Chapter published in:
Variation and Evolution: Aspects of language contact and contrast across the Spanish-speaking world
Edited by Sandro Sessarego, Juan J. Colomina-Almiñana and Adrián Rodríguez-Riccelli
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 29] 2020
► pp. 254–273

New Mochica and the challenge of reviving an extinct language

| Leiden University
| University of Turku
In this paper, we discuss New Mochica as an example of language revival. New Mochica is definitely not the Mochica of the colonial or republican epoch of present-day Peru and the continuity of an already extinct language can be questioned. Van Coetsem’s (1988, 2000) framework of language contact explains why the contribution of the language revivalists’ dominant language, Spanish, has such a powerful impact on New Mochica, eradicating the central typological features of Mochica. On the other hand, the groups of language revivalists presented in this paper explore the linguistic resources at hand in creative ways. Based on this case study, we propose that language revival should be studied as distinct from language revitalization (cf. Zuckermann & Walsh, 2011), yet as related to overall processes of language making (Hüning & Krämer, 2018).
Keywords: indigenous languages of Peru, language policy and planning, language revival, language making
Published online: 11 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.29.11bar
References

References

Adelaar, W.
(2007[2004]) The Mochica language. In W. Adelaar & P. C. Muysken, The languages of the Andes (pp. 319–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander-Bakkerus, A.
(2002) Nominal morphophonological processes observed in Pedro de la Mata’s Arte de la Lengua Cholona (1748). In M. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira, & H. van der Voort (Eds.), Current studies on South American languages (pp. 103–110). Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).Google Scholar
Alvar, M.
(1996) Manual de dialectología hispánica. El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Amery, R.
(2016) Warrarparna Kaurna. Reclaiming an Australian language. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asensio, R. H.
(2012) Nosotros los muchik: Turismo, arqueología, antropología y discursos de identidad colectiva en la costa norte del Perú (1987–2009). In R. H. Asensio & B. Pérez Galán (Eds.), ¿El turismo es cosa de pobres? Patrimonio, pueblos indígenas y nuevas formas de turismo en América Latina. Pasos: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural (pp. 35–60). Lima/El Sauzal: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Asociación Canaria de Antropología.Google Scholar
(2014) Entre lo regional y lo étnico: El redescubrimiento de la cultura mochica y los nuevos discursos de identidad colectiva en la costa norte (1987–2010). In R. Cuenca (Ed.), Etnicidades en construcción: Identidad y acción social en contextos de desigualdad (pp. 85–123). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Baker, P.
(1990) Off target? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 5(1), 107–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, P.
(2008) Pidgins versus creoles and pidgincreoles. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 130–157). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bakker, P., & Mous, M.
(Eds.) (1994) Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Barrett, R.
(2008) Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(3), 275–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartens, A.
(2003) A contrastive grammar Islander-Caribbean Standard English-Spanish. Helsinki: The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.Google Scholar
(2019, May). Language making and ownership from the perspective of writing creoles. Paper presented at the Symposium Analyzing Ideologies, Attitudes and Power in Language Contact Settings, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholms Universitetet.
forthcoming). Cómo se crea una lengua: Reflexiones acerca del cántabro, mirandés, valenciano y los criollos de Alta Guinea. In F. J. Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga & D. M. Sáez Rivera Eds. Gramaticalización, lexicalización y análisis del discurso desde una perspectiva histórica Madrid/Frankfurt Iberoamericana/Vervuert
under review). The making of languages and new literacies San Andrés-Providence Creole with a view on Jamaican and Haitian.
Bartens, A., Kolehmainen, L., Krämer, P., & Vogl, U.
forthcoming). Introduction: What is language making? In L. Kolehmainen, P. Krämer, U. Vogl, & A. Bartens Eds. Language making Special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language
Carrera y Daza, F. de la
(1644) El arte de la lengva yvnga de los valles del Obispado de Truxillo del Perú, con vn confessonario, y todas las oraciones christianas, traducidas en la lengua, y otras cosas. Lima: Joseph Contreras.Google Scholar
(1939[1644]) Arte de la lengua yunga, Altieri, R. A. (Ed.). Tucumán: Instituto de Antropología.Google Scholar
(2009[1939]) Arte de la Lengua Yunga. In A. Serrepe Ascencio & A. Ramos Cabrera (Eds.), Arte de la Lengua Yunga (pp.). Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, R.
(1995) La lengua de Naimlap (reconstrucción y obsolescencia del mochica). Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
Chero Zurita, J. C., Peralta Vallejos, M., & Chero Zurita, L. E.
(2012) Tūk Muchik: Texto básico para el aprendizaje del idioma mochica. Chiclayo: Publigraph.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F.
(2016) Guardians of language: Twenty voices through history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
(2000) Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dorian, N. C.
(1977) The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 12, 23–32.Google Scholar
Duranti, A.
(2000) Antropología lingüística. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eloranta, R. S.
(2013, June). Revisiting Mochica phonology. The “sixth vowel”. Paper presented at the Fifth meeting of the ACLC Research group “Revitalizing older linguistic documentation” (ROLD). University of Amsterdam.
(2014, September). Verbs ‘to be’ in Mochica. Paper presented at the Workshop “To be or not to be? The verbum substantivum from synchronic, diachronic, and typological perspective”. Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europae SLE 2014, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.
(2017) Language contact across the Andes: the case of Mochica and Hibito-Cholón. In K. Dakin, C. Parodi, & N. Operstein (Eds.), Language contact and change in Mesoamerica and beyond (pp. 319–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018, October). El neomochica y el reto de aprender una lengua extinta. Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium 2018, Department of Spanish & Portuguese, Department of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies and the Lozano Long Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin.
(2019) Lingüística mochica: cuestiones etimológicas y analíticas. Lexis, 43(1), 117–163.Google Scholar
forthcoming). Posesión nominal en mochica (accepted for publication in INDIANA, Iberoamerikanisches Institut, Berlin).
Fishman, J. A.
(Ed.) (2001) Can threatened languages be saved? Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J.
(1995) Second language Speech Learning Theory, findings and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Gobierno Regional Lambayeque, Dirección Regional de Educación 358406, Ministerio de Educación
(2008) Resolución directoral regional sectorial No 0675-2008-GR.LAMB/DREL Gobierno Regional de Lambayeque, Ordenanza No 011-2010-GR.LAMB./CR. Lambayeque: Gobierno Regional.Google Scholar
Hinton, L.
(2001) Language revitalization: An overview. In L. Hinton & K. L. Hale (Eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice (pp. 3–18). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hovdhaugen, E.
(2004) Mochica. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
(2005) How was Mochica being pronounced? In O. Zwartjes & C. Altman (Eds.), Missionary linguistics II: Orthography and phonology (pp. 171–180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., & Krämer, P.
(2018, June). Negotiating standards between Suriname and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the International Conference for Postcolonial Linguistics , Zürich.
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C.
(2002) A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87(1), 47–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keesing, R. M.
(1988) Melanesian pidgin and the oceanic substrate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. M.
(1989) The speech of the negros congos of Panama. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A.
(2005) Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(3), 137–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2003) Mixed languages: Re-examining the structural prototype. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances (pp. 151–176). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y., & Bakker, P.
(Eds.) (2003) The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michael, L., Stark, T., Clem, E., & Chang, W.
(Compilers) (2015) South American phonological inventory database v1.1.4. survey of California and other Indian languages digital resource. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Middendorf, E. W.
(1892) Das Muchik oder Chimu-Sprache. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Muysken, P.
(1997) Media Lengua. In S. G. Thomason (Ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective (pp. 365–426). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D., & Romaine, S.
(2000) Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F.
(2000) The clausal architecture of Spanish: A comparative study. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Ramos Cabrera, A.
(2012[2006]) Ed Muchik. In A. Serrepe Ascencio & A. Ramos Cabrera (Eds.), (pp. 69–181). Mællæc maix ed Muchik (hablemos lengua muchik). Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik/Colegio “Naymlap”.Google Scholar
Ramos Cabrera, A., & Serrepe Ascencio, A.
(2012) Mællæc maix ed Muchik (hablemos lengua muchik). Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik/Colegio “Naymlap”.Google Scholar
Sachún Cedeño, A. H.
(2004) Lengua muchik. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
(2013) Expresiones en muchik para semana de Trujillo. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Sachún Cedeño, J.
(2017) Revitalizando la lengua muchik. Retrieved from http://​www​.servir​.gob​.pe​/revitalizando​-la​-lengua​-muchik​-en​-morrope​-lambayeque/> (18 March 2020).
Salas García, J. A.
(2002) Diccionario mochica-castellano/castellano-mochica. Lima: Universidad de San Martín de Porres.Google Scholar
(2012) El sistema de clasificadores del cholón. Boletín de la Academia Peruana de la Lengua, 54, 87–138.Google Scholar
Serrepe Ascencio, A.
(2012a) Vocabulario muchik básico. In A. Ramos Cabrera & A. Serrepe Ascencio. (Eds.), Mællæc maix ed Muchik (hablemos lengua muchik) (pp. 25–61). Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik/Colegio “Naymlap”.Google Scholar
(2012b) Títulos y frases usados en el texto de la Lic. Ana Ramos Cabrera. In A. Ramos Cabrera, & A. Serrepe Ascencio. (Eds.). Mællæc maix ed Muchik (hablemos lengua muchik) (pp. 63–66). Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik/Colegio “Naymlap”.Google Scholar
Serrepe Ascencio, A., & Ramos Cabrera, A.
(Eds.) (2009) Arte de la lengua yunga. Chiclayo: Sociedad Ciencia y Cultura Muchik.Google Scholar
Stark, L.
(1968) Mayan affinities with Yunga of Peru. New York, NY: New York University.Google Scholar
Suñer, M.
(1994) V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1, 335–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torero Fernández, A. A.
(1986) Deslindes lingüísticos en la costa norte peruana. Revista Andina, 8, 523–548.Google Scholar
(2002) Idiomas de los Andes: Lingüística e historia. Lima: IFEA & Editorial Horizonte.Google Scholar
Urban, M.
(2019) Lost languages of the Peruvian North Coast. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag/Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut Preuβischer Kulturbesitz.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F.
(1988) Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Vitar, B.
(1996) La otredad lingüística y su impacto en la conquista de las Indias. Revista Española de Antropología Americana, 26, 143–165.Google Scholar
Wang, X.
(2018) Fangyan and the linguistic landscapes of authenticity: Normativity and innovativity of writing in globalizing China. In C. Weth & K. Juffermans (Eds.), The tyranny of writing: Ideologies of the written word (pp. 165–183). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, G., & Monaghan, P.
(2012) Revival linguistics and the new media: Talknology in the service of the Barngarla language reclamation. In T. Ka’ai, M. Ó Laoire, N. Ostler, R. Ka’ai-Mahuta, & T. Smith (Eds.), Foundation for Endangered Languages XVI Conference: Language Endangerment in the 21st Century: Globalisation, Technology & New Media (pp. 119–126). Auckland: Te Ipukarea and Printsprint, AUT & Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, G., & Walsh, M.
(2011) Stop, revive, survive!: Lessons from the Hebrew revival applicable to the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal languages and cultures. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 111–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar