New World indigenous languages in contact with Spanish. Language contact outcomes and attitudes to contact-induced changes reported in selected colonial missionary works.

1

New World indigenous languages in contact with Spanish. Language contact outcomes and attitudes to contact-induced changes reported in selected colonial missionary works.

Las lenguas indígenas del Nuevo Mundo en contacto con el español. Los resultados del contacto de idiomas y las actitudes ante tales cambios lingüísticos reportados en seleccionadas obras misioneras de la época colonial.

Paper presented at the XVIII Encuentro de la RIFREM, Mérida, Mexico, 15-17 April 2015 (Mesa 2: Archivos coloniales novohispanos: problemas de lingüística y de epistemología)

Elwira Sobkowiak1 Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies ‘Artes Liberales’ University of Warsaw [email protected]

Abstract Missionary grammars of Amerindian languages apart from being first attempts to describe the structure of the Indian vernaculars, also contain reports on the ongoing changes in the morphosyntax and lexicons of those languages as a result of their exposure to Spanish. The negative comments expressed about linguistic innovations if analysed in the context of prescriptive linguistics, which friars were in favour of, can be interpreted as disapproval of the incorrect manner of speech. This work suggests looking at reports on language change in missionary grammars from alternative points of view, such as the Christian perception of linguistic diversity or Church language policy. This will allow looking at friars’ comments as opposing linguistic assimilation of the Indians and effectively being the first conservationists of indigenous Amerindian languages. Key words: missionary grammars, evangelization, language contact, language contact-induced changes, Church language policy Resumen Las gramaticas misioneras además de ser una prueba en la descripción de la estructura de las idiomas indígenas, también contienen relatos sobre los cambios ocurridos en la morfosintaxis y el léxico de esas lenguas como resulado del contacto con español. Los comentarios negativos expresados sobre las innovaciones lingüísticas analizadas en el campo de la lingüística prescriptiva (que los frailes favorecieron) pueden ser interpretados como una desaprobación de una incorrecta manera de hablar. Este trabajo propone analizar los relatos sobre los cambios lingüísticos presentes en obras misioneras de un punto de vista alternativo, como el entendimiento de la diversidad 1 M.A. in Language Documentation and Description from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of

London, United Kingdom. Currently a PhD student at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Warsaw,

Poland. Areas of study: language contact and language change, linguistic typology, sociolinguistics, language revitalization,

linguistic landscape, Mesoamerican linguistic area. PhD thesis topic: Language contact in the Huasteca Potosina, Mexico.

2

lingüística por los cristianos o la política lingüística de la Iglesia. Eso nos permitirá ver los comentarios de los frailes como una oposición a la asimilación lingüísta de los indígenas y también nos mostrará que los frailes fueron los primeros en conservar las lenguas amerindias. Palabras clave: gramáticas misioneras, evangelización, lenguajes en contacto, cambios lingüísticos, política lingüística de la Iglesia 1. Introductory remarks

1.1 Language contact in post-conquest America and emerging contact varieties of

indigenous languages

Language contact and the subsequent outcomes of the interaction between two or more

languages in the shape of phonological, lexical or morphosyntactic innovations are

common features of most of the world’s languages. Language contact can occur at

language borders or as a result of migrations or commerce for instance.2 The European

conquest of America, apart from its many political and demographic consequences, also

marked the beginning of an intense and widespread linguistic contact between the

languages of the conquistadores (Spanish, English, Portuguese, French) and the local

languages of the indigenous Amerindian ethnolinguistic groups.

The effects of the post-conquest linguistic contact are documented in colonial

administrative documents written in indigenous languages and also in the missionary

grammars of Amerindian languages (called Artes). The reports of language mixing and

lexical or structural changes in indigenous languages are rather scarce as the grammars

of the colonial period were written in a prescriptive manner as didactic material designed

to show the purest and free of foreign (=Spanish) influence indigenous languages.

2 More information, including definitions of language contact and language mixing plus the typology of language contact affects

can be found in numerous sources on the subject , e.g. Thomason 2001, Thomason and Kaufman 1988, Odlin 1989.

3

Nevertheless, some Artes do contain records of Spanish contact induced changes,

including examples and often also author’s personal remarks about these linguistic

innovations. One example of such a comment can be found in González Holguín’s

grammar of Quechua (1607). The author condemns mixing Quechua with Spanish by the

Quechua speakers calling it lengua mezclada y barbara (‘hybridized and barbarian3

language’) and saying that doing so they abandon the correct way of using their

language (dexan el estilo galante de su lengua). According to González Holguín it is

important to protect Quechua in its ‘proper’ form, free from the Spanish influence:

Otra segunda ley sea huir del modo de hablar de los ladinos, y no hablar mucho en la lengua con ellos, porque ya los yndios ladinos por mostrar que lo son dexan el estilo galanto de su lengua, y españolizan lo que hablan, y precianse de atraer su lenguaje al castellano, y yerranlo tanto que ni bien hablan su lengua, ni bien ymitan la nuestra, y assi hazé a su lengua mezclada y barbara, siendo ella galantisima, y por esto se ha de amar y estimar el arte y sus preceptos, que destierra y condena para perpetua memoria lo que es propio y galanto (González Holguín, 1607: f.119r).4

Another account of the influence of Spanish on an indigenous language can be found in

the grammar of the Guadalajara variant of Nahuatl by Cortés y Zedeño (1765).5 The

standard variety used by the priests is compared with the contact variety (Mexicano

castellanizado) used by the local Nahua people and this kind of a dialectal discrepancy is

said to make the evangelization more difficult (caía el grano en terrenos secos). The

author also explains that due to commerce and a prolonged contact with the colonizers,

the local Nahua people around Guadalajara acquired a great deal of Spanish vocabulary

which made the language adulterado ‘adultered’. Also Spanish is said to have changed

under the influence of Nahuatl:

3 The adjective barbáro (‘barbarian)’ was used throughout the missionary grammars of the Amerindian languages to refer to the

indigenous languages as opposed to European languages. In this particular Quechua grammar this word seems to be used in

reference to the hispanicisized Quechua variant, but may likewise refer to the Quechua language in general. 4 All the citations are in their original language and conserving the original spelling. 5 The Nahuatl grammar by Cortés y Zedeño is a particularly interesting work as it confronts the Nahuatl spoken in the bishopric

of Guadalajara (consistently referred to in the work as lengua falseada, adulterada ‘the false , adultered language,’ with the

Central Valley Nahuatl (lengua legítima ‘the legitimate language’), considered the standard Nahuatl, and the Nahuatl which most

of the missionaries knew.

4

A estos Indios notaba Yo siempre Barbaros, y tenia mucho, el que en gran parte, se malograste el sudor de los Ministros de Evangelio; porque usando estos del Idioma culto; y hablando aquellos en Mexicano castellanizado; y Castellano mexicanizado, â tan confuso torbellino, caía el grano en terrenos secos, por no acertarle el riego en la persuacion, ó distribuirle bien la semilla, en las palabras:â esto se añadia la notable variedad, que padece dicha Lengua, aun en la pronuniciacion ... Su propia Lengua; ô por lo menos, quando no havian passado siglos, como han passado ahora de su comercio, y trato con los Españoles, con cuya comunicacion han [i]do aprendiendo varias palabras Castellanas; de que resulta, que su idioma estè ya muy adulterado, juntandose muchas veces con sus periodos, palabras Mexicanas, con Castellanas, ô mexicanizandose las Castellanas, al modo, que se han castellanizado algunas Mexicanas, como Tompiate, Mecate, &c. (Cortés y Zedeño,1765: Prólogo, no page number).

The contact varieties of indigenous languages which emerged in the colonial period were

reported, as we have just seen in the above examples, as a negative phenomenon

occurring as a result of an interaction with the speakers of Spanish. This critical attitude

can be rather surprising as, in the context of the ongoing assimilation policy of the

colonial government and the Church, more Spanish elements in the indigenous

languages should probably be considered as something easing the evangelization task,

just like the arising contact varieties could be a confirmation that the acculturation of the

indigenous people was indeed working. Why then the friars were not in favour of the

mixed varieties?

1.2 Tower of Babel and the Christian perspective on linguistic diversity

In the view of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel linguistic diversity was a curse and

an impediment in any communication, including preaching. For Christians humanity’s

linguistic fall from pristine divine perfection to corruption begun with Babel and such a

dark view of ethnolinguistic diversity survived into the 18th century (Schreyer, 2000:

310-311). Was it not the case that indigenous Amerindian languages acquiring more and

more Spanish influence were not easing the issue of linguistic diversity then? Or, were

the missionaries against foreign elements entering indigenous languages because they

5

thought this kind of hybridization of languages will further complicate (=diversify even

more) linguistic situation in the Americas? Posing these questions is meant to encourage

a revision of the colonial indigenous language grammars and an alternative

interpretation of the missionary reports on effects of language contact.

1.3 Church language policy and evangelization in the Spanish colonies in America

Evangelization of the indigenous peoples of America and suppressing their traditional

religions and cultures done by the Christian missionaries were some of the most

important goals the Europeans set themselves during the colonial period. Because of the

small number of the missionary friars in relation to the large indigenous population it

soon became obvious for the Church that instead of teaching Spanish to local people in

order to create a common language, it would be an easier task for the missionaries to

study the indigenous languages themselves and then preach in them (Lerner 2000: 285).

The use of indigenous languages was encouraged following the ordinances of

the Council of Trent (1545-1564), which favoured the use of vernacular languages

(vulgares linguas) for preaching. Nevertheless, the linguistic diversity of the Americas

was considered an obstacle in spreading Christianity and some colonial institutions such

as The Council of the Indies in Peru were working towards implementing Spanish as the

language of the instruction of the Indians which, it was believed, would accelerate the

disappearance of the indigenous languages regarded as sources of superstition and

paganism (Lerner 2000: 287). Trends in the linguistic policy in the Spanish colonies were

changing from being more or less in favour of using the indigenous languages until the

6

18th century when the Bourbons forced the clergy to accept Spanish as the language of

preaching.6

1.4 Evangelization and indigenous language change - questions arising

The fact that Church linguistic policy was fluctuating from encouraging the use of

indigeous languages at one point in history to being more in favour of Spanish at different

times had less to do (if anything) with the preoccupation for the vital condition of

indigenos languages and more to do with the fact that either teaching in Nahuatl,

Quechua, Yucatec Maya, etc. was believed at certain points in history to bring better

results in the evangelization of the indigenous peoples. In this view, the work of the

missionaries, as those responsible for the implementation of the Church policy, was to

convert into Christianity as many native people as possible, whether preaching the word

of God in Spanish or in a native language, whichever means of communication would

work more efficiently. Preoccupation for the purity of native languages and preventing

them from being mixed with Spanish was not in friars’ job descriptions. Nevertheless,

there are numerous examples of the missionaries speaking against erosion of

indigenous languages due to Spanish contact, which can in turn be interpreted as them

being against linguistic acculturation of the Indians. Or, was it that language shift was

being frowned upon because any mixed variety was considered an impure and imperfect

type of a language and as such was believed to be preventing a language from fulfilling

its communicative function well, or preaching the Christian faith in this case? Could this

be the reasoning behind compiling prescriptive grammars and teaching the missionaries

the ‘correct’ (and as free from foreign influence as possible) version of Indian languages

6 Stages of colonial linguistic policy in the Spanish colonies in America is explain in e.g. Lerner 2000.

7

so that the indigenous language remained more pure and therefore more capable of

being an efficient tool for passing on the religious teachings?

2. Effects of language contact reported in missionary works

2.1 Contact-induced lexical innovations

The evangelization endeavour that began shortly after the conquest required of the

missionaries not only to learn local languages of the indigenous peoples of the New

World, but also to deal with the lack of conceptual and lexical equivalents in those

languages which would make the Christianization of the New World possible. Introducing

direct loanwords from Spanish to express the Christian religious concepts was usually

avoided and the missionaries were trying to find near-equivalent words in the local

languages instead. One of the most problematic tasks in the missionary process was

how to express the concept of God, whether using the Spanish loan Dios or such words

as teotl for Nahuatl for instance (Zwartjes 2014).

An account of using direct Spanish loans to fill in semantic voids while translating

the Christian Doctrine can be found in Thomas Falkner’s final chapter of A Description of

Patagonia and the Adjoining Parts of South America (1774) where he discusses the

language of the Moluche, speakers of a dialect of Mapuche. The introduction of the

loanwords Dios or Spiritu Santo into the Mapuche language was necessary as there

were no lexical equivalents in Mapuche which would make the linguistic and conceptual

transfers possible:

These specimens are accommodated to the Indian expression, and intermixed with a few Spanish words, where the Indian idiom is insufficient, or might give a false idea. And this, with the short vocabulary annexed, may suffice to give a small but imperfect notion of this language (Falkner, 1774: 143).

8

The conquest of America and the subsequent introduction of the new foodstuffs,

animals, plants as well as new political and administrative organization into the realm of

the New World created the need to add the names for the previously unknown concepts

and objects into the vocabularies of the indigenous languages. Analysis of colonial

documents written in Mexican local languages gives plenty of examples of Spanish loans

used with reference to new political organization of post-conquest Mexico (cf. Lockhart,

1991; Lockhart,1992). Missionary texts also report such innovations, e.g. the presence of

the Spanish loan testigoh in the Totonac language’s grammar Arte de lengua totonaca

(Zambrano Bonilla, 1752: 98).

One of the better known examples of filling in semantic voids in lexicons of the

16th century indigenous Mexican languages is finding a word to refer to ‘a horse’, an

animal brought from Europe. In Nahuatl and in other languages (e.g. Zapotec) the

closest equivalent (in terms of size and appearance) to a horse was a deer and the

respective word for ‘a deer’ in an indigenous languages was semantically extender to

mean ‘a horse’ as well (e.g. in Classical Nahuatl it was the word mazatl). The idea behind

such a solution is explained in Juan de Córdoba’s in Arte en lengua Zapoteca (1578):

Las cosas venidas de nuestra España que aca no auia, las intitulan y llaman conforme a las cosas semejantes que aca tenían, y assi en el pueblo donde auia cosas mas semejantes a ellas mas proprios eran y son los nombres, y aun cada yndio en particular las llama conforme a lo que concibe de la cosa a que mas semejan. Como al cauallo que le llamuan luego pichïna, porque dizen que parecia al Venado.&c. Y al Asno, pel la Castilla, porque diz[en] que parecia al conejo, y assi a los demas (De Córdoba, 1578: 11).

The impact of the Spanish conquest on everyday lives and vocabulary of local

Amerindian languages is also reported by Cordóba in his work on the Zapotec language.

Despite the fact that the Mesoamerican cultures had their own understanding of time and

also had had developed sophisticated units of measuring time, the arrival of the Spanish

9

resulted in introduction of the 7-day based week. This was for instance the case in the

Zapotec where Cordóba says the Zapotecs not only use the same name days as the

Spanish (Domingo, Lunes, Martes, etc.) but also use Sunday as the reference day, the

most important day of the week, the day of the mass and rest. In the following fragment

de Cordóba also shows how the Spanish loan Domingo ‘Sunday’ is being adapted into

the structure of Zapotec:

Los dias de la semana despues que son christianos los llaman como nosotros.f. Domingo, Lunes, Martes.&c.Con el Domingo se tiene gran cuenta como dia principal y en que han de oyr missa insaliblemente y donde acuden a sus cosas todos los que por la semana trabajando, y assi de alli comiēçá atener quēta desta manera.f. Para contar o tratar de una cosa que passo, o acõntecio el Domingo dizen, chij Domingo ... Para contar lo que acontecio el martes dizen, cïca naace domingo, que es dezir como ante ayer fue Domingo ... Para contar lo que paso el viernes dizen. Cïca huijche domingo, que es dezir como passado mañana domingo, o fue domingo (de Cordóba, 1578: 110).

This particular fragment in the work by Cordóba is an example of the acculturation of the

Zapotec people who have adopted the European way of dividing time into seven days,

naming days using Spanish words and using Sunday, the day of the Christian worship,

as the reference point for their weekly activities.

2.2 Phonological adaptations

One of the outcomes of language contact between languages of different sound

repertoires can be phonological adaptations in pronunciation of loanwords. This was also

the case in both newly acquired words of indigenous origin into Spanish and vice versa,

Spanish words adapted into lexicons of native languages of the New World. An example

of such transfer is given in Luces del Otomí, a grammar of the Otomí language

(Anónimo, 1893 [1767]) The anonymous author discusses three names used to refer to

this linguistic group: one used by the Nahuatl speakers (Othomitl), other used by the

Spanish (Otomí), and the third one as the way the speakers of Otomí self-identify

10

themselves (ñâñû). 7 The Spanish denomination word Otomí is an example of a

phonological adaptation where the Nahuatl phoneme /λ/ (the orthographic representation

of which is ‘tl’) is being ommited. The same Nahuatl phoneme /λ/ was also substituted by

the Spanish phoneme /l/, the examples being Nahuatl word xochitl ‘flor’ pronounced as

xuchil in Spanish (cf. Flores Farfán, 2007: 62):

El [nombre] Otomí, que dan los españoles, parece ser el mismo que dan los mexicanos, aunque diminuto o mutilado. Es la razón que los españoles no pronuncian con perfección todos los terminos mexicanos, principalmente los que tiene la partícula tl ... Y así se advierte ... En la palabra flor ... xochitl ... xuchil. Y eso puede haber acaecido [con la palabra otomí] que diciendo el mexicano Otomitl, el castellano haya dicho Otomi (Anónimo, 1893 [1767]: 6).

The selection of adjectives to describe the above phonological adaptation in Spanish ([el

nombre] diminuto o mutilado ‘a mutilated word’ confirms the prescriptive nature of

colonial grammars and also shows the critical attitude the author of Luces had towards

any instances of phonologically altered loanwords.

While Luces del Otomí discusses the instances of phonological adaptation in

Spanish, Bertonio in his 1603 Arte y gramatica muy copiosa dela lengua Aymara gives

examples of how Spanish loans are being accommodated (‘corrupted’ in the words of

Bertoni) to the Aymara CVCV syllable structure, as in Diosa (instead of Spanish Dios).

The author suggests to the missionaries working among the Aymara to follow this way of

adapting Spanish words, but at the same time admits that the friars should not uncritically

imitate the Aymara in how they ‘corrupt’ some words:

Los Aymares, los cuales acaban en vocal todas sus dictiones, aunque no hemos de imitar a los Indios quando de otras maneras corrompen los vocablos Castellanos, porque por decir plaça, dicen palaça, o cruz curuza, a Clemnet, Quelemente poniendo siempre una vocal entre la muta y liquida ... (Bertonio, 1603: 342).

Bertonio also stresses the importance of putting effort into pronouncing Aymara words

well, but admits that this task may be hard for non-native speakers: 7 In the work Luces del Otomí there is also an interesting analysis of the etymology of the alternative names of the Otomí

ethnolinguistic group,but due to length restrictions this paper will not discuss that (Anonymous, 1893 [1767]: 6-7).

11

No es cosa de poca importancia el saber pronunciar la lengua conforme la pronuncian los Indios; porque muchos por no saber esto hablan de fuerte que no se entiende lo que dicen. Aunque soy tambien de parecer que no es bien procurar alcançaz la pronunciacion con demasiada delizateza, y affectacion. Lo uno porque no hemos nacido ni nos hemos criado en esta tierra estamos impossibilitados de poder pronunciar en todo y por todo como los Indios pronuncian (Bertonio 1603: 344).

2.3 Changes in coding of nominal plurality

In numerous Amerindian languages animacy was a criterion for the use of nominal plural

suffixes, and as a result of contact with Spanish this characteristic started to change into

the possibility of pluralizing any quantifiable noun, as in Spanish. In the introductory

chapter Notas to Basalenque’s Arte de la lengua Tarasca (1886) we find this remark:

Véase en el totonaco y el mexicano cómo esta clase de exepciones , ó es introducion de los españoles, ó tiene por origen el que aquellos creian animadas algunas cosas que no lo son. Segun Basalenque, no hay más que cinco nombres de inanimados que usan plural (Notas, in Basalenque, 1886 [1714]: XIX).

Changes in the morphological process of coding plurality in the Totonac language are

also reported in Arte de lengua totonaca compiled by José Zambrano Bonilla (1752). The

author remarks that traditionally in Totonac only animate nouns (or considered animate in

the Totonac cosmology objects such as stars or skies) could have plural forms, and if an

animate noun such as ‘stone’ is used in the plural form that is because the modern

Totonac speakers want to ‘imitate’ Spanish:

(...) los que significan cosas inanimadas, no tienen plural, y si en algunos se halla, es porque entendieron los antiguos, que eran animados como los Cielos, y Estrellas Agaponinztaconitni, ò porque quieren los modernos emular el estilo Castellano, porque dicen chihuixni piedras (Zambrano Bonilla, 1752: 62-63).

Once again, the Spanish contact induced change in an indigenous language is reported

in a negative way, as ‘an imitation’ of a foreign linguistic feature, and a disregard of the

traditional animacy concept and the Totonac morphological processes.

3. Concluding remarks

12

Research on missionary reports of contact varieties of indigenous languages can offer

several interpretations depending on the context of the analysis.

Studying friars’ comments on Spanish contact induced innovations within the

prescriptive framework (which was the preferred line of presenting grammatical features

of any language either in Europe or in America at the time Amerindian Artes were being

compiled) allows us to see that hispanicization of local languages was looked upon in a

negative way as a phenomenon of incorrect forms emerging in a language in question

(or, in missionaries’ own words: idioma adulterado, imitación, lengua mezclada y

bárbara).

If, on the other hand, we analyse those fragments in the view of the Christian

interpretation of linguistic diversity and the linguistic policy of the Church, the friars’

reports of contact varieties and ongoing language shift can be seen as an act of

condemning linguistic acculturation as part of the wider cultural assimilation which the

missionaries, as the executors of the colonial Christianization policy of the Church, were

meant to facilitate. Were the missionaries, apart from being first to provide (missionary)

linguistic descriptions of the Amerindian languages also the first language

conservationists, concerned about preserving the unique typological features of the

indigenous languages of the Americas? Were the missionaries involved in the process of

converting the local ethnic groups into the Christian faith and their overall cultural

acculturation but trying to keep their indigenous languages in a good shape, as free from

Spanish influence as possible? The selected colonial sources analysed for the purpose

of this study seem to confirm that the missionaries were against the linguistic

13

assimilation of the Indians but many more works will have to be investigated in order to

further study and revise this topic.

Bibliography A. Primary sources Anónimo , 1893 [1767], Luces del Otomí, ó Gramática del idioma que hablan los indios otomíes en la Republica Mexicana. Imprenta del Gobierno Federal en el ex-Arzobispado, México, on-line <https://ia600803.us.archive.org/17/items/lucesdelotomiogr00padr/lucesdelotomiogr00padr.pdf>. Basalenque, Diego, 1886 [1714], Arte de la lengua Tarasca, dispuesto con nuevo estilo y claridad, Oficina Tip. De la Secretaria de Fomento, México, on-line <https://ia600507.us.archive.org/2/items/artedelalenguat00basa/artedelalenguat00basa.pdf>. Bertonio, Ludovico, 1603, Arte y gramatica muy copiosa dela lengua Aymara. : Con muchos y varios modos de hablar para su mayor declaración con la tabla delos capitulos, y cosas que en ella se contienen. &c., Luis Zanetti, Roma, on-line <https://ia700801.us.archive.org/5/items/arteygrammaticam00bert/arteygrammaticam00bert.pdf>. De Córdoba, Juan, 1578, Arte en lengua Zapoteca, Casa de Pedro Balli, México, on-line <https://ia600808.us.archive.org/18/items/arteenlenguazapo00juan/arteenlenguazapo00juan.pdf>. Cortés y Zedeño, Jerónimo Tomás de Aquino, 1765, Arte, vocabulario y confessionario en el idioma mexicano, : como se usa en el Obispato de Guadalaxara, En la Imprenta del Colegio Real de San Ignacio de Puebla de los Angeles, Puebla, on-line <https://ia700807.us.archive.org/21/items/artevocabularioy00cort/artevocabularioy00cort.pdf>. Falkner, Thomas, 1774, A Description of Patagonia and the Adjoining Parts of South America: containing an account of the soil, produce, animals, vales, mountains, rivers, lakes, &c. of those countries; the religion, government, policy, customs, dress, arms, and language of the Indian inhabitants; and some particulars relating to Falkland’s Islands [chapter VI: ‘An Account of the Language of the Inhabitants of These Countries (pp. 132-44), Hereford, London, on-line <https://archive.org/details/descriptionofpat01falk>. González Holguín, Diego, 1607, Gramática y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Peru, llamada lengua Qquichua, o lengua del Inca, Francisco del Canto Impressor,

14

Ciudad de los Reyes del Perú [Lima], en línea <http://www.memoriachilena.cl/602/w3-article-9531.html>. Zambrano Bonilla, José, 1752, Arte de lengua totonaca, conforme á el arte de Antonio Nebrija, La Imprenta de la Viuda de Miguel de Ortega. En el Portal de la flores, Puebla, on-line <https://ia902608.us.archive.org/15/items/artedelenguatoto00zamb/artedelenguatoto00zamb.pdf>. B. Secondary sources Flores Farfán, José Antonio, 2007, "La variación lingüística vista a través de las Artes Mexicanas (con especial énfasis en el náhuatl)", in Otto Zwartjes, Gregory James, Emilio Riduejo (eds), Missionary Linguistics III / Lingüística Misionera III, Morphology and Syntax, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 59-74. Jooken, Lieve, 2000. "Descriptions of American Indian Word Forms in Colonial Missionary Grammars", in Edward G. Gray, Norman Fiering (eds), The Language Encounter in the Americas 1492-1800, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, pp. 293-309. Lerner, Isaías, 2000, "Spanish Colonization and the Indigenous Languages of America", in Edward G. Gray, Norman Fiering (eds), The Language Encounter in the Americas 1492-1800, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, pp. 281-292. Lockhart, James, 1991, Nahuas and Spaniards: Postconquest Central Mexican History and Philology (UCLA Latin American Studies, vol. 76; Nahuatl Studies Series, no. 3), Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, on-line <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p7OfAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false>. Lockhart, James, 1992, The Nahuas After the Conquest. A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Odlin, Terrence, 1989, Language Transfer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schreyer, Rüdiger, 2000, ""Savage" Languages in Eighteen-Century Theoretical History of Language", in Edward G. Gray, Norman Fiering (eds), The Language Encounter in the Americas 1492-1800, Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, pp. 310-326. Thomason, Sarah G., 2001, Language Contact, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman, 1988, Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

15

Zwartjes, Otto, 2014, "The Missionaries’ contribution to translation studies in the Spanish colonial period: The mise en page of translated texts and its functions in foreign language teaching", in Otto Zwartjes, Klaus Zimmermann, Martina Schrader-Kniffki (eds), Missionary Linguistics V / Lingüística Misionera V. Translation Theories and Practices, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 1-52