A Study Of In-Group And Out-Group Attitudes In An Italo

i
A Study Of In-Group And Out-Group Attitudes In An
Italo-Mexican Community, Chipilo.
by
Olga Tararova
A Thesis
presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
in
Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
© Olga Tararova, January, 2012.
ii
ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF IN-GROUP AND OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES
IN AN ITALO- MEXICAN COMMUNITY, CHIPILO.
Olga Tararova
Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2012
Rosario Gómez
This thesis explores the current situation of the minority language, Veneto, in the bilingual
Italo-Mexican community, Chipilo, located close to Puebla, in central Mexico. The study
analyzes the attitudes of bilingual Spanish-Veneto speakers of Italian descent towards their
language and the attitudes of monolingual Spanish speakers towards the former group. Using
quantitative and qualitative data, particularly the interviews and the questionnaires, the study
seeks to determine the possible outcomes of these attitudinal relations and the affect they have
on the future of the Veneto language.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank a number of people with the accomplishment of this project. First of all, my
advisor, Rosario Gómez, for the enormous amount of time dedicated to my work, for late emails
and responses, for endless revisions and suggestions. Also, I would like to thank my committee
members and readers, Laura Colantoni and Michol Hoffman, for their support and willingness to
always help when I needed it the most. I am also grateful to the graduate coordinator of the Latin
American and Caribbean Studies program, Dr. Gordana Yovanovich, for listening to all my
concerns, and the desire to resolve problems, while also proving valuable advice.
I would also like to thank my family, especially my mother and a grandmother, who have
accompanied me in this journey, encouraging me every second, sharing their time and evenings
with me, and being always present in my life. I doubt I will be able to reach this ultimate goal
without their support and appreciation.
Finally, I am grateful to the people who have helped to conduct the research in Chipilo,
particularly, Eduardo Crivelli, Karina Fascinetto, Aurelio Sevenello, Edgar Rene, and Fidel
Galeazzi. Special thanks to the family of Eduardo Crivelli for adopting me, especially to his nonna
and a sister, Olivia Crivelli, for frequent gatherings, and “hanging out”. Also, I am grateful to Fidel
Galeazzi for introducing me to his grandfather, José Agustín Zago, a local historian, to whom I had
luck to interview. Tante grazhie!
This project will not be the same without you!
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii
List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii
List of Figures -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii
Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
The concept of Chipileño -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Chapter 1: Socio- historical background ----------------------------------------------------------
6
i. Italian roots ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
ii. Italian immigration to Mexico --------------------------------------------------------------
8
iii. Life in Mexico --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
iv. Chipiloc in XIX-XX century ---------------------------------------------------------------
14
v. Current situation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
Chapter 2: Literature review ------------------------------------------------------------------------i.
ii.
20
Attitudes/theories of attitudes ---------------------------------------------------------------
20
a) Attitudes towards bilingualism --------------------------------------------------------
22
b) Attitudes towards minority groups ----------------------------------------------------
27
c) Attitudes towards speakers’ identity -------------------------------------------------
34
Language maintenance -----------------------------------------------------------------------
36
Chapter 3: Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39
i.
39
Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v
ii.
Participant eligibility and background -------------------------------------------------------
39
iii.
Methods and Materials -------------------------------------------------------------------------
41
a) Interviews -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41
b) Questionnaires ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44
Sample questions and Data analysis (SPSS) -------------------------------------------------
47
a) Coding participants ------------------------------------------------------------------------
47
Research questions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48
Chapter 4: Results ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54
i. Chipilo, its past and its current situation -----------------------------------------------------
55
ii. Attitudes towards Chipileño identity ---------------------------------------------------------
61
iii. Attitudes towards teaching Veneto in schools ----------------------------------------------
69
iv. Attitudes towards Chipileños by Mexicans -------------------------------------------------
74
v. Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans -------------------------------------------
91
iv.
v.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------
105
i. Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105
ii. Attitudes towards Chipileño identity --------------------------------------------------------
107
iii. Attitudes towards teaching Veneto in schools ---------------------------------------------
108
iv. Attitudes towards Chipileños by Mexicans ------------------------------------------------
111
v. Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans ------------------------------------------
112
Possible questions for further studies ----------------------------------------------------------------
115
vi
Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116
References -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119
Appendix A Summary of the Participants ----------------------------------------------------------
127
Appendix B Sociolinguistic Questionnaire ---------------------------------------------------------
129
vii
List of Tables
Table 1.0: Summary of participants -----------------------------------------------------------------
48
Table 5: Identity and Veneto by gender -------------------------------------------------------------
61
Table 6: Identity and Veneto by age ----------------------------------------------------------------
62
Table 7: Identity and Veneto by education level ---------------------------------------------------
63
Table 8: Identity and Veneto by gender and age ---------------------------------------------------
65
Table 9: Identity and Veneto by gender and education level --------------------------------------
67
Table 10: Attitudes to Veneto in schools by gender ------------------------------------------------
69
Table 11: Attitudes to Veneto in schools by age ----------------------------------------------------
70
Table 12: Attitudes to Veneto in schools by education level --------------------------------------
71
Table 13: Attitudes to Veneto in schools by gender and age --------------------------------------
72
Table 14: Attitudes to Veneto in schools by gender and education level ------------------------
73
Table 15: Attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños by ethnicity and gender ------------------
75
Table 16: Attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños by ethnicity and age ----------------------
78
Table 17: Attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños by ethnicity and education level --------
80
Table 18: Attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños by ethnicity, gender and age -------------
82
Table 19: Attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños by ethnicity, gender and education level
87
Table 20: Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans by ethnicity and gender ------------
91
Table 21: Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans by ethnicity and age ----------------
93
Table 22: Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans by ethnicity and education level --
95
Table 23: Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans by ethnicity, gender and age-------
97
Table 24: Discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans by ethnicity, gender
and education level --------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Map of Veneto region of Italy ------------------------------------------------------------
11
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the present study is to observe the current situation of the immigrant
language Veneto in an Italo-Mexican bilingual community – Chipilo, close to Puebla in central
Mexico. The study analyzes the attitudes of bilingual Veneto-Spanish speakers towards their
language, as well as the attitudes of monolingual Spanish speakers towards the former group. In
addition, this study analyzes the attitudes that the bilingual Veneto-Spanish speakers perceive
that the latter group has towards them. Based on social criteria: gender, ethnicity, level of
education, and age, the study focuses on the socio-psychological factors, particularly the
attitudes of the members of this community, which can play an important role in the survival of
this minority language. The goals of this study are thus twofold: first, to examine the attitudes of
bilingual speakers of Italian descent -- referred to in this study as Chipileños or in-group-towards their language and secondly, to analyze the attitudes of monolingual Spanish speakers,
also referred to as out-group in this study, towards the former group. The results obtained from
the study of these factors will be used as indicators, which will determine the possible outcomes
of this language contact situation, particularly how these attitudes may influence and affect the
future of Veneto.
Chipilo represents one of the few cases of minority language maintenance for several
reasons. It draws attention because Veneto is not only a minority language in Mexico, but it is
also a variety spoken by immigrants from northern Italy and has been preserved for over a
century. Unlike many immigrant communities whose native languages may often be lost due to a
process of attrition and language shift within a few generations, Chipilo is not the case.
Historically, the homogeneity and the relative isolation of Chipilo during the first years of
2
settlement were the primary factors that united the community thereby creating close-knit
multiplex ties among its members, an ideal situation for language maintenance. Today, Chipilo
is home to the sixth generation of Veneto speakers, and it is still acquired and used as a first
language. Veneto is widely used in both, private and public domains. Yet, as Chipilo is no
longer an isolated community, contact with outsiders is inevitable. Many monolingual Spanish
speakers often visit the community and some of them work or even reside there because of the
higher standard of living and the economic stability that this community enjoys. As a result,
such close contact may affect the status of Veneto.
The concept of Chipileño:
One of the most important points to describe and understand is the term ‘chipileño’.
According to Romani (1992), “el uso del gentilicio, ‘chipileña’ designa tanto a los residentes,
como a los descendientes italianos y al idioma usado por ellos” (24).1 A slightly different
description of the same term was introduced by A. Zago (2007):
“… Los chipileños no eran [son]italianos, como algunos todavía creen, sino que son
mexicanos, es decir, mestizos culturales resultantes de la mezcla de elementos europeos y
Americanos efectuada en México; su idioma local, nacido en Italia, ya tiene múltiples
términos y giros verbales tomados del español hablado en México y hasta del náhuatl;
siguen practicando sus tradiciones, como las bochas, el capo d’anno y el rigoleto, pero
tienen en mucho aprecio otras nuevas, como las posadas y las charreadas…” (156). 2
1
The use of the adjective, ‘chipileño’ covers the residents (of the town), as well as the Italian
Chipileños were not / are not Italians, as some still believe; they are Mexicans, i.e. they are a
cultural hybrid which is the product of a mix of European and American elements born in
Mexico; the local language, born in Italy, has multiple terms and phrasal expressions taken from
the Spanish spoken in Mexico and even from Nahuatl; they still practice their traditions, such as
bowls, the capo d'anno, and Rigolet, but have much appreciation for new ones, such as posadas
and charreadas.
2
3
In this thesis I am analyzing two groups of people, therefore: I will identify the
descendants of Italian immigrants who reside in Chipilo today as Chipileños, and the other
groups who [may or may not] reside in Chipilo, but who do not have any Italian heritage, as
Mexicans. It has to be clear though that Chipileños are by law Mexicans, as all of them have
Mexican citizenship and de facto hold the same rights as the rest of the population.3 Even though
emigration to another country should be considered as an out-group flow, in this thesis,
Chipileños are the in-groups, whereas Mexicans are out-groups, since they come to work or live
in the community, which was founded by Italians. Thus, I will be analyzing the attitudes of the
in-group, Chipileños, and the out-group, Mexicans, their attitudes towards each other and the
attitudes of the in-group towards the Veneto language. According to Zago (1982), Veneto
represents “el mundo intrafamiliar e intracomunitario: el nosotros. Y el español, el mundo
extrafamiliar y extracomunitario: los otros (59). 4
3
I stress the words, by- law and de facto, because I will later use statistics from participants’
responses, i.e. questionnaires and interviews, that provide us with the actual idea of whether
Italian immigrants are really considered Mexicans and whether they hold the same rights and
opportunities for work, study and living among Mexicans.
4
Veneto represents the domestic and intra world: we. And the Spanish, the outside world: the
others.
4
2. Organization of Thesis
Chapter 1 describes the situation in Italy in the 19th century and the reasons that led to the
emigration to Mexico, the establishment of Italian colonies in Mexico, the situation in Mexico at
the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, particularly in the Chipiloc community,
and finally, the current situation in Chipilo. The chapter presents previous research describing
the situation in detail and provides some insight into the reasons for the sustainability of Veneto
in the past.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review with respect to theories and studies conducted on the
subject of attitudes. This chapter examines the concept of attitudes from two main perspectives,
namely from sociolinguistics and psychology, thus providing an overview of the term. The
studies presented offer relevant examples of attitudes towards minority languages and are
contextualized in such issues as language vitality, language loyalty, prestige and others, which
help to further our understanding of the current situation in Chipilo. It also provides an account
of the findings from previous studies carried out in Chipilo under the section of language
maintenance.
Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used to collect data for the present study and presents
detailed information about the criteria used to select participants, as well as the materials and
methods used in the survey. This chapter discusses the two research topics, which are central to
the thesis.
Chapter 4 presents the results obtained from the statistical and qualitative analyzes in relation to
the two research topics mentioned in Chapter 3. The data is described in detail and supported
with the excerpts from the participants’ responses to the interviews and questionnaires.
5
Lastly, Chapter 5 presents further discussion of the results obtained from the survey responses
in Chapter 4 and attempts to arrive at a conclusion regarding Veneto language maintenance
based on the two research questions presented in Chapter 3. It also provides directions for
future research.
6
CHAPTER 1
Socio-historical background:
Founded by Italian immigrants who arrived in Mexico at the end of 19th century, Chipilo5
today represents an oasis of prosperity and fortune in the region of Puebla. Yet, the community
of Fernando Leal, later renamed Chipilo de Francisco Mina had to overcome many difficulties
to reach the economic level that accounts for its success and wealth.
Italian roots:
Many studies (Zilli Manica 1981, Zago 1982, Zago 2007) have analyzed the Italian
situation during the 19th century, and the reasons attributing to the mass emigration. For
Federeci, “la causa de fondo es la ‘presión demográfica diferencial’ entre el país de origen,
donde se presenta un exceso de población e insuficiencia de recursos, y el país huesped, cuya
situación es la opuesta”6 (cited in Romani, 1992:25). The situation in the northern part of the
country was extremely miserable due to various reasons. In 1881, the Piave River flooded,
destroying many homes and ruining much of the land.7 The two principal reasons were the loss
of land and the growing population in Italy that led to a struggling economy in the country. The
immigrants who settled in Chipilo were originally from the Veneto region, which was part of the
Austrian Empire and was not ceded to Italy until 1866 (Barnes, 2009:22).8 It is important to
point out, though, that these Italian immigrants did not speak standard Italian, but rather the
5
Chipilo translates from Nahuatl as “lugar donde abunda el chipítotl o cristal de roca”, the place
where chipilotl or stone crystal abound.
6
The main reason [for emigration] is a different ‘demographic pressure’ between the origin
place, which turns up to have the excess of the population and the lack of resources, and the host
country, where the situation is the opposite (my translation).
7
However, H. Barnes (2009) cites Sartor and Ursini (1983), who state that the most destructive
flood of the Piave River occurred only in December 1882, months after the immigrants left
Segusino for Mexico (25).
8
See José Agustín Zago Bronca (2006) “Los vénetos, raíces de un pueblo mexicano”. Puebla,
Mexico.
7
Veneto feltrino-bellunese or the Basso-bellunesse regional variety, spoken in the north of the
country. Veneto is spoken today in seven provinces of the Veneto region: Venice, Verona,
Padua, Belluno, Treviso, Vicenza and Rovigo.9 Veneto was considered a dialect after the
unification of Italy (1866) as the Republic of Venice became part of the Italian Kingdom and
was no longer independent. Therefore, the Italian immigrants who settled in Mexico did not
speak the standard but rather the variety that linked them to their Venetian roots.10
The arrival of navigation companies, with their propaganda about the dream place called
el Dorado, the Golden destination, “el país del estómago finalmente lleno, de la tierra propia y
los medios de producción, de la igualdad social11” (Romani, 1992: 26), sparked the interest of
Italians. The desire to overcome harsh economic conditions and start a new prosperous life
motivated Italians to leave Italy. However, Zago (2007) writes: “… Estos agentes no siempre
actuaban dentro del marco legal y fácilmente sorprendían a sus clientes con promesas engañosas
y cobros endebidos (sic)12” (38). The next sections of Chapter 1, describe in detail the contracts
signed by Italians and the actual reality they faced on their arrival to the new land.
Italian immigration to Mexico.
9
It is also spoken in some parts of Latin America, such as, Brazil, Argentina, as well, as Canada,
Australia and USA (Montagner Anguiano, 2005:13).
10
Additionally, 80% of the population in the 1860s was illiterate. Based on De Mauro’s statistics
(1963), primary education in Italy in standard was not widespread enough and lacked the
explanation of the language itself; secondary education was only the privilege of 8.9 per
thousand of the population between 11 and 18 years old. That is why by the end of last century,
only 2.5 % of all active population could speak Italian fluently (40-41).
11
The country where the stomachs are finally full, where the land is productive and can be our
own, and where social equality lies (my translation).
12
These agents did not always act within the legal framework and would easily surprise their
clients with false promises and undue charges (my translation).
8
Immigration to Mexico was not considered favorable for foreigners because of the lack
of stable economic conditions and the absence of immigration policies that could attract
immigrants to settle there. Moreover, Brazil, Argentina and most importantly, the USA provided
immigrants with better prospects and high expectations.13
During the colonial period, the Spanish Crown prohibited the entry of foreigners to
Mexico, except Spaniards. “During the period of conquest, and in ensuing centuries, it was the
policy of the Spanish Crown to exclude foreigners from New Spain” (Bohme, 1950: 3) There
were obviously those who broke the rules. A few Genoese and Florentine merchants settled in
Vera Cruz and Acapulco during the 16th century. People, such as G. Benzoni (1519) who wrote
Historia del Mondo Nuevo (1565), Boturini-Beneduci (1702-1750) who described the Aztec
civilization in Idea de una nueva historia general de la América Septentrional (2 vols, 1746), A.
Malaspina (1754-1810) who travelled around the world in 1786 and 1788 were among the
settlers. Thus, the activities of the Italians who came to Mexico independently were never
motivated by the search of economic gain, but rather by travelling and inspiration.
After Mexican independence, the policy regarding immigrants was abolished but it was
not until 1845 that the first laws to attract immigrants to Mexico were finally passed. In his
article Italy in Mexico, J. Passarelli (1945) states that Italian immigration to Mexico was
considered to be emigración artificial14. Probably, the first known Italian settlement in Mexico
13
According to Romani (1992), Venetian immigration started in 1876 and continued until the
1990s. Throughout this period approximately 425,000 people, which constituted 25% of the total
Italian emigration, were bound to America, particularly Argentina and Brazil; also, there were
those who left to Australia and Eastern Europe (25).
14
According to Héctor F. Varela in “La Población de América”, the author names la emigración
artificial “la que se lleva a cada país por cuenta de los gobiernos, por medio de contratos entre
sus agentes y el emigrante; contratos en que establecen las condiciones del pago de los pasajes,
y las donaciones, siendo causa constante de serias perturbaciones para el país en que tal
sistema se adopta” (Passarelli, 1946: 42)/ Artificial migration takes on each country on behalf of
9
was established at Cristo in the state of Vera Cruz in 1857 (Passareli, 1945: 40). During the
presidency of Porfirio Díaz In 1877, the Ministry of Development gave colonization a high
priority, as it stated in its letter to the state governors:
“ … el Gobierno se halla animado de las mejores intenciones sobre este particular el de la
colonización, y está resuelto a hacer toda clase de sacrificio para atraer a los extranjeros
honrados y laboriosos, y procurar su establecimiento y radicación en nuestro privilegiado suelo15
(Zilli Manica, 1981: 52).
What is crucial to understand is that this immigration project had an agricultural focus and
therefore, the main emphasis was put on agricultural workers who could increase the
productivity of the land and with that, the economy of the country as a whole. Thus, “the foreign
colonisation” was treated only as an agricultural project rather than a mestizaje of cultures and
nations (Zago, 2007:70). According to Agustín Zago (2007), the Mexican government blamed
the indigenous people for the instability and the poverty of the state.
“Tanto los gobiernos, como la sociedad pensante de México culpaban a los
campesinos(=indígenas) de los fracasos de la agricultura, por lo que pretendieron resolver el
problema trayendo campesinos “güeros” desde Europa, concretamente, de Italia del Norte” (36).
16
Because Mexico was made up of heterogeneous groups, the invitation to settle in Mexico was
directed particularly towards southern Europeans, “who would be more assimilable and less
prejudiced against darker races” (Bohme, 1959: 9). Initially, the government considered the
recruitment of Spanish farmers, however because of “el sentimiento antiespañol de los criollos”,
governments, through contracts between agents and the emigrant; they set the conditions for
payment of travel fares and donations, which cause serious disturbances for the country where
such a system is adopted (my translation)
15
The government has the best of intentions on this issue of colonization, and is determined to
do all sorts of sacrifices to attract honest and hard-working foreigners, and ensure their
development and settlement in our privileged land (my translation).
16
The Mexican society blamed the peasants, read indigenous people, in the failure of
agricultural growth. According to them, bringing “blonde/ fair-skinned” peasants from Europe,
especially from Northern Italy, would solve the problem (my translation)
10
as well as the expulsion of the Spanish from Mexico in 1827, the idea was later rejected (Zilli
Manica, 1981: 13). The French17 were also considered for the “foreign colonisation”, but due to
the French intervention in 1862, it became impossible. That is the reason why Mexico is said to
have opted to bring an Italian contingency.18
Immigration into Mexico did not start until 1881 with the governance of Manuel
González. According to the United States Consul- General James W. Porch’s report, between the
years of 1878 and 1882 Mexico spent $ 160, 000 for 22, 458 hectares (about 56,000 acres) of
land in the states of Morelos, Vera Cruz, San Luis Potosí, and Mexico City on the Italian
colonization (Bohme, 1959: 10). All the colonies19 later arrived from the Veneto region20 of
Northern Italy, to Vera Cruz, near Huatusco.
17
The French colony actually settled in Vera Cruz in 1857, but la Reforma and the French
intervention prevented the national authorities from supporting colonisation efforts that led later
to the failure of the colony (Zago, 1982:15).
18
“Los vénetos eran considerados gente muy trabajadora, tranquila, dulce, de buenas
costumbres, poco exigente, difícilmente sindicalizadle, no propensa a organizarse para fines de
rebelión o resistencia, dispuesta a la integración, de un sólido sentimiento religioso y motivada
fuertemente por el mito de la posesión de la tierra” (Romani, 1992: 27). The Venetians were
considered hardworking, good-natured, sweet, well mannered, undemanding, not prone to
forming unions or to organize rebellions or resistance, ready for integration, with a strong
religious sentiment and strongly motivated by the myth of owing land.
19
See the map below. The map was taken from Zago (2007:31).
20
The Italian immigrants who settled in Chipilo supposedly arrived from the pre-Alpine region,
where the river Piave lies, particularly from Treviso and Belluno provinces.
11
12
On the 22nd of March 1881, the first contract between Italy and Mexico was signed at Rome, and
listed immigrants from three main regions: Lombardia, Veneto and Trentino (Zilli Manica 1981,
Zago 1982, Romani 1992, Savarino 2002, Zago 2007, Barnes 2009). By October 1881 the first
agricultural colonisation settled in Huatusco, Vera Cruz. It was named after the president of
Mexico, Manuel González and the colony included eighty families, or 428 people.21 The second
group arrived in Vera Cruz on January 27 of 1882 and settled in Morelos with 597 Italians and
121 already existing Mexicans, and was then called Porfirio Díaz. The third group arrived in the
port of Veracruz on February 24 of 1882 and consisted of 200 families. It then formed three
colonies: Carlos Pacheco, who later settled in Mazatepec, in Puebla, Díez Gutiérrez who settled
in San Luis Potosí, and La Aldana who settled in Mexico City. The last group of immigrants
with approximately sixty-eight families left Italy for Mexico on the 22nd of August 1882, and
arrived in the port Veracruz in the steamship Atlántico on the 23rd of September of the same year
“después de un viaje sin problemas con 656 personas en perfecto estado de salud” (Zilli Manica,
1981:249). From the sixty-eight families, nineteen were sent to Manuel González, one was sent
to la Aldana and the rest, thirty-eight families were sent to Fernando Leal, known today as
Chipilo. The colonists, with Angelo Zanella as head, settled in Chipilo by October 2, 1882.
“Saludado por ‘el entusiasmo general’ el grupo, notable por su orden, moralidad y obediencia,
alentaba las esperanzas de que esta colonia corresponda a los esfuerzos de la nación” (Romani,
1992: 29).22
21
There is certain inconsistency in the data about the exact number of families that settled in the
colony. Bohme (1959) states 100 Italian families (423 persons). Romani (1992) cites 103
families with 432 people. Zago (2007) cites eighty -eight families. Barnes (2009) cites eightyeight families and 428 people.
22
Portrayed for its ‘overall enthusiasm’, the group, remarkable for its order, morality, and
obedience, gave the hopes that it would correspond to the efforts of the nation (my translation).
See Zilli Manica (1981), Italianos en México. Documentos para la historia de los colonos
italianos en México. Xalapa, Veracruz: Ediciones San José.
13
Life in Mexico:
As mentioned earlier, Mexico was never considered a primary destination for Italian
immigrations. Yet, due to the harsh conditions in Italy, in their dreams, Mexico was seen as a
country, “en donde plata se encuentra a flor de tierra y los campos reproducen los cultivos de
todos los climas del mundo23” (Zago, 2007: 37). However, their high expectations did not
become reality as they were faced with a spadeful of dirt rather than rich crops and silver. 24
“ …Los italianos establecidos en la tierra de este Estado tienen la perspectiva de un lisonjero
porvenir. Pero los establecidos en Chipilo tienen que trabajar mucho la tierra para ganar un mal
sustento./ La tierra del lugar es demasiado pobre, reseca, sin arborescencia y expuesta a la
intemperie, porque ninguna colina la cubre de los vientos del Norte que son perjudiciales en el
valle sur de esta capital. Los naturales del país, acostumbrados a trabajar mucho y a comer pan
de maíz, sujetándose a un jornal muy reducido, no pudieron permanecer en Chipilo por falta de
elementos de vida y bienestar. Las familias italianas que se alimentan de otro modo, toman
carne, leche, pan de trigo y algo de alcohol, van a pasar muchas privaciones y penurias, porque
muchas tierras del lugar no ofrecieron porvenir a los colonos” (Zago, 2007: 82-83). 25
Poor land conditions were commonplace not only to Chipilo, but to all established
colonies of 1882. Based on Zago’s data (2007), by 1885 there were 294 Mexicans and eleven
Italians in Porfirio Díaz in Barreto, twenty-one Mexicans and eighty-one Italians in Carlos
Pacheco in Mazatepec, forty-six Mexicans and 378 Italians in Manuel González in Huatusco,
23
Where silver lies in the ground and fields produce crops from all climates of the world.
The Mexican government and Italian immigrants signed a contact that “guaranteed a place of
settlement, and assured the colonists’ welfare for five years” (Bohme, 1959: 8). However, it was
unsuccessful.
25
The Italians who settled in the land of this state expected a pleasant future. But those who
settled in Chipilo have to work much on the land to earn a meager livelihood. / The land is too
poor, dry, barren and exposed to the elements, because no hill protects it from the northern
winds that are harmful to the valley south of the capital. The natives, accustomed to hard work
and eating cornbread, are subjected to working on reduced plots, could not stay in Chipilo for
lack of signs of wellbeing. The Italian families that eat differently, meat, milk, wheat bread and
some alcohol, will experience many difficulties and hardships, because most of the land has not
offered a sustainable future to its settlers (my translation).
24
14
283 Mexicans and sixty-three Italians in Díez Gutiérez in San Luís Potosí, twenty one Mexicans
and eighty Italians in La Aldana in Mexico City, and eight Mexicans and 437 Italians in Chipilo.
However, throughout the first years, most of the colonies started to decline and four of
them completely disappeared.26 Three colonies persisted, la Aldana, Manuel Gonzáles and
Chipilo, but only one, Chipilo, achieved a high standard of living and economic stability.
Chipiloc 27 in XIX- XX centuries:
On October 2, 1882, the colony of Fernández Leal28, later renamed Chipilo de Francisco
Javier Mina, was established. On the 5th of December of the same year, a list of Italian
immigrants with full information, including name, year of birth etc., was sent to the
Development Secretariat; the report listed 658 individuals who constituted seventy-five
families.29
The first year in Chipilo, the community faced many difficulties, such as low land
fertility, difficulties adapting to harsh climate conditions caused by the second highest peak in
Mexico, the active volcano Popocatepetl, and most importantly, extreme poverty and a desire to
return to Italy due to the aforementioned. Those who had the means were able to go back; some
26
The colony of Porfirio Díaz in Barreto disappeared probably due to the harsh climate and poor
soil quality; the colony of Carlos Pacheco in Mazatepec and Teteles in Puebla disappeared due
to their continuous conflict with indigenous groups; the colony of Díez Gutiérez in San Luís
Potosí got assimilated with mainstream society.
27
The etymology of the word “Chipilo” has been controversial. According to Dr. Rafael Tena
Martínez, from INAH (Zago, 1982:32), Chipilo means “lugar en donde escurre el agua”, “the
place where the water drains”. However, based on Alonso de Molina’s dictionary (1975),
Chipiloc signifies “the place above or in the fine crystal”. He suggests it based on the verb
“Chipahua”, that translates as “ to clean or to be clean” and the Noun “ Chipilotl” that translates
as “ the fine crystal or the finest crystal” (cited in Zago, 2005: 80).
28
The colony was named after Manuel Fernández Leal, a high official in the Development
Secretariat.
29
The list of families can be found in A. Zago (2007) “Los Cuah’tatarame de Chipiloc”. 2d
edition.
15
of them escaped to the USA, yet, most of them stayed. By 1883, the number of colonists in
Chipilo started to diminish: approximately 210 of the original 568 founders had left the
community (Zago, 2007: 95).
During the first year, the Mexican government supported the colonists with a twentyfive-cent daily subsidy, animals, and tools and lent them money until the land produced a good
harvest. The community was required to pay the debt within the first ten years and none of the
members could leave the community before the proposed period. The lands were barren and had
never been plowed before, so colonists had to work extremely hard to cultivate crops. Not only
did they lack fertile land to work on, but they also did not have a place to live; the only building
was the ruins of an abandoned “hacienda”, where they lived at first, before building their own
houses (MacKay, 1992: 131). Based on the observations of Sartor and Ursini (1983), and Zago
(2007), the first houses built in the community had some structural features of Italian
architecture.30 At that time, Chipilo became a prototype of its European roots that highly
contrasted with the Spanish architecture of two close-by cities, Puebla and Cholula.
According to the Development Secretariat, by the end of the last century, the colony
prospered and by 1902, it changed its status from a foreign colony to an independent town
within the state of Puebla (Zilli Manica 1981, cited in Barnes, 2009: 34). Specifically, in 1900,
the colony of Fernandez Leal was renamed Pueblo of Francisco Javier Mina and it became part
of the Cholula district and the State of Puebla, a status it holds to the present day.31
30
For example, long and narrow windows, only one door in the house, visible beams, and gabled
roofs covered with tiles. However, during the Mexican Revolution most of the houses were
destroyed (Sartor and Ursini, 1983: 65).
31
It is important to note that even though Chipilo is only 13 km away from Puebla or Atlixco, in
the past, Chipilo was an isolated community. San Gregorio, which is the municipality of Chipilo,
predominantly consisted of indigenous groups, so that the contact between monolingual Italians
of the XIX century and monolingual Mexicans (whose first language was Nahuatl) was
16
During the 20th century, Chipilo faced two main tensions: injustice and heavy aggression
during the Mexican Revolution and the fascist32 propaganda of Mussolini. Zago (2007) states:
“La comunidad sufrió una fuerte agitación emocional, que, si bien, no estorbó su marcha
económica, sí retardó el proceso de su integración e identificación con su verdadera
nacionalidad, que es la mexicana” (149). 33
Even though Chipilo was neutral in the Revolution, the Zapatistas used to hide in
Chipilo, abusing the hospitality of Chipileños, stealing personal items and even trying to violate
women. During Mussolini’s governance, his ambassador Giovanni Giuriati, visited Mexico in
1924, seven years later the Revolution, during his mission with Nave Italia. He characterized the
community as part of the Italian heritage and later, Monte Grappa, a small rock from the Italian
mountain was brought to the Chipileños.
“…En Chipilo, mil vénetos intactos, de tres generaciones, han construido un pueblo idéntico a
los de la llanura de Treviso y visten como vénetos y hablan véneto y viven según las costumbres
de los antepasados; cultivan tierras fértiles según las enseñanzas de nuestra experiencia y aman
Italia con la consciencia pura de servirla a los pies de las montañas mexicanas…” (Savarino,
2006: 285).34
extremely limited.
32
Los italianos emigrados percibían que su condición de extranjeros originarios de un país pobre
e insignificante finalmente terminaría, que iban a alcanzar el mismo nivel que tenían los
ingleses, franceses y norteamericanos, y crearían un prestigio equivalente al pasado prehispánico
reivindicado por la nueva clase dirigente mexicana (Savarino, 2002:132). The Italian
immigrants, originating in a poor and insignificant country, thought that their status and poor
conditions of living as foreigners would finally be over. They thought they would reach the same
socio-economic level as those from England, France and North America, and create a prestige
equivalent to the pre-Hispanic past vindicated by the new Mexican ruling class (my translation).
33
The community suffered a severe emotional turmoil, and, although it did not thwart their
economic progress, it did slow the process of integration and identification with their true
nationality, which is Mexican.
34
In Chipilo, one thousand intact Venetians belonging to three generations built a town identical
to those on the plains of Treviso; they dress like Venetians and they speak Venetian and live
according to the customs of their ancestors; they cultivated fertile lands according to the
teachings of our [Italian] experience, and they love Italy with the pure consciousness of serving
it at the foot of the mountains of Mexico (my translation)
17
Even the Italian defeat in WW2 did not influence the minds of most of Chipileños and today
they are still proud of their roots and ethnic identity.
Current situation:
Chipilo definitely represents an unusual case of language and identity maintenance. After
129 years, the community has not disappeared, and it has retained its Italian roots and the
language. Based on Periódico Oficial del Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Puebla (2008)
the population of Chipilo Francisco de Javier Mina (Chipilo) totals of 3,084 people: 1,503 men
and 1,581 women (3). 35
According to Meo Zilio (1987a),
“…La colonia se caracterizó por una gran homogeneidad, sobre todo debido al aislamiento
geográfico, la endogamia y la fuerte religiosidad, elementos que favorecieron la conservación de
la identidad étnica y de las tradiciones culturales y lingüísticas originarias” (cited in Romani,
1992:27). 36
Based on Sartor and Ursini’s data (1983), the community consisted of 84.3% Venetians and only
15.7% non-Venetians (152-153). Furthermore, F. Ursini (1983) investigated the surnames of
members of the community and concluded that 41.7% of the surnames were ‘surely’ Venetian.37
It is interesting to note that today most individuals in the community have family nicknames,
such as Monina, Changos, Aureliets, Scientíficos and others, so that the community identifies
them according to those. Sartoni and Ursini (1983) point out that such identification can only
exist in a very small community with strong ties and dense social networks (see Milroy 1987).
35
According to INEGI (2008) the population has slightly increased by a little less than 1%. In
2000, the population had a total of 2965, and in 1995 it had a total of 2778 people (3).
36
The colonies were characterized by a great homogeneity, mainly due to the geographical
isolation, endogamy and strong religious ties, all elements that favored the preservation of their
ethnic identity, as well as their original cultural and linguistic traditions (my translation).
37
77.5 % of the surnames that are used in Chipilo still exist in Italian zones, such as Quero,
Alano di Piave, Pederobba, Miane, Valdobbidiadene and Segusino (Romani, 1992: 30).
18
The main industry in town is agriculture and livestock. According to the 1986 Census,
2383 people, constituting 93% of the active population worked these industries (Romani, 1992:
22). The properties are private and the main crop cultivated is alfalfa. Herds of cattle are kept in
the stables usually in an area outside of the house. The farmers send their daily production of
milk to Puebla and other towns. They also produce Chipilo’s well-known cheese, cream and
butter, which are exported across the country. In one of the legal reports of the 1930s, Chipilo is
described as
“… una maravilla para mostrar a los italianos y los extranjeros que vienen a México como uno
de los ejemplos de la civilización natural del pueblo italiano, de su espíritu que ha sido
vigorizado en medio siglo de exilio” (Savarino, 2006: 288). 38
Other employment data from the 1986 Census note that: 2.04 % of the population is
dedicated to commerce, 2.02 % work in a different industry, mainly paintings and furniture
making, and 1.05%, mostly young people, work outside of the community, particularly in Puebla
(Romani, 1992: 22).
Today Chipilo has gained a very high standard of living: all the streets are paved, all the
inhabitants have electricity, most of them have water (93.87%) telephone, and many have
Internet access (INEGI, 2008:6-8). Most importantly, Chipilo has gained economic stability
without assimilating to mainstream society or abandoning its language, as it is considered a
minority language.39
38
Chipilo is a wonder to show to Italians and foreigners who come to Mexico, as it is an
example of a civilization of the Italian people and their spirit, which has been invigorated in half
in a century of exile (my translation).
39
Ironically, MacKay (1999) notes that even though Veneto is a minority language in Chipilo, it
has gained a prestigious social status, whereas other indigenous languages are stigmatized. In
Italy, however, the situation is different - the northern dialect has a very low prestige, compared
to the standard variety.
19
CHAPTER 2
Literature review
In this section, I will first identify the term attitude since it is an integral part of this
thesis. I will then talk about the attitudes or behavior of dominant groups towards minority
groups. I will also describe the term bilingualism and the perceived advantages and
disadvantages of being bilingual. Next, I will describe what ethnolinguistic identity is and how it
correlates with language, specifically a minority language. The attitudinal analysis of the above
aspects will provide a better understanding of the relationship between dominant and minority
groups and to the language itself. Such understanding is relevant to this thesis because it
provides a better picture of the long sustainability of the Veneto language in Mexico. In this
regard, I will relate the relevance of the literature by alluding to how it applies to the situation of
Veneto and its community in Chipilo. Lastly, I will provide an account of the findings from
previous studies carried out in this community under the section of language maintenance in
Chipilo.
Attitudes and Theories of attitudes:
The study of attitudes embraces a wide range of definitions from two main fields: social
psychology and sociolinguistics. According to psychologists, attitudes can be portrayed from
mentalist and behaviorist perspectives. The first perspective focuses on a subjective
interpretation. In 1935, Allport (45), a pioneer in attitude studies, stated:
Attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a
directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations
with which it is related (cited in Gardner, 1982: 132) .40
40
However, the term attitude was first introduced in the field by Thomas and Znaniecki (1928)
who used the concept to analyze the changing patterns of cultural adaptation manifest by Polish
20
Forty years later, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) added to the above definition and described
attitude as something “learned through a socialization process that responds in a consistently
favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (cited in O’Rourke, 2011:6-7).
Both definitions concentrate on the subjective state of readiness perspective. In contrast, the
behaviorist perspective analyzes observable responses to social situations (ibid.).
There have been other studies on the definition of attitudes (Agheyisi and Fishman: 1970;
Giles 1983; Baker 1992, O’Rourke 2011) and yet there has not been a consensus on the ‘correct’
one. However, most of the scholars who analyze attitudes from the psychological point of view
divide the term into three main components:41
-
Cognitive, which analyzes beliefs about the world
-
Affective, which concentrates on the feelings towards an object
-
Behavioral, which encourages or promotes certain actions.
According to Ajzen (1988), these three components form a single unit of attitudes.
The actual or symbolic presence of an object elicits a generally favorable or unfavorable
evaluative reaction, the attitude towards the object. This attitude, in turn, predisposes
cognitive, affective and conative responses to an object whose evaluative tone is
consistent with the overall attitude (cited in O’ Rourke, 2011: 8).
The study of language attitudes often tends to include a fourth component to the above
definitions, namely, the attitudes towards speakers of a certain variety, as well as language
planning, language maintenance and shift. The most concrete definition of this component is
described by Ryan et al. (1982):
immigrants in the USA (cited in Forgas, 2006: 131).
41
Agheyisi and Fishman (1970) describe cognitive or knowledge, affective or evaluative and
conative or action (139).
21
“Language attitudes are any affective, cognitive or behavioral index of evaluative reactions
toward different language varieties of their speakers” (7). This definition becomes the most
relevant one for this thesis because I will be comparing the reactions of Mexicans towards
Chipileños, as well as their feelings about situations related to language behavior that lead to
specific actions whether they be tensions, conflicts, or even discrimination.
In contrast with the psychological perspective, in the sociolinguistic perspective, the term
attitude focuses more on social criteria. Woolard (1989) defines interpersonal attitude as “a
socially derived, intellectualized or behavioral ideology” (cited in O’Rourke, 2011: 10) .42
Sociolinguists stress the importance of the group rather than the individual. Additionally, this
perspective emphasises group norms and values, rather than the individualistic representation
highlighted in the psychological framework.
Agheyisi and Fishman (1970) studied attitudes and divided them into three main components:
1. Those dealing with language-oriented or language-directed attitudes
2. Those dealing with community-wide stereotyped impressions toward particular languages or
language varieties (in some cases, their speakers, functions, etc.)
3. Those concerned with the implementation of different types of language attitudes (141).
This definition also fits into the discussion about the attitudes of both groups, particularly those
of Chipileños, whose evaluations towards the language play a significant role in the study and
can determine the future of the Veneto language.
42
Ideology, according to Woolard (1998) refers to mental phenomena, which constitutes a part
of our consciousness that is made of subjective representations, ideas and beliefs. In that case,
ideology becomes similar in context with mentalist perspective from psychological point of view
(cited in O’Rourke, 2011: 11).
22
Attitudes towards bilingualism:
Lambert (1974) distinguishes between two types of bilingualism: additive and subtractive. He
describes additive bilingualism as an enriching experience where in learning a second language,
the individual does not suffer any potential loss of his/ her first language or its importance. In
contrast, in a subtractive bilingualism there is some degree of first language attrition. It is
important to note that Lambert (1978) links these types of bilingualism to communities, rather
than to individuals.43 In the case of Chipilo, the community definitely represents an additive
bilingualism because both Spanish and Veneto44 are used and people ascribe high prestige to
both of them.
Yet, for some reason, many people seem to find the very notion of bilingualism
threatening (Macaulay, 2006: 119). Some scholars have hypothesised that learning a second
language influences attitudinal characteristics. For example, Lambert (1967) proposed that
individuals acquiring a second language begin to identify themselves with the other language
community and to experience feelings of alienation and anomie towards their native language.
He states:
… That an individual successfully acquiring a second language gradually adopts various
aspects of behaviour which characterize members of another linguistic-cultural group.
The learner’s ethnocentric tendencies and his attitudes toward the other group are
believed to determine his success in learning the new language. His motivation to learn is
thought to be determined by his attitudes and his orientation towards learning a second
language (14).
43
Lambert (1975) studied French Canadians in Canada. According to the two types of
bilingualism, English-speaking Canadians will be perceived as a dominant group and developing
proficiency in French for them would be additive bilingualism, as it does not lead to any threat
to their first language. On the contrary, French Canadians are the minority group and
bilingualism for them represents a subtractive bilingualism (Lambert 1978).
44
According to Romani (1992), out of a 99.2% sample population, 95.31% are active bilinguals,
3.90 % passive bilinguals, and only 0.78 % are monolinguals of Spanish. There are no
monolingual speakers of Veneto.
23
However, Burstall (1974) opposed Lambert’s hypothesis and stated that learning a second
language will promote positive attitudes towards the language, and particularly the other speech
community if the language is learned integratively (cited in Gardner, 1982: 139)45. According to
Gardner & Lambert (1959), there are two types of orientations in learning a new language:
integrative and instrumental. An integrative orientation refers to an interest in learning a new
language in order to facilitate interaction with the other language community, whereas an
instrumental orientation focuses on the utilitarian aspects of learning the language, such as when
the language is used as a basis for getting a better job (Gardner, 1982: 134).46 According to
Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972), learners have more motivation and become more
sympathetic towards the other community if they learn a language integratively.
Chipileños appear to acquire Spanish both instrumentally and integratively. For several
decades Chipilo was an isolated community and Veneto was the only means of communication.
However, the production and export of dairy products and furniture led to close contacts with
non-Chipileño groups. The interaction with out-groups for business purposes has resulted in
economic success and stability in the community. Travelling to Chipilo today, especially on the
weekends, to buy dairy products and sit in the local cafes is extremely popular; Spanish is a must
for Chipileños. One of the participants in Barnes’ research (2009) commented that in local stores
45
Gardner & Lambert (1959), Gardner (1979) investigated the case of Canadians learning
French. They discovered the existence of favorable attitudes towards learning French, as the
students want to become closer psychologically to the French Canadian. In that case learning
French is based on integrative orientation, as students would like to know more about French
Canadians and their lifestyle
46
In the case of indigenous groups in Mexico, for example, they shift to Spanish in order to find
better jobs and become economically stable (Hornberger and Coronel-Molina 2004). This
example provides particular interest to the topic of my dissertation because this was the situation
in the villages near Chipilo (San Gregorio and San Bernabé) who had to shift from Nahuatl to
Spanish in order to gain a better standard of living.
24
they interact in Veneto but it is mala educación47 to use Veneto with people who do not speak it.
“ … Le pedimos en dialecto… pero es falta de educación porque está una persona que no sabe el
dialecto y nosotros nos comunicamos…(133). 48
Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 1, all formal education in Chipilo is only in Spanish49 so
by the age of 6, a child is required to speak fluent Spanish.50
In order to preserve an additive bilingualism, it is crucial for the speakers to be able to
discern the domains51 of use (Fishman 1966, Crystal 2000), and these cultural arrangements in
relation to the functions of two languages produces the environment of diglossia (Ferguson
1959, Fishman 1980a). Ferguson (1972: 232) used the term diglossia to refer to a specific
relationship between two or more varieties of the same language in use in a speech community
in different functions. The most important hallmark of diglossia52 is the functional specialization
47
Impolite (my translation)
We order in the dialect but it is impolite to use a dialect when there are people who do not
speak it (my translation).
49
Neither Veneto nor Italian is taught in schools of Chipilo.
50
Barnes (2009) investigated the self-ratings of Spanish abilities among Veneto speakers and
showed that 85.5 % of participants spoke Spanish very well or well, 92.8 % comprehended it
very well or well, 97.2 % could read Spanish very well or well, and 90% could write Spanish
very well or well. There were no participants who could not read, write, comprehend or speak
Spanish.
51
Domain, according to Fishman (1966:442) is a sociocultural construct abstracted from topics
of communications, relationships between communicators, and locales of communication, in
accord with the institutions of a society and the spheres of activity of a speech community, in
such a way that “individual behavior and social patterns can be distinguished from each other
and yet related to each other “(cited in Romani, 1992: 15).
52
Fishman (1980a: 4) adds to Ferguson’s definition of H and L and describes the relationship
between the two as follows:
- H as classic, L as vernacular, where the two are genetically related, e.g. classical and
vernacular Arabic, Sanskrit and Hindi
- H as classical, L as vernacular, where the two are not genetically related, e.g. textual
Hebrew and Yiddish
- H as written - formal spoken and L as vernacular, where the two are not genetically
related to one another, e.g. Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay
48
25
of a H- high, formal variety, and a L- low, informal one. She notes nine separate areas in which
H and L differ, such as prestige, acquisition, standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon, and
phonology. Fishman (1980a) states, “it is a societal arrangement in which individual
bilingualism is not only widespread, but institutionally buttressed”(6-7). L is typically acquired
as a language for use at home, used in familiar interactions, whereas H is never learned at home
but rather later through socialization at school. H is supported by institutions and is the only
variety that is used in formal institutions, such as schools, government, and Church. According
to Ryan, Giles and Sebastian (1982), one’s ethnic language is much more likely to survive
emigration from the mother country if it continues to be used across most situations, with most
interlocutors, and within most role relationships (4).
The case of Chipilo represents diglossia with bilingualism, but Spanish unquestionably
has a greater reach in the community. The High variety, Spanish, is the formal language in the
media, education, government53 and Church54, whereas the Low variety, Veneto, is used mostly
-
H as written - formal-spoken and L as vernacular, where the two are genetically related
to one another, e.g. Urdu and spoken Panjabi.
53
However, Romani (1992) states that 98.01 % of Chipileños, 90% of mitad-mitad, half
Chipileños, half Mexicans, and 35.29% of Mexicans use Veneto with the local community
leader. It is interesting to mention that all the local leaders Armando Salvatori Zago, Ismael,
Venzzini Bagatella, Amalia Berra Merlo, Aveliono Merlo Zanella and Edith Zago Colombo are
of Italian descent and so using Veneto becomes an important marker of European heritage.
54
Romani (1992) describes, “el ámbito de la iglesia es reconocido generalmente como un ámbito
del español, idioma que domina con un promedio del 69.95% en las relaciones con el sacerdote
entre los hablantes nativos de véneto, con un promedio del 90.62% entre los nativos de español y
del 75% entre ambos idiomas”/The church is generally recognised as the Spanish dominant
domain with an average of 69.95% in the interaction with the priest, among native speakers of
Veneto, with an average of 90.62% for native speakers of Spanish and 75 % between the two
languages (my own translations). The data that Romani examines (see pp. 62-63), show that
Chipileños confess in Spanish (87.87%) and not in Veneto. However, Romani mentions that
topics about religion can be heard more in Veneto (out of 93 people, 94.89%) than in Spanish (8
people – 8%). Since Romani’s studies were conducted over ten years ago, they might not be
relevant today. However, Barnes’ studies (2009), that are the most recent ones today about
Chipilo, do not provide any statistics about the use of Spanish and Veneto in Church and
26
at home, among friends and co-workers, in informal situations with family members.55
According to Barnes’ statistics (2009), 81.4 % of participants used Veneto as the predominant
language of the home during their childhood and 73. 2% report that Veneto is the main language
used in homes today (116). Fishman’s categorization that H variety that is never acquired at
home becomes problematic in the context of mixed marriages between Chipileños and
Mexicans; Spanish is being taught to children at a younger age and this can lead to language
shift and code switching in this particular group. Based on Barnes’ data (2009), 88.7 % of the
participants acquired Veneto at home and 23.9% acquired Spanish at home (117-118). 56 Barnes
suggests that acquiring Spanish at home may be the effect of mixed marriages57 so that a child
learns Veneto later in life through interaction with Veneto-speaking children and community
members. However, as she suggests the acquisition of Veneto and Spanish depends on the
descent of the parents, particularly that of the mother.
Most studies indicate that stable bilingualism is most likely to occur in situations of
diglossia, where the H variety relates to out-group and formal communication, whereas L variety
refers to in-group, informal and familiar interactions. That seems to be the situation in Chipilo,
as most of its speakers prefer to use Veneto among its members. According to Barnes (2009),
83.3% of participants preferred to speak Veneto with their children and other members of the
community. In contrast, only 6% preferred to use Spanish over Veneto in the community (134).
Such high rate of Veneto usage suggests that the language shift to Spanish is highly unexpected.
religion.
55
However, according to Wössner’s statistics (2002), a considerable amount of people (90% of
people ages 10-25, 100% of people ages 26-40, 90% of people ages 41-60, and 88% ages 61-85)
would like to have a Veneto radio station or newspaper (cited in Ibarra: 2011)
56
According to Romani (1992), 97.89 % participants of Italian descent learned Veneto at home.
10.52 % claim that they learned Spanish through the interaction with their parents.
57
If the mother is Mexican, the child is most likely to speak Spanish at an early age.
27
Attitudes towards minority languages
Whether speaking one or five languages, all individuals belong to at least one speech
community, a community all of whose members share at least a single-speech variety and
the norms for its appropriate use.
(Ryan, Giles and Sebastian, 1982: 1).
Typically, the dominant group promotes its patterns of language use as the model
required for social advancement and the use of dialects or minority languages reduce the
opportunity for success in society. The speakers’ exposure to the media, education, industry,
etc., in the dominant language causes attrition of minority languages. Minority groups often
adopt the dominant group values by means of linguistic accommodation58 (Giles 1973) that help
them gain social mobility in the mainstream society; as a result, the maintenance of their native
language is often left behind. However, Milroy (1987) argues that if the variety is a part of the
environment of the community, accommodation is not an option; traditional distinctions can be
enforced through dense, multiple networks (Milroy 2003) and domains in which this variety is
used (Fishman 1982, Johnstone 2010: 388).
The attitudes of the majority group towards the minority group certainly play an
important role in language shift. Frequently, if the attitudes of the majority group are positive,
there is a higher probability of minority language maintenance. However, if there is hostility in
bilingualism, it may lead to language shift. 59 There is no data about the attitudes of non-
58
Linguistic accommodation refers to a notion where speakers of minority groups tend to
express solidarity and use one common language, usually the one of the dominant group to avoid
miscommunication (Giles et al. 1973).
59
Monolingual speakers often get annoyed at people who speak another language in their
presence. A reader of Sydney Morning Herald (1981) wrote:
“ …Nothing annoys me more than two or more ‘ethnics’ jabbering away in their native
language in the company of English-speaking people, particularly in a work environment. Is it
28
Chipileños regarding Chipileños as of yet, but Romani (1992) states that Mexicans, especially
indigenous groups, speak of European immigrants with admiration and respect for Western
values. By the same token, there may exist a sense of inferiority felt by other groups in relation
to Chipileños because they have been able to achieve a high economic level in comparison with
communities in villages close by (76).
The attitudes of a minority group itself can also gain importance. Typically, if the group
is emotionally attached to a language and has pride in its literary and cultural heritage, it will
make the most effort to pass it on to new generations.60
However, in situations where a group’s identity is threatened, the variety of language with which
it is associated can become a key symbol of the group’s culture and identity (Bourhis 1972).
Fishman (1989) states the following:
… They [ethnocultural mother tongues] separate populations into insiders and outsiders
and they define the cultural desiderata – including language –, which are required for
inside membership (225).
However, identification with a language and positive attitudes towards it do not often
guarantee its maintenance (Romaine, 1995: 43). Immigrants who move to another country for
economic reasons tend to lose their native language. As Kegl (1975) writes,
… At the time when I was acquiring language (sic), speaking a second language such as
Slovene was looked down upon as detrimental to one’s ability to speak either language
well and as an indication of one’s immigrant background (cited in Grosjean, 1982: 110).
really too much to ask them to observe simple politeness by refraining from resorting to their
native language in the company of English speaking persons” (Romaine, 1995: 49).
60
This can be the case of Koreans living in the United States. Even though all of them are
American by citizenship, the language has vitality in the lives of Koreans who have number of
support groups, such as Korean churches, Saturday schools and businesses that are often run by
Korean speakers (Myers-Scotton, 2000: 125-126). Another example is found in Austria where
there are various Italian clubs, which are coordinated and supplemented by supra-regional
organizations that use Standard Italian as a medium (Romaine 1995).
29
Gumperz (1982b) studied a Slovenian/German bilingual community in a remote part of
Austria’s Gail Valley. His focus was mainly on the network structure and the relationship
between the language, as well as the socio-political structures that encouraged monolingualism
as a result of economic changes. Members of poor and stigmatized farming communities had
been traditionally embedded in close-knit networks61 of mutual support that linked them through
many ties, including neighbors, friends, and co-workers, and socialised in their language within
their community. However, because the economy shifted from one that was dependent on
subsistence farming to a service economy, the local support network diminished and brought
change into the personal social network structures. Farmers started selling the products to
incomers and to big factories rather than to local farmers. As a result, farming facilities were
converted into tourist areas. Ultimately, because of the very close contact with outsiders, the
villagers adopted new language forms and abandoned their local ones (Milroy and Gordon 2003:
125).
Nonetheless, the nature and extent of immigrant minorities’ ties with the homeland can
affect language maintenance. Zentella (1997) investigated the situation of Puerto Rican
immigrants in New York and concluded that cyclic patterns of immigration help restore the first
language of immigrants and prevents English monolingualism. However, Zentella (1987), Li
Wei (1994) and Milroy and Li Wei (1995) concluded that language maintenance is highly
dependent on language use. Usually, the first generation is associated with strong ties among its
members, the second generation becomes a mix host and immigrant languages as individuals
61
Milroy and Gordon (2003) state that close-knit networks may be viewed as the social
mechanisms that support the construction, maintenance, and elaboration of local linguistic
distinctiveness, from the point of view of the language learner they provide the intensive input
required to master complex, localized linguistic structures in the absence of institutional support
(132-133).
30
have notable contact with both cultures, and the third generation is extensively directed to a
mainstream culture and language. Yet, Milardo (1988) states that passive ties, which consist
mainly of distant contact with relatives and friends is a valued source of influence and moral
support for migrants (cited in Milroy and Gordon, 2003: 126). Initially, Chipileños had minimal
contact with non-Chipileños – thus, Veneto was widely used in the community. In addition,
some individuals maintained connections with their homeland, a key factor that encouraged the
survival of Veneto to this day. “Algunos chipileños de todas formas han comentado que lo [el
véneto] escriben62 para mantener correspondencia con parientes y amigos vénetos en Italia”
(Romani, 1990: 52).63 By keeping correspondence with friends, Chipileños revealed their desire
to retain the language and “conquistar una manifestación lingüística más y ampliar su alcance
comunicativo” (ibid.). 64 Furthermore, la hermanidad between Italy and Chipilo during the
centennial celebration in 1982 significantly strengthened the spirit of Chipileños by stressing the
importance of their European heritage and Italian identity, which - as some studies have
indicated (MacKay 1982, Romani 1990, Barnes 2009) – have become the main indicators of
superiority and prestige for them.
The concept of prestige may be viewed as problematic. According to many studies
(Labov 1968, Fishman 1972, Milroy 1985, Silva-Corvolán 2001), a standard is usually
considered to be the most prestigious and superior over other vernacular forms. For instance,
62
Interestingly, in Italy, Veneto is/was used as a language of a private domain, which was/is only
used in familiar and informal settings. There were no grammar books in Veneto when Italians
came to Chipilo, and besides as De Mauro (1963) pointed out, over 80% of the Italian
population was illiterate. Therefore, Chipileños were writing the letters in Veneto, the way in
which they heard it, without putting much attention to the syntax or any morphosyntactic
constructions.
63
Some Chipileños commented that Veneto was used to maintain a closer contact with relatives
and friends from their homeland, Italy (my translation).
64
Achieve linguistic perfection and expand their [Chipileños] communicative scope (my
translation).
31
speakers of Quechua have had a stigma about their language and have held some undermining
beliefs about their language as being a “dialect without grammar” (Hornberger and CoronelMolina, 2004: 15). As a result, the community has consciously sought to abandon it and has
been assimilated by the dominant community. In Chipilo, Veneto is considered to be a
prestigious form of language, but some of the out-group members downplay the importance of it
and treat it as a dialect: “…This may be reinforced by negative outsider perspectives that
disparage the language as not ‘real Italian’” (Barnes, 2009:125).
Furthermore, there is no formal instruction in Veneto, and its grammar is still not
standardised. Barnes’ research showed that of the Chipileños interviewed, 73.9% were in favor
of Veneto instruction in schools.65 It also (2009) revealed that men had more positive attitudes
towards the teaching of Veneto than women did. 66 According to Barnes (2009), that might have
been due to the occupation of women: most of the women in Chipilo were housewives, so the
Veneto language was a part of their identity in their space, and was viewed as belonging
exclusively to Chipileños. Nevertheless, one of the respondents argued that “habría que primero
que poner las reglas gramaticales para ya fijas para escribir y leerlo”67 (Barnes, 2009:126). Both
Barnes (2009) and Romani (1992) claimed that there was very little support from the Mexican
government to establish a written standard. However, in 2007 Italy granted official status to
Veneto and thus today it is considered a language. At present, Chipileños are proud to speak the
language and recognise it as a part of their identity, “la lengua pues también nos da mucho gusto
65
However, according to Wössner (2002), the majority of respondents – 70% of men and over
90% of women – opposed the teaching of Veneto in schools, because they found it raro [weird]
or como que no te queda [does not sound right] (cited in Ibarra, 2011).
66
Interestingly, seventeen years ago, Romani (1992) found that, more women were in favor of
Veneto being taught in schools
67
First of all, there has to be grammatical rules to be able to write and read it [Veneto] (my
translation).
32
y mucho orgullo hablarla. Pues es parte de nuestra identidad68” (Barnes, 2009: 128). This
alludes to Haugen’s studies (1956) about language. He argues:
Language is at once a social institution, like the laws, the religion, or the economy of the
community, and a social instrument, which accompanies and makes possible all other
institutions. As an institution it may become a symbol of community group (cited in
Grosjean, 1982:117).
Veneto is without doubt part of the Chipileño identity – it is a symbol of their distinction and
uniqueness in Mexican circles.
Mufwene (2004) followed a different approach to the study of prestige and pride. In his
study of Native Americans, he argued that neither the Americans of European non-Anglophone
descent, nor Native Americans, have maintained bilingualism because the overall society is
typically monolingual and the globalising socio-economic system promotes uniformity. The
change to monolingualism may also be the result of the national unity over linguistic unity that
the Western world / US imposes (28). The concept of a socio-economic system becomes very
crucial because there exist more ways to maintain a language rather than just prestige (ibid). The
language or a variety should offer its speakers a means to function adaptively in a specific socioeconomic ecology69 (Mufwene, 2004:15); that is, each variety can exist and be preserved if it has
a stable economic base that can ‘stay’ independently without any integration to another
economy. Chipilo has created a successful socioeconomic foundation by producing dairy
products, therefore creating the ecology to which Mufwene refers. However, if once Chipilo was
a rural isolated town with monolingual speakers, today it is a highly urbanised area with mobile
bilingual citizens. On the one hand, the economic factor has definitely influenced the present
68
We like the language and we are very proud of it, because it is a part of our identity (my
translation)
69
According to Mufwene (2001), ecology in his terms refers to the socio-historical setting in
which a language is spoken, one that is largely determined by socio-economic factors (3).
33
society, making the community independent from the rest of the country and also dependent on
each other’s strengths. Language in this case, can be seen as a resource, which is available to this
ethnic group since it has made them competitive in Mexico (Paulson 1994: 24). Conversely,
Chipileños have started working and studying outside of their community, especially in Puebla
or Mexico City in order to acquire other positions, and to not remain as agricultural workers. The
community does not belong to a closed network70 anymore, but rather to an open multiplex
dense community with strong ties. Milroy and Gordon (2003) argue,
“Networks constituted chiefly of strong ties support minority languages resisting
institutional pressures to language shift; but when these networks weaken, language shift
is likely to take place” (124).
Additionally, Ager (1997) states that, “language shift is hence a phenomenon, not of
languages, but of individuals and communities… It is people who allow a language to fall out of
use” (27). However, based on Barnes studies (2009), Spanish did not appear to be in conflict
with Veneto; furthermore Veneto tended to be even more prestigious than Spanish within the
community so that language shift seems to be unlikely.
Attitudes towards a speaker’s identity.
Most regional languages and dialects, as well as most immigrant and indigenous languages in
nations across the world have been declining in vitality over the years as the pressures for
homogeneity and unity have increased (Ryan, Giles and Sebastian 1982: 5). However, MyersScotton (2002) stresses the fact that “individual attitudes towards the group’s ethnolinguistic
vitality contribute directly to his/her desire to maintain the language tied to the group’s social
identity” (51). Veneto represents an integrated system of values that conveys social meanings
70
Closed network refers to networks that are often being interacted within a local community
(Milroy and Gordon 2003).
34
not only about the community, but also about its speakers. There is a certain correlation between
ethnic identity and language. Ryan (1979) states, “The value of language as a chief symbol of
group identity is one of the major forces for the preservation of non-standard speech styles of
dialects” (147). He argues, furthermore, that in order “to maintain some speech styles distinct
from that of other ethnic groups,” it is crucial “to maintain their own identity” (cited in Gardner
1982: 142). The studies of Gibbons (1991) and later Kroskrity (2000) reinforce that identity is
the language (cited in Gibbons and Ramirez, 2004: 197).71
The present study will analyze the concept of identity from a broader perspective, as it
will incorporate the individual’s social identity, which becomes the marker of in- group or outgroup membership in a society where two cultures coexist. It will follow Tajfel’s theory of
social identity (1974), who identified the term as a psychological concept that allows humans to
construct their own social environment based on certain criteria (cited in Hames and Blanc,
2000: 118). With the process of constructing an identity, a human begins to identify himself or
herself with certain groups based on three similar characteristics: ethnicity, culture, and
language. If the language is the core value of ethnicity, speakers tend to maintain the language as
a part of their membership to a certain group. Those people who do not share the same
characteristics will be perceived as an out-group on “perceptual, attitudinal and behavioral
dimensions” (Hames and Blanc, 2000: 119). In this thesis, Chipileños are the in-group as they
share the three characteristics that Hames & Blanc point out: ethnicity, culture and the language,
whereas Mexicans will be treated as the out-group as they do not share any of the three features
with them.
71
For example, in Latino communities in both USA studies identified Spanish language as the
main means of interaction, which identifies them as Hispanics.
35
Language maintenance in Chipilo.
As mentioned earlier, today Chipilo is a bilingual and bi-cultural community, where both
Veneto and Spanish are spoken and used.72 However, the domains of interaction (Fishman 1972)
are different. If Spanish is the official language of instruction and of different institutions,
Veneto is the language of the family, used among friends, neighbors and the work place. Veneto
is usually the first language acquired by children.73 It is important to note, however, that the use
of either language is dependent on the interlocutor; if both people are Chipileños74 who speak
and understand Veneto, they will use Veneto as sole means of communication. However, if the
interlocutor is not Chipileño, i.e. Mexican75, Spanish will be used. Yet, Zago (2006) states that
the exposure today to the outside world, i.e. the world outside of the community, may be the
cause of the decline in Veneto use, and even its disappearance. Some of the causes that Zago
analyzes are: 1) penetration of TV, radio, magazines and newspapers, which are broadcasted and
written in Spanish76, 2) the language allowed in school is only Spanish, thus students learn all
discipline-specific terminology in Spanish and 3) the prohibition to speak Veneto in schools.
As mentioned earlier, besides being the official language used in schools outside of
Chipilo, Spanish is also the official language within the community. In the Colegio Unión,
inaugurated in 1921 by nuns, not only is the instruction in Spanish, but also most of the teachers
are non-Chipileños.
72
Today, there are no more monolingual Veneto speakers; all speakers are fluent in both
languages.
73
However, due to exogamous marriages- Chipileños with Mexicans -, some children acquire
Spanish first. Due to the fact that the man usually works, the woman becomes the carrying agent
of the language. If the woman is Mexican, the first language will be probably Spanish; however,
if the woman is Chipileño the first language will be Veneto.
74
Refer to p. 5 “The concept of Chipileño”
75
Refer to p. 6 “The concept of Chipileño”
76
Veneto still does not have a formal writing system, however, C. Mackay (1995/2002)
published the first Veneto dictionary, a Veneto lexicon: The Dialect of Segusino and Chipilo.
36
Veneto, in turn, has become a symbol of ethnic identity that ties the community with its
country of origin, Italy. In October 1982, Chipilo celebrated its centennial, as well as la
hermanidad between two twin cities, Segusino, a small town/village in the province of Treviso,
and Chipilo. Many tourists visited Chipilo and were fascinated by the physical appearance of
Chipileños, the peculiarity of the dialect77, as well as the technological advancements of Chipilo.
“La vieja Chipilo, pequeña comunidad rural basada en una economía de sustentación, ya no
existe. Los contactos con el medio externo, para las proyecciones económicas, laborales y
culturales, son intensos; la exogamia se considera inevitable” (Romani, 1992: 34). 78
An important factor that has contributed to such long language maintenance is the relative
isolation of the community from the rest of the population. According to Montagner Bronca and
Bronca Montagner (1988), 375 families have two Chipileño surnames, ninety-four families have
one surname led by a Chipileño male and the other surname is of non-Italian origin, forty
families have one surname led by a Chipileño woman and the other last surname is of non-Italian
origin, and lastly, forty families whose last names are not of Italian origin.
As a result, Veneto was maintained not only because it is a different language but also
because it is a part of the Italian ancestry. Previous studies (MacKay 1990, Romani 1992,
MacKay 1999, Barnes 2009) revealed that Chipileños did indeed have positive attitudes towards
Veneto. In fact, both males and females viewed Veneto favorably. Yet, Romani’s results (1992)
revealed that women used Veneto more than men did. That may have been because women were
often viewed as the main transmitters of the language (Barnes, 2009). Barnes (2009) stressed the
fact that most women were housewives, and as a result were the primary motivators of the
77
However, today, Veneto of Treviso has drifted to standard Italian and Veneto in Chipilo has
picked up many Spanish-Mexican borrowings (MacKay, 1992:140).
78
The old Chipilo, a small rural community based on a subsistence economy, no longer exists.
Contacts with the external environment for economic, labor and cultural activities are intense:
exogamy is considered inevitable (my translation).
37
language that children acquired. Barnes also found that women found it more important to speak
Veneto because it was perceived as a language that identified them with their ethnicity. She
argued that it was believed that Veneto would survive if the mother were Chipileño even if the
man happened to be Mexican (64).79
Additionally, Romani’s (1992) and Barnes’ studies (2009) showed a high rate of usage of
Veneto by Chipileños, the younger group (18-30) providing the highest frequency. The reason
for that might have been due to the everyday contact with non-Chipileños and the desire to be
different, as seen by the reinforcement of endogamous marriages in order to preserve their racial
features (Zilli-Manica 1981, Zago 2007). In addition, the usage of the European dialect that still
has a prestigious status in Mexico was also viewed as an important factor. Wössner’s interviews
(2002) with the locals stressed the aforementioned argument:
The dialect is beautiful, because it distinguishes us, it goes hand in hand with our
physical features, with our white appearance and our personality, because our personality
is strong, and so it identifies our dialect (cited and translated in Ibarra: 2011).
According to Barnes’ studies (2009), the older generations, in contrast, might have leaned more
towards the Spanish language because the outlook of Chipileños had slightly changed due to the
fascist defeat80. As a result, the attitudes towards Veneto by that particular group may have been
somewhat neutral.
Today, although there is no standard writing system for Veneto, a local historian, José
Agustín Zago Bronca, focused on the historical aspects and the founding of Chipilo in the
following works: Breve Historia de la fundación de Chipilo/ Brief History of the Founding of
79
The language is most likely to survive if the mother is Chipileño. So the maintenance of the
Veneto language depends on the ethnicity of the mother and her L1.
80
As mentioned in Chapter 1, during World War II, Chipileños identified themselves as part of
the fascist regime and according to Savarino (2002/2006), Chipileño identity has weakened due
to the fascist defeat and the imaginary country that Mussolini represented at that time (298).
38
Chipilo (1982), written for the centennial celebration and described the main historical events in
Chipilo; Los Vénetos: raíces de un pueblo mexicano/ Venetians: The roots of a Mexican town
(2006); Cuah’tatarame de Chipiloc (2007). Another famous local author, Montagner Anguiano,
has written different short stories in Veneto with or without Spanish translations. One of his
famous works, Parlar par véneto, viver a Mésico/ Speak Veneto, live in Mexico (2005), focused
on the structural aspects of the language. Additionally, Casa de Cultura (1936), a venue opened
for weekly meetings, is often used for discussion of town events and the events occurring in
Italy, particularly in Segusino.
39
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
1. This thesis is driven by the interest in the social and individual factors-- particularly
the attitudes-- involved in the long-term sustainability of the Veneto language in Chipilo. For
this purpose, the direct approach81 is used. Data were collected during a 2 – month stay in
Chipilo in 2011. The materials for this study focus on the attitudes of Chipileños towards Veneto,
as well as the attitudes of out-group, (Mexicans), towards in-group, (Chipileños), and the
perceived attitudes of the latter group by the former group. Questionnaires, as well as interviews
were devised to determine the groups’ attitudes about bilingualism, the advantages of offering
Veneto classes in schools, and Chipileño identity. The results of this study can help to predict
the future of the Veneto language in Chipilo.
2. Participant eligibility and background
The goal of the pilot study was to become acquainted with the current situation in Chipilo,
specifically focusing on the relationship between monolingual Spanish speakers and Chipileños
in order to delve into the factors that promote language maintenance.82
A total of one hundred and eight people (see the table below) participated in the study:83
fifty-four Chipileños (twenty-seven men and twenty-seven women) and fifty-four Mexicans
(twenty-seven men and twenty-seven women) responded to the questionnaire, and fifteen
participants84 (nine Chipileño and 6 Mexican) from both groups also participated in the
81
See below
This study only analyzes ‘ethnically’ pure groups, i.e. people of the mixed background were
thus excluded from the study. See the section on future research (Chapter 5) for more details.
83
The total number of participants was 135. However, the 108 most revealing and explicit
answers were selected for the thesis.
84
Out of the fifteen participants, nine were Chipileño participants and six were Mexican. There
were other participants whom I also interviewed but who decided not to be recorded; therefore
82
40
sociolinguistic interview.85 The criteria for Chipileños to participate in the survey were that they
be over eighteen years old and reside in Chipilo; two participants who resided outside of Chipilo
were examined because of their tight work and family connections with Chipilo. The criteria for
Mexicans were slightly different. They had to be Spanish speakers, over the age of eighteen, and
have a close connection with Chipilo, either through work or personal contacts. Twenty out of
the fifty-four surveyed were Chipilo residents. For example, two participants (MP01FG2 and
MP08MG2) had been living in Chipilo for three years; four participants (MP01MG3, MP09FG3,
MP04FG3 and MP01MG3) had been living in Chipilo less than ten years; five participants
(MP03MG1, MP09FG1, MP04FG2 and MP07MG2) had been living in Chipilo less than twenty
years; and, two participants (MP02MG3 and MP04MG3) had been residing in Chipilo for over
twenty years.86 Three participants (MP04FG3, MP09FG1 and MP05FG2) were married to
Chipileño males, and two of the participants (MP05FG2 and MP09FG1) claimed to be active
bilinguals and spoke Veneto with their husbands. The male participant (MP08MG3) was half
Chipileño but reported to be Spanish monolingual. Interestingly, all the above participants came
from diverse areas of Mexico, such as, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Nuevo León, Guanajuato, Monterrey,
Puebla, Cholula, and Mexico City. The rest of the participants who did not reside in Chipilo had
established very close connections with Chipileños by either working with them or studying with
them in the Universities outside of Chipilo. Most lived in Cholula, Puebla or San Bernabé – the
closest areas to Chipilo. For example, eight participants (MP08FG1, MP06FG2, MP07MG1,
MP08MG1, MP09MG1, MP07MG2, MP06FG1 and MP07MG3) lived and worked in Puebla
they were not included.
85
In total, 21 interviews were gathered, however 6 interviews were not used due to the similar
responses and as a result, those participants were excluded from the study.
86
Because of the anonymity of the participants, the information about 5 participants cannot be
provided due to their occupation.
41
but all of them claimed to know Chipilo by studying with Chipileños and going to Chipilo often.
The inclusion of speakers from different backgrounds allowed the elicitation of language
attitudes from a wide range of participants.
3. Methods and Materials
All the data were gathered using the direct approach consisting of interviews and
questionnaires which sought to elicit responses dealing with language attitudes by asking direct
questions about their view on language and language preferences (Garrett, Coupland and
Williams, 2003:16). According to Knops and van Hout (1988), the above approaches prove
useful in the collection of opinions and perceptions of respondents rather than inferring the
communities’ attitudes from observed behaviors (cited in Garrett, Coupland and Williams, 2003).
The direct approach has been used in various studies (Gardner and Lambert 1972, Bourhis, Giles,
and 1973, Baker 1992, Gibbons and Ramirez 2004, Barnes 2009) to determine people’s attitudes.
a. Interviews
The sociolinguistic interviews sought to elicit social and language attitudes between
Mexicans and Chipileños in Chipilo. The interviews helped me to establish a rapport with the
community, as well as to familiarise myself with the current situation in Chipilo, such as daily
life, traditions, and historical aspects. Daily interaction with the locals in cafes, restaurants or
homes allowed for the establishment of strong ties with the participants by developing personal
associations with members and engaging in local affairs (Tagliamonte, 2006:20). As a result, I
was able to engage in community activities, and eventually change my role from an observer or
fieldworker to an insider or a participant-observer87. Both open- ended and closed-ended
87
The term insider first used by Labov (1972) and then by Milroy as Participant-observer (2003)
42
questions88 were used in the interviews as a means of getting to know the community better. All
the interviews ranged from approximately twenty minutes to an hour. Out of fifteen interviews,
two interviews were obtained with two participants at the same time, one interview included four
people, one interview included three people, and five interviews were conducted on a one-onone basis. The participants who were interviewed as a group, were carefully examined to avoid
discomfort or any type of inconvenience during the recording.89 The participants were either
family members or very close friends who shared the same interests and in fact, felt comfortable
talking in front of other participants.90 Yet, all the interviews were private and included only the
participant/s and the researcher.
The interviews were conducted mainly in the respondents’ homes or workplace to avoid
noise and to create a more-relaxed environment for the participants. The participants were
mostly recruited through ‘a friend of friend method’91 (Milroy and Gordon 2003) and sometimes,
I was accompanied by a mutual friend to an interview appointment.
to mean the same. This term identifies a researcher being ‘one of the locals’ by becoming
familiar with the culture and the speakers of the community. During my fieldwork in Chipilo, I
had both roles: 1) as an insider and 2) as an outsider or a researcher. Attending different
community events, eventually, allowed me to become ‘one of the locals’ as people were no
longer shy and timid in front me. As result, I was able to really experience their life and
traditions. However, during the interviews and while gathering the questionnaires, my position
was always neutral; in that case, I was a fieldworker and a researcher.
88
See Gibbons and Ramirez (2004) for more details.
89
According to Morgan (1997), focus groups help to generate a range of informants’ thoughts
and experiences prior to the individual interviews. Also, group interviews can serve as a
preliminary process to help ensure that the survey items capture all the information needed (cited
in Garrett, Coupland and Williams, 2003: 31).
90
Of the two group interviews, some of the interviewees were used but not al because they either
did not provide enough information or their opinion was too similar to another participant within
the group.
91
This approach is very useful when obtaining a large amount of spontaneous data. A researcher
finds a person who plays an intermediary role between the researcher and the participant. S/he
refers the researcher to people that eventually become the participants because the researcher
‘enters’ intro the relationship of the network by means of a ‘friend’ (Milroy, 1980: 48, cited in
Tagliamonte, 2003: 22)
43
Prior to asking questions specific to the study, general questions were posed regarding
the history, identity, and life in Chipilo to set a familiar tone for the participants.92
1. ¿Cómo ha cambiado Chipilo en los últimos 10- 20 años?
How has Chipilo changed in the last 10 -20 years?
2. ¿Y por qué piensa Usted que el véneto se ha conservado hasta hoy?
Why do you think the Veneto language has been maintained until today?
For the Mexican interviewees, the first questions were slightly different and primarily dealt with
the reasons for working and living in Chipilo, and their feelings about the community, as a
whole.
3. ¿Y por qué razones se mudó/ se mudaron para Chipilo?
Why did you move to Chipilo?
4. ¿Le gusta Chipilo?, ¿ Por qué?
Do you like Chipilo? Why so?
All the interviews typically included closed- questions about language usage, language attitudes,
attitudes between the two groups, linguistic vitality, customs, and traditions. Some sample
questions are provided below:
5. ¿Piensa Usted que el véneto podría desaparecer en Chipilo?93
Do you think the Veneto language could dissapear in Chipilo?94
6. ¿Qué lengua piensa Usted que sus hijos deberían aprender primero?
What language do you think your children should learn first?
92
Prior to each interview or questionnaire, each participant was given a consent form, which
stressed anonymity and confidentiality. I also made sure each participant understood the purpose
of the interview, that is, to get subjective data rather than objective written material found in the
literature.
93
This is question 21 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
94
This is question 36 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
44
As a result, these questions served as guides to avoid the social desirability bias that happens
when speakers of a less privileged class or a minority group hold negative feelings towards
another group but may not admit so to a researcher in order “not to look like bigots” (Garrett,
Coupland & Williams, 2003:28).
Even though some questions were directed at Chipileños most of the Mexican respondents were
eager to answer them.
b. Questionnaires:
Similar to the interviews, the questionnaires sought to elicit responses about attitudes and
were distributed to all one hundred and eight participants. The questions were exactly the same
for both groups; if the participants did not know how to answer a particular question, they were
told to leave the answers blank. The questionnaire was written in Spanish and assumed adequate
respondent literacy (Garrett, Coupland and Williams, 2003: 31) in both reading and
comprehending the material. If there were any issues in the questionnaire that were not clear to
the respondents, I paraphrased the question. The questionnaires were distributed to the
participants in person either by the researcher or a mutual friend. Most of the questionnaires
were filled out at the time they were distributed but some of them were left in the participants’
homes and were returned a day or two later. The majority of the questionnaires were filled out
by the respondents, but for the older generations, the researcher read the questions and wrote
down their answers. That allowed not only to clarify the questions, but also to get more detailed
responses.
The first section of the questionnaire asked for personal information: gender, age range,
education level, profession, and place of work. With respect to L1, they were asked to check
either Spanish or Veneto, and to answer questions related to how and where they acquired the
45
language.
The second section focused on the opinion of both groups about both, Spanish and Veneto.
7. ¿Por qué razones piensa Usted que es bueno saber hablar español?95
Why do you think it is good to speak Spanish?
8. ¿Por qué razones cree Usted que es bueno saber hablar el véneto?96
Why do you think it is good to speak Veneto?
9. ¿Qué opinión tiene Usted del chipileño que no habla bien el véneto?97
What opinion do you have of a Chipileño who cannot speak Veneto well?
10. ¿Qué opinión tiene Usted del chipileño que no habla bien el español?98
What opinion do you have of a Chipileño who cannot speak Spanish well?
The third section focused more specifically on the attitudes and behaviors. The first set of
questions was directed towards the attitudes between Mexicans and Chipileños, that is, outgroup and in-group respectively. The following sample questions concentrate on the perceptions
of both groups about each other.
11. ¿Cambia la actitud de los mexicanos cuando se encuentran con un
chipileño?99
Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a Chipileño?
12. ¿Los chipileños tienen los mismos derechos o a veces se sienten
95
This is question 15 in the questionnaire. See Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
This is question 16 in the questionnaire. See Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
97
This is question 18 in the questionnaire. See Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
98
This is question 17 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
99
This is question 29 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.130) for more details.
96
46
discriminados?100
Do Chipileños have the same rights or do they sometimes feel discriminated
against?
13. ¿Cómo es un chipileño?
What is a Chipileño like?
14. ¿Cómo es un mexicano?101
What is a Mexican like?
The second set of questions focused on the attitude of both groups towards the Veneto language
used in Chipilo. The respondents’ answers revealed the importance of the Veneto language, its
current status and vitality. Below are some questions employed:
15. ¿Piensa Usted que en la escuela se podría impartir clases de véneto?102
Do you think the Veneto language can be taught in schools?
16. ¿Cree Usted que la identidad chipileña sería distinta sin hablar el véneto?103
Do you think that Chipileño identity would be different without using the Veneto
language?
Most of the questions in the questionnaire were closed-ended which allowed the
researcher to accurately run quantitative analyzes. However, since the third category was the
main interest for this dissertation, most of the above sample questions also included and an
open-ended approach that allowed to gather the opinions of the group and to analyze them
100
This is question 31 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.130) for more details.
The questions 13 and 14 have not been written in the questionnaire; however, most of the
participants explained what a Chipileño/ a Mexican is like, when answering the questions 29-33
in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B for more details.
102
This is question 37 in the questionnaire. See Appendix B (p.131) for more details.
103
This is question 27 in the questionnaire. Refer to Appendix B (p.129) for more details.
101
47
qualitatively.
4. Data analysis (SPSS)
All the interviews were transcribed by me. The transcriptions were then carefully
examined and analyzed. The excerpts of the most explicit and descriptive responses were
used in the thesis. Data collected from the sociolinguistic interviews, as well as the
questionnaires were coded and analyzed using the SPSS statistics program. All the
participants were given a code in order to ensure anonymity. The participants were divided
into four groups: ethnicity, gender, age and education level, and their responses were
quantified according to these categories.104 There are two ethnic groups: Chipileños (C, n =
54) and Mexicans (M, n=54). The ethnic groups were divided into two genders: men (M,
n=27), and females (F, n=27). The gender groups were divided into three Age groups:
Generation 1, 18-34 (n=18), Generation 2, 35-54 (n=18), and Generation 3, 55+ (n=18). Also,
they were divided into three Education levels: Education level 1, High school (n=18),
Education level 2, College or Diploma Certificate105 (n=18), and Education level 3,
104
The responses were quantified based on ‘0-2’ range. All the “yes” answers were counted as
‘0’, “no” – ‘1’, “I do not know” – ‘2’. The participants were also grouped, according to the
social variables: gender, age, education level and ethnicity, and then, were assigned a number.
All the males (n=54) were assigned ‘1’, whereas the females were assigned ‘2’(n=54). When
looking at their age, the participants from Generation 1 (18-34) were assigned ‘1’(n=18), the
participants from Generation 2 (35-54) – ‘2’(n=18), and those from Generation 3 (55+) –
‘3’(n=18). When quantifying their responses according to their education level, the participants
with Education 1 (High School) were assigned ‘1’(n=18), those with Education 2 (College or
Diploma Certificate) – ‘2’(n=18), and the remaining ones with Education 3 (University) ‘3’(n=18). Finally, all the Chipileño participants were assigned ‘1’, and the Mexicans – ‘2’.
105
The participants chose between primaria/secundaria, preparatoria and estudios de grado.
Because Western Education is quite different, and does not include preparatoria, which in Latin
America is the last years of high school (Grade 11 and Grade 12), I will assign the participants to
Education level 2 those who have completed College or received a Diploma certificate. Those
who have obtained a University degree or have almost fulfilled the requirements (3 years or so)
48
University (n=18).
Table 1.0 provides a summary of participants.106 The same chart applies to both groups.
Generation 1
Generation 2
Generation 3
F
M
F
M
F
Education level 1 3
3
3
3
3
3
Education level 2 3
3
3
3
3
3
Education level 3 3
3
3
3
3
3
M
The results based on these variables are shown in the next chapter.
5. Research questions in the present study
Chipilo represents one of the very few cases of minority language maintenance. It is not only a
minority language but also an immigrant language that has been preserved for over a century,
and it is still widely used in a local context. MacKay (1982), Romani (1992) and Barnes (2009)
presented a linguistic study of Veneto, in which they analyzed the social and individual factors
that have contributed to its maintenance. Nonetheless, all of these studies looked only at the
perceptions of one group of speakers, that is Chipileños, and did not consider any other groups
in Mexico. This research project investigates the attitudes of both, in-group or Chipileños, and
out-group or Mexicans towards the language and the out-group attitudes towards the in-group. It
is divided into two parts: the first one analyzes the attitudes of Chipileños towards their own
language, Veneto. The second part analyzes the attitudes of monolingual Spanish speakers living
or working in the area towards Chipileños, as well as how Chipileños feel about the latter topic.
The project aims to gain a perspective of what influences language maintenance in Chipilo.
will be Group 3 – Education level 3.
106
See Appendix A for the list of the participants, according to gender, age and education levels.
49
The study seeks to answer the following two topics:
Topic 1:
The first topic, as mentioned above, focuses on the attitudes of Chipileños towards their own
language and its link to their identity. It seeks to investigate whether these attitudes vary
according to gender, age and education of the respondents. The following topics have been
selected to elicit responses that will potentially reveal the speakers’ attitude towards Veneto, and
the following two questions were used in the survey
1. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if Veneto
disappeared?
2. Can Veneto be taught in schools?
Hypothesis to question 1:
In terms of how Veneto is connected to Chipileño identity, previous research (MacKay
1990, Romani 1992, Barnes 2009) revealed a high rate of Veneto usage and most rated its
importance as high. According to my personal observation, most Chipileños do perceive Veneto
as a key element of their identity. Yet, the youngest generation (18-34) will be most likely to
provide the highest rates regarding the connection between Veneto and their identity. Analyzing
the younger participants based on their education level, two hypotheses may arise. On the one
hand, the participants with a higher education level, such as a University degree, are mainly
exposed to the Mexican mainstream culture through daily interactions in Spanish with the outgroup, exposure to media, and industry; the Spanish language is therefore used as the first
language to gain social mobility. In that case, using Veneto would not be practical because it did
not serve any of the above functions. On the other hand, Chipileños with a University degree
want to identify themselves as having Italian ancestry and that is why, the Veneto language is
50
used as an important indicator of their ethic background. The participants with a lower level of
education, such as High school, may hold the Veneto language as very important due to it being
the main medium of interaction in Chipilo. Most people with High school education work inside
the community as farmers and agricultural workers. Thus, the Veneto language is not only
prestigious but it is also functional in everyday use and so those participants will without doubt
have positive attitudes towards it.
Today, Chipilo is the only ‘colony’ that has maintained its language and has not been
assimilated by the out-group. Even though exogamous marriages do occur in Chipilo, parents107
still try to preserve the language, as it is one of the primary symbols that differentiate them from
the mainstream society. Veneto is interconnected with Chipileño identity, and therefore, the
majority of the participants will most likely respond positively.
Hypothesis to question 2:
The idea of incorporating the Veneto language in a school curriculum is very problematic
due to both the lack of a standard writing system and the very high proportion of Mexican
children in the relevant school system. Today, in Colegio Union the ratio of Chipileños to
Mexicans would be 1 to 5, so teaching Veneto in school is unlikely. However, the participants
from Generation 2 (35-54) and Generation 3 (55+), especially the males, may view the teaching
of Veneto as possible because they do not spend a lot of their time with their children or
grandchildren because of their work. Therefore, they may not be aware of the actual situation in
schools in Chipilo.
107
As mentioned earlier, the language is likely to survive if both parents are Chipileños or at the
least, the mother is.
51
Topic 2:
2. The second topic deals with the attitudes towards Chipileños that monolingual Spanish
speakers (who either reside or work in the community) experience, as well as what the
perceptions of Chipileños are regarding these attitudes. Similar to the first topic this section
seeks to investigate whether these attitudes vary according to the participants’ gender, age, and
education and added another variable, ethnicity. This section seeks to answer the following
questions:
3.
What are the attitudes towards Chipileños held by monolingual Spanish speakers who
either reside or work in the community? What are the perceived attitudes of the Chipileños
regarding the same question? Do the attitudes of both groups differ based on gender, age
and education?108
4.
Do the Chipileños feel/experience any discrimination by monolingual Spanish speakers?/
How do the Chipileños view that discrimination? Is it different according to gender,
age and education?109
Hypothesis to question 3:
There has not been any research investigating out-group attitudes towards Chipileños. However,
based on the observations during my stay in Chipilo, I devised the following hypothesis: The
younger generations of Mexicans who have a close contact with Chipileños will have positive
108
In Chapter 4 this question will be the following, “Does the attitude of Mexicans change when
they encounter a Chipileño?
109
In Chapter 4 this question refers to the question, “Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by
Mexicans?”
52
attitudes towards Chipileños, because these generations do not regard them as an extraordinary
group. However, Mexicans that work in Chipilo, especially those with Education level 1 (High
school), may hold negative attitudes because they might still feel the grief about ‘the
colonization of the land’ (see Chapter 1). Additionally, they may have negative attitudes because
they work for Chipileños, rather than with them. As a result, there are asymmetrical power
relations that make Mexicans be dependent on their wealth.
Similar to Mexicans, Chipileños from Generation 1 (18-34) may not experience any type
of tensions between Mexicans and them, because they have close contact with the out-group
through school, parties and other events. On the other hand, the older generations (55+),
particularly the females with Education level 1 (High school) may feel some tensions because of
past dissensions and the desire to be close-knit and restore the past values and traditions, which
in fact, will reflect on their attitudes towards the out-group.
Hypothesis to question 4:
In terms of discrimination, Chipileños have the same rights as Mexicans, because they
are de facto Mexicans. They speak fluent Spanish and so miscommunication between the two
groups is unlikely. Yet, due to the higher economic level of Chipileños, tensions and some
behavioral change towards Chipileños may occur, as mentioned above, there is asymmetry based
on the standard of life. It is predicted that the participants with lower levels of education (High
School) would experience more negative attitudes because they may be viewed as being closed
minded, and perceive the other group as an outsider.110
110
Mexicans may call/perceive Chipileños as immigrants or ‘the outsiders’ to their land. In
contrast, Chipileños may call/perceive the other group as ‘the outsiders’ to their in-group
community.
53
The main hypothesis in the study will be the following:
If Chipileños have positive attitudes towards their language and the community as a whole, but
perceive that Mexicans hold negative attitudes towards them, it is likely that Chipileños will
want to remain close knit and will be more attached to their own roots. As a result, the Veneto
language will likely be preserved.
The results for the above research questions will be shown in the following chapter.111
111
Although I have collected data that address a number of relevant questions for my study, it
was not possible to cover/analyze all of them because of the requirements for an MA thesis
(space limitations). However, I chose four questions that best demonstrate the attitudes of both
groups. The first two questions deal with the attitudes of the in-group towards the language and
the community. Even though this topic has been studied previously by Romani (1992) and
Barnes (2009), this research builds on the research and continues the work started thirty years
ago. Also, it is important to analyze the attitudes of the in-group to better understand the current
situation within the community. The attitudes of the out-group are definitely significant because
Chipilo is no longer an isolated community and the attitudes of the out-group do indeed play a
role in the life of the in-group. Thus, the correlation between the two topics will expand my/our
knowledge about Chipilo and will allow me to make a better hypothesis about the future of the
language.
54
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the earlier isolation and the relative homogeneity of Chipilo
strengthened the ties among its members and became the principal reasons for the long
sustainability of the Veneto language. This chapter will examine the current state of affairs,
building on the previous data, by analyzing the results obtained from interviews and
sociolinguistic surveys about the attitudes between Mexicans and Chipileños and Chipileños’
attitudes towards Veneto. The language specific data obtained aims to focus on issues of
language insecurity, language vitality and pride.112 For this purpose, social variables such as
respondents’ ethnicity, gender, age and education level are used, to gather different opinions and
gain perspectives about the relationship between the two groups and the possible outcomes to
the future of the language.
The chapter is organized as follows. The first section will discuss the participants’
opinions about general topics regarding Chipilo, its past and its current situation, as well as the
concept of Chipileño, past and present. Information about Mexicans’ entry to Chipilo will also
be provided to better understand the current picture of the community. The second section will
look at the attitudes of Chipileños towards the Veneto language using statistical data from the
112
Previous research, specifically that of Barnes’ (2009) showed very high rates of Veneto usage
in Chipilo. She used Bonferonni post hoc-tests to reveal if there were significant differences for
certain items, according to gender, age, and L1 variables. Her data revealed the following
results: Veneto was important for both genders: 6.56 for men and mean 6.89 for females (out of
7.0), and definitely played a significant role in their identity: males (mean 6.50) and females
(mean 6.81). Examining the age groups, the results were also very high: 18-30 (mean 6.62), 3150 (mean 6.70), 51-64 (mean 6.83) and 65+ (mean 6.75). Surprisingly, Chipileños also rated the
usage of Spanish in Chipilo very high: 18-30 (mean 5.33), 31-50 (mean 5.57), 51-64 (mean
7.00) and 65+ (mean 6.75) (see pp. 153-171 for more details)
55
written questionnaires and supported by qualitative data from the open-ended questions in the
recorded interviews. The following two topics will be analyzed: Veneto and its importance for
Chipileños, and Veneto as part of the Chipileño identity. The third section will analyze the
attitudes between the two established groups, Chipileños and Mexicans, again using statistical
data and supporting it qualitatively with the respondents’ answers to the open ended questions.
The following topics will be discussed: the attitudes between both groups during their initial
encounters, as well as the possible discrimination that may exist in Chipilo.
I.
Chipilo, its past and its current situation
Chapter 1 provided a historical overview of Chipilo, however, the literature did not reflect any of
the feelings of the actual members of the community who may have different opinions regarding
the subject. As mentioned earlier a few questions dealing with attitudes were posed to the
interviewees at the beginning of the interview, prior to the discussion section. Both ethnic
groups were asked about the same topics, however the questions were slightly different. For
Chipileños, two of the principal questions concerned the historical and social change of Chipilo,
as well as Chipileño identity. The following comments respond to the questions below and
represent participants’ thoughts about Chipilo’s history:
1. ¿Ha cambiado Chipilo en los últimos 10-20 años? ¿Cómo ha cambiado?
Has Chipilo changed within the last 10-20 years? How has it changed?
The following two excerpts (1a) and (1b), state that Chipilo has definitely changed for the better.
1a. CP08MG3: Sí, ha cambiado muchísimo, como todos los lugares del mundo; van
56
cambiando, van progresando, van mejorando. Sí, ha cambiado Chipilo (…) Se vive
mejor, tenemos más acceso a escuelas, la vida en sí es mucho mejor actualmente que 50
años atrás.113
1b. CP09MG3: Había una evolución en el tipo cultural. La gente estudia más; hace 40
años eran muy pocos los que estudiaban secundaria y menos los que estudiaban
preparatoria y Universidad. Pero actualmente ya hay muchos ejercidos de carreras
universitarias y sobre todo hay muchos que están trabajando en centros de investigación
y todo. Entonces, a nivel cultural el-el cambio ha sido muy
favorable. 114
2. ¿Ha cambiado la identidad de los chipileños a través de los últimos años?
Has Chipileño identity changed in the past few years?
In the following 3 excerpts (2a), (2b) and (2c), participants comment that Chipilo’s identity has
definitely changed with the ‘entry’ of Mexicans. Such continuous change may lead not only to a
mezcla racial but also to the loss of the ‘pure’ Italian identity.
2a. CP08MG1: He visto cambios radicales. Uno de los primeros, creo que cada vez
estamos más abiertos a la mezcla racial. Es sólo lo que percibo, lo que se nota, eh. Dos,
113
CP08MG3: Yes, it has changed a lot, like all the places in the world that are constantly
changing, and improving. Yes, Chipilo has changed. … We have a better a life, we have more
access to schools, and life in general is way better today than it was 50 years ago.
(my translation).
114
There was a cultural evolution. Today people study more; 40 years ago there were very few
people who attended secondary school and even fewer who had any postsecondary education.
But today, there are many University graduates and particularly, there are many people that work
in Research centers. So, at the cultural level the change was very favourable (my translation).
57
es negativa. También he visto que Chipilo ha perdido mucho de su unidad. Antes era más
unido. Has de cuenta que Chipilo antes era más dado a cooperar, para ayudar a los demás
chipileños y ahora ya no tanto. 115
2b. CP07MG2: Para muchos chipileños que está bien [irse a fiestas afuera de Chipilo]
porque son reyes de la fiesta, no? Y se van a sentir alagados, pero estás perdiendo tu raza,
estás perdiendo tu-tu-tu identidad, estás perdiendo lo que eres y lo que traes
representado, desde no sé, 2000 años atrás. 116
2c. CP09MG3: Ahora son [los chipileños] más mezclados que los puros.
O: Y eso afecta el véneto?
CP09MG3: Sí-sí, por supuesto. No solamente eso, eh … El habla no depende de la raza.
Depende del contacto de que tenía un muchacho en la casa o en la escuela, en el mismo
pueblo, de los grupos de amigos, con quien se junta. Entonces, sí afecta en la medida en
que la mamá no es chipileña; se le dificulta más el aprendizaje. Y hay que aprenderlo del
papá, que por sí tiene muy poco contacto, con los niños o tiene que aprenderlo de los
amigos y de los compañeros de la escuela, del ambiente en general, de las conversaciones
familiares, o conversaciones entre los amigos, etc. En ese sentido, se puede decir que la
115
I have seen many radical changes. One of the principal ones, I believe, is that every time we
are more and more open to racial mixture. It is only what I perceive – what I can see, eh? Second,
it is negative. I have also seen that Chipilo has lost much of its unity. Take for example that
before, Chipilo was more willing to cooperate, to help other Chipileños, and today not so much
(my translation).
116
For many Chipileños it is okay to go [to parties outside of Chipilo], because they are the
kings of the party, right. And they will feel flattered, but you are losing your race, you are losing
your identity, you are losing who you are and what you have represented, I do not know, for
2000 years (my translation).
58
mezcla racial ha influido en un una-un deterioro, la corrupción, y si no suena bonito, le
ponemos transformación del idioma. 117
The interviews with Mexicans elicited information about their reasons for living or working in
Chipilo, as well as the first impressions they had about Chipilo and Chipileños.
1. ¿Por qué se mudaron para Chipilo?
Why did you move to Chipilo?
The following two participants (1a) and (1b) claim that Chipilo is a very quiet and developed
town.
1a. MP09MG2: Bueno, una de las razones principales es que es un lugar tranquilo, pues,
desarrollado en muchas partes, es como si – es una parte de la cuidad pero vives como si
estuvieras en el campo. 118
1b. MP04FG2: Yo, principalmente por seguridad. Es todavía una de las zonas más
seguras de la ciudad de Puebla, y tengo X hijos, entonces pensando en ellos, preferí vivir
acá porque es más seguro. 119
117
CP09MG3: Today, they [Chipileños] are more mixed.
O: And does this influence the Veneto language?
CP09MG3: Yes-yes, definitely, but that is not all. Language is not dependent on race, but rather
on the contact that a child had at home or in school, in his town, with a group of friends, with
whom s/he gets together. Then, it definitely affects it if his/her mother is not Chipileño; learning
for him/her is challenging. And so s/he has to learn it from the father who already has little
contact with him/her, or s/he has to learn it from other children, friends or classmates – from his
or her surroundings, in general, from familiar conversations with friends etc. In this sense, we
can say that the racial mixture has impaired or corrupted or if it does not sound good, we can say
in a transformation of the language (my translation).
118
Well, one of the most important reasons is that Chipilo is a quiet place, developed in many
areas. It is like a part of the city but you live as if you were living in the countryside (my
translation).
119
Myself, mainly because of safety issues. It is still one of the safest zones of Puebla; and
because I have X number of children, so thinking about them, I decided to live here because it is
the safest place (my translation).
59
2. ¿Cómo fue su primera impresión de Chipilo?
What was your first impression of Chipilo?
In 2 (a) and 2 (b) the participants claim that at first glance, Chipileños seem to be very selective
people but after frequent interactions with them, they appear to be like everybody else.
2a. MP08MG2: Mira es exactamente igual que cualquier otro lado, la única diferencia es
que te sientes extraño en ver a mucho güero, o sea como un tipo europeo, e incluso la
imagen, la primera impresión que me dio eran – que eran muy especiales, parece ser que
no, de hecho los he tratado y son como cualquiera. 120
2b. MP04FG2: Son (sic) la gente muy selectiva, pero nunca hubo discriminación.121
The following participant (2c) claims that Chipilo has changed a lot in past years and his
observation is very similar to that of Chipileños, mentioned above:
2c. MP09MG3: Si hablamos de los últimos 20 años una transformación grandísima, no
nada más en la forma de vivir, sino en la forma de hablar, en la forma de relacionarse con
los habitantes que no éramos de Chipilo, porque era población muy cerrada, era muy
propia de aquí, vienes y si vienes, tienes que ser de Chipilo, familiar o si no - eres mal
visto, mal recibido o muchas otras formas, no. Entonces, sí hubo una apertura muy
grande en Chipilo desde 20 años a la fecha, 25 años, - en forma de vida, en forma- en
costumbres. Los muchachos y las muchachas dieron más para estudiar, antes crecían al
lado de los papás para – para seguir con el oficio de las vacas y del campo y no hacer otra
120
Look, it is exactly the same as any other place. The only difference is that at first you feel
weird to see so many fair-skinned people, like a European type. Also, the first impression I got
was that they were very special; it appears not to be true. Actually, I have interacted with them
and they are the same as everybody else (my translation).
121
Yes, they are very selective people, but there was never discrimination (my translation).
60
cosa. Ahorita hay muchas personas que estudian, hay muchas personas que han salido de
aquí de Chipilo, personas que van, estudian, regresan y tienen otra mentalidad… 122
According to the above observations, Chipilo has significantly changed in both ways. On the one
hand, the younger generations have become more educated as most of them leave Chipilo to study.
On the other hand, their values have changed, which in the past were centered on the family; today
they live differently. In addition, the inevitable contact with the out-group may lead to many
outcomes – most importantly, the loss of identity, which in turn may lead to the loss of Veneto.
The following section presents quantitative data selected from questionnaires in an attempt to get
a better picture of the current situation in Chipilo and it will be further supported qualitatively with
participants’ opinions.
II. This section describes the attitudes of only Chipileño respondents towards the Veneto
language. Two questions will be considered:
1. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if the Veneto
language were to disappear?123
2. Can Veneto be taught in schools in Chipilo?124
The results will be analyzed according to the respondents’ gender, age, and education.
122
If we talk about the last 20 years a huge transformation has occurred, and not only in the way
of life but also in the way of speaking, in the way of interacting with other residents who were
not from Chipilo, because before, the community was very closed, close to its roots, and if you
came to Chipilo, you had to be from here, or be a relative; otherwise, you were frowned upon,
unwelcome and etc. So, there was a big ‘opening’ from 20-25 years up to today: in the way of
life, in the way – in customs. The younger generations have given more importance to education.
Before they used to grow up close to their parents to continue with livestock and farming.
Today, there are more people who study, more people who have left Chipilo – people who live,
study, come back and have a different mentality (my translation).
123
Question 27 in the questionnaire. See Appendix 2.
124
Question 37 in the questionnaire. See Appendix 2.
61
The first question seeks to find out if there is any connection between Veneto and identity.125
The majority of the respondents answered positively to the above question: 73.6 %, 39 out of a
total 53 participants. 126 Yet, looking at the distribution across individual social variables we
note some important distinctions.
Table 5 shows the responses according to gender.
Table 5. Would the Chipileño identity become identical
to the Mexican one if Veneto disappeared?
Gender
Male
Female
Total
No
7
5
12
26.9%
18.5%
22.6%
Yes
19
20
39
73.1%
74.1%
73.6%
I do not know
0
2
2
.0%
7.4%
3.8%
Total
26
27
53
100%
100%
100%
Looking at Table 5, out of a total of 53 Chipileños, 19 (73.1 %) males and 20 (74.1%)
females answered positively, compared to only 7 (26.9%) males and 5 (18.5%) females who
answered negatively. The following excerpt (1) supports the fact that the traditions and the
community as a whole will not be the same without Veneto.
(1) CP07FG3: Sí, porque mucho tiene que ver con las tradiciones que pueden
125
If participants give a negative response, it is interpreted to mean that the Chipileño identity
could exist without the language and so that the identity will be stable. In contrast, if they answer
positively, it means that the Veneto language is an important element of being Chipileño and if it
were lost, the identity would change to a ‘Mexican’ one.
126
One of the participants left the question blank
62
perderse.127
Table 6 shows the participants responses according to age.
Table 6. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to
the Mexican one if Veneto disappeared?
Participant age
18-34
35-54
55+
Total
No
0
5
7
12
.0%
27.8%
41.2%
22.6%
Yes
17
12
10
39
94.4%
66.7%
58.8%
73.6%
I do
1
1
0
2
not
5.6%
5.6%
.0%
3.8%
know
Total
18
18
17
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
Looking at Table 6, we see that for the most part all three age groups of Chipileños
answered positively: almost all participants from Generation 1 (18-34): 17 (94.4%), 12
participants from Generation 2 (35-54) (66.7%), and 10 participants from Generation 3
(55+)(58.8%).
The following excerpt states Chipileño identity would definitely change because Veneto is more
than just a language but rather a medium that serves a means of communication among
Chipileños.
(2) CP07MG1: Sí, sería distinta porque el véneto no es sólo una lengua, sino es una
forma de ser entonces, nosotros, la gente pensamos en véneto. Entonces, eso refleja la
actitud. Somos más abiertos a ciertos temas, somos más cerrados a otros. No digo que
127
Yes, because it has a lot to do with the traditions, which can be lost (my translation).
63
esté mal o que esté bien, sino que es diferente la forma de pensar, eh. Por ejemplo, no sé,
podemos hablar de-de las partes del cuerpo, por ejemplo, sin pena, no, y esas son ciertas
cosas en véneto que –que sí se hablan y en español es un poco más tabú o eso, no – no se
habla. Por eso, creo que puede cambiar la forma de ser de los chipileños y afecta a la
identidad. 128
Table 7 shows the participants´ responses according to education level.
Table 7. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the
Mexican one if Veneto disappeared?
Participant education
High
College or
school
Certificate University
Total
No
2
6
4
12
11.1%
33.3%
23.5%
22.6%
Yes
16
10
13
39
88.9%
55.6%
76.5%
73.6%
I do not
0
2
0
2
know
.0%
11.1%
.0%
3.8%
Total
18
18
17
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
Looking at Table 7, the Chipileños from all three Education levels predominantly
answered positively: 16 participants (88.9 %) with Education level 1 (High school), 10
participants (55.6%) with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) and 13 participants
(76.5%) with
128
Yes, it would be different, because Veneto is not just a language, but it is a way of being, so
then, we think in Veneto. That reflects our attitude. We are more open to certain topics and more
closed to others. I am not saying it is bad or good, but rather it is a different way of thinking, eh.
For example, I don´t know, we can talk about body parts, for example, without any
embarrassment, no? And those are certain things that one can say in Veneto. On the contrary, in
Spanish, it is more taboo or something like that, no – that it is not spoken out loud. That is why, I
feel that being Chipileño can change, so that affects one’s identity (my translation).
64
Education level 3 (University).
In the following excerpt (3) a participant asserts that Veneto is one of the principal
elements of the community that distinguishes it from the others.
(3) CP09FG2: Sí, el véneto es la conexión más palpable de nuestras raíces y sin
él, Chipilo sería un pueblo ‘X’. 129
The following table analyzes two variables simultaneously: gender and age. All fiftyfour Chipileño participants are taken consideration, and are divided into two gender groups and
three age categories: which totals 9 participants per cell. The results are provided below.
129
Yes, Veneto is the most palpable connection to our roots and without it, Chipilo would be a
random town (my translation).
65
Table 8. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if Veneto
disappeared?
Gender
Male
No
Yes
Total
Female
No
Yes
I do not know
Total
Total
No
Yes
I do not know
Total
Participant age
18-34
35-54
0
2
.0%
22.2%
9
7
100%
77.8%
9
9
34.6%
34.6%
0
3
.0%
33.3%
8
5
88.9%
55.6%
1
1
11.1%
11.1%
9
9
100%
100%
0
5
.0%
9.4%
17
12
94.4%
66.7%
1
1
5.6%
5.6%
18
18
100%
100%
55+
5
62.5%
3
37.5%
8
100%
2
22.2%
7
77.8%
0
.0%
9
100%%
7
13.2%
10
58.8%
0
.0%
17
100%
Total
7
26.9%
19
73.1%
26
100.0%
5
18.5%
20
74.1%
2
7.4%
27
100.0%
12
22.6%
39
73.6%
2
3.8%
53
100%
Looking at the gender groups separately, the majority of Chipileño males from
Generation 1 (18-34) and from Generation 2 (35-54) answered positively: all 9 participants
(100%) and 7 participants (77.8 %), respectively. Yet, 5 (62.5%) participants from Generation 3
(55+) answered negatively compared to only 3 (37.5%) out of 9 participants who answered
positively. Looking at the females, the Chipileños from all three-age groups answered for the most
part positively: 8 (88.9%) participants from Generation 1 (18-34), 5 (55.6%) participants from
Generation 2 (35-54) and 7 (77.8%) participants from Generation 3 (55+), respectively.
66
The following two excerpts (4) and (5) discuss the Chipileño identity without Veneto. A
Chipileña woman states that if Veneto did not exist, Chipileños would eventually become
Mexicans. A Chipileño male in (5) argues that Chipileños would not be able to identify
themselves as Chipileños without speaking Veneto.
(4) CP05FG3: Sí, porque nos integraríamos a hablar el español y poco a poco los
modos, costumbres se adaptarían a las nuevas formas.130
(5) CP02MG1: Sí, porque creo que ya no podríamos identificarnos bien como
chipileños.131
The last table of the question regarding the Chipileño identity analyzes two variables
simultaneously: gender and education levels. Fifty-four participants, who are divided into two
gender groups and three Education level categories, which totals nine participants per cell. The
results are below:
130
Yes, because we would assimilate to speaking Spanish and gradually, our ways, customs
would adapt to new ways (my translation).
131
Yes, because I think, we would not be able to identify ourselves well as Chipileños (my
translation).
67
Table 9. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if Veneto
disappeared?
Participant education
High
College or
Gender
school
Certificate
University
Total
Male
No
2
4
1
7
22.2%
44.4%
12.5%
26.9%
Yes
7
5
7
19
77.8%
55.6%
87.5%
73.1%
Total
9
9
8
26
100%
100%
100%
100.0%
Female
No
0
2
3
5
.0%
22.2%
33.3%
18.5%
Yes
9
5
6
20
100%
55.6%
66.7%
74.1%
I do not know
0
2
0
2
.0%
22.2%
.0%
7.4%
Total
9
9
9
27
100%
100%
100%
100.0%
Total
No
2
6
4
12
11.1%
33.3%
23.5%
22.6%
Yes
16
10
13
39
88.9%
55.6%
76.5%
73.6%
I do not know
0
2
0
2
.0%
11.1%
.0%
3.8%
Total
18
18
17
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
Analyzing the gender groups separately, the male Chipileños from all 3 Education levels
chiefly answered positively: 7 (77.8%) participants with Education level 1 (High school), 5
(55.6%) participants with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate), and 7 (87.5%)
participants with Education level 3 (University). Looking at the females, similar to Chipileño
males, the majority of Chipileño women from all three Education levels answered positively: all
9 participants (100%) with Education level 1 (High school), 5 (55.6%) participants with
Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) and 6 participants (66.7%) with Education
68
level 3 (University).
The following responses reflect the above results. The Chipileño male, whose example is
used below, claims that Veneto is not just a language but rather a way of life. He uses a
metaphor to stress his opinion.
(6) CP07MG2: Definitivamente sí, porque no es sólo hablar el véneto, es pensar en
véneto y ver el mundo a través del véneto. No te expresas igual en español que en
véneto. El véneto tiene su propia manera de ver el mundo. El español tiene su propia
manera de ver el mundo. Entonces, no es lo mismo. Chipilo perdería 80% de su
identidad. Es como una vaca que no da leche – sólo la tienes porque es vaca y ya – por
no matarla. El véneto – el véneto, la lengua, es el 80% de la identidad chipileña. La
manera de ver el mundo a través el véneto. Si se pierde esa manera, entonces vas a ser un
mexicano. 132
The women in the following two excerpts (7) and (8) claim that the Chipileño identity
would change if Veneto disappeared. It is interesting to note that the first excerpt (7) is very
similar to the above, which states that if there were no Veneto language, everybody would be the
same, that is, Mexicans. The second participant in (8) was surprised when I asked her the
question and did not know how to react. For her, the idea of not using the Veneto language
sounded shocking.
132
Definitely yes, because it is not only to speak Veneto, it is to think in Veneto and to see the
world through Veneto. You do not express yourself in Spanish as you do in Veneto. Veneto has
its own way of seeing the world. So does Spanish and it is not the same. Chipilo would lose 80%
of its identity. It is like a cow that does not give milk – you have it because it is a cow and that is
it – just because you do not want to kill it. Veneto, the language makes up 80% of the Chipileño
identity. It is the way to see the world through Veneto. If that way is lost, you will be a Mexican
(my translation).
69
(7)CP01FG2: Creo que sí, seríamos todos iguales; lo que destaca aquí es el idioma. 133
(8) CP03FG3: No sé – sí ¿por qué lo dejan?134
2.
The second question, which was directed at only Chipileño respondents, deals with the
possibility of teaching Veneto in schools. Three variables will be taken into consideration:
gender, age and education.
The majority of the respondents answered positively: 59.3 %, 32 out of a total 54
participants, yet, the distribution according to gender, age and education is quite surprising. The
results are below.
Table 10 shows the participants´ responses based on gender.
Table 10. Can the Veneto language be taught in
schools?
Gender
Male
Female
Total
No
9
13
22
33.3%
48.1%
40.7%
Yes
18
14
32
66.7%
51.9%
59.3%
Total
27
27
54
100%
100%
100%
Table 10 clearly shows the preference of males to incorporate the Veneto language into
the school curriculum. However, there is very little discrepancy between the positive and
negative answers among the Chipileño females: of the 27 females, 13 females (48.1%) answered
133
Yes, I believe we would be all the same; what stands out here [in Chipilo] is the language
(my translation)
134
I do not know –yes, why would they abandon it [speaking Veneto]? (my translation).
70
negatively compared to 14 (51.9 %) who answered positively.
The following except (9) describes that teaching Veneto is a good idea, but the classes
should be optional.
(9) CP08MG2: Sí, se podría, tendrían que ser opcionales, pero estaría bien que quería
(sic) aprender nuestro idioma.135
Table 11 shows the participants’ responses, according to the age groups.
Table 11. Can the Veneto language be taught in schools?
Participant age
18-34
35-54
55+
Total
No
10
5
7
22
55.6%
27.8%
38.9%
40.7%
Yes
8
13
11
32
44.4%
72.2%
61.1%
59.3%
Total
18
18
18
54
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table 11 shows that participants of Generation 2 (35-54) and Generation 3(55+)
answered for the most part positively: 13 participants (72.2%), and 11 participants (61.1%)
respectively. However, 10 (55.6 %) Chipileño participants from Generation 1 (18-34) answered
negatively, whereas only 8 participants (44.4%) answered positively.
In the excerpt (10) and (11), the two participants stress the fact that incorporating Veneto classes
would be hard due to the heterogeneity of the student population and the lack of a written system
for the language.
135
Yes, it could be done, but they [the clases] would have to be optional. However, it would be
great if one wanted to learn our language (my translation).
71
(10) CP09MG3: Yo siempre aconsejo que vayamos a las escuelas a ver la lista de los
alumnos… y ahí verán cuánta mezcla ha sido en Chipilo…136
(11) CP01MG1: No, x q (sic) en la escuela no va gente solo de Chipilo. 137
Table 12 shows the participants’ responses, according to their education.
Table 12. Can the Veneto language be taught in schools?
Participant education
College or
High school Certificate University
Total
No
Yes
Total
9
50%
9
50%
18
100%
6
33.3%
12
66.7%
18
100%
7
38.9%
11
61.1%
18
100%
22
40.7%
32
59.3%
54
100%
Table 12 shows that the Chipileños with both Education level 2 (College or Diploma
Certificate) and Education level 3 (University) predominantly responded positively: 12
participants (66.7%) with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) and 11 participants
(61.1%) with Education level 3 (University). The number of positive and negative responses
obtained from participants with Education level 1 (High school) is exactly the same: 9 (50%).
A Chipileño in (12) stresses the fact that at first, there should be a written standard of
Veneto, which constitutes a principal part of a language.
(12) CP03MG1: Aún no asta (sic) que alla (sic) gramática en libros como
aprender español. 138
136
I always recommend that we go to the schools to see the lists of the students and you will see
how much mixture there has been in Chipilo (my translation).
137
No, because not only people from Chipilo go to schools (my translation)
138
Not until there is grammar written in books like that of Spanish (my translation).
72
The next table combines two variables: age and gender. Fifty-four participants are taken
into consideration, who are divided into two gender groups and three age categories, which total
nine participants in each cell. The results are shown below.
Table 13. Can the Veneto language be taught in schools?
Gender
Male
No
Yes
Total
Female
No
Yes
Total
Total
No
Yes
Total
Participant age
18-34
35-54
55+
5
2
2
Total
9
55.6%
4
44.4%
9
100%
5
55.6%
4
44.4%
9
100%
10
22.2%
7
77.7%
9
100%
3
33.6%
6
66.7%
9
100%
5
22.2%
7
77.7%
9
100%
5
55.6%
4
44.4%
9
100%
7
33.3%
18
66.7%
27
100%
13
48.1%
14
51.9%
27
100%
22
55.6%
8
44.4%
18
100%
27.8%
13
72.2%
18
100%
38.9%
11
61.1%
18
100%
40.7%
32
59.3%
54
100%
Looking at gender groups separately, the Chipileño males from both Generation 2 (3554) and Generation 3 (55+) gave the same number of positive and negative answers: 7 (77.7%)
of each group answered positively, whereas only 2 (22.2%) answered negatively. However, only
4 (44.4 %) participants from Generation 1 (18-34) answered positively. When examining the
females, only the participants of Generation 2 (35-54) showed the predominance of positive
answers: 6 (66.7%). On the other hand, similar to the males from Generation 1 (18-34), there is a
73
little discrepancy in the responses of both Generation 1 (18-34) and Generation 3 (55+) who
answered equally: 5 (55.6%) participants who answered negatively, and 4 (44.4%) participants
who answered positively, respectively.
A female participant from Generation 1 (18-34) claimed that the incorporation of Veneto
in the school curriculum is unlikely due to the large number of non-Veneto speaking children.
(13) CP08FG1: No, al menos que fuera una escuela solo para los chipileños
porque para los niños que no son chipileños se verían obligados a aprender véneto
lo cual sería muy difícil. 139
Table 14 analyzes two variables simultaneously: gender and education level. Fifty-four
participants, who are divided into two gender groups and three education level categories for a
total of nine participants per cell. The results are below:
Table 14. Can the Veneto language be taught in schools?
Participant education
High
College or
Gender
school
Certificate University
Male
No
5
4
0
55.6%
44.4%
.0%
Yes
4
5
9
44.4%
55.6%
100%
Total
9
9
9
100%
100%
100%
Female
No
4
2
7
44.4%
22.2%
77.8%
Yes
5
7
2
55.6%
77.8%
22.2%
Total
9
9
9
100%
100%
100%
139
Total
9
33.3%
18
66.7%
27
100%
13
48.1%
14
51.9%
27
100%
No, only if it were a school solely for Chipileños because non-Chipileño children will be
forced to study Veneto, which would be very difficult for them (my translation).
74
Total
No
Yes
Total
9
50.0%
9
50.0%
18
100%
6
33.3%
12
66.7%
18
100%
7
38.9%
11
61.1%
18
100%
22
40.7%
32
59.3%
54
100%
Looking at the gender groups individually, all 9 (100%) males with Education level 3
(University) answered positively. The number of responses given by the males with Education
level 1 (High school) and Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) is exactly reversed:
5 (55.6%) participants with Education level 1 (High school) answered negatively and 4 (44.4%)
participants who answered positively, whereas 4 (44.4%) participants with Education level 1
(High school) answered negatively compared to 5 (55.6%) participants who answered positively.
In contrast, 7 (77.8%) females with Education level 3 (University) responded negatively,
whereas 7 (77.8%) females with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) answered
positively. 5 (55.6%) females with Education level 1 (High school) answered positively.
The following participant suggests that the opinion of the community plays a crucial role
and the teaching of Veneto depends mostly on their opinion.
(14) CP09MG3: Pues yo pienso que la opinión de comunidad tiene mucho peso y
alguna solución habría que buscar, el que no quiera la clase de dialecto pues que
se vaya al patio a jugar básquetbol, pero es futurible, todavía no se ha puesto, esoes-eso es el problema. 140
III. This section of the Chapter discusses the attitudes of the out-group, Mexicans, towards the
140
Well, I think that the community opinion is very important and one should look for some
kind of solution. Whoever does not want a dialect [Veneto] class, can go to play basketball in the
schoolyard, but it is feasible: that has not been done yet. That is the problem (my translation).
75
in-group, as well as the perceived attitudes of Chipileños. The following two questions will
address the topics of attitudes and discrimination.
1. ¿Cambia la actitud de los mexicanos cuando se encuentran con un chipileño?
Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a Chipileño?141
2. ¿Los chipileños tienen los mismos derechos o a veces se sienten discriminados?142
Do Chipileños have the same rights or sometimes they feel discriminated
against?143
The above questions are directed at both groups and they are based on participants’ ethnicity,
gender, age and education level. The results are provided below.
The first question discusses the attitude of Mexican towards Chipileños. In general, the
majority of Chipileños answered positively: 74.1%, 40 participants out of 54; what it means is
that Chipileños do feel some sort of tensions and behaviour change when they are surrounded by
Mexicans. The majority of Mexicans, on the other hand, answered negatively: 57.4%, 31
participants out of 54. It is remarkable to note that 19 Mexican participants answered positively
(35.2%), which means that they are conscious about their reactions towards Chipileños. I will
now examine the groups individually based on their ethnicity, gender, age, and education.
Table 15 shows the participants’ responses according to their ethnicity and gender.
Table 15. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a
Chipileño?
Participant
Participant gender
Total
Ethnicity
Male
Female
Chipileños
'No’
7
5
12
141
Question 29 in the questionnaire. See Appendix 2.
De facto, all Chipileños are Mexicans so the question asks whether in practice it might be
different, that is, Chipileños may not have the same rights at Mexicans.
143
Question 31 in the questionnaire. See Appendix 2.
142
76
'Yes’
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not know'
Total
25.9%
20
74.1%
0
0.0%
27
100%
14
51.9%
10
37%
3
5.6%
27
100%
21
38.9%
30
55.6%
3
5.6%
54
50.0%
18.5%
20
74.1%
2
7.4%
27
100%
17
63.0%
9
33.3%
1
5.6%
27
100%
22
40.7%
29
53.7%
3
5.6%
54
50.0%
22.2%
40
74.1%
2
3.7%
54
100%
31
57.4%
19
35.2%
4
7.4%
54
100%
43
39.8%
59
54.6%
6
5.6%
108
100%
Looking at Table 15, 59 participants (54.6 %) responded positively: 30 (55.6%) of the
total number of males and 29 (53.7%) of the total number of females.
The table clearly indicates that Mexicans change their attitude towards Chipileños at first
encounter, according to the Chipileño respondents: 40 (74.1%) people out of 54 responded
positively, whereas only 12 (22.2%) answered negatively. The Mexicans, on the other hand,
predominantly answered negatively to the above question: 31 (57.4%) people out of 54
compared to 19 (35.2%) of those who responded positively. When looking at the answers
according to the participant’s gender and ethnicity, the results are significant: both genders of
Chipileño ethnicity answered mainly positively; moreover, the amount is the same: 20 males and
20 females, which total 74.1% of each group, out of the possible 27 respondents. The number of
77
negative answers given by them is quite low: only 7 males (25.9%) and 5 females (18.5%).
Looking at the Mexicans, 14 males (51.9%) and 17 females (63.0%) answered negatively to the
question, however, there were 10 men (37.0%) and 9 women (33.3%) who answered positively.
One of the Chipileño male participants responded that the negative attitudes of Mexicans
towards Chipileños occur due to historical tensions and a struggle for the land:
(15) CP08MG1: Entre pueblitos y Chipilo no somos bien vistos, eso lo sé muy
bien, porque historicamente ha sucedido de que ellos nos ven como las personas
que los ponen a trabajar a ellos.144
However, a Mexican male suggests that the negative attitudes between the two groups
occur because of the Chipileño way of speaking.
(16) MP04FG2: No, realmente la gente de fuera, no los quiere mucho. El – el – el
chipileño tiene una forma de hablar que es muy gritona, muy escandalosa, muy
fuerte, no. Entonces, a la gente de fuera no les gusta mucho, creen que es la gente
muy peleonera, no-no-no tiene mucha aceptación con la gente fuera de Chipilo.
145
Table 16 shows the participants’ responses according to ethnicity and age.
144
Among the speakers of the near-by villages, we [Chipileños] are not well liked; I know it
well, because historically speaking, they perceive us as people who make them work (my
translation).
145
No, in reality the people outside of the community are not very fond of them. A Chipileño
has a particular tone of voice or way of speaking, which is very loud, and very strong. So, people
from the outside do not really like it; they think Chipileños love to fight, so they are not well
accepted by outsiders (my translation)
78
Table 16. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a Chipileño?
Participant
Participant age
Total
Ethnicity
18-34
35-54
55+
2
6
4
12
'No’
11.1%
33.3%
22.2%
22.2%
15
11
14
40
'Yes’
83.3%
61.1%
77.8%
74.1%
Chipileños
1
1
0
2
' I do not know'
5.6%
5.6%
0.0%
3.7%
18
18
18
54
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
8
9
14
31
'No’
44.8%
50.0%
77.8%
57.4%
7
8
4
19
'Yes’
38.9%
44.4%
22.2%
35.2%
Mexicans
3
1
0
4
' I do not know'
16.7%
5.6%
0.0%
7.4%
18
18
18
54
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
10
15
18
43
'No’
27.8%
41.7%
50%
39.8%
22
19
18
59
'Yes’
61.1%
52.8%
50%
54.6%
Total
4
2
0
6
' I do not know'
11.1%
5.6%
0.0%
5.6%
36
36
36
108
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Looking at Table 16, the three age groups responded positively to the question posed
above: 59 people (54.6%) out of a total of 108. However, what is interesting to see is that
Generation 3 (55+) gave the same number of positive and negative responses: 18 (50%). The
largest discrepancy occurs in Generation 1 (18-34): 10 people out of 36 respondents answered
negatively (27.8%), whereas 22 respondents answered positively (61.1%). According to
Generation 2 (34-54), the difference between positive and negative responses was low: 15
participants answered negatively (41.7%), in comparison to 19 participants who responded
positively (52.8%).
79
Taking into consideration the two ethnic groups and their age, it is clear that the
Chipileños predominantly answered positively to the above question: 40 people out of 54, which
further subdivides into 15 participants from Generation 1 (18-34) (83.3 %), 11 participants from
Generation 2 (35-54) (61.1%), and 14 from Generation 3 (55+) (77.8%). In contrast, the
Mexicans from Generation 1 (18-34) and from Generation 2 (35-54) provided almost the same
number of positive and negative responses: 7 participants (38.9%), and 8 participants from
Generation 1 (18-34) (44.8%) respectively, and 8 participants (44.4%), and 9 participants from
Generation 2 (34-54) (50%), respectively.146
One of the Chipileño males from Generation 1 (18-34) responded that Mexicans call
Chipileños farmers and cattle ranchers who smell bad.
(17) CP04MG1: Lo primero que critican es el trabajo que tiene Chipilo, lo que
años atrás fue muy común lo que fue el ganado, entonces van a ver y lo que te
van a decir, mmm van a criticar el olor porque supuestamente para ellos nosotros
tenemos un olor diferente o desagradable, algunas veces sí lo llegan a pensar y sí
llegan a discriminarte y te abusan algunos derechos. 147
Interestingly, one of the Mexican male participants responded similarly, yet, he claimed that
Chipileños are the ones who offend Mexicans.
146
Yet, there is a big discrepancy in Generation 3: 14 (77.8 %) participants provided negative
answers, compared to only 4 (22.2%) participants who answered positively to the given
question.
147
The first thing they criticize is the type of work that one does in Chipilo and that is livestock,
which was common in the past. So they will see and what they will say…. They will criticise the
smell, because supposedly for them we smell differently, unpleasant. Sometimes, they do think
that and so they discriminate against you and abuse some of your rights (my translation).
80
(18) MP03MG2: Ellos quieren ofender, dicen ‘chichos’, no tienen la cultura que
no se bañan, les decimos los mecos. 148
Table 17 addresses the two groups according to the participants’ level of education.
Table 17. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a Chipileño?
Participant
Participant education
Total
Ethnicity
High
College
University
school
Certificate
5
4
3
12
'No’
27.8%
22.2%
16.7% 22.2%
13
14
13
40
'Yes’
72.2%
77.8%
72.2% 74.1%
Chipileños
0
0
2
2
' I do not know'
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
3.7%
18
18
18
54
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
13
7
31
'No’
61.1%
72.2%
38.9% 57.4%
4
5
10
19
'Yes’
22.2%
27.8%
55.6% 35.2%
Mexicans
3
0
1
4
' I do not know'
16.7%
0.0%
5.6%
7.4%
18
18
18
54
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
17
10
43
'No’
44.4%
47.2%
27.8% 39.8%
17
19
23
59
'Yes’
47.2%
52.8%
63.9% 54.6%
Total
3
0
3
6
' I do not know'
2.8%
0.0%
8.3%
5.6%
36
36
36
108
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
148
They [Chipileños] want to offend, they say chichos ( low class Indians) [for further
explanation see Chapter 1], they do not have any class, they do not take a shower, we call them
‘semens’ (my translation).
81
Table 17 above shows little discrepancy between positive and negative answers from
both groups, according to Education level 1 (High school) and Education level 2 (College or
Diploma Certificate): 17 (47.2%) people with Education level 1 (High school) answered
positively compared to 16 (44.4%) participants who answered negatively, and 19 (52.8 %)
participants with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) who answered positively
compared to 17 (47.2%) participants, who answered negatively. However, 23 (63.9%)
participants with Education level 3 (University) answered positively compared to only 10
(27.8%) participants who answered negatively.
In the three age groups, the number of positive answers obtained from the Chipileños is
almost the same: 13 (72.2%) participants from each category, with Education level 1 (High
school) and with Education level 3 (University degree), and 14 (77.8%) participants with
Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate). On the other hand, 11 (61.1%) Mexican
participants with Education level 1 (High school), and 13 (72.2%) Mexican participants with
Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) answered negatively. Importantly, 10
(55.6%) participants with Education level 3 (University) responded positively, whereas only 7
(38.9%) participants answered negatively.
One of the Mexican females with Education level 3 (University) argues that the negative
attitudes between the two groups arise because of Veneto usage in presence of Mexicans.
(19) MP09FG3: El mexicano ve al chipileño, como-como pesado, mm como te
puedo decir, no agradable, porque en lugar de que hable en su lengua, porque
estamos en México, está hablando en dialecto que no le entiende no. 149
149
A Mexican sees a Chipileño, as irritating, how can I say it – not pleasant, because instead of
using the common language, because we live in Mexico, s/he uses the dialect, which we cannot
understand (my translation).
82
However, one of the Chipileño participants with Education level 3 (University) stressed
the fact that Mexicans and Chipileños have been living together for the last one hundred years so
speaking the Veneto language should not be an issue. Yet, as the above participant says, the
historical struggle and the grief for the land is the main reason for such attitudes.
(20) CP09MG3: Mira, para esta respuesta y otras semejantes siempre hay que
tener en cuenta los que son extraños pero viven cerca y durante 100 y pico años
han convivido con chipileños y conocen sus mañas, conocen sus defectos, pues
quienes somos, lo de veras – somos seres humanos, iguales que ellos, no? ... La
imagen del chipileño tiene que ser negativa no nos quieren mucho, quién sabe,
hacen comparaciones porque a lo mejor históricamente, nosotros, piensan ellos,
hemos abusado el trabajo de ellos, porque eso es lo que dicen…150
Table 18 shows the responses of both groups, according to gender and age.
Three variables are combined: ethnicity, gender and age. Fifty-four participants of each ethnic
group are taken into consideration, who are divided into two gender groups and three age
categories that total nine participants per cell.
Table 18. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter a Chipileño?
Participant Participant
Participant age
gender
Ethnicity
18-34
35-54
55+
1
4
2
'No’
Male
Chipileños
11.1%
44.4%
22.2%
150
Look, for this answer and others similar to this one, one always has to consider those who are
‘outsiders’, but have lived close to Chipileños for the last 100 or so years, and they know their
[Chipileños] habits and flaws – they know who we are. We are human beings, similar to them,
right? The image of a ‘Chipileño’ must be negative; they [Mexicans] are not fond of us, who
knows why. They make comparisons because perhaps historically, we, according to them, have
taken advantage of their labor, because that is what they say (my translation).
Total
7
25.9%
83
'Yes’
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Chipileños
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
Female
'Yes’
Mexicans
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not know'
Total
8
88.9%
9
100%
3
33.3%
4
44.4%
2
22.2%
9
100%
4
22.2%
12
66.7%
2
11.1%
18
100%
1
11.1%
7
77.8%
1
11.1%
9
100%
5
55.6%
3
33.3%
1
11.1%
9
100%
6
33.3%
10
55.6%
2
3.7%
18
5
55.6%
9
100%
3
33.3%
5
55.6%
1
11.1%
9
100%
7
38.9%
10
55.6%
1
5.6%
18
100%
2
22.2%
6
66.7%
1
11.1%
9
100%
6
66.7%
3
33.3%
0
0.0%
9
100%
8
44.4%
9
50.0%
1
1.9%
18
7
77.8%
9
100%
8
88.9%
1
11.1%
0
0.0%
9
100%
10
55.6%
8
44.4%
0
0.0%
18
100%
2
22.2%
7
77.8%
0
0.0%
9
100%
6
66.7%
3
33.3%
0
0.0%
9
100%
8
44.4%
10
55.6%
0
0.0%
18
20
74.1%
27
100%
14
51.9%
10
37.0%
3
11.1%
27
100%
21
38.9%
30
55.6%
3
5.6%
54
100%
5
18.5%
20
74.1%
2
7.4%
27
100%
17
63.0%
9
33.3%
1
3.7%
27
100%
22
40.7%
29
53.7%
3
5.6%
54
84
'No’
'Yes’
Chipileños
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
Mexicans
' I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not know'
Total
100%
2
11.1%
15
83.3%
1
5.6%
18
100%
8
44.4%
7
38.9%
3
16.7%
18
100%
10
27.8%
22
61.1%
4
11.1%
36
100%
100%
6
33.3%
11
61.1%
1
5.6%
18
100%
9
50.0%
8
44.4%
1
5.6%
18
100%
15
41.7%
19
52.8%
2
5.6%
36
100%
100%
4
22.2%
14
77.8%
0
0.0%
18
100%
14
77.8%
4
22.2%
0
0.0%
18
100%
18
50.0%
18
50.0%
0
0.0%
36
100%
Looking at Table 18, 30 (55.6 %) male participants of both ethnic groups answered
positively to the above question. Interestingly, the participants from Generation 1 (18-34) are
the predominant group in giving the highest number of positive answers: 12 (66.7 %).
Generation 2 (34 -54) shows little discrepancy, but, the positive answers predominate by 3
participants: 10 participants (55.6%). However, the number of positive responses given by
Generation 3 (55 +) was lower than those of the other two groups: only 8 participants answered
positively (44.4%).
100%
12
22.2%
40
74.1%
2
3.7%
54
100%
31
57.4%
19
35.2%
4
7.4%
54
100%
43
39.8%
59
54.6%
6
5.6%
108
100%
85
Analyzing the Chipileño males, according to age, 20 (74.1%) participants answered
positively out 27 males. According to the chart, almost every Chipileño male from Generation 1
answered positively: 8 out of 9 (88.9%). Also, the Chipileño males from Generation 3 answered
predominantly positively: 7 participants (77.8%). In contrast, the discrepancy in the total
number of Mexican male responses was not very big: 10 participants who answered positively
(37.0%), compared to 14 who answered negatively (51.9%). A larger number of Mexican
respondents answered negatively, however, the participants from Generation 1 (18-34) and
Generation 2 (35-54) give more positive responses than negative: 4 (44.4%) and 5 (55.6%)
participants respectively. Nevertheless, the responses from Generation 3 (55 +) total 8
participants who answered negatively (88.9%).151
Looking at the total number of females, 29 participants answered positively (53.7 %).
The discrepancies are not very big, but interestingly, both Generation 1 (18-34) and Generation
3 (55+) total 10 participants with positive answers (55.6 %).152 Both groups from Generation 2
(35-54) and Generation 3(55+) total 8 participants who answered negatively (44.4 %).
Analyzing the participants according to ethnicity, 20 of the Chipileño women153
answered positively (74.1 %), in comparison to only 9 of the Mexican women who answered
positively (33.3 %). Similar to Chipileño males, the females from Generation 1 and Generation
3 provided almost the same number of positive answers: 7 participants (77.8 %). Looking at the
Mexican women, all three-age categories provided the same number of positive answers: 3
(33.3)%, which means that all three age groups predominantly answered negatively. The
151
That is almost the opposite of Chipileños.
The male results are reversed compared to those of women: 10 (37%) participants answered
negatively.
153
Same as a Chipileño men
152
86
participants of Generation 2 (34-54) and Generation 3 (55+) gave the same number of negative
responses: 6 (66.7%).
In the following excerpts (21) and (22) a Mexican male from Generation 2 (35-54) and a
Chipileño female from Generation 3 (55+) argue that Chipilo’ s economy is much better than
the economy of nearby towns, such as San Gregorio.
(21) MP09MG2: San Gregorio sobrevive gracias a Chipilo.154
(22) CP02FG3: Gracias a nosotros, ellos comen.155
One of the Chipileño males describes the situation in Chipilo, as follows:
(23) CP07MG2: Chipilo pertenece a un municipio que se llama San Gregorio,
hay dos localidades que son Chipilo y San Gregorio. La actividad económica y
comercial en Chipilo es a todas luces superior de la de la cabecera municipal…
pero no se le ha regalado de municipio libre, porque quién sabe…156
Due to the progress and economic well being of Chipilo, Mexicans may feel a sense of
inferiority, according to two Chipileños from Generation 1 (18-34):
(24) CP04MG1: Por una parte, ellos se sienten dueños de esta tierra, que digamos
sí es de ellos, ¿no? Porque llegaron antes que nosotros… y la segunda es que
cuando algún mexicano quiere hablarle a un chipileño, nunca lo ve a los ojos,
siempre va a agachar la cabeza…157
154
San Gregorio survives thanks to Chipilo (my translation).
Thanks to us, they eat (my translation).
156
Chipilo belongs to a municipality called San Gregorio made up of Chipilo and San Gregorio.
The economic and the commercial activities in Chipilo are clearly better than those of its
municipality head ... but anyhow it [the government] has not given a free municipality to
Chipilo- who knows why (my translation).
157
First of all, they feel like they are the owners of this land, and as we say, it is theirs, because
they came before us ... and secondly, when a Mexican wants to speak to a Chipileño, s/he never
looks at them in the eyes, but instead s/he always looks down (my translation).
155
87
(25) CP07MG1: Uno, porque todavía tienen el rezado de colonización y, no sé, siempre
se les ha enseñado que la gente blanca es más –son los ricos, son los poderosos – son los
patrones. Entonces cuando ven a un chipileño lo identifican inmediatamente con esas
características que es rico, es el patrón, es él a quien hay que servir… 158
Table 19 shows the participants’ responses according their gender, ethnicity and education
Three variables are combined: ethnicity, gender and Education level. Fifty-four participants of
each ethnicity group are taken into consideration, who are divided into two gender groups and
also divided into three education levels, totaling nine participants per cell.
Table 19. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter Chipileños?
Participant Participant
Participant education
gender
Ethnicity
High
College/
University
school
Certificate
5
2
0
'No’
55.6%
22.2%
0.0%
4
7
9
Chipileños
'Yes’
44.4%
77.8%
100%
9
9
9
Total
100%
100%
100%
Male
5
6
3
'No’
55.6%
66.7%
33.3%
2
3
5
Mexicans
'Yes’
22.2%
33.3%
55.6%
2
0
1
' I do not
know'
22.2%
0.0%
11.1%
158
Total
7
25.9%
20
74.1%
27
100%
14
51.9%
10
37.0%
3
11.1%
One, it is because they still hold the notion of colonization, and I do not know, they have
been always taught that the White people/ Western/ European people are richer, more powerful –
they are the bosses. When they see Chipileños, they identify them with these characteristics, that
they are rich, the bosses –that it is them whom they have to serve (my translation).
88
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not
know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Chipileños
' I do not
know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Female
Mexicans
' I do not
know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not
know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
Chipileños
' I do not
know'
Total
Mexicans
'No’
9
100%
10
55.6%
6
33.3%
2
11.1%
18
100%
0
0.0%
9
100%
0
0.0%
9
100%
6
66.7%
2
22.2%
1
11.1%
9
100%
6
33.3%
11
61.1%
1
5.6%
18
100%
5
27.8%
13
72.2%
0
0.0%
18
100%
11
9
100%
8
44.4%
10
55.6%
0
0.0%
18
100%
2
22.2%
7
77.8%
0
0.0%
9
100%
7
77.8%
2
22.2%
0
0.0%
9
100%
9
50.0%
9
50.0%
0
0.0%
18
100%
4
22.2%
14
77.8%
0
0.0%
18
100%
13
9
100%
3
16.7%
14
77.8%
1
5.6%
18
100%
3
33.3%
4
44.4%
2
22.2%
9
100%
4
44.4%
5
55.6%
0
0.0%
9
100%
7
38.9%
9
50.0%
2
11.1%
18
100%
3
16.7%
13
72.2%
2
11.1%
18
100%
7
27
100%
21
38.9%
30
55.6%
3
5.6%
54
100%
5
18.5%
20
74.1%
2
7.4%
27
100%
17
63.0%
9
33.3%
1
3.7%
27
100%
22
40.7%
29
53.7%
3
5.6%
54
100%
12
22.2%
40
74.1%
2
3.7%
54
100%
31
89
'Yes’
' I do not
know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
' I do not
know'
Total
61.1%
4
22.2%
3
16.7%
18
100%
16
44.4%
17
47.2%
3
8.3%
36
100%
72.2%
5
27.8%
0
0.0%
18
100%
17
47.2%
19
52.8%
0
0.0%
36
100%
38.9%
10
55.6%
1
5.6%
18
100%
10
27.8%
23
63.9%
3
8.3%
36
100%
57.4%
19
35.2%
4
7.4%
54
100%
43
39.8%
59
54.6%
6
5.6%
108
100%
Looking at the total number of males with Education Level 3 (University), they answered
for the most part positively: 14 (77.8%) participants out of 18, whereas surprisingly, the males
with Education 1 (High school) answered predominantly negatively: 10 (55.6%) participants. On
the other hand, the females with Education level 1 (High school) answered for most part
positively: 11 (61.1%) participants. Both, females with Education level 2 (College or Diploma
Certificate) and with Education level 3 (University) gave the same number of positive responses:
9 (50.0%). Also, the females with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) gave the
same number of negative and positive answers: 9 (50.0%).
Analyzing the ethnic groups individually, the total number of Chipileño males who
answered positively is 20 (74.1%). Both the participants with Education level 2 (College or
Diploma Certificate) and with Education level 3(University) answered predominantly positively;
moreover, those with Education level 3 answered only positively: all 9 (100%) participants. On
the other hand, there is quite a discrepancy between the number of positive and negative answers
by the males with Education level 1 (High school); there are more negative answers: 5 (55.6 %)
90
participants. Looking at Mexican males, the participants with Education level 3 (University),
similar to the Chipileños, answered mainly positively: 5 (55.6%), whereas the other two
Education groups predominantly answered negatively: 5 (55.6%) participants with Education
Level 1 (High school) and 6 (66.7%) with Education Level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate)
respectively.
Looking at the females of both ethnic groups individually, the majority of Chipileño
women of the three Education levels answered positively: all 9 (100%) participants with
Education level 1 (High school), 7 (77.8%) participants with Education level 2 (College or
Diploma Certificate), and 4 (44.4%) with Education level 3 (University). However, the Mexican
females with Education level 1 (High school) and with Education level 2 (College or Diploma
Certificate) answered mainly negatively: 6 (66.7%) participants and 7 (77.8%) participants,
respectively. Remarkably, there is little discrepancy between the responses of those with
Education level 3 (University) who gave positive answers: 5 (55.6%) participants.
One of the Chipileño male participants with Education level 3 (University) claims that
there is discrimination among individuals from lower socio-economic levels.
(26) CP08MG3: Sí, hay cierta discriminación, pero a un nivel infaliblemente
bajo. A lo mejor hay una discriminación, en el- con los pueblos que son
indígenas, porque sienten que les hemos robado sus terrenos, porque nosotros
tenemos un poco más que ellos, porque no hacemos fiestas, porque somos
diferentes a ellos, ahí puede existir cierta discriminación, a un nivel medio- alto
ya no. 159
159
Yes, there is certain discrimination, but only at the lowest social level. Perhaps, there is
discrimination between villages with Indigenous people, because they feel that we [Chipileños]
91
3.2 This section analyzes the concept of discrimination. The majority of Chipileño respondents
answered negatively: 31 (57.4%) participants compared to 21 (38.9%) who answered positively.
The discrepancies among Mexicans were higher: 41 (75.9%) participants who answered
negatively, compared only to 12 (22.2%) participants who answered positively. The following
tables show the individual responses according to four social factors: ethnicity, gender, age and
education level. The results are below:
Table 20 shows the responses of the two groups according ethnicity and gender.
Table 20. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
Participant
Participant gender
Ethnicity
Male
Female
'No’
'Yes’
Chipileños
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
'I do not know'
Total
15
55.6%
10
37.0%
2
7.4%
27
100%
21
77.8%
6
22.2%
0
0.0%
27
100%
16
59.3%
11
40.7%
0
0.0%
27
100%
20
74.1%
6
22.2%
1
3.7%
27
100%
Total
31
57.4%
21
38.9%
2
3.7%
54
100%
41
75.9%
12
22.2%
1
1.9%
54
100%
stole their lands, because we have a little bit more than they do. But this may be because we do
not organize many parties, because we are different from them. So in this case, there might be
some discrimination, however, not at an upper-middle social level (my translation).
92
'No’
'Yes’
Total
'I do not know'
Total
36
66.7%
16
29.6%
2
3.7%
54
100%
36
66.7%
17
31.5%
1
1.9%
54
100%
72
66.7%
33
30.6%
3
2.8%
108
100%
Table 20 reveals that some sense of discrimination may exist in Chipilo. However, 72
(66.7%) participants160 out of 108 responded negatively regarding the discrimination against
Chipileños by Mexicans, whereas 33 (30.6 %) people responded positively. When analyzing
both ethnic groups according to gender, their responses were mainly negative: 15 (55.6%%)
Chipileño males and 16 (59.3%) Chipileño females, and 21 (77.8%) Mexican males (38.7%) and
20 (74.1%) Mexican females out of 54 participants in each group. An equal number of Mexican
males and females, 6 (22.2%) from each group, responded positively. Similarly, an almost equal
number of Chipileño males and females answered positively: 10 males (37.0%) and 11 females
(40.7%) out of 27 participants in each group.
According to the following excerpt, both Mexicans and Chipileños have the same rights, but
because Chipileños are perceived as being more economically stable, Mexicans receive more
support:
(27) MP03FG2: Todos tienen los mismos derechos, al mexicano lo ven más económico,
aquí en Chipilo ellos [chipileños] todos tienen dinero, aquí no dan oportunidades en
160
Interestingly, an equal number of females and males – 36 participants (33.3%) answered
negatively, regarding the occurrence of discrimination in Chipilo.
93
programa por los beneficios porque es un pueblo rico. Aquí los mexicanos necesitan y
cuando mezclan [con los chipileños] ya no les dan apoyo. 161
Table 21 shows the responses of both groups according to ethnicity and age.
Table 21. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
Participant
Ethnicity
'No’
'Yes’
Chipileños
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
Total
'Yes’
'I do not know'
161
Participant age
18-34
35-54
9
11
50.0%
61.1%
9
50.0%
0
0.0%
18
100%
11
61.1%
6
33.3%
1
5.6%
18
100%
20
55.6%
15
41.7%
1
2.8%
7
38.9%
0
0.0%
18
100%
15
83.3%
3
16.7%
0
0.0%
18
100%
26
72.2%
10
27.8%
0
0.0%
Total
55+
11
61.1%
31
57.4%
5
27.8%
2
11.1%
18
100%
15
83.3%
3
16.7%
0
0.0%
18
100%
26
72.2%
8
22.2%
2
1.9%
21
38.9%
2
3.7%
54
100%
41
75.9%
12
22.2%
1
1.9%
54
100%
72
66.7%
33
30.6%
3
2.8%
Everybody has the same rights. Mexicans though, are seen as less well to do; here in Chipilo,
everybody has money, here they do not receive any financial help because it is a rich village.
Here Mexicans are in need but when they mix with Chipileños they do not receive any more
support (my translation).
94
Total
36
100%
36
100%
36
100%
108
100%
Looking at Table 21, both groups from the three generations predominantly answered
negatively to the possible discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans: 72 (66.7%) people,
in contrast to 33 (30.6%) participants, who answered positively. Interestingly, the participants
from Generation 2 (35-54) and from Generation 3 (55+) gave the same number of negative
responses: 26 (72.2%) out of 36 participants per age group. Even though there are fewer
positive responses, Generation 1 (18-34) gave the most positive answers out of the two other
groups: 15 people (41.7%).
The table reveals significant results when analyzing each group individually.
Remarkably, the Chipileños from Generation 1 (18-34) provided the same number of positive
and negative responses: 9 or 50.0 %. The Chipileño participants from Generation 2 (35-54) and
from Generation 3 (55+) gave the same number of negative responses: 11 (61.1 %). 41 (75.9%)
Mexicans from all three age groups responded negatively, including 15 (83.3%) participants
from Generation 2 (35-54) and 15 (83.3%) participants from Generation 3 (55+). In
comparison to the Chipileños from Generation 1 (18-34) with 9 (50%) negative answers, 11
(61.1%) Mexicans from the same age group also answered negatively.
The above results can be supported by a Mexican male from Generation 2 (35-54) who
responded there was no discrimination between the two groups.
(28) MP02MG2: Deben de tener los mismos derechos, tampoco se sienten
discriminados los mexicanos, porque sino ya no trabajarían aquí. 162
162
They should have the same rights, the Mexicans do not feel discriminated against either; if
they did, they would no longer work here (my translation).
95
Table 22 shows the responses of both groups according to education level.
Table 22. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
Participant
Participant education
Ethnicity
High school College/ University/
Certificate
3 yrs. of
University
11
13
7
'No’
61.1%
72.2%
38.9%
7
5
9
'Yes’
38.9%
27.8%
50.0%
Chipileños
0
0
2
'I do not know'
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
18
18
18
Total
100%
100%
100%
11
17
13
'No’
61.1%
94.4%
72.2%
7
1
4
'Yes’
13.0%
5.6%
22.2%
Mexicans
0
0
1
'I do not know'
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
18
18
18
Total
100%
100%
100%
22
30
20
'No’
61.1%
83.3%
55.6%
14
6
13
'Yes’
38.9%
16.7%
36.1%
Total
0
0
3
'I do not know'
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
36
36
36
Total
100%
100%
100%
Total
31
57.4%
21
38.9%
2
3.7%
54
100%
41
75.9%
12
22.2%
1
1.9%
54
100%
72
66.7%
33
30.6%
3
2.8%
108
100%
It is interesting to observe that both ethnic groups with Education level 1 (High school)
gave exactly the same number of positive and negative responses: 11 (61.1%) participants of
each group answered negatively, as opposed to 7 (38.9%) participants who answered positively.
96
Also, the majority of Chipileños and Mexicans with Education level 2 (College or Diploma
Certificate) responded negatively, but the Mexicans definitely stand out: 17 (94.4%) participants
out of a total of 18, compared to 13 (72.2%) Chipileños. 9 (50.0%) Chipileño participants with
Education level 3 (University) answered predominantly positively, compared to 4 (22.2%)
Mexican participants from the same education level.
A male Mexican participant with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate)
responded that there was no discrimination against Chipileños because Chipileños had
assimilated with Mexicans and Mexican life.
(29) MP08MG2: No, siento que tienen los mismos derechos, probablemente
Chipilo para ellos es como un refugio, normalmente el chipileño no sale mucho
de aquí, entonces obviamente si tienen que emigrar, tienen que adaptar las
costumbres de otros lados. 163
Table 23 shows the responses of both groups, according to age and gender. Three variables are
combined: ethnicity, gender and age. Fifty-four participants of each ethnic group are taken into
consideration, who are divided into two gender groups and three age categories that total nine
participants per cell.
163
No, I feel that they have the same rights. Probably, Chipilo for them is like a refuge.
Normally, a Chipileño does not often leave the community, so obviously, if they have to
emigrate they will have to adapt to the customs of other places (my translation).
97
Table 23. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
Participant age
Participant
Participant
Gender
Ethnicity
18-34
35-54
Male
Chipileños
'No’
4
5
44.4%
55.6%
'Yes’
5
4
55.6%
44.4%
'I do not know'
0
0
.0%
.0%
Total
9
9
100%
100%
Mexicans
'No’
5
9
55.6%
100%
'Yes’
4
0
14.8%
.0%
Total
9
9
100%
100%
Total
'No’
9
14
50.0%
77.8%
'Yes’
9
4
50.0%
22.2%
'I do not know'
0
0
.0%
.0%
Total
18
18
100%
100%
Female
Chipileños
'No’
5
6
55.6%
66.7%
'Yes’
4
3
44.4%
33.3%
Total
9
9
100%
100%
Mexicans
'No’
6
6
66.7%
66.7%
'Yes’
2
3
22.2%
33.3%
'I do not know'
1
0
11.1%
.0%
Total
9
9
100%
100%
Total
'No’
11
12
61.1%
66.7%
'Yes’
6
6
55+
6
66.7%
1
11.1%
2
22.2%
9
100%
7
77.8%
2
22.2%
9
100%
13
72.2%
3
16.7%
2
11.1%
18
100%
5
55.6%
4
44.4%
9
100%
8
88.9%
1
11.1%
0
.0%
9
100%
13
72.2%
5
Total
15
55.6%
10
37.0%
2
7.4%
27
100%
21
77.8%
6
22.2%
27
100%
36
66.7%
16
29.6%
2
3.7%
54
100%
16
59.3%
11
40.7%
27
100%
20
74.1%
6
22.2%
1
3.7%
27
100%
36
66.7%
17
98
'I do not know'
Total
Total
Chipileños
'No’
'Yes’
'I do not know'
Total
Mexicans
'No’
'Yes’
'I do not know'
Total
Total
'No’
'Yes’
'I do not know'
Total
33.3%
1
5.6%
18
100%
9
50.0%
9
50.0%
0
.0%
18
100%
11
61.1%
6
33.3%
1
5.6%
18
100%
20
55.6%
15
41.7%
1
2.8%
36
100%
33.3%
0
.0%
18
100%
11
61.1%
7
38.9%
0
.0%
18
100%
15
83.3%
3
16.7%
0
.0%
18
100%
26
72.2%
10
27.8%
0
.0%
36
100%
27.8%
0
.0%
18
100%
11
61.1%
5
27.8%
2
11.1%
18
100%
15
83.3%
3
16.7%
0
.0%
18
100%
26
72.2%
8
22.2%
2
5.6%
36
100%
Looking at Table 23, 36 (66.7%) participants of the total number of males from all age
groups responded negatively to the above question. However, Generation 2 (35 -54) and
Generation 3 (55+) show the highest rate of negative responses with 14 (77.8 %) and 13
(72.2%), respectively. Generation 1 (18-34) gave the same number of negative and positive
responses: 9 (50.0%).
Analyzing the Chipileño males, the total number of negative answers was 15 (55.6%),
the majority of which were given by Generation 3 (55+): 6 (66.7%). Within Generation 1 (18 -
31.5%
1
1.9%
54
100%
31
57.4%
21
38.9%
2
3.7%
54
100%
41
75.9%
12
22.2%
1
1.9%
54
100%
72
66.7%
33
30.6%
3
2.8%
108
100%
99
34), there is a slight higher incidence of positive answers: 5 (55.6%) versus 4 (44.4%) negative
answers. The Mexican males answered mainly negatively as well: 21 (77.8%) participants.
Similar to the Chipileño males, the participants of Generation 3 (55+) predominantly gave
negative responses: 7 (77.8%). Surprisingly, all 9 (100%) participants of Generation 2 responded
negatively.
Looking at the total number of females from both groups, 36 (66.7%) responded
negatively, similar to the results obtained by all males in the survey. The number of responses
among the three-age groups was almost the same: 11 (61.1%) from Generation 1 (18-34), 12
(66.7%) from Generation 2 (35-54), and 13 (72.2 %) from Generation 3.
Analyzing the ethnic groups, the Chipileño females of Generation 1 (18-34) and
Generation 3 (55+) showed the same results, with a very slight discrepancy between positive and
negative answers: 5 (55.6%) participants in each group answered negatively, and 4 (44.4%) of
them answered positively. Looking at the Mexican women, 20 (74.1 %) participants answered
negatively. The participants of both Generation 1 (18-34) and Generation 2 (34-54) gave the
same number of negative answers: 6 (66.7%). The highest incidence of negative answers was
given by Generation 3 (55+): 8 (88.9%).
Most of the participants of both ethnic groups stated that Chipileños are Mexicans, so
they have the same rights and there cannot be any discrimination. Below is the excerpt from a
female Mexican respondent.
(30) MP02FG3: Tienen los mismos derechos porque son mexicanos y por eso no
se sienten discriminados. 164
164
They have the same rights, because they are Mexicans and that is why they do not feel
discriminated against (my translation)
100
However, as seen from the chart, the greater number of Chipileño males from Generation 1 (1834) claim that discrimination against them does exist. The male in the following excerpt argues
that Chipileños are still treated as immigrants, furthermore, as if they were undocumented ones.
(31) CP08MG1: En su mayoría son incluso discriminatorios [derechos], ya que
nos suele pasar que nos tratan como imigrantes indocumentados165
Table 24 shows the participants’ responses according their gender, ethnicity and education
Three variables are combined: ethnicity, gender and education level. Fifty-four participants of
each ethnic group are taken into consideration, who are divided into two gender groups and also
divided into three education levels, which total nine participants per cell.
Table 24. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
Participant Participant
Participant education
Gender
Ethnicity
High
College/
University
school Certificate
7
7
1
'No’
77.8%
77.8%
11.1%
2
2
6
'Yes’
22.2%
22.2%
66.7%
Chipileños
0
0
2
'I do not know'
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
Male
9
9
9
Total
1 100%
100%
100%
6
9
6
'No’
66.7%
100%
66.7%
Mexicans
3
0
3
'Yes’
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
Total
9
9
9
165
In many cases, they [the rights] are discriminatory, since we are treated as undocumented
immigrants (my translation).
Total
15
55.6%
10
37.0%
2
7.4%
27
100%
21
77.8%
6
22.2%
27
101
'No’
'Yes’
Total
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
Chipileños
'Yes’
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
Female
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
Total
'Yes’
Chipileños
'I do not know'
Total
100%
13
72.2%
5
27.8%
0
0.0%
18
100%
4
44.4%
5
55.6%
9
100%
5
55.6%
4
44.4%
0
0.0%
9
100%
9
50.0%
9
50.0%
0
0.0%
18
100%
11
61.1%
7
38.9%
0
0.0%
18
100%
16
88.9%
2
11.1%
0
0.0%
18
100%
6
66.7%
3
33.3%
9
100%
8
88.9%
1
11.1%
0
0.0%
9
100%
14
77.8%
4
22.2%
0
0.0%
18
100%
13
72.2%
5
27.8%
0
0.0%
18
100%
7
38.9%
9
50.0%
2
11.1%
18
100%
6
66.7%
3
33.3%
9
100%
7
77.8%
1
11.1%
1
11.1%
9
100%
13
72.2%
4
22.2%
1
5.6%
18
100%
7
38.9%
9
50%
2
11.1%
18
100%
36
66.7%
16
29.6%
2
3.7%
54
100%
16
59.3%
11
40.7%
27
100%
20
74.1%
6
22.2%
1
3.7%
27
100%
36
66.7%
17
31.5%
1
1.9%
54
100%
31
57.4%
21
38.9%
2
3.7%
54
102
'No’
'Yes’
Mexicans
'I do not know'
Total
'No’
'Yes’
Total
'I do not know'
Total
100%
11
61.1%
7
38.9%
0
0.0%
18
100%
22
61.1%
14
38.9%
0
0.0%
36
100%
100%
17
94.4%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
18
100%
30
83.3%
6
16.7%
0
0.0%
36
100%
100%
13
72.2%
4
22.2%
1
5.6%
18
100%
20
55.6%
13
36.1%
3
8.3%
36
100%
Looking at the males of both ethnic groups, both Education level 1 (High school) and
Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) answered for most part negatively: 13 (72.2
%) participants and 16 (88.9%) participants, respectively. It is important to note that only 9
(50.0%) males with Education level 3 (University) answered positively.
Looking at the females of both ethnic groups, the females with both Education level 2
(College or Diploma Certificate) and Education level 3 (University) answered mainly
negatively: 14 (77.8%) participants and 13 (72.2%) participants, respectively. However, the
females with Education level 1 (High school) gave the same number of negative and positive
answers, which is 9 (50.0%).
Analyzing each ethnic group individually, Chipileño males with both Education level 1
(High school) and Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate) responded exactly the
same: 7 (77.8 %) participants of each group answered negatively compared to 2 (22.2%)
100%
41
75.9%
12
22.2%
1
1.9%
54
100%
72
66.7%
33
30.6%
3
2.8%
108
100%
103
participants who answered positively out of a total number of 9 participants. Remarkably, 6
(66.7%) participants with Education level 3 (University) answered positively.166 On the other
hand, the Mexican males with Education level 1 (High school) and Education level 3
(University) answered exactly the same: 6 (66.7%) participants answered negatively whereas 3
(33.3 %) participants answered positively. All 9 (100%) males with Education level 2 (College
or Diploma Certificate) answered negatively.167
Looking at the females, the majority of females of both ethnic groups answered
negatively: 16 (59.3%) Chipileño women and 20 (74.1%) Mexican women, but the distribution
between the education levels was quite surprising. A larger number of female participants with
Education level 1 (High school) responded positively: 5 (55.6%). Chipileño women with both
Education level 2 (College or Certificate) and Education level 3 (University) provided the same
number of answers: 6 (66.7%) participants who answered negatively compared to 3 (33.3%)
participants who answered positively.168 Looking at the responses given by the total number of
Mexican women, 20 (74.1%) participants answered negatively, of which 5 (55.6%) participants
were from Education level 1 (High school), 8 (88.9%) participants were from Education level 2
(College or Certificate completion), and 7 (77.8%) participants were from Education level 3
(University).
One of the Mexican females with Education level 2 (College or Diploma Certificate)
responded that Chipileños do not feel discriminated. Furthermore, they have more rights because
they are considered to be immigrants:
166
Interestingly to see, it is exactly the opposite in comparison to Table 22.
It is exactly the same as in Table 22.
168
The same number of responses has also been provided by the Chipileño female participants
of Generation 2 (35-54).
167
104
(32) MP02FG2: Tienen los mismos derechos hasta más, porque que son otras
personas de otro país les da más oportunidades el gobierno. 169
However, according to two Chipileño males, Chipileños do feel discrimated against because of
their roots and the idea of being blanco.
(33) CP05MG3: Sí, se sienten discriminados – del gobierno federal. Nos ven
como personas autosuficientes, que no debe de ser. A una persona indígena les
<sic> dan más – ayuda, apoyo.170
(34) CP07MG1: Nos discriminan porque creen que nosotros somos superiores a
ellos, un juicio que no tiene que ver en verdad, pero en esa concepción nos
tienen, entonces, este en un primer momento te van a discriminar por ser blanco y
también por ejemplo, un mexicano puede entrar a Chipilo cuando él quiera y no
se le va a hacer nada, se le respetan, pero si nosotros vamos a un pueblo vecino,
por ejemplo este, nos van a golpear, nos van a gritar, etc.171
In general, I have shown the results for the two research topics. Some hypotheses were
confirmed and some of them not. I will discuss the results in the next chapter and draw
conclusions to the questions posed in the previous chapters.
169
They have the same rights - even more so, because they are other people of another country
so the government gives them more opportunities (my translation).
170
Yes, they [Chipileños] feel discriminated against by the federal government. They see us as
economically autonomous people, and it does not have to be like that. They help and support the
indigenous people more (my translation).
171
We are discriminated against by [Mexicans], because they think that we are superior to them,
a judgment that has nothing to do with reality, but they perceive us this way; so then at first, they
will discriminate against you because you are white and also, for example, Mexicans can enter
Chipilo whenever they want and nothing will happen to them, they are respected, but if we go to
a town/village close-by, such as this one, they will beat us, they will scream at us, etc. (my
translation).
105
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Discussion
5.1
This section aims to synthesize and interpret the results obtained in Chapter 4 based on
the research questions presented in Chapter 3, and to put these findings in the context of the
previous chapters, which dealt with historical and social factors that have shaped the bilingual
community of Chipilo. The results will aim to shed light on Chipileños’ attitudes toward the
language itself, as well as the relationship between the in-group Italian descendants and the
Mexican-Hispanic out-group members, all with the goal to determine whether these factors will
contribute to Veneto maintenance in the future. Finally, this chapter will provide directions for
future research.
5.2
The overarching goal of this thesis was to investigate whether Veneto will continue to be
maintained in Chipilo by analyzing the attitudes between the two groups and the attitudes
towards Veneto. As mentioned earlier, Chipilo represents one of the few cases of long-term
language survival, as it has already been 129 years since Italian immigrants first settled in
Mexico. Based on previous research (MacKay 1992/1999, Romani 1992, Zago 2007, Barnes
2009) the Veneto language has continued to be used daily among Chipileños. It enjoys a certain
level of prestige among its speakers and even among those outside of the community, and this in
turn reinforces the identity of Chipileños. However, Chipilo no longer represents an isolated, and
homogenous community, but rather a diglossic (Fergusson 1959/1972, Fishman 1972) multiplex
dense network. (Milroy 2003). Today, monolingual Spanish speakers of non-Italian heritage
visit Chipilo on a regular basis, and some of them work and live there. The above-mentioned
106
studies, examined ‘the purity’ of Chipileños and the Veneto language in a language-contact
situation with Spanish and other factors that may have contributed to the maintenance of Veneto
in the community. Yet, none of these studies examined the attitudes of the out-group towards
Chipileños, a concept that may prove relevant in the survival of the language.
Two general topics with specific questions were formulated for this purpose:
1. The first topic dealt with the attitudes of Chipileños towards their own language and its link to
their identity, and whether these attitudes varied according to the gender, age and education of
the respondents. The following two questions were used in this study.
I. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if Veneto
disappeared?
II. Can Veneto be taught in schools?
2. The second topic dealt with the attitudes towards Chipileños experienced by monolingual
Spanish speakers who either reside or work in the community, as well as what the perceptions of
Chipileños were regarding these attitudes. Similar to the first topic above, this section sought to
investigate whether these attitudes vary according to the gender, age, and education of the
respondents, but the variable ethnicity was added.
I. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter Chipileños?
II. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
The results will be discussed in the following section.
I will first examine research topic 1.
107
5.3.1. Would the Chipileño identity become identical to the Mexican one if Veneto disappeared?
This section discusses the relationship between Chipileños’ identity and Veneto, according to
responses given by Chipileño residents.
As previous research has shown (Sartor and Ursini 1983, Romani 1992, Barnes 2009, Ibarra
2011), Veneto plays a crucial role in the identity of its speakers. The present study also found
that the Veneto language is an important indicator of the local in-group identity. In this regard,
the results confirmed my hypothesis. All females from all categories, and all males from all
categories, except those from Generation 3 (55+), described Veneto as a prestigious and
essential part of their identity (73.6%). As Barnes concluded in her dissertation (2009), as well
as from my own observation, females “stick around the house longer and maintain the X
language and culture better than males” (Shuy 1983:81). The majority of males, though, also
found Veneto important. As predicted in my hypothesis, the younger generation found Veneto
very important. Furthermore, the males and females from Generation 1 (18-34) with Education
level 1 (High school) viewed Veneto a very important part of their identity (77.8% of males and
100% of females). Regarding the participants with Education level 3 (University), the results
confirmed the hypothesis that Chipileños do find Veneto very much connected to their identity
(76.5%). However, the males from Generation 3 (55+) were the only group who claimed that
Chipileño identity would not change even if Veneto disappeared (62.5%). Some admitted that
the new generations neither spoke a ‘pure’ form of Veneto, nor considered themselves to be
‘pure’ Italians. As Zago (2007) affirmed, the concept of “Chipileño” is very complex because it
involves a mixture of both the ‘host’ country, Mexico and the country of origin, Italy.
Furthermore, Barnes (2009) also found that both Spanish and Veneto are important for the
Chipileño way of life. The loss of one, or the other, according to Barnes (2009) would alter their
108
lives irrevocably. The loss of Veneto would imply isolation from mainstream society, and the
loss of Spanish would imply absolute assimilation to Hispanic Mexican society. For most
Chipileños, Veneto was one of the principal indicators that distinguished them from the rest of
society.
5.3.2 Can Veneto be taught in schools?
According to the hypothesis made in Chapter 3, it would be difficult to justify the
incorporation of Veneto classes in the curriculum because of the relatively small proportion of
Veneto-speaking students compared to the number of Spanish monolingual students in schools.
Yet, the results in the present study show that 59.3% of Chipileño participants consider
the teaching of Veneto desirable.172 However, more Chipileño males (66.7%) than female
(51.9%) are in favor of Veneto being taught in schools and that in fact, supports my hypothesis
that predicted the aforementioned. Such findings are similar to those found in Barnes’ (2009)
study, which revealed that men viewed the teaching of Veneto more favorably than women did.
Furthermore, the present study examined the question according to participants’ ethnicity,
gender, age and education level.
Although the majority of males responded positively (66.7%), the younger males with
Education level 1 (High school) opposed the idea of Veneto being taught in schools (55.6%).173
According to their opinions, as well as my own personal observations, there are more nonVeneto speaking children in schools, which makes the incorporation of Veneto in the school
curriculum difficult and unlikely. The same argument is given by the younger generation of
172
Barnes’ results (2009:126) found a larger number of the participants who agreed on Veneto
being taught in schools: 51 (73.9%) out of a total of 71 participants.
173
Such findings prove the hypothesis made in Chapter 3: only males of older generations may
view teaching Veneto desirable.
109
women with Education level 3 (University) who claim that non-Chipileño children will be
“obligados a aprenderlo”174 (CP08FG1). The older generation of females opposed the idea of
teaching Veneto to non-Chipileños because the students would have a strange accent when
speaking Veneto, which will cause them to be made fun of by Chipileños.175 It is interesting to
note that the females from Generation 3 (55+) with Education 3 (University) find the teaching of
Veneto to be irrelevant for other reasons. They claim that Veneto does not serve as an important
‘medium’ outside of Chipilo; rather, speaking English would more practical for them because it
has become the lingua franca in today’s globalized economy.176 According to the above
arguments, therefore, the teaching of Veneto is questionable simply because the community will
not push for it to happen in future. Nonetheless, incorporating Veneto in schools would allow
children from mixed marriages to acquire Veneto, thus preserving it for posterity. Chipileños are
cognizant of the presence of non-Chipileño students and they believe it would be difficult to
impose Veneto classes on them. Besides, most Chipileños claim that Veneto is primarily learnt
in the homes, a domain where the language is promoted and has a relative stability (Fasold 1992,
Crystal 2000),177” (cited in Hornberger and Coronel-Molina, 2004:13). In other words,
Chipileños may view the teaching of Veneto in public domains unnecessary due to its stable
acquisition in the home.
In summary, in answer to the two research questions in topic 1, dealing with Chipileños’
attitudes towards Veneto, I found that although there may be some interest in having Veneto be
174
Forced to learn it [Veneto] (my translation).
Similar to Wössner’s study (2002) the older generation of females claimed that when
speaking Veneto non-Chipileños sounded awkward. In that case, if it were to happen, there
would be some type discrimination by Chipileños against Mexicans due to Mexicans’ way of
speaking Veneto.
176
The same situation can be seen in Italy, Segusino, where Veneto is considered a ‘village’
dialect that does not have any importance. See (p. 20, footnote 39) for more details.
177
See Barnes (2009) for more details.
175
110
taught in schools, it may be unlikely because of the lack of Veneto-speaking students, the
irrelevance of Veneto vis a vis world languages in the world economy, and possible tensions
between the two groups. Nevertheless, Veneto is an important resource that reinforces the
Chipileño identity and its loss of it would mean the gradual loss of their Italianness178. Based on
these results, Veneto is likely to survive in the next 20 or 30 years because the community and
the newer/younger generations derive a sense of pride from it.
Yet, the main question has to be, to what extent is it possible to teach Veneto at home or
at any other familiar settings and maintain it in its most ‘proper’ and ‘pure’ form? A Chipileño
male from Generation 1 recalls a story about the Chipileño founder, Jacoba Berra, who stressed
the fact that Chipilo could survive only if the younger generations, as well as their parents,
especially their mothers, continued using and teaching it to new generations.
CP07MG1: Alguna vez he escuchado hablar sobre del último de los fundadores de
Chipilo que se llama Jacoba Berra y esta persona me dijo: “Algún día le harán la última
entrevista a los chipileños y no sé cuándo será, pero algún día yo creo que sí se va a
acabar Chipilo porque nada es para siempre, pero está en los jóvenes, está en las
instituciones, está en los padres que enseñen a sus hijos a hablar el véneto para que se
preserve el idioma y se conserve el modo de vida.179
178
See Barnes’ discussion (2009) on Italian identity and the concept of a Chipileño (pp. 137150).
179
Once, I heard the story about the last of Chipilo’s founders, Jacoba Berra: “One day they will
interview the last Chipileño. I do not when it will happen, but one day and I believe Chipilo will
disappear, because nothing lasts forever. But it all depends on the younger generations, on the
institutions, on the parents to teach Veneto to their children in order to preserve the language, as
well as its way of life (my translation).
111
5.4
The next section discusses the attitudes of Mexicans towards Chipileños and Chipileños’
perceptions regarding the same matter. It also discusses the participants’ perceptions of
discrimination against Chipileños by Mexicans.
5.4.1. Does the attitude of Mexicans change when they encounter Chipileños?
This question sought to elicit the attitudes of the out-group towards the in-group. When looking
at the total number of Mexican respondents, the majority gave negative responses (57.4%); yet
when looking at the results according to individual factor groups, there were some discrepancies.
Most of the male participants from Generation 3 (55+) answered negatively (88.9%). On the
other hand, a significant number of Generation 1 (18-34) males with University degree,
answered positively (44.4%). Such findings contradicted my hypothesis that Mexicans from
Generation 1 (18-34), especially those with a higher level of Education (University) would not
have any tensions or conflicts with Chipileños because of the close and intense contact they have
on a daily basis. According to the results, many Mexicans from Generation 3 (55+) note though
that younger people did indeed consider Chipileños superior so they aspire to be similar to them.
The same findings were revealed in the responses of Chipileños who answered for the most part
positively. The data revealed different results from those predicted in my hypothesis. The
majority of Chipileños, regardless of social profile, gave positive answers (74.1%), indicating
that Chipileños do perceive negative attitudes towards them. Most claimed that Mexicans
generally act negatively because of tremendous envy due to various factors. First of all, as
mentioned by a few Mexicans, Mexicans want to be like Chipileños because of their physical
appearance, such as light skin, blue eyes etc., that definitely stand out.180 Secondly, Mexicans
180
See in the following section (5.4.2.) the discussion on ‘color’.
112
may still feel grief about the ‘lost’ territory. It is important to emphasize, as different scholars
have mentioned (Zilli- Manica 1981, Zago 1982, Zago 2007), that upon the arrival of the Italian
contingent, the lands were barren and unarable, which means that Chipilo was not a rich
community at the end of XIX century. Mexicans may then feel inferior to Chipileños because the
latter are attributed to being hard working, patient, and responsible, characteristics that have
helped them achieve their current standard of living.
In short, this study did find that there are some tensions between the two groups, as
revealed by the answers to the questions regarding attitudes.
The following section discusses whether discrimination in Chipilo is perceived to exist.
5.4.2. Do Chipileños feel discriminated against by Mexicans?
This section analyzes the concept of discrimination in Chipilo. As mentioned in Chapter 4,
Chipileños are de facto Mexicans as they hold a Mexican passport and they are the citizens of
Mexico.
The majority of Mexicans gave negative answers to this question (75.9%), which means that
Mexicans do not perceive themselves as being discriminatory against Chipileños. However, as
seen in Chapter 4, some Mexicans admitted that there was some sense of discrimination. A
slightly higher number of positive responses was found among Chipileño males of Generation 1
(55.6%), and females from Generation 1 (18-34) with Education level 1 (High school) (55.6%).
These results can be explained, as a few Chipileños stated, that it was because of the Chipileño
high standard of living. Another explanation for the discrimination felt by Chipileños may be, as
discussed in the previous section, due to the Mexicans’ perception of Chipileño superiority and
113
their resentment towards them. Both of these results support my hypothesis. Additionally, a few
Chipileños, particularly the younger males of Education level 3 (University) who responded for
the most part positively (66.7%), claim that discrimination may be the effect of asymmetrical
power relations between the two groups. The image that some Mexicans have of Chipileños is of
rich, independent landowners who ‘manage’ the out-group. A few Chipileños also admitted that
Mexican women admire Chipileños for their physical characteristics that distinguish them from
la gente morena.181 Therefore, monolingual Spanish speakers, particularly la gente de color,
show a desire to be like Chipileños, and this reflects this hierarchical relationship (Hornberger
and Coronel-Molina, 2004: 14). In the present study most Mexicans claimed that Chipileños also
discriminate against them. The following 4 excerpts are examples of the perceived
discrimination against Mexicans by Chipileños.
1. MP03MG2: Ellos [chipileños] quieren discriminar a los mexicanos, a los que ven más
humildes, pero si es el nivel… es bien, les tratan igual a ellos.182
2. MP07FG2: También ellos [los mexicanos] son discriminados en ocasiones por el color
de la piel.183
3. MP01FG2: Hay mucha discriminación y hay mucho racismo y está muy- muy marcado.
Quieren [los chipileños] imponerse y por eso, merecemos respeto.184
181
The majority of people from close-by towns or villages are indigenous, so Chipileños
definitely stand out for their ‘European’ look.
182
They [Chipileños] want to discriminate against Mexicans, especially towards those that they
see as most humble. But, if they are from a ‘good’ socio economic level, they treat them equally
(my translation).
183
They [Mexicans] are also discriminated against at times because of the color of their skin (my
translation).
184
There is a lot of discrimination and racism, which is very obvious. Chipileños want to
exercise control over us and we [Mexicans] deserve some respect (my translation)
114
4. MP03FG2: Si el véneto ya no existiera, ya no habría mucho racismo, discriminación a
los mexicanos por el color de la piel, por la forma de hablar.185
The above examples show that racism and discrimination against Mexicans are also perceived,
and this should be definitely examined when describing the relationship between the two groups.
It appears as though both groups resent the other and hold negative attitudes towards each other.
To the outsider, discrimination between the two groups is not obvious at first. Yet, according to
the younger Generation (18-34) of Chipileños and Mexicans, particularly with Education level 1
(High school) discrimination does exist because of an unequal power relation and the desire of
the latter group to attain upward social mobility, similar to the former group. Also, the concept
of indios or chichos, the terms that refer to indigenous Mexicans of low socio-economic levels,
is very common in the discourse of Chipileños; the stigma of being indigenous and the desire to
blanquarse or to be whiter has its roots back in the history of colonization (Zago 1982) and
malinchismo, which Mexicans use to refer to the admiration of the European Western values and
its supremacy over the indigenous people who desire to be de la sangre azul (Romani 1992: 7677).
The general answer to research question 2, is that negative attitudes and real and
perceived discrimination do exist in Chipilo. The Chipileños of almost all social groups,
particularly the youngest, feel tensions and even discrimination by Mexicans. The converse is
also true: there is discrimination against Mexicans by Chipileños. Various factors account for
these results: historical factors such as resentment of lost land; economic factors like the higher
standard of living of one group compared to the other; and social factors such as the positive
social attributes ascribed to one group by the other.
185
If Veneto were to disappear, there would not be so much racism or discrimination against
Mexicans anymore because of their skin color or the way they speak (my translation).
115
All these findings, which point to a positive social and physical image of Chipileños -thereby their language -- held by themselves and by Mexicans, and to the racial tensions found
between the two groups may encourage tighter close-knit networks among Chipileños. This may
lead to a high probability of Veneto maintenance in the near future Milroy (2003).
5.5
Directions for future research
While this thesis aimed to describe a sociolinguistic profile of Chipilo, it has some
limitations that warrant further research. The present study has focused only on the attitudes of
one group: Mexicans towards Chipileños. It is necessary to conduct a more detailed analysis of
the attitudes towards Mexicans by the in-group, to see to what extent, discrimination against
Mexicans exists, and to what extent this will have an impact on the maintenance of Veneto.
This thesis was based only on two groups, that are ‘ethnically homogeneous’, and there
were no participants of mixed backgrounds. As a consequence, there are no samples from
participants who have acquired Veneto and Spanish simultaneously as L1. It would be
interesting to compare their responses to those from Mexicans and Chipileños. As previously
mentioned, the background of the mother is crucial to a child acquiring its first language. If the
mother is Chipileña, a child is most likely to speak Veneto first, whereas if the mother is
Mexican, a child’s first language is Spanish. It would be interesting to interview offspring from
mixed marriages, where the mothers are either Mexicans or Chipileñas, to see what kind of
attitudes they hold toward the Veneto language. If their mother is Mexican and their father is
Chipileño or vice versa, with which ethnic group would s/he bear most similarity and have more
allegiance to?
116
The present study draws specific attention to sociolinguistic analysis. However, a more
detailed statistical analysis, would allow us to see whether the variables examined in the study:
gender, ethnicity, age and education level, do in fact interact and what statistical significance
they have.
As mentioned earlier in the thesis, Chipilo is the only Mexico-Italian colony that has
maintained its ethnic and linguistic roots. However, another colony, Manuel González near
Huatusco in Veracruz, as well as a small town, la Perla de Chipilo, close to San Miguel de
Allende in the state of Guanajuato, may still have maintained their ethnic identity, associated
with Italian heritage. A survey of these two communities would provide insight into the factors
that led them to the rapid shift to Spanish. Additionally it would be interesting to examine the
attitudes that these people have towards the language and their identity. Finally, it would be
interesting to compare the results with those obtained in this this study.
Lastly, in regards to the attitudes between the two groups and their attitude towards the
Veneto language, an updated questionnaire with more open-ended questions will allow for the
gathering of more accurate and precise data collection.
Conclusion
The present study aimed to analyze and compare the attitudes between Mexicans and Chipileños
and the attitudes of the latter group towards Veneto. Even though previous research (Sartor and
Ursini 1983, Romani 1992, MacKay 1992, Barnes 2009) analyzed the attitudes of Chipileños
towards their language and the community as a whole, this study did not only analyze the
attitudes of the in-group, but also those of outsiders towards the in-group. It is important to draw
attention that Chipilo is no longer an isolated community and today more Chipileños like to
117
‘explore the world outside of the community’. Mexicans visit the community more and more
often and some of them even reside and work there. The presence of the out-group may
influence the Chipileños’ way of life, as well as the Veneto language. Nevertheless, the present
study found a high probability of Veneto maintenance in the next generation because of both the
current vitality and prestige the language enjoys in the community, and the tensions that have
been found to exist between the two groups, which may cause tighter social networks within
each community, causing greater tensions between them.
In spite of the above findings, one of the younger participants claimed that due to increased
access to technologies and to the outside world, Chipilo would eventually change.
CP04MG1: La tecnología, la ciencia, aparte las exigencias de –de alrededor de la gente,
del ritmo – de nivel de la vida han cambiado y seguirá cambiando y todo va a cambiar y
Chipilo también tiene- tiene que cambiar, sino quedaría como un pueblo en el atraso.186
As the participant mentioned, it is very likely that Chipilo will change as a result of its proximity
to Puebla and Mexico City, and the rapid rise in technological use, something that was not an
issue for the older generations. However, a crucial point to keep in mind is the ideologies of the
members of Chipilo, especially of the younger generations, regarding the importance of their
language and its link to their identity, which is a source of pride to them. Crystal (2001), stresses
the fact that languages, especially languages without the written system, are the ones who have a
greater chance of being lost:
“…Languages are like people, in one way… but in another way they are not like people at all.
When people die, they leave the signs of their presence in the world, in the form of their
186
Technology, science, other needs that people have, the pace, the standard of life have
changed and will continue to change and everything will change and also Chipilo has to change.
If not it would remain as a backward village (my translation).
118
dwelling places, burial mounds, and artifacts in the word, their archeology. But spoken language
leaves no archeology. It is worth remembering: when a language dies, which has never been
written down, it is as if it has never been…” (75).
Additionally, Crawford points out, “families choose to speak it [the variety] in the home and
teach it to their children, or they don’t” (cited in Hornberger and Coronel-Molina, 2004:54). And
the Chipileños have chosen to teach it to their children, and will likely continue to do so in the
future, in this regard, ensuring the future of Veneto.
119
References
Abrams, D., and Hogg M. (1987). Language attitudes, frames of reference, and social identity:
A Scottish dimension. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 6. ¾, 201-213.
Ager, D. E. (1997). Language, identity and the individual. Language, community and the state
(pp. 26-37). Exeter, England: Intellect Books.
Anderson, E. A. (1978). Language attitudes, beliefs, and values: a study in
linguistic cognitive frameworks. Washington, D.C.
Agheyisi, R., & Fishman, J. A. (1970). Language attitudes studies: a brief survey of
methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12 (5), 137-157.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Barnes, H. (2009). A Sociolinguistic study of sustained Veneto-Spanish bilingualism in
Chipilo, Mexico. (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University), Available
from ProQuest LLC. (3380871).
Bohme, F. (1959). The Italians in Mexico: A minority contribution. Pacific Historical Review.
28.1, 1-18.
Bourhis, R., Giles H., and Tajfel H. (1973). Language as a determinant of Welsh identity. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 3.4, 447-460.
Crano, W. D., and Prislin R. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change. The fourth peak. Attitudes
and attitude change (pp. 3-13). New York: Psychology Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000/2001). Radio talk for Lingua Franca (Australian Broadcasting Corporation);
reproduced on e-mesh ltd web site, and adapted for Quicksilver, 74-6.
120
De Mauro, T. (1963). Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Bari: Laterza.
Eckert, P. (2009). Interpreting the meaning of variation. Language Variation as Social
Practice: the linguistic construction of identity in Belten High (pp. 30-43). Malden:
Blackwell.
Edwards, A. D. (1976). Context of culture and context of situation. Language in culture and
class: the sociology of language and education (pp. 35-39). London: Heinemann
Educational.
Edwards, J. P. (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In
E. Ryan and H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards language variation: social and applied
contexts (pp. 20-34). London: Edward Arnold.
Ferguson, C. A. (1972). Diglossia, Language in Education. A Source Book. Language and
Learning Course Team at the Open University. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macrosociolinguistics. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, Gumperz J.J and Hymes D. (Eds.),
435-454. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fishman J. A. (1980). Language maintenance and ethnic mother tongue school. The Modern
Language Journal, 64(2), 167-172.
Fishman, J. A. (1989). Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and societal phenomena.
Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective (pp.181-199). Clevedon,
Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Fishman, J. A. (1989). The societal basis of the intergenerational continuity of additional
languages. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective (pp.224-242).
Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
121
Fishman, J. A. (1989). Language maintenance and ethnicity. Language and ethnicity in
minority sociolinguistic perspective (pp. 202-223). Clevedon, Avon, England:
Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Forgas J. P. (2008) The role of affect in attitudes and attitude change. In W. Crano and R.
Prislin (Eds.) Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 131-150). New York: Psychology Press.
Gardner, R. and Lambert W. (1959) Motivational variables in second language acquisition.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266-272.
Gardner, R. and W. Lambert (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C. (1981). Individual differences in second language achievement: focus on
attitudes and motivation. London: Dept. of Psychology, University Of Western Ontario.
Gardner, R. C. (1982). Language attitudes and language learning. In E. Ryan and H. Giles
(Eds.), Attitudes towards language variation: social and applied contexts (pp. 132-148).
London: Edward Arnold.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., and Williams, A. (2003). Direct approaches. Investigating language
attitudes: social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance (pp. 24-50). Cardiff:
Univ. of Wales Press.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Introduction: the scope of language
attitudes. Investigating language attitudes: social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and
performance (pp. 1-23). Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press.
Gibbons, J., and Ramirez, E. (2004). Maintaining a Minority Language: A Case Study of
Hispanic Teenagers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., and Bourhis, R. (1973). Towards a theory of interpersonal
122
accommodation through language: some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2(2), 177192.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Ethnicity and intergroup communication. Language:
contexts and consequences (pp. 105-126). Milton Keynes: England: Open University
Press.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (1989). Social psychological aspects of bilinguality: culture and
identity. Bilinguality and bilingualism (Rev. ed., pp. 115-134). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hornberger, N. H., and Coronel-Molina, S. M. (2004). Quechua language shift, maintenance,
and revitalization in the Andes: the case for language planning. Int'l Soc. Lang., 167, 967.
INEGI (2008). Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Puebla. Secretaria de Desarrollo
Urbano. Periódico Oficial. Puebla: Gobierno Municipal.
Ibarra, C. E. (2011). Identity, language and history in Chipilo: The periodic (re) construction
of a Veneto community all'estero. Revista de Humanidades Sáranti, 2(1), Retrieved from
http://www.sarasuati.com/identity-language-and-history-in-chipilo-the-periodicreconstruction-of-a-veneto-community-allestero/
Johnstone, B. (2010). Indexing the local. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Handbook of Language and
Globalization (pp. 386-406). Wiley-Blackwell.
Kramarae C. (1982). Gender: How she speaks. In E. Ryan and H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes
towards language variation: social and applied contexts (pp. 84-98). London: Edward
123
Arnold.
Kraemer, R., & Menucha, B. (1993). Language attitudes and social group membership.
International Journal of Intercultural relations, 17, 437-449.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lambert, W. (1963). Psychological approaches to the study of language: Part II. The Modern
language journal, 47(3), 114-121.
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E.
Aboud & R. D. Meade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education (pp. 91–122).
Bellingham, WA: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning.
Lambert, W. E. (1978). Cognitive and socio-cultural consequences of bilingualism. The
Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 34(3),
537-547.
Mackay, C. J. (1992). Language maintenance in Chipilo: a Veneto dialect in Mexico. Int’ l. J.
Soc. Lang 96,129-145.
MacKay, C. J. (2002). Il dialetto Veneto di Segusino e Chipilo: fonologia, grammatica, lessico
veneto, spagnolo, italiano. Cornuda, Treviso:Grafiche Antiga.
Macaulay, R. (2006). Learning a second language. The social art. Language and its use.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, C. J. (1999). Dos casos de mantenimiento linguistico en Mexico: el totonaco y el
véneto. In Anita Herzfeld & Yolanda Lastra (Eds.), Las causas sociales de la
desaparicion y mantenimiento de las lenguas en las Americas. Hermosillo, Sonora:
Universidad de Sonora, Oficina de Publicaciones.
Meo Zilio, M. (1987a). Presenza, cultura, lingua e tradizioni dei Veneti nel mondo. Venezia:
124
Regione Veneto, Centro interuniversitario di studi veneti.
Meo Zilio,G (1987b). Lingue in contatto: Inferenze fra Veneto e Spagnolo in Messico. In Meo
Zilio (Ed.) Presenza, Cultura, Lingua e Tradizioni dei Veneti nel Mondo, Parte I. Giunta
Regionale Regione Veneto, 237-263.
Milardo, R. (1988). “Families and social networks: an overview of theory and methodology”.
In R. Milardo (ed.). Families and Social Networks, pp. 13-47. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.
Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and analysing natural language: a critical account of
sociolinguistic method. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Milroy, L., and Gordon, M. J. (2003). Sociolinguistics: method and interpretation. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Pub.
Montagner Anguiano E. Parlar par véneto, viver a Mésico. Puebla, Mexico: Secretaria de
Cultura.
Mufwene, S. S. (2003). Language endangerment: What have pride and prestige got to do with
it? Retrieved from http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mufwene/mufw_enda.html
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). The Roots of Language Contact. Contact linguistics: bilingual
encounters and grammatical outcomes (pp. 30-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers- Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple voices: an introduction to bilingualism. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
O'Rourke, B. (2011). Language attitudes. Galician and Irish in the European context:
attitudes towards weak and strong minority languages (pp. 5-33) Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Paulston, C. B. (1994). Linguistic minorities in multilingual settings: implications for
125
language policies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.
Passarelli, J. (1946) Italy in Mexico: Chipilo. Italica. 23.1, 40-45.
Pütz M. (1997). Language choices: conditions, constraints, and consequences. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Romani, P. (1992). Conservación del idioma en una comunidad italo-mexicana. México, D.F.:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Ryan, E. B. (1979). Why Do Low Prestige Language Varieties Persist? Giles H. and St. Clair
R. N. (Eds.) Language and Social Psychology. Pp. 145-157. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[Also: 1978, Baltimore, MD: University Park.]
Ryan, E. B., Giles H. and Sebastian R. J. (1982). An integrative perspective for the study of
attitudes toward language variation. Attitudes towards language variation: social and
applied contexts. In Ryan E.B. and Giles H (Eds.), 1-20, London: E. Arnold.
Savarino, F. (2002). Bajo el siglo del Littorio: la comunidad italiana en México y el fascismo
(1924-1941). Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 64(2), 113-139.
Savarino, F. (2006). Un Pueblo entre Dos Patrias. Mito, Historia e Identidad en Chipilo,
Puebla (1912-1943). Cuicuilco,36, 277-291.
Sartor, M., and Ursini, F. (1983). Cent'anni di emigrazione: una comunità veneta sugli
altipiani del Messico. Segusino: [s.n.].
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Metodología. Sociolinguistica y Pragrmatica (pp. 38-82).
Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Shuy, R. (1983). On discovering language attitudes. In Dudley, E., & Heller, P. (Eds.)
American attitudes toward foreign languages and foreign cultures (pp. 71-93). Bonn:
126
Bouvier.
Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13,
65-93.
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect: social and geographical perspectives. New York: New York
University Press.
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.
Wei, L. (1994). Three generations, two languages, one family language choice and language
shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Zago Bronca, J. A. (1982). Breve historia de la fundacion de Chipilo. Chipilo: Imprenta
Venecia.
Zago Bronca, J. A. (2006). Los vénetos: raíces de un pueblo mexicano. Puebla, Mexico.
Zago Bronca, J. A. (2007). Los Cuah'tatarame de Chipiloc: Puebla: 2d edition
Zentella, A.C. (1987). Language and female identity in the Puerto Rican community. In J.
Penfield (Ed.), Women and Language in Transition, 167-179. Albany: SUNY Press.
Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Zilli-Manica, J. B. (1981). Italianos en México: documentos para la historia de los colonos
italianos en México (1a ed.). Xalapa, Ver.: Ediciones San José.
127
APPENDIX A
Education L1 Veneto Secondary College University Secondary College University Secondary College University Secondary College Age Group 1 (18-­‐34) Women CP01FG1 CP01FG1 CP01FG1 CP04FG1 CP05FG1 CP06FG1 CP07FG1 CP08FG1 CP09FG1 Men CP01MG1 CP02MG1 CP03MG1 CP04MG1 CP05MG1 CP06MG1 CP07MG1 CP08MG1 CP09MG1 Age Group 2(35-­‐54) Women CP01FG2 CP02FG2 CP03FG2 CP04FG2 CP05FG2 CP06FG2 CP07FG2 CP08FG2 CP09FG2 Men CP01MG2 CP02MG2 CP03MG2 CP04MG2 Education L1 Spanish Secondary College University Secondary College University Secondary College University Secondary College Age Group 1 (18-­‐34) Women MP01FG1 MP02FG1 MP03FG1 MP04FG1 MP05FG1 MP06FG1 CP07MG1 CP08MG1 CP09MG1 Men MP01MG1 MP02MG1 MP03MG1 MP04MG1 MP05MG1 MP06MG1 MP07MG1 MP08MG1 MP09MG1 Age Group 2(35-­‐54) Women MP01FG2 MP02FG2 MP03FG2 MP04FG2 MP05FG2 MP06FG2 MP07FG2 MP08FG2 MP09FG2 Men MP01MG2 MP02MG2 MP03MG2 MP04MG2 128
University Secondary College University Secondary College University CP05MG2 CP06MG2 CP07MG2 CP08MG2 CP09MG2 Age Group 3 (55+) Women CP01FG3 CP02FG3 CP03FG3 CP04FG3 CP05FG3 CP06FG3 CP07FG3 CP08FG3 CP09FG3 Men CP01MG3 CP02MG3 CP03MG3 CP04MG3 CP05MG3 CP06MG3 CP07MG3 CP08MG3 CP09MG3 University Secondary College University Secondary College University MP05MG2 MP06MG2 MP07MG2 MP08MG2 MP09MG2 Age Group 3 (55+) Women MP01FG3 MP02FG3 MP03FG3 MP04FG3 MP05FG3 MP06FG3 MP07FG3 MP08FG3 MP09FG3 Men MP01MG3 MP02MG3 MP03MG3 MP04MG3
MP05MG3 MP06MG3 MP07MG3 MP08MG3 MP09MG3 129
APPENDIX B
Cuestinario 1
Instrucciones: Marque con una “X” la respuesta adecuada.
1. Sexo
masculino ____ femenino ______
2. Estado Civil:
soltero ___ casado____ divorciado___ union libre___viudo____
3. Edad:
de 18 a 34 años ____ de 35 a 54 años ____ más de 55 años___
4. Estudios realizados:
Primaria/secundaria completa ___preparatoria completa____ estudios de grado_____
5. Ocupación______________________
6. Lugar de trabajo (Chipilo, Puebla, etc.)______________________
7. ¿Qué lengua aprendió primero?
véneto____ español____
8. ¿Dónde aprendió el véneto?
familia____ calle____ trabajo____otro ( especificar)__________
9. ¿Dónde aprendió el español?
familia___calle___trabajo___escuela___otro (especificar)_________
10. ¿ De quién aprendió el véneto?
11. ¿ De quién aprendió el español?
12. ¿ Por qué los chipileños han conservado el véneto hasta ahora?
130
13. ¿Considera Usted que el véneto se puede escribir? Por qué?
14. ¿En qué lengua prefiere que le hablen sus hijos en la casa?
_________________________________________________
15. ¿Por qué razones considera Usted que es bueno saber hablar español?
16. ¿Por qué razones considera Usted que es bueno saber hablar el véneto?
_____________________________________________________________________
17. ¿Qué opinión tiene Usted del chipileño que no habla bien el español?
18. ¿Qué opinión tiene Usted del chipileño que no habla bien el véneto?
19. ¿Cree usted que el español posee cualidades lingüísticas especiales?
20. ¿Cree Usted que el véneto posee cualidades lingüísticas especiales? ( el vocabulario,
gramática etc.)
21. ¿Considera usted que el véneto podría desaparecer en Chipilo?
22. ¿Qué haría Usted para que el véneto no se perdiera en Chipilo?
________________________________________________________________
23. ¿Qué opina Usted sobre su conocimiento de véneto?
24. ¿Qué opina Usted sobre su conocimiento de español?
____________________________________________________________________
131
25. ¿Piensa Usted que se le destaca algo (su personalidad, carácter) a la persona con la forma en
que habla?
____________________________________________________________________
26. ¿Piensa Usted que el lenguaje es el parte de la cultura humana?
____________________________________________________________________
27. ¿Si véneto ya no existiera, cree Usted que la identidad chipileña sería distinta?
_____________________________________________________________________
28. ¿Cree Usted que se cambia/ se crea una actitud según el acento?
29. ¿Cambia la actitud de los mexicanos cuando se encuentran con un chipileño?
30. ¿Piensa Usted que los mexicanos tienen más oportunidades (para el trabajo, estudios) que los
chipileños?
_____________________________________________________________________
31. ¿Los chipileños tienen los mismos derechos que los mexicanos o a veces se sienten
discriminados? Cuándo? Por qué será?
____________________________________________________________________
32. ¿Cree Usted que los chipileños que son bilingües tienen mejor capacidad académica/ rinden
más en la escuela, trabajo etc.?
33. ¿Ha escuchado Usted críticas al véneto? Cuales?
__________________________________________________________________
34. ¿Cómo reacciona si se critica el véneto?
35. ¿Considera Usted que es fácil o difícil conocer y usar dos idiomas?
132
36. ¿Qué lengua piensa Usted que es bueno que sus hijos aprendan primero, el véneto o el
español? Por qué?
_____________________________________________________________________
37. ¿Considera Usted que en la escuela se podría impartir las clases en véneto?
38. ¿Si su hijo dejara de hablar el véneto, cuál sería su reacción?
____________________________