Ch'orti Maya Area: Past and Present

2. The Linguistic Affiliation of Classic Lowland Mayan Writing and the Historical Sociolinguistic Geography of the Mayan Lowlands

2 The Linguistic Affiliation of Classic Lowland Mayan Writing and the Historical Sociolinguistic Geography of the Mayan Lowlands David Mora-Marín, Nicholas Hopkins, and Kathryn Josserand Kathryn, Ch⬘ajb⬘e⬘yx tama aturer kocha kapya⬘r e kawajkanseyaj. Ch⬘ajb⬘e⬘yx. Tzajtaka kawut xe⬘ ma⬘chix nut⬘urón Thank you for being a true friend and teacher. Thank you. We’ll miss you. In the present chapter we propose a framework for research on the standard and vernacular languages represented in ancient Mayan texts, giving special attention to the history and sociolinguistic context of Classic Lowland Mayan civilization (a.d. 200–900).1 The goal is to critically reexamine several linguistic models and proposals and formulate some directions for future research. The models and proposals include the seven listed in Table 2.1. First, it is necessary to present our theoretical and methodological approaches and what we believe are commonly agreed upon positions (including by Law and colleagues in the next chapter) about the sociohistorical and linguistic background of the Preclassic and Classic Maya. Josserand’s (1975) and Kaufman’s (1976, 1989) classification of Mayan languages, and Kaufman and Norman’s (1984) classification of the Ch′olan languages (into Eastern versus Western) are generally accepted (see Figure 2.1).2 15 16 · David Mora-Marín, Nicholas Hopkins, and Kathryn Josserand Ch′olan-Tzeltalan and Yukatekan speakers interacted closely, and their languages diffused and converged in the Middle to Late Preclassic in the greater Lowland Maya area; while during the Classic to Postclassic periods Ch′olan and Yukatekan speakers continued to interact, causing language diffusion in the Lowland Maya area (Justeson et al. 1985). The pattern of diffusion of vocabulary between Ch′olan and Yukatekan suggests that Ch′olan speakers were the more powerful interlocutors (Fox and Justeson 1982; Campbell 1984; Justeson et al. 1985; Justeson and Fox 1989), and Ch′olan served as the basis for the most conservative, standardized components of the script.3 The much closer contact between a group of Ch′olan-Tzeltalans and Yukatekans seems to have led to the differentiation of Ch′olan-Tzeltalan into distinct Ch′olan and Tzeltalan communities (Hopkins 1984, 1985).4 Ch′olan diverged from Tzeltalan through a process of substratum interference , in which Yukatekan commoners comprised the substratum speakers and Ch′olan elites comprised the superstratum speakers. Some Yukatekan commoners shifted to Ch′olan, and in the process integrated selected features of Yukatekan grammar into their new language through a process of interference. These features included the plural marker -ob, ergative pronominal markers,5 and absolutive pronominal markers.6 This process was moderate and gradual, taking place over several generations (Hopkins 1984, 1985; Josserand and Hopkins 2002). Only linguistic innovations—phonological or morphosyntactic changes, Table 2.1. Models for ancient Mayan languages Model Authors Ch′olan(-Tzeltalan) Fox and Justeson 1982; Justeson and Fox 1989 Classic Ch′olti′an (Eastern Ch′olan) Houston, Robertson, and Stuart 2000 Pre-Ch′olan–to–Proto-Ch′olan transition Mora-Marín 2003, 2004, 2005a Greater Lowland Mayan and Lowland Mayan contact area Justeson et al. 1985 Yukatekan-to-Ch′olan language shift Hopkins 1984, 1985 Vernacular proposals Justeson and Fox 1989; Lacadena and Wichmann 2000, 2002; Wichmann 2002; MoraMar ín 2003, 2004, 2005a; and others Ch′olan(-Tzeltalan) superstratum/Greater K′iche′an substratum for Late Preclassic sites in Guatemala Mora-Marín 2005b Classic Lowland Mayan Writing and the Mayan Lowlands · 17 for example—can form the basis for subgroupings in phylolinguistic classification and, consequently, in the assignment of linguistic affiliation to ancient texts. With this in mind, evidence of innovations in the following types of spellings is useful.7 Ideally, spellings may be fully phonetic (for example, aj-chi for aj+chi ‘drunkard,’ Ch′olan, or aj+ki, Yukatekan) or a combination of phonetic and logogramic. Given that logograms can be polymorphemic, readings of such combined forms are more equivocally interpreted. For example, the glyph CHUM-b′i could represent chum-ib or chum-lib, and DAY KAB′AN and DAY AK′B′AL could be interchangeable and signify kab-an (earthquake ) or akab-al (darkness). Conservative spellings indicate standardization (for example, (7u-)7UNIW-ni-wa for Ch′olan u:ni:w ‘14th month’), whereas deviations from conservative spellings indicate local vernaculars (for example, K′AN-K′IN for Yukatekan kan=kiin ‘14th month’).8 Depending on the techniques applied and...