitlán, incl. Coixtlahuaca, Xaltepec, and Nochixtlán (Jiménez-Moreno: Yuanhuitlán–Cuilapan)
  • the lengua of Tlaxiaco and Achiutla (the prestige dialect chosen by Hernández)
  • the lengua of the Mixteca Baja
  • the lengua of Cuilapa and Guaxolotitlán in the Valley of Oaxaca (Jiménez-Moreno: –Cuyamecalco)
  • the lengua of the Mixteca de la Costa
  • the Mixtec of Guerrero

Josserand found that native mundane writing of the colonial era corresponded well to de los Reyes; based on phonological and orthographic consistencies, she divides the dialects into five groups, as follows:

  • the Baja area around Huajuapan (though there were multiple varieties in Baja, more than de los Reyes recognized)
  • the Oaxaca Valley around Cuilapan, closely related to the next
  • the northeastern Alta around the Valley of Nochixtlan, including Yanhuitlan and Coixtlahuaca
  • the eastern Alta around the Valleys of Teposcolula and Tamasulapa
  • the western Alta around the Valley of Tlaxiaco, Achiutla, and Chalcatongo

Holland (1959)[]

The following classification is given by William R. Holland (1959), as cited in Josserand (1983:134-135). This preliminary classification is a glottochronological study of the dialects of 22 Mixtec and 4 Cuicatec towns.

Holland (1959) also gives 3 areal groupings for these zones.

  • Costa: Zones 1, 2
  • Alta: Zones 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • Baja: Zones 8, 9, 10, 11

However, Josserand (1983) states that these groupings are based on flawed methodologies, including a faulty conception of the geographical layout of the Mixteca. Many towns that Holland listed as Baja are in fact Alta, and vice versa.

Arana (1960)[]

The following classification is given by Evangelina Arana-Osnaya (1960:257), as cited in Josserand (1983:137).

Mak & Longacre (1960)[]

Cornelia Mak and Robert Longacre (1960) is the first reconstruction of Proto-Mixtec, which is the ancestor of Mixtec proper as opposed to Mixtecan. Below is a classification inferred from Mak & Longacre (1960) by Josserand (1983:142). 9 groups and a total of 28 towns are given.

Spores (1967)[]

The following classification, based on "archaeological, ethnohistorical and modern information in his delimitation of interaction spheres within the Mixteca",[5] is given by Richard Spores in The Mixtec Kings and Their People (1967), as cited in Josserand (1983:128). A total of 18 dialects are given.

Bradley (1968, 1970)[]

The following classification is given by C. Henry Bradley (1970), as cited in Josserand (1983:132). A total of 11 languages are given. His classification was most likely based on SIL International's mutual intelligibility surveys.

However, Bradley (1968) had given a different classification which included only 7 languages.

Egland & Bartholomew (1983)[]

Egland & Bartholomew find 29 groups at a 70% mutual-intelligibility level. The towns they tested are the following, grouped at 60% intelligibility; a question mark indicates that intelligibility testing had not been done with non-neighboring varieties.

Ethnologue[]

The classification of Ethnologue is largely based on Egland & Bartholomew. There is no sub-classification, only a list of 52 varieties, though these are reported to have a great range of intelligibility, from essentially none to 85%.

See also[]

Notes and references[]

  1. ^ Jiménez-Moreno (1962), as cited in Josserand (1983:125), and Terraciano (2004).
  2. ^ Zones 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, but are rather two nuclei of an extended dialect chain running along the coast.
  3. ^ Josserand (1983) believes this town is in fact San Mateo Sindihui in Nochixtlán District, but was misnamed in Mak & Longacre (1960).
  4. ^ Josserand (1983) believes this town is in fact near Huitepec in Zaachila District, but was misnamed in Mak & Longacre (1960).
  5. ^ Josserand, J. Kathryn (1983). Mixtec dialect history. OCLC 896426442.
Retrieved from ""