Y. LASTRA
The purpose of this chapter is to report on the language shift of Otomí, which started a long time ago, and some recent local efforts to reverse the trend. Otomí is spoken in central Mexico. It belongs to the Oto-Pamean family which includes three branches, Pame-Chichimeco, Otomí-Mazahua and Matlatzinca-Ocuilteco. The family belongs to the Oto-Manguean stock which consists of 10 families. Among its better-known languages are Zapotec and Mixtec. Most of the languages, except the Oto-Pamean ones, are located in the state of Oaxaca. Mangue, now extinct, was spoken in Nicaragua. The stock does not extend to the north as does the Yuto-Aztecan one; the northernmost Oto-Manguean language is Pame. An interesting fact about these languages is that Pame and Chichimec are located outside of Mesoamerica while the rest have belonged to the culture area for a long time.
Historical Background
The Otomí have lived in central Mexico for many centuries. We will refer to their ancient history, which may help explain what the situation was like at the time of the Spanish Conquest. That period, in turn, has had an influ-ence upon the present-day situation. The Otomí were agriculturists and were probably one of the various ethnic groups present in Teotihuacan,1 the largest and most important ancient city of Mexico, which flourished for several centuries from around 200 to 800AD. They were certainly present in Tula, another important city, which goes back to the 8th century of our era and flourished from 950–1150/1200. After the fall of Tula the Otomí are mentioned explicitly in historical documents. The legendary king Xólotl gave an extensive territory to an Otomí leader and the kingdom of Xaltocan2was established in the early 13th century.
When the Mexica (later known as Aztecs) were on their pilgrimage to found Mexico they lived several years in Chapultepec3and the first to make
142 The Americas
Otomi Language Shift
war against them were the people of Xaltocan. This was the beginning of a long enmity between the two peoples. The Otomí kingdom continued to flourish until the end of the 14th century when it fell to the Mexica-domi-nated alliance (Torquemada, 1969). Its destruction marks the end of the political importance of the Otomí. Part of the population fled toward the east and south. Subsequently the Mexica-dominated alliance acquired their land. The result was an increase of the Nahuatl element in Otomí regions. Subsequently the Mexica included Otomís in the movement of peoples which they carried out in order to consolidate their power in the territories they kept adding to their empire by means of war. As the Mexica conquered more and more territory they completely subjected the Otomí who had to pay tribute to them.
There were other territories in central Mexico which the Otomí also inhabited, but they were gradually forced to migrate to the least desirable lands and the population of Nahuatl speakers increased in the former Otomí territories. By the time of the arrival of the Spanish, however, the Otomí still occupied three residential sections of Mexico City. To the north of the Mexica capital Otomí was also spoken and its speakers predomi-nated in the region to the north of the Basin of Mexico, which is roughly equivalent to the Mezquital Valley in the state of Hidalgo. There were Otomí towns in parts of the fertile lands of the Huasteca4area as well. In the highlands of Puebla there were also Otomí speakers but they shared the territory with speakers of Nahuatl and Totonac. Some Otomí lived in the area between Tetzcoco (Mexico) and Tulancingo (Hidalgo). Tlaxcala was Nahuatl-dominated by the 16th century but there were also Otomí chiefly to the east of the Malinche mountains. In Michoacán they reached as far as the Balsas river to the southeast of the present-day western states of Jalisco and Colima (Carrasco, 1950; Lastra, 1992a).
The extent of Otomí territory denotes their former importance. They settled before the Mexica who were the last to arrive in Mesoamerica from the north. Other speakers of Nahuatl had settled in parts of the centre of Mexico long before the Mexica did and they shared some territories with the Otomí. Even today it is possible to find contiguous towns where one of the languages is spoken in one town and the other in the town next to it. The people celebrate the same fiestas and trade with one another, but there is little intermarriage and the ethnic groups maintain their separate identi-ties.
In former times the Otomí seem to have transmitted many cultural traits to the Mexica, but the latter have never acknowledged this. It is well-known that they had codices burnt so that people would not know some of the facts of their own history. The indebtedness to the Otomí must have
gone up in smoke! From then on history could be re-written and the Otomí were depicted as lowly, despicable and stupid. This view was subse-quently passed on to the Spanish conquerors, who swallowed the Mexica story without much reflection. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, who enjoys the reputation of being the first ethnographer, was a Franciscan Friar who took it upon himself to find out everything he could about the religion and the culture that he and his fellow-countrymen were intent upon destroy-ing. He gathered information from elders who belonged to the Mexica elite and consequently the Otomí were portrayed in the most disparaging terms.
Ancient Mexican history thus has a bearing on the present-day language situation because one of the reasons why some Otomí are shifting their language is due to the reputation fabricated by the Mexica after the fall of Xaltocan in the 14th century, a reputation believed and repeated by the Spaniards and later on by Spanish-speaking Mexicans.
Nahuatl seems to have been a lingua franca even before the establish-ment of the Mexica (Aztec) empire. The names of people and places, for instance, have usually come down to us in that language. The majority of the names of the municipalities and towns that we mention below in connection with the statistics of language shift have a Nahuatl origin. After the Mexica rose to power their language became even more prestigious and bilingualism (local language/Nahuatl) seems to have been common at least among the elites. The Otomí who fled to other lands when the Mexica destroyed their towns often but not always lost their language and their identity.
Tlaxcala was an independent state, which the Mexica never conquered and there were many Otomí there, chiefly as defenders of the frontiers.
Tlaxcaltecans and Tlaxcala Otomís joined Cortés against the Mexica not realising that after a while their contribution would be forgotten. But due to the Conquest the Otomí were able to expand and be conquerors them-selves. They founded the town of Querétaro and other towns in that region and in what was to become the state of Guanajuato. These migrants had already been converted to Catholicism and seem to have accepted the Faith willingly. Nevertheless many ancient customs still survive both among them and among the Otomí who never moved from their former settle-ments. Galinier (1979, 1990) the best modern ethnographer of the group, describes many customs and beliefs of the Puebla highlands and is able to reconstruct their world-view which maintains their ancient philosophy of life together with some apparently Christian ways.
With the Spanish Conquest the encomienda was instituted. It was a system which supposedly helped the Indians but which permitted the
person in charge of a group to utilise their labour. Some towns were called Indian Republics and there the Indians could govern themselves, and in many cases aspects of pre-Hispanic organisation were preserved.
During the colonial period, aside from the regions where there were Otomí speakers interspersed with Nahuatl and Spanish speakers, the main areas where the language was spoken were the newly settled ones in Guanajuato and Querétaro, the Mezquital valley, the highlands area of Puebla, Veracruz, and Hidalgo, the Toluca valley and two enclaves, one in Michoacán and the other in Tlaxcala. Most of these people were farmers.
The comments that follow refer mostly to the Mezquital valley. The lands there were so dry that the people also hired themselves as day labourers and they made use of agave to produce syrups and a traditional fermented drink called pulque. At first the colonial government forbade pulque, but later on it taxed it. Rich landowners quickly took over this busi-ness and the Otomí were forced to use the agave drink only for their own use. Agave fibres and those of other plants were used to make cords, baskets and other products, which they sold through intermediaries who profited the most. They also cut wood, made charcoal and lime.
The Spaniards developed the silver mines in the neighbourhood, but not many Otomí became miners unless the Spaniards forced them to. The Spanish speakers owned the best lands and they used them for cattle raising.
During the War of Independence the Otomís were almost always on the side of independence because they resented the Spaniards who had taken their lands. With independence the Mezquital was divided and sold to native descendants of the Spaniards. The Indians continued to be hired hands.
During the Revolution against the dictator Porfirio Díaz the Otomís of the Mezquital did not fight for land. They still have a marginal position and they attribute their situation to illiteracy and to the lack of help from the government but not to their being exploited by non-Otomís.
Otomí participation in politics has been non-existent until recent years.
In the Mezquital a government agency set up in the 1940s and 1950s was supposed to educate and help the Indians economically, but it didn’t really succeed. The people still farm a little, work as day labourers and make use of the products which they gather. It is an economy of subsistence without profits or capital. All this within a capitalistic system where labour and land are irrationally exploited by those in control of the economy. Agricul-ture may be profitable where there is irrigation, but Indian lands mostly do not have irrigation (Mendizabal, 1947; Nolasco, 1966).
There have been confrontations between family and school and the
influence of the family has diminished and bilingualism has increased.
Religion has diminished in its importance particularly where there is irri-gation. Traditional celebrations give way to dances, sports and commercia-lisation. In many places Evangelism has been introduced. The converts read the Bible in Spanish and comment on it in Otomí (Franco and Manuel, 1992).
Since independence the government in general adopted an attitude of looking down upon all living Indians while admiring pre-Hispanic monu-ments and art particularly Aztec and Maya ones. Thus the lack of prestige of the Otomí continued. This attitude was even adopted by archaeologists who did not begin to try to look for evidence of ancient Otomí way of life until very recently. It is definitely the attitude of school teachers even of the so-called bilingual ones. Mexico is supposedly a pluricultural state. These are high-sounding words, but there is very little evidence of its existence.
The mainstream dominates and permeates every aspect of life even in remote towns where television and radio come with electricity, Western medicine with government clinics, Spanish with literacy. Other factors contributing to language shift are migration to cities, work in cities away from Otomí centres, temporary migration to the United States, commerce, Spanish-speaking migrants who come to live in indigenous communities, and so on. Of course, reversing language shift does not mean the denial of modernity, but Otomí is associated with backwardness not only in the minds of government officials but also in the minds of some of the speakers themselves.
However, a lot of non-material culture is still preserved. Otomí songs are heard when people go up the Hueyamelucan hill (in the state of Mexico about 80 kilometres from Mexico City) on Saturday nights to pray; I collected a prayer to the Earth Mother in Guanajuato where the language is practically extinct; tales are still known by elders and enjoyed by young people who don’t have television and still understand the language;
Galinier has been able to reconstruct Otomí philosophy, but I doubt that ordinary Otomí know their history, not even the summary I have given above. At school Mexican history includes a few words about the Olmecs, a few more about Teotihuacan, some Aztec history, and students are told that the Maya knew the concept of ‘zero’, had a writing system and built beautiful buildings, but not much else. Otomís are weak and despised but persistent. If they were told about their history and if non-Otomí, who do not understand their culture or their needs were to stop managing their education perhaps the language and the culture could survive. We will come back to the issue of education later on.
Language Shift
In this section the appalling statistics of language shift are reviewed.
According to the last census (1990) there are 280,238 speakers of Otomí.
This includes monolinguals and bilinguals. Their number is lower than it was in 1980 when there were 306,190 speakers. The territory where the language is spoken has shrunk and the percentage of Otomí speakers to the population of each municipality is smaller than it was before (Lastra, 1994).
Let us consider only the censuses taken since independence. The first was taken in 1895. The territory of each state was divided into districts which later were subdivided into municipalities (roughly equivalent to counties). The language habitually used by the people was given for each district together with the total population. The next census was taken in 1900 when the division into municipalities had been made, but luckily the names of the former districts are also given which makes some compari-sons possible.
From such comparisons we note that according to the 1895 census there were speakers of Otomí in eight states including San Luis Potosí which had six districts with a small Otomí population. The district with the largest population was Tamazunchale, situated near the border of Querétaro; it only had 204 speakers of Otomí. By the time of the 1900 census we find no speakers left in this district. The district of Tancanhuitz, which had 175 speakers according to the former census shows an increase in the absolute number of speakers (388), but the figure amounts to less than 1%.
The 1910 census has no information on languages. The next census was taken in 1921 and it lists only total numbers of Otomí speakers for states.
The 1930 census only registers monolinguals. Comparison of the figures in these two censuses shows that the number of monolinguals is smaller in 1930 than the total number of speakers was previously, but we are left with many questions since the figures are not really comparable. The 1940 and the 1950 censuses asked if people spoke an Indian language, but without specifying which one.
The following census, that is the one for 1960, lists the information by municipality giving the number of bilinguals and monolinguals older than five years and the name of the language. The format of the censuses has not changed significantly since then, which simplifies comparison. On the other hand, the comparison with the 1900 figures is much harder. In Table 6.1 I converted the census figures into percentages in order to show that the proportion of speakers of Otomí has progressively diminished even though in some cases absolute numbers have increased. One has to keep in mind that the 1900 census does not specify age, while the 1960–1990
Table 6.1Comparison of percentages of Otomí population by municipal-ity: based on census figures for 1900–1990
1900 1960 1970 1980 1990
Guanajuato
1. Allende 7% – – 2% 1%
2. Apaseo el Alto 3% – – – –
3. Comonfort 29% – – 1% –
4. Cortazar – – – 1% –
5. Dolores 2% – – 1% –
6. Villagrán – – – 1% –
Querétaro
1. Amealco 28% 36% 25% 32% 28%
2. Cadereyta 36% 9% 6% 5% 2%
3. Peñamiller 6% – – – –
4. Querétaro 4% – – – –
5. San Juan del Río 3% – – – –
6. Tequisquiapan 5% – – – –
7. Tolimán 67% 33% 24% 35% 28%
Hidalgo
1. Actopan 28% 66% 13% 11% 6%
2. Alfajayucan 66% 53% 31% 33% 25%
3. Arenal 14% ? 3% 3% 1%
4. Atotonilco el Grande 7% 2% – – –
5. Cardonal 54% 78% 47% 71% 66%
6. Chilcuautla 62% 50% 70% 67% 53%
7. Franciso I. Madero – 11% 9% 6% 3%
8. Huautla 24% – – – –
9. Huehuetla 38% 70% 45% 44% 55%
10. Huichapan 11% 17% 3% 2% –
11. Itzmiquilpan 82% 96% 56% 63% 54%
12. Metztitlán 14% – 12% 13% 12%
13. Mixquiahuala 38% – 5% 4% 2%
14. Nicolás Flores – 96% 70% 64% 59%
15. San Bartolo Tutotepec
52% 68% 47% 45% 45%
16. San Salvador 78% 39% 44% 36% 29%
17. Santiago 82% 93% 56% 70% 58%
18. Tasquillo 63% 60% 51% 55% 47%
1900 1960 1970 1980 1990
19. Tecozautla 44% 19% 12% 13% 7%
20. Tenango de Doria 41% 36% 23% 35% 32%
21. Tepeji del Río 10% – 5% 6% 6%
22. Tepetitlán 9% – 4% – 1%
23. Tezontepec 2% 5% – – –
24. Tlaxcoapan 12% – – – –
25. Tula 11% – – – –
26. Tulancingo 8% – 35% 3% 3%
27. Zimapán 41% 50% 25% 24% 14%
Puebla
1. Chila Honey – 5% 11% 11% 9%
2. Metlatoyuca – 15% 1% 1% 1%
3. Jalpan – 22% 4% 3% 3%
4. Pantepec – 33% 12% 13% 13%
5. Tlaxco – – 8% 8% 5%
6. Venustiano Carranza – – 1% 2% 2%
7. Huauchinango 20%
8. Pahuatlán – – 17% 19%
9. Xicotepec 4% – – – –
10. Tlahuilotepec 6% – – – –
11. Naupan 4% – – – –
Veracruz
1. Huayacocotla 22% 5% – – –
2. Ixhuatlán 31% 69% 10% 15% 14%
3. Tlachichilco 38% 31% 9% 16% 17%
4. Zacualpan 50% 9% 2% 3% 1%
5. Zontecomatlán 40% 45% 12% 14% 11%
6. Espinal 1% – – –
7. Temapache 11% – – –
8. Texcatepec 58% 38% 75% 72%
9. Tihuatlán 6% – – –
Michoacán
1. Zitácuaro 9% 4% 1% – –
México
Table 6.1 (cont.)Comparison of percentages of Otomí population by mu-nicipality: based on census figures for 1900–1990
censuses consider the population which is five years or older. The table lists municipalities with a number which is keyed to Figure 6.1.5In the table we list only those municipalities which have 1% Otomí population or above.
The figure shows other municipalities not included in the table which have a very low number of speakers.
Examining the data presented in Table 6.1 one can see that the
percent-1900 1960 1970 1980 1990
1. Acambay 22% 35% 29% 30% 23%
2. Aculco 3% 22% 14% 17% 9%
3. Amanalco – – 23% 18% 10%
4. Capulhuac 6% – – – –
5. Chapa de Mota 18% 54% 37% 29% 23%
6. Huixquilucan 26% 15% 4% 2% 1%
7. Jilotepec 3% – – 1% –
8. Jilotzingo – – – 1% –
9. Jiquipilco 11% 27% 29% 27% 16%
10. Lerma 39% – 16% 8% 5%
11. San Bartolo Morelos 50% 66% 47% 42% 31%
12. Naucalpan 6% 5% 1% – –
13. Nicolás Romero 11% – 2% – –
14. Ocoyoacac 42% 2% 6% 2% 1%
15. Otzolotepec 46% 28% 25% 25% 13%
16. Polotitlán 3% – – – –
17. San José Malacatepec 11%
18. Temascalcingo 7% 1% 5% 4% 2%
19. Temoaya 71% 66% 58% 55% 46%
20. Tianguistenco 8% – 4% 2% 2%
21. Timilpan 23% 17% 15% 10% 7%
22. Tlalnepantla 1% – – – –
23. Toluca 2% 9% 7% 4% 4%
24. Villa del Carbón 6% – 7% 4% 1%
25. Xonacatlán 29% 14% 8% 7% 5%
26. Zinacantepec 33% – 3% 1% 1%
Tlaxcala
1. Ixtenco 54% 13% 24% 18% 14%
Table 6.1 (cont.)Comparison of percentages of Otomí population by mu-nicipality: based on census figures for 1900–1990
Figure6.1Present-daydistributionofOtomíspeakers(1990)
ages of Otomí speakers diminish as the years go by, so much so that some municipalities which had speakers at the beginning of the century no longer have them. The present-day distribution of the Otomí population can be seen in Figure 6.1.6The figure includes municipalities which have between 20 and 99 speakers; 100–999; 1000–4999; over 5000. It is easy to see that communities with a very low number of speakers are located in the municipalities that only have between 20 and 99 speakers. Such municipal-ities appear in the figure because their number is very large and they are the ones where the language will probably disappear within a generation or so.
In Guanajuato there were six municipalities in 1900 which had between 1% and 29%, now only one remains and it has 1%. All of the speakers are old people, which means that after their generation passes away the language will be gone in that state.
In Querétaro at the beginning of the century there were seven munici-palities with Otomí population (between 67% and 3%), and now there are three, two with 28% and the other with 2%.
Hidalgo had 27 municipalities where the language was spoken in 1900;
now there are 21, 3 of them with only 1%. In 1900 13 of the municipalities had over 30% speakers of the language, now only 9 of them have that many.
Puebla and Veracruz have suffered many changes in the nomenclature because of the creation of new municipalities so that the comparison is
Puebla and Veracruz have suffered many changes in the nomenclature because of the creation of new municipalities so that the comparison is