| Oto-Manguean | |
|---|---|
| Geographic distribution | CurrentlyMexico; previouslyMesoamerica andCentral America |
| Linguistic classification | One of the world's primarylanguage families |
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| ISO 639-5 | omq |
| Glottolog | otom1299 |
 Pre-contact distribution of the Oto-Manguean languages in Mexico and Central America | |
 The Oto-Manguean languages within Mexico. | |
TheOto-Manguean orOtomanguean (/ˌoʊtoʊˈmæŋɡiːən/OH-to-MANG-ghee-ən) languages are a large family comprising several subfamilies ofindigenous languages of the Americas. All of the Oto-Manguean languages that are now spoken are indigenous toMexico, but theManguean branch of the family, which is nowextinct, was spoken as far south asNicaragua andCosta Rica. Oto-Manguean is widely viewed as a proven language family.
The highest number of speakers of Oto-Manguean languages today are found in the state ofOaxaca where the two largest branches, theZapotecan andMixtecan languages, are spoken by almost 1.5 million people combined. In central Mexico, particularly in the states ofMexico,Hidalgo andQuerétaro, the languages of the Oto-Pamean branch are spoken: theOtomi and the closely relatedMazahua have over 500,000 speakers combined. In the linguistic world of Mesoamerica, the Otomanguean family stands out as the most diverse and extensively distributed.
Some Oto-Manguean languages are moribund or highly endangered; for example,Ixcatec andMatlatzinca each have fewer than 250 speakers, most of whom are elderly. Other languages particularly of the Manguean branch which was spoken outside of Mexico have becomeextinct; these include theChiapanec language, which was declared extinct after 1990. Others such asSubtiaba, which was most closely related toMe'phaa (Tlapanec), have been extinct longer and are only known from early 20th century descriptions.
The Oto-Manguean language family is the most diverse and most geographically widespread language family represented in Mesoamerica. The internal diversity is comparable with that ofIndo-European, and the Proto-Oto-Manguean language is estimated to have been spoken some time before 2000 BCE.[1] This means that at least for the past 4,000 years Oto-Manguean languages have coexisted with the other languages ofMesoamerica and have developed many traits in common with these, to such an extent that they are seen as part of asprachbund called theMesoamerican Linguistic Area.
However Oto-Manguean also stands out from the other language families of Mesoamerica in several features. It is the only language family inNorth America,Mesoamerica andCentral America whose members are alltonal languages. It also stands out by having a much moreanalytic structure than other Mesoamerican languages. Another typical trait of Oto-Manguean is that its members almost all show VSO (verb–subject–object) in basic order of clausal constituents.
| Genealogical classification of Oto-Manguean languages | |||||
| Family | Groups | Languages | Where spoken and approximate number of speakers | ||
| Oto-Manguean languages | Western Oto-Mangue | Oto-Pame–Chinantecan | Oto-Pamean | Otomi (Hñähñu) (several varieties) | Central Mexico (c. 212,000) |
| Mazahua (Hñatho) | Mexico (state) (c. 150,000) | ||||
| Matlatzincan | Mexico (state). Two varieties:Ocuiltec–Tlahuica (c. 450) andMatlatzinca de San Francisco (c. 1,200) | ||||
| Pame | San Luis Potosí. Three varieties: Southern Pame (no speakers), Central Pame (c. 5,000), Northern Pame (c. 5,000). | ||||
| Chichimeca Jonaz | Guanajuato,San Luis Potosí (c. 1,500) | ||||
| Chinantecan | Chinantec (around 10 variants) | northernOaxaca and southernVeracruz, (c. 224,000) | |||
| Tlapanec–Mangue | Tlapanecan | Tlapanec (Me'phaa) | Guerrero (c. 75,000) | ||
| Subtiaba(†) | Nicaragua | ||||
| Manguean | Chiapanec(†) | Chiapas | |||
| Mangue(†) | Nicaragua | ||||
| Eastern Oto-Mangue | Popolocan–Zapotecan | Popolocan | Mazatec | north-easternOaxaca andVeracruz (c. 206,000) | |
| Ixcatec | northernOaxaca (2) | ||||
| Chocho | northernOaxaca (< 850) | ||||
| Popoloca | SouthernPuebla, (c. 17,000) | ||||
| Zapotecan | Zapotec (around 50 variants) | Central and eastern Oaxaca (c. 490,000) | |||
| Chatino (around 5 variants) | Oaxaca (c. 23,000) | ||||
| Amuzgo–Mixtecan[2] | Amuzgoan | Amuzgo (around 4 variants) | Oaxaca and Guerrero (c. 44,000) | ||
| Mixtecan | Mixtec (around 30 variants) | central, southern and westernOaxaca; southernPuebla and easternGuerrero (c. 511,000) | |||
| Cuicatec | Cuicatlán,Oaxaca, (c. 13,000) | ||||
| Trique (also called Triqui) | westernOaxaca (c. 30,000) | ||||
A genetic relationship between Zapotecan and Mixtecan was first proposed byManuel Orozco y Berra in 1864; he also included Cuicatec, Chocho and Amuzgo in his grouping. In 1865, Pimentel added Mazatec, Popoloca, Chatino and Chinantec – he also posed a separate group of Pame, Otomi and Mazahua, the beginning of the Oto-Pamean subbranch.Daniel Brinton's classification of 1891 added Matlatzinca and Chichimeca Jonaz to Pimentel's Oto-Pamean group (which wasn't known by that name then), and he reclassified some languages of the previously included languages of the Oaxacan group.[clarification needed] In 1920, Walther Lehmann included the Chiapanec–Mangue languages and correctly established the major subgroupings of the Oaxacan group. And in 1926, Schmidt coined the name Otomi–Mangue for a group consisting of the Oto-Pamean languages and Chiapanec–Mangue. The Oto-Pamean group and the Main Oaxacan group were not joined into one family untilSapir's classification in 1929, where it was included in theHokan family.
From the 1950s on reconstructive work began to be done on individual Oto-Manguean language groups. Proto-Oto-Pamean was reconstructed byDoris Bartholomew, Proto-Zapotecan byMorris Swadesh, Proto-Chiapanec–Mangue by Fernández de Miranda andWeitlaner. The classification by Campbell 1997 was the first to present a unified view of the Oto-Manguean languages. In 1981, William Merrifield published a reconstruction of thekinship terminologies of each of the Oto-Manguean branches and of Proto-Oto-Manguean. Unpublished reconstructions of Proto-Oto-Manguean grammar have also been made byTerrence Kaufman.[3]
In spite of the lack of a full published reconstruction of proto-Oto-Manguean, the language family has now been widely accepted by specialists, includingLyle Campbell,Terrence Kaufman, andWilliam Poser. Campbell and Poser writing in 2008 concluded that ""Tlapanec-Subtiaba proved not to belong to 'Hokan' as postulated by Sapir (1925a), but to be a branch of Otomanguean ..."" Nonetheless, a few studies have retained the inclusion in Hokan, particularlyJoseph Greenberg's widely rejected 1987 classification,[4] as well as its derivative works byMerritt Ruhlen.[5] Writing in 1988, Leonardo Manrique still listed Tlapanec-Mangue as an isolated family.[6]
The status of theAmuzgo language as either a part of the Mixtecan group or as forming its own branch from the proto-Oto-Manguean node has been discussed by Longacre, who argued for the latter,[7] but the currently most accepted classification byCampbell (1997) followsTerrence Kaufman in considering Amuzgo to be a branch of Mixtecan. Swadesh (1960) and Rensch included theHuave language as a separate branch within Oto-Manguean, but this inclusion has proved untenable as most of the cognates were loan-words from Zapotec. Huave is now considered anisolate.[8]
Longacre (1968) considered Oto-Manguean to be among the most extensively studied language families of the world, with a level of reconstruction rivaling theIndo-European family in completeness, but Kaufman and Justeson (2009) reject this, lamenting the rudimentary reconstruction of Proto-Oto-Manguean lexicon (only c. 350 items have been reconstructed) and grammar. They call for a redoubling of the effort to document and reconstruct several important branches that have received little attention: principally Mixtecan, Popolocan and Oto-Pamean.
Brown (2015) evaluates evidence assembled in support of Oto-Manguean. He points out that vocabulary reconstructed for Proto-Oto-Manguean is not supported by regular sound correspondences. While scholars, including Swadesh, Rensch, and Kaufman, have all reconstructed POM words, none have done so with the benefit of detailed sound correspondences and, consequently Brown argues that their reconstructions as well as Oto-Manguean itself are called into question. Nevertheless, Brown (2015) suggests that Oto-Manguean as Sprachbund (language diffusion area) is a reasonable alternative hypothesis to the proposal of Oto-Manguean as a language family.[9]
| Oto‑Manguean | |
Some early classifications such as that by Brinton, considered that Oto-Manguean languages might be related toChinese, because like Chinese the languages were tonal and mostly monosyllabic. This idea was quickly abandoned as it was discovered that tonal languages are common, and advances in the historical study of Chinese were made (including the discovery thatOld Chinese was non-tonal).[10] Edward Sapir included Subtiaba–Tlapanec in hisHokan phylum, but didn't classify the other Oto-Manguean languages in his famous 1929 classification. In his 1960 classification,Joseph Greenberg considered Oto-Manguean so aberrant from other Native American languages that it was the only accepted family (aside from thePurépecha isolate) which he made a primary branch of hisAmerind family. However, in his 1987 revision he linked it withAztec-Tanoan in a "Central Amerind" branch, apart from Tlapanec which, although it had by then been unequivocally linked to Oto-Manguean, he continued to classify as Hokan.[11] No hypotheses including Oto-Manguean in any higher-level unit have been able to withstand scrutiny.
The Oto-Manguean family has existed in southern Mexico at least since 2000 BCE and probably several thousand years before,[12] some estimates using the controversial method ofglottochronology suggest an approximate splitting date of Proto-Otomanguean at c. 4400 BCE.[13]This makes the Oto-Manguean family the language family of the Americas with the deepest time depth, as well as the oldest language family with evidence of tonal contrast in the proto-language.[14]
The Oto-Mangueanurheimat has been thought to be in theTehuacán valley in connection with one of the earliest neolithic cultures ofMesoamerica, and although it is now in doubt whether Tehuacán was the original home of the Proto-Otomanguean people, it is agreed that the Tehuacán culture (5000 BCE–2300 BCE) were likely Oto-Mangue speakers.[13]
The long history of the Oto-Manguean family has resulted in considerable linguistic diversity between the branches of the family.Terrence Kaufman compares the diversity between the main branches of Oto-Manguean with that between the main branches ofIndo-European.[1] Kaufman also proposes that Oto-Manguean languages are an important candidate for being the source of many of the traits that have diffused into the otherlanguages in theMesoamerican linguistic area.
Oto-Mangue speakers have been among the earliest to form highly complex cultures ofMesoamerica: the archeological site ofMonte Albán with remains dated as early as 1000 BCE is believed to have been in continuous use byZapotecs. The undecipheredZapotec script is one of the earliest forms of Mesoamerican writing.
Other Mesoamerican cultural centers which may have been wholly or partly Oto-Manguean include the late classical sites ofXochicalco, which may have been built byMatlatzincas, andCholula, which may have been inhabited by Manguean peoples. And some propose an Oto-Pamean presence inTeotihuacán. The Zapotecs are among the candidates to have invented the firstwriting system of Mesoamerica – and in the Post-Classic period the Mixtecs were prolific artisans and codex painters. During the postclassic the Oto-Manguean cultures of Central Mexico became marginalized by the intrudingNahuas and some, like the Chiapanec–Mangue speakers went south into Guerrero, Chiapas and Central America, while others such as theOtomi saw themselves relocated from their ancient homes in the Valley of Mexico to the less fertile highlands on the rim of the valleys.
The languages of theOto-Pamean branch are spoken in central and western Mexico. The group includes the Otomian languages:Otomi spoken primarily in the states ofMexico,Hidalgo,Puebla andVeracruz (c. 293,000 speakers) andMazahua spoken in the western part of the State of Mexico (c. 350,000 speakers), and the endangeredMatlatzincan languages includingMatlatzinca (c. 1000 speakers in the town of San Francisco Oxtotilpa) andTlahuica (also called Ocuilteco) (c. 400 speakers in the municipio ofOcuilan) both spoken in the State of Mexico; And the Pamean group composed of the two livingPame languages ofSan Luís Potosí, Northern Pame[1] being spoken in communities from the north ofRío Verde on the border withTamaulipas (c. 5500 speakers), and Central Pame[2] spoken in the town of Santa María Acapulco (c. 4000 speakers), the extinct Southern Pame language, and theChichimeca Jonaz language spoken in Misión de Chichimecas nearSan Luis de la Paz in the state ofGuanajuato (c. 200 speakers).
Otomi is traditionally described as a single language, although its many dialects are not all mutually intelligible. The language classification of the SIL International'sEthnologue considers Otomi to be a cover term for nine separate Otomi languages and assigns a differentISO code to each of these nine varieties. Currently, Otomi varieties are spoken collectively by c. 239,000 speakers – some 5 to 6 percent of whom aremonolingual. Because of recent migratory patterns, small populations of Otomi speakers can be found in new locations throughout Mexico and in the United States. The Otomi languages are vigorous in some areas, with children acquiring the language through natural transmission (e.g. in theMezquital Valley of Hidalgo and in the Highlands). However, three varieties are now consideredmoribund: those of Ixtenco (Tlaxcala state), Santiago Tilapa and Acazulco (Mexico state), and Cruz del Palmar (Guanajuato state).[15] In some municipalities the level of monolingualism in Otomi is as high as 22.3% (Huehuetla, Hidalgo) or 13.1% (Texcatepec, Veracruz). Monolingualism is normally significantly higher among women than among men.[16]
TheChinantecan languages are spoken by c. 93,000 people in Northern Oaxaca and Southern Veracruz in the districts of Cuicatlán,Ixtlán de Juárez, Tuxtepec and Choapan. TheEthnologue recognizes 14 separate varieties with separate ISO codes.
TheTlapanec language is spoken by c. 75,000 people inGuerrero. There are four principal varieties named after the communities where they are spoken: Acatepec, Azoyú, Malinaltepec and Tlacoapa. Recent labor migrations have introduced Tlapanec speaking communities to the state ofMorelos. It was closely related to theSubtiaba language which was spoken in Nicaragua but which is now extinct.
TheManguean languages are all extinct. They included theMangue andChorotega languages that were spoken inNicaragua andCosta Rica at the beginning of the 20th century, and theChiapanec language which was spoken inChiapas,Mexico by a handful of speakers in the 1990s, but is now extinct.
The Popolocan language group includes the seven different varieties ofPopoloca which are spoken in southernPuebla state nearTehuacán and Tepexi de Rodríguez (c. 30,000 speakers), and the closely relatedChocho language (c. 700 speakers) spoken in Northern Oaxaca state, and the 8 differentMazatecan languages spoken in northern Oaxaca (c. 120,000 speakers), and the nearly extinctIxcatec language spoken inSanta María Ixcatlán (< 8 speakers). The Popolocan languages should not be confused with the languages calledPopoluca spoken in the state ofVeracruz, which belong to the unrelatedMixe–Zoquean language family. The Mazatecan languages are known for their prolific use ofwhistled speech.
TheZapotecan subgroup is formed by theZapotec languages (c. 785,000 speakers of all varieties) and the relatedChatino languages (c. 23,000 speakers). They are all traditionally spoken in central and southern Oaxaca, but have been spread throughout Mexico and even into the United States through recent labor related migrations.
Zapotec languages and dialects fall into four broad geographic divisions: Zapoteco de la Sierra Norte (Northern Zapotec), Valley Zapotec, Zapoteco de la Sierra Sur (Southern Zapotec), andIsthmus Zapotec. Northern Zapotec languages are spoken in the mountainous region ofOaxaca, in the Northern Sierra Madre mountain ranges; Southern Zapotec languages and are spoken in the mountainous region ofOaxaca, in the Southern Sierra Madre mountain ranges; Valley Zapotec languages are spoken in the Valley of Oaxaca, and Isthmus Zapotec languages are spoken in theIsthmus of Tehuantepec. TheEthnologue recognizes 57 varieties of Zapotec and 6 varieties of Chatino by distinct ISO codes.
The Mixtecan branch includes the many different, mutually unintelligible varieties of Mixtec spoken by about 511,000 people as well as theTrique (or Triqui) languages, spoken by about 24,500 people andCuicatec, spoken by about 15,000 people.[17] The Mixtecan languages are traditionally spoken in the region known asLa Mixteca, which is shared by thestates ofOaxaca,Puebla andGuerrero. Because of migration from this region the Mixtecan languages have expanded to Mexico's main urban areas, particularly theState of México and theFederal District, to certain agricultural areas such as theSan Quintín valley inBaja California and parts ofMorelos andSonora, and even into theUnited States. The Mixtec language is a complex set of regional varieties, many of which are not mutually intelligible. The varieties of Mixtec are sometimes grouped by geographic area, using designations such as those of theMixteca Alta, theMixteca Baja, and theMixteca de la Costa. However, the dialects do not actually follow the geographic areas, and the precise historical relationships between the different varieties have not been worked out.[18] The number of varieties of Mixtec depends in part on what the criteria are for grouping them, of course; at one extreme, government agencies once recognized no dialectal diversity. Mutual intelligibility surveys and local literacy programs have ledSIL International to identify more than50 varieties which have been assigned distinct ISO codes.[19]
FourAmuzgo varieties are spoken in theCosta Chica region of the states ofGuerrero andOaxaca by about 44,000 speakers.[20] The four varieties recognized by the Mexican government are:Northern Amuzgo (amuzgo del norte, commonly known as Guerrero or (from its major town) Xochistlahuaca Amuzgo), Southern Amuzgo (amuzgo del sur, heretofore classified as a subdialect of Northern Amuzgo); Upper Eastern Amuzgo (amuzgo alto del este, commonly known as Oaxaca Amuzgo or San Pedro Amuzgos Amuzgo); Lower Eastern Amuzgo (amuzgo bajo del este, commonly known as Ipalapa Amuzgo). These varieties are very similar, but there is a significant difference between western varieties (Northern and Southern) and eastern varieties (Upper Eastern and Lower Eastern), as revealed by recorded text testing done in the 1970s.[21]
All Oto-Manguean languages havetone: some have only twolevel tones while others have up to five level tones. Many languages in addition have a number ofcontour tones. Many Oto-Manguean languages have phonemic vowel nasalization. Many Oto-Manguean languages lacklabial consonants, particularly stops and those that do have labial stops normally have these as a reflex of Proto-Oto-Manguean*/kʷ/.[22]
The Oto-Manguean languages have a wide range of tonal systems, some with as many as 10 tone contrasts and others with only two. Some languages have a register system only distinguishing tones by the relative pitch. Others have a contour system that also distinguishes tones with gliding pitch. Most, however, are combinations of the register and contour systems. Tone as a distinguishing feature is entrenched in the structure of the Oto-Manguean languages and in no way a peripheral phenomenon as it is in some languages that are known to have acquired tone recently or which are in a process of losing it. In most Oto-Manguean languages tone serves to distinguish both between the meanings of roots and to indicate different grammatical categories. In ChiquihuitlanMazatec, which has four tones, the following minimal pairs occur:cha1/tʃa˥/ "I talk",cha2/tʃa˦/ "difficult",cha3/tʃa˧/ "his hand"cha4/tʃa˩/ "he talks".[23]
The language with the most level tones isUsila Chinantec, which has five level tones;Chicahuaxtla Trique has a similar system.[23]
InCopala Triqui, which has a mixed system, only three level tones but five tonal registers are distinguished within the contour tones.
Many other systems have only three tone levels, such asTlapanec and TexmelucanZapotec.
Particularly common in theOto-Pamean branch are small tonal systems with only two level tones and one contour, such asPame andOtomi. Some others likeMatlatzinca andChichimeca Jonaz only have the level tones and no contour.
In some languages, stress influences tone. For example, in Pame, only stressed syllables have a tonal contrast. In Mazahua, the opposite occurs, and all syllables except the final stressed one distinguish tone. In Tlapanec, stress is determined by the tonal contour of the words. Most languages have systems oftone sandhi where the tones of a word or syllable are influenced by other tones in other syllables or words. Chinantec has no Sandhi rules, but Mixtec and Zapotec have elaborate systems. For Mazatec, some dialects have elaborate Sandhi systems (e.g. Soyaltepec) and others do not (e.g. Huautla Mazatec). Some languages (particularly Mixtecan) also havetone terracing where some tones "upstep" or "downstep", causing a rise or drop in pitch level for the entire tonal register in subsequent syllables.
Several Oto-Manguean languages have systems ofwhistled speech, where by whistling the tonal combinations of words and phrases, information can be transmitted over distances without using words. Whistled speech is particularly common in Chinantec, Mazatec and Zapotecan languages.
| Proto-Oto-Manguean | |
|---|---|
| Reconstruction of | Oto-Manguean languages |
Proto-Oto-Manguean allowed only open syllables of the structure CV (orCVʔ). Syllable initial consonant clusters are very limited, usually only sibilant-CV, CyV, CwV, nasal-CV, ChV, orCʔV are allowed. Many modern Oto-Manguean languages keep these restrictions in syllable structure but others, most notably the Oto-Pamean languages, now allow both final clusters and long syllable initial clusters. This example with three initial and three final consonants is fromNorthern Pame:/nlʔo2spt/ "their houses".[24]
The following phonemes are reconstructed for Proto-Oto-Manguean.[25]
| Bilabial | Dental | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Labiovelar | Glottal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasals | *m | *n | |||||
| Stops | *t | *k | *kʷ | *ʔ | |||
| Affricate | *ts | ||||||
| Fricatives | *θ | *s | *x | *xʷ | |||
| Rhotic | *r | ||||||
| Glides | *l | *j | *w |
A reconstruction from Calvin Rensch proposes four tones for Proto-Oto-Manguean.[26] The later, revised reconstruction byTerrence Kaufman[27] contains the following proto-phonemes, which were not included in Rensch's reconstruction: */ts/, */θ/, */x/, */xʷ/, */l/, */r/, */m/ and */o/. Kaufman also posits the vowel combinations */ia/, */ai/, */ea/, and */au/.
The Oto-Manguean languages have changed quite a lot from the very spartan phoneme inventory of Proto-Oto-Manguean. Many languages have rich inventories of both vowels and consonants. Many have a full series of fricatives, and some branches (particularly Zapotecan and Chinantecan) distinguish voicing in both stops and fricatives. The voiced series of the Oto-Pamean languages have both fricative and stop allophones. Otomian also have full series of front, central and back vowels. Some analyses of Mixtecan include a series of voiced prenasalised stops and affricates; these can also be analysed as consonant sequences but it would be the only consonant clusters known in the languages.
These are some of the most simple sound changes that have served to divide the Oto-Manguean family into subbranches:
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
