Evidence for linguistic conservatism in the hieroglyphic script of the Central Petén (original) (raw)
Related papers
Recent years have seen rapid advancement in our understanding of the phonology and grammar of Classic Ch'olan and the distribution of Lowland Mayan languages in the Classic period. The control over the data has advanced to such an extent that Classic Ch'olan should no longer be considered chiefly a product of reconstruction, but rather a language in its own right, providing fresh input to historical reconstruction. The interpretation of writing system principles has moved into the forefront of research, and recent discussions of these and other major issues are summarized here. This review suggests that the exceptional phonological transparency of the Maya script, which is a precondition for the current advances in linguistic epigraphy, is rooted in the need of scribes to spell out regional linguistic variants, and a sociolinguistically oriented theory of the evolution of writing in general is formulated and tested on the Mayan hieroglyphic materials.
This paper applies an historical sociolinguistic approach (Romaine 1982) to the study of Classic Lowland Mayan (CLM) inscriptions. Such approach analyzes the spread of innovative linguistic variables through geographic and social space, over time. The paper, revisiting the case study first outlined in Mora-Marín (2011), applies a quantitative analysis to two examples of real-time change in CLM texts, the spread of -(a)wan and -(V)lel, to determine to what extent such spread exhibits a hierarchical geographic diffusion (Trudgill 1974; Chambers and Trudgill 1998), based on site size rankings (Brown and Witschey 2002), and whether their spread was interrelated, with positive results in both regards. In addition, implicational scaling (Bailey 1973; Bailey et al. 1993:368-372) is also employed to better understand the linguistic embedding of -(a)wan. The results point to a hierarchy of lexical and syntactic diffusion. The paper then revisits the comparative evidence from the postconquest Ch’olan languages, from a variationist perspective, resulting in a complex scenario: -(V)lel emerged in the western Maya lowlands (Chontal region); -(a)wan exhibits a more complex scenario, showing greater categoricization in the eastern Maya lowlands (Ch’orti’, but not Ch’olti’), followed by the western Maya lowlands (Chontal, but not Ch’ol), a pattern that could correlate with the close interaction between Copan and Palenque evident in CLM texts. In conclusion, a historical sociolinguistic approach offers scholars a chance to develop more realistic models of linguistic development and interaction than is possible through the exclusive application of the comparative method and family tree model alone.
Rethinking the Maya: Understanding an Ancient Language in Modern Linguistic Terms
… Studies: Remaking Reality-Eroding the Palimpsest, 2009
Since the 1500s, Mayan language and glyphic systems have been romanticized by Eurocentric interpretations. In recent years, many anthropological works have perpetuated these myths by presenting inaccurate analyses of Maya linguistics. Rather than showing the Maya as an advance and civilized people, these texts promoted a weak, barbarous Maya who could be easily manipulated by European culture, language, and written form. Utilizing French poet Charles Baudelaire’s (1821-1867) idea of the Palimpsest, traditional anthropologists have perpetuated the Mayan Palimpsest, or the masking over of the original Mayan culture with the new. Rather than revealing the underlying cultural characteristics of the Mayan languages, as Baudelaire’s theory would have presumably encouraged, Westerners have reinvented the Mayan past and masked over Mayan spoken and written languages with new vague and biased interpretations of their peoples and languages. The underlying goal of this paper is to deconstruct the Mayan Palimpsest; that is, the Eurocentric views within traditional Mayan language studies, in order to promote a more accurate interpretation of the Mayan linguistic past.
More on the Language of Classic Maya Inscriptions
Current Anthropology, 2001
In his response to our article (CA 41:321-56) on the language of Classic Maya inscriptions, Grube (CA 41:837) sidesteps the point of that essay by stating that he does not "want to address the question whether or not Classic Mayan was a precursor to Ch'olti'." Curiously, he goes on to do just this, albeit indirectly, by characterizing our kings: The untold story of the ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.