Linguistic exogamy and language shift in the northwest Amazon

Abstract

The sociocultural complex of the northwest Amazon is remarkable for its system of linguistic exogamy in which individuals marry outside their language groups. This article illustrates how linguistic exogamy crucially relies upon the alignment of descent and post-marital residence. Native ideologies apprehend languages as the inalienable possessions of patrilineally reckoned descent groups. At the same time, post-marital residence is traditionally patrilocal. This alignment between descent and post-marital residence means that the language which children are normatively expected to produce – the language of their patrilineal descent group – is also the language most widely spoken in the local community, easing acquisition of the target language. Indigenous migration to Catholic mission centers in the twentieth century and ongoing migration to urban areas along the Rio Negro in Brazil are reconfiguring the relationship between multilingualism and marriage. With out-migration from patrilineally-based villages, descent and post-marital residence are no longer aligned. Multilingualism is being rapidly eroded, with language shift from minority Eastern Tukanoan languages to Tukano being widespread. Continued practice of descent group exogamy even under such conditions of widespread language shift reflects how the semiotic relationship between language and descent group membership is conceptualized within the system of linguistic exogamy.

A typology of small-scale multilingualism

“…Among the Komnzo in southern Papua New Guinea (about 150–250 speakers; Döhler, 2019, 2021), people who share an identification with a particular place of origin should not intermarry. Ayres (1983, p. 186), as quoted by Döhler (2019, p. 27), notes that this rule is sometimes explained by the people themselves as a rule of dialect exogamy: “‘We should not intermarry because we talk the same language’ is a phrase sometimes stated by informants.” The most notorious example of what is called linguistic exogamy is that of the Vaupés basin (Upper Rio Negro), where individuals obligatorily marry outside their language group (Aikhenvald, 2002; Fleming, 2016; Jackson, 1974; Sorensen, 1967; Stenzel, 2005; for a brief overview of the studies see Chernela, 2013). However, Fleming (2016) suggests that linguistic exogamy in Vaupés could have developed as an epiphenomenon of clan-based exogamy, the custom of living in the husband’s settlement and self-identification of individuals with their patrilect.…”

“…However, Fleming (2016) suggests that linguistic exogamy in Vaupés could have developed as an epiphenomenon of clan-based exogamy, the custom of living in the husband’s settlement and self-identification of individuals with their patrilect. Fleming (2016, p. 22) shows that “the patrilect that one speaks is not determinative of one’s descent group membership. Individuals still identify with their patrilineal descent groups even after they have ceased to speak the patrilectal register indexical of it.”…”

Indigenous Names, Revitalization Politics, and Regimes of Recognition in the Northwest Amazon

“…The Brazilian state has continued to demonstrate reluctance to grant the territorial protections guaranteed in the 1988 constitution, as well as a relying on “degree of acculturation” as a means of declaring certain groups “no longer indian” (Maybury‐Lewis 2002a:342). The shifting political conditions of identifying as “indigenous” versus as “caboclo” have led the Baré to engage in a self‐conscious process of re‐indigenizing both the Baré identity and the Nheengatú language (once a colonial lingua franca ) (da Cruz ; Fleming ).…”

“…As Fleming (:236) argues, by claiming the Nheengatú language as cultural property, the Baré approximate Tukanoan practices that the state has previously recognized as marking indigeneity. This pattern also applies to the use of indigenous names.…”

Rural Social Networks along Amazonian Rivers: Seeds, Labor and Soccer among Communities on the Napo River, Peru

“…Ethnographies and studies on rural life and livelihoods in Amazonia have made important contributions to our understanding of a wide range of social exchange relations, including food or manioc beer sharing (Harris ; WinklerPrins and de Souza ; Franzen and Eaves 2008; Killick ; Welch ), transfers of knowledge (Henley ) and planting material (Boster ; Cole and others ; Cabral de Oliveira ; Heckler and Zent ; Coomes ; Abizaid and others ), labor sharing (Hames ; Takasaki and others ; Abizaid and others ), compadrazgo (godparenting or coparenting) (Killick ), migration (WinklerPrins and de Souza ; Padoch and others ; Randell and VanWey ), intermarriage (Reeve and High ; Fleming ), and trade (Lathrap ; Reeve ; Henley ). Such studies, however, either privilege relationships and interactions within a single community or a sample of households from a small number of communities, often of the same ethnic group, or connections between rural communities and the city, including market relations, urban‐ward migration for education and jobs, and the multisited nature of Amazonian life (WinklerPrins ; WinklerPrins and de Souza ; Padoch and others ; van Vliet and others ).…”