-- : Le locuteur a été interrompu ou s’est interrompu
Bibliographie
AGHA Asif, 2007. Language and Social Relations, Cambridge,
UK, CambridgeUniversity Press.
BOURDIEU Pierre, 1991. Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
CANAGARAJAH Suresh, 1999. Interogating the “native-speaker fallacy”:
Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results, in G. Braine (ed.), Non-Native Educators in
English Language Teaching, London and New York, Routledge, pp. 77-92.
CANAGARAJAH Suresh, 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and
Cosmopolitan Relations, New York, Routledge.
COSTA James, Haley DE KORNE and Pia LANE, 2017. Standardising minority
languages: Reinventing peripheral languages in the 21
stcentury, in P. Lane, J. Costa
and H. De Korne (eds), Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of
Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery, London and New York,
Routledge, pp. 1-23.
CRU Josep, 2017. Bilingual rapping in Yucatán, Mexico: strategic choices for
Maya language legitimation and revitalisation, International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 20, 5, pp. 481-496.
CRUZ Victor de la, 2008. Mapas genealógicos del Istmo oaxaqueño, Oaxaca,
Mexico, Culturas Populares, CONACULTA.
DE KORNE Haley, 2016. Imagining convivial multilingualism: Practices,
ideologies, and strategies in Diidxazá/Isthmus Zapotec Indigenous Language
Education, University of Pennsylvania, PhD Dissertation.
—, 2017. “A treasure” and “a legacy”: Individual and communal (re)valuing of
Isthmus Zapotec in Multilingual Mexico, in M.-C. Flubacher and A. Del Percio
(eds), Language, Education and Neoliberalism: Critical Studies in Sociolinguistics,
Bristol, UK, Multilingual Matters, pp. 37-61.
DEUMERT Ana and Wim VANDENBUSSCHE, 2003. Standard languages, in A.
Deumert and W. Vandenbussche (eds), Germanic standardizations, Amsterdam,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-14.
DOBRIN Lise, Peter AUSTIN and David NATHAN, 2009. Dying to be counted:
The commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics,
Language Documentation and Description 6, pp. 37-52.
DORIAN Nancy C., 1994. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and
language revival, Language in Society 23, pp. 479-494.
ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS, 2003. Ley general de derechos lingüísticos de
los pueblos indígenas, Mexico (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/
pdf/257_200618.pdf).
GAL Susan, 2006. Contradictions of standard language in Europe, Social
Anthropology 14, 2, pp. 163-181.
—, 2017. Visions and revisions of minority languages: Standardization and its
dilemmas, in P. Lane, J. Costa and H. De Korne (eds), Standardizing Minority
Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global
Periphery, London & New York, Routledge, pp. 312-342.
GARCÍA Ofelia, 2009. Bilingual education in the 21
stcentury: A global perspective,
New York, Wiley Blackwell.
GOFFMAN Erving, 1967. Interaction Ritual, New York, Anchor/Doubleday.
GUERRETTAZ Anne-Marie, 2015. Ownership of language in Yucatec Maya
revitalization pedagogy, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 46, 2, pp. 167-185.
HILL Jane, 1998. Don Francisco Márquez survives: a meditation on
monolingualism, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 132,1, pp.
167-182.
HILL Jane and Kenneth HILL, 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic
Language in Central Mexico, Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona Press.
HYMES Dell, 1968. The ethnography of speaking, in J. Fishman (ed.), Readings
in the Sociology of Language, The Hague, Mouton, pp. 99-138.
Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI), 2008. Catalogo de las Lenguas
Indígenas Nacionales: Variantes Lingüísticas de México con sus
autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas (http://www.inali.gob.mx/
clin-inali/).
KACHRU Yamuna, 1994. Monolingual Bias in SLA Research,
TESOLQuarterly
28, 4, pp. 795-800.
KROSKRITY Paul, 2009. Language renewal as sites of language ideological
struggle: The need for “ideological clarification”, in J. Reyhner and L. Lockard (eds),
Indigenous Language Revitalization. Encouragement, Guidance and Lessons Learned,
Flagstaff, AZ, Northern Arizona University.
LABOV William, 1970. The Sudy of Language in its Social Context, New York,
Springer.
LEONARD Wesley Y., 2012. Framing language reclamation programmes for
everybody’s empowerment, Gender and Language 6, 2, pp. 339-367.
LIPPI-GREEN Rosina, 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and
Discrimination in the United States, New York, Routledge.
LÓPEZ GOPAR Mario E., 2007. El alfabeto marginante en la educación indígena:
El potencial de las multilectoescrituras, Lectura y Vida, September, pp. 48-57.
MAKONI Sinfree and Alastair PENNYCOOK (eds), 2007. Disinventing and
reconstituting languages, Bristol, Multilingual Matters.
MARCIAL CERQUEDA Vincente, 2014. Plan de acción para el impulso de la
lengua zapoteca en el Programa de Gobierno Municipal 2014-2016, Juchitán,
Oaxaca.
MEEK Barbra, 2010. We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language
Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community, Tucson, AZ, University of
Arizona Press.
MESSING Jaqueline, 2003. Ideological multiplicity in discourse: Language shift
and bilingual schooling in Tlaxcala, Mexico, University of Arizona, PhD
Dissertation.
—, 2007. Multiple ideologies and competing discourses: Language shift in
Tlaxcala, Mexico, Language in Society 36, 4, pp. 555-577.
MIANO BORRUSO Marinella, 2002. Hombre, mujer y muxe’ en el Istmo de
Tehuantepec, Mexico, D.F., INAH.
MILROY James and Lesley MILROY, 1999 [3
rded.]. Authority in Language:
Investigating Standard English, London, Routledge.
MOORE Robert, Sari PIETIKAINEN and Jan BLOMMAERT, 2010. Counting the
losses: Numbers as the language of language endangerment, Sociolinguistic Studies 4,
1, pp. 1-26.
PÉREZ BÁEZ Gabriela and Terence KAUFMAN, 2016. Verb Classes in Juchitán
Zapotec, Anthropological Linguistics 58, 3, pp. 217-257.
PÉREZ BÁEZ Gabriela, Victor CATA and Juan José BUENO HOLLE, 2015. Xneza
Diidxazá: Retos en la escritura del Zapoteco del Istmo vistos desde el texto Teria,
Tlalocan XX, pp. 135-172.
PHILIPS Susan, 1972. Participant structures and communicative competence:
Warm Springs children in community and classroom, in J. Alatis (ed.), Bilingualism
and language contact: Anthropological, Linguistic, Psychological and Social Aspects -
Acquisition of rules for appropriate speech usage, Washington, D.C., Georgetown
University Press, pp. 77-101.
PILLER Ingrid, 2017. Monolingual ways of seeing multilingualism, Journal of
Multicultural Discourses 11, 1, pp. 25-33.
ROBLES Monica, 1977. Educación y sociedad en la historia de México, Mexico
D.F., Siglo XXI Editores.
SCHIEFFELIN Bambi, Kathryn WOOLARD and Paul KROSKRITY, 1998.
Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
SICOLI Mark A., 2011. Agency and ideology in language shift and language
maintenance, in T. Granadillo and H.A. Orcutt-Gachiri (eds), Ethnographic
Contributions to the Study of Endangered Languages, Tucson, Arizona, University of
Arizona Press, pp. 161-176.
SOCIEDAD PRO-PLANEACIÓN DEL ISTMO (LA), 1956. Alfabeto popular para la
escritura de zapoteco del istmo, Mexico D.F. (http://www.sil.org/
system/files/reapdata/18/46/28/18462852663139743177456296293165996711/
L073_AlfPopZapIstmoFacs_zai.pdf).
SPIVAK Gayatri, 1996. Subaltern studies: Deconstructing historiography, in
D. Landry and G. MacLean (eds), Selected Works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,
London, Routledge, pp. 203-235.
URCID Javier, 2005. Zapotec Writing: Knowledge, Power and Memory in Ancient
Oaxaca (http://www.famsi.org/zapotecwriting/zapotec_text.pdf).
URLA Jaqueline, Estebaliz AMORRORTU, Ane ORTEGA and Jone
GOIRIGOLZARRI, 2017. Basque standardization and the new speaker: Political
praxis and the shifting dynamics of authority and value, in P. Lane, J. Costa and H.
De Korne (eds), Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of
Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery, London and New York,
Routledge, pp. 24-46.
WHALEY Lindsey, 2011. Some ways to endanger an endangered language
project, Language and Education 25, 4, pp. 339-348.
ZAVALA Virginia, 2013. An ancestral language to speak with the “Other”: closing
down ideological spaces of a language policy in the Peruvian Andes, Language Policy
13, 1, pp. 1-20.
Comment « bien parler » le zapotèque de l’Isthme ? Purisme, pluralisme et enjeux sociaux
Résumé
Dans ce texte, nous examinons les diverses perspectives constatées au sein de la communauté de parole des zapotèques de l’Isthme à propos du « bien parler » dans la langue zapotèque de l’Isthme, le diidxazá. La communauté de parole des Zapotèques parle de plus en plus l’espagnol. Certains de ses membres ont une approche plutôt pluraliste et flexible des changements linguistiques intergénérationnels et des contacts entre le zapotèque et l’espagnol. D’autres ont une approche plus critique de ces phénomènes et soutiennent une norme linguistique plutôt statique et standard. Certains locuteurs négocient plusieurs perspectives ou idéologies – notamment le pluralisme et la standardisation – dans leurs pratiques communicatives quotidiennes. Nous nous interrogerons sur les implications de la diversité des normes dans le contexte actuel.
Mots-clés : Idéologies linguistiques, purisme, pluralisme, Mexique, zapotèque de l’Isthme
How to speak « good » Isthmus Zapotec? Purism, pluralism, and social implications
Abstract
In this paper I examine differing evaluations and ideologies among the Isthmus Zapotec speech community as to what constitutes “good” speech in Isthmus Zapotec, or Diidxazá. The Isthmus Zapotec speech community is increasingly using Spanish alongside the Indigenous language. While some members of the Isthmus Zapotec speech community adopt a pluralist and flexible approach to language change across generations and to contact between Zapotec and Spanish, others adopt a more critical response to these phenomena, and promote a more static and standard speech norm. Some speakers negotiate multiple ideologies– including pluralist and standard ideologies – in their daily communication practices. This article presents the diversity of language evaluations manifest among a sample of community members, taking into account the social contexts in which these preferences are expressed and enacted. I conclude with discussion of the implications of diverse evaluations and ideologies in light of the current social context.