Linguistic attitudes toward Shipibo in Cantagallo: Reshaping indigenous language and identity in an urban setting

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study aims to explore language attitudes among speakers of Shipibo, an Amazonian indigenous language from the Panoan family, in the community of Cantagallo in the city of Lima, an urban, Spanish-dominant environment. The study is motivated by the paucity of studies on language attitudes in urban indigenous communities. The Cantagallo Shipibo community was settled in the early 2000s and temporarily relocated in 2017.

Methodology:

Interviews were conducted based on questionnaires with two groups of participants in 2002 and 2017, 60 in total, focusing on their attitudes toward Shipibo and Spanish. Some of the participants answered the questionnaires both times, others answered only once. Responses were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Open-ended responses were classified into similar categories and tallied.

Findings:

Participants showed positive attitudes toward Shipibo-Konibo in 2002 and 2017, and strong identification with it, but language shift toward Spanish is now taking place, especially among the second generation. This development has triggered perceived changes in the performance aspects of linguistic identity. Furthermore, while in 2002 attitudes toward Spanish were mostly positive, in 2017 some negative attitudes toward the majority language emerged along with the perception of discrimination against the Shipibo-Konibo.

Originality:

The study’s originality rests on tracing the evolution of this community’s perspectives on language use from shortly after its arrival in Cantagallo, Lima, to its final relocation. Furthermore, few other studies have engaged this Shipibo community in Lima regarding language attitudes.

Significance:

The project highlights the importance of different factors in the successful language maintenance in this context. Specifically, although speakers still have positive attitudes toward Shipibo, they also see increasing advantages to speaking Spanish, a clear case of utility-maximization.

Limitations:

Although the study provides important insights, its methodology (a questionnaire/interview) gives a partial view of the language attitudes and maintenance in this community.

Keywords

Language attitudes Shipibo-Konibo Spanish indigenous languages urban migration

Language attitudes toward indigenous languages

While the social standing of minority languages is strongly affected by the majority group’s attitudes, speakers of those languages themselves have variable attitudes toward their own language that affect the language’s social status.¹ As Sallabank (2013) points out, earlier studies on minority speakers’ linguistic attitudes tended to focus on the attitudes of the remaining speakers in a period of decline (cf. Dorian, 1981; Giles & Johnson, 1987; among others). However, more recent work has explored the attitudes by minority speakers toward their language and toward maintenance and revitalization efforts (cf. Kroskrity & Field, 2009; Meek, 2011; Urla, 2012; among others). As Kroskrity and Field (2009) note in relation to Native American languages, different communities may have different beliefs and feelings about language, which constitute their language ideologies. Silverstein (1979, p. 193) defines this concept as the “set of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use.” These ideologies shape and affect language maintenance and practice in the community. At the same time, language ideologies are dynamic, complex and sometimes even contradictory. Furthermore, they can shift as speakers’ sociocultural and economic conditions change. Sometimes, this shift tends to be more gradual over time when the community lives in a contiguous and continuous geographical area (for example, Irish, Catalan or Basque, cf. Fishman, 1991; Urla, 2012), while at other times shift happens quickly, which is often in the case of migration. Edwards (2010) argues in a typological approach that group identity may be linked to migration and geographical context, which will result in varying ecologies, as for example, Catalan minorities in adjoining (Andorra) and non-adjoining speech communities (Sardinia) with strong effects on language maintenance and revival countering language shift.

Kamwangamalu (2013) finds that the main indices of language shift in migration contexts involve colingualism, utility-maximization and low ethnolinguistic vitality. Schell (2008) defines colingualism as the use of a second language (L2) to communicate by people who share a common heritage first language (L1). This practice reflects utility-maximization (Tuominen, 1999), namely the cost and benefits of raising children in a minority language, particularly if that language has no positive status in the larger society. However, it should be pointed out that migrants do not operate in a social vacuum where they calculate costs and benefits, but they dynamically interact with the larger society, which frequently brings strong socioeconomic and ideological pressures for migrants to integrate and abandon ethnolinguistic symbols, particularly language. In this sense, Giles et al.’s (1977) ethnolinguistic vitality includes status factors (economic, social, sociohistorical and language status), demographic factors (distribution and numbers) and institutional support (formal and informal). Migration to an urban environment negatively impacts most of these factors: migrants may lose geographical continuity, they may enter the new socioeconomic hierarchy at a relatively lower position and their original language is now in direct competition with a strong majority language.

In addition, language identity closely interacts with ethnolinguistic vitality: for some groups, language is an essential part of ethnicity; for other groups, other concepts define ethnicity, such as shared history, culture, etc. Language identity, in turn, has different components: Bucholtz and Hall (2004) distinguish between identity as practice (“habitual social activity”), identity as performance (“a highly deliberate and self-aware social display”) and identity as indexicality (the process by which one event points to another, thereby extracting meaning through juxtaposition of two events).

From a different perspective, speakers of the majority language frequently have negative attitudes toward the minority language, associated with the asymmetric power relationship between majority and minority speakers. For members of socially less powerful groups, minority language use is not only socially marked as less prestigious, but their speakers are usually perceived as less powerful by majority language speakers and even by minority language speakers themselves. As Sallabank (2013, p. 66) points out, negative attitudes “are both outcome and cause of language shift.”

Another rather intriguing cause for language shift is inconsistency of language attitudes and language use (Fishman, 1964). In a study about use and attitudes toward the two official languages, Spanish and Guaraní, with secondary students and parents of bilingual schools in urban Paraguay, a country with a long history of healthy bilingualism, Choi (2003) found a notable decrease in linguistic use of Guaraní among the urban youth despite a prevalence of positive attitudes toward the minority language, Guaraní. Further north, the demonstration of linguistic pride and loyalty toward their native language, Quechua, in bilingual speakers in Puno (Hornberger, 1988) and also across Andean urban centers in Ecuador (King, 2000) does not match linguistic use either (cf. Howard, 2007). Although they associate their native language with their cultural identity, lack of transmission from parents on to children in urban areas seems to be the common factor for the lack of linguistic practice. In Paraguay, urbanization in the form of increased migration from rural areas to urban centers seems to favor the emergence of a dichotomy consisting of Guaraní-only speakers in rural areas and Spanish-only speakers in urban areas (Choi, 2003, p. 92).

In Peru, the rate of migration from rural Quechua-dominant areas to the Spanish-dominant and multilingual capital Lima presents an imminent danger to the continuation of Quechua as a living indigenous language and the same applies to other indigenous languages. While knowledge and use of Quechua are highly esteemed as a “critical element of ethnic identity” in rural areas (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004), it is considered a primitive language without economic value associated with lack of education and social inferiority by non-Quechua speakers in urban areas (Manley, 2008). Migrants who have acquired Spanish may go as far as not speaking their native language, including denying knowledge of their native language to avoid stigmatization (Hornberger & Coronel-Molina, 2004).² As noted by Bratt Paulston (1994, p. 66), “embracing Quechua is to announce to the world that you are Indian, a word so stigmatized in Peruvian Spanish that its official euphemism is campesino ‘peasant’.”

A strong association between indigenous language, indigenous identity and socioeconomic status is found in rural areas, where the majority are Quechua speakers with variable knowledge of Spanish (García, 2004). There is a strong belief that learning Spanish will afford them entry to mainstream mestizo society, both economically and socially.

Such negative linguistic attitudes have led to an observed shift from Quechua monolingualism through Quechua-Spanish bilingualism to Spanish monolingualism in urban areas with parents not speaking their language to the children, thus triggering a lack of interest and desire to learn their heritage language in the young, and seriously endangering continuation of transmission across generations in urban areas (Howard, 2004, 2011; see also Spolsky, 2012, more generally).

Language use anchored in the institutional domain can be a powerful tool to reinstate community structures and re-imagine them as transnational processes while strengthening and reconstructing indigenous identities. An excellent example would be the ayllu movement in Bolivia, which has led to culturally appropriate governmental practices informed and shaped by combining indigenous governmental practice, guided by indigenous peoples in their indigenous language (Andolina et al., 2005). Recent developments in Peruvian language policies have established the legal base for the process of legitimation and institutionalization of indigenous languages, opening up the doors to sustainable bilingual education in the near future (Ministerio de Educación de Perú, 2017; Panizo Jansana, 2017). The professionalization of minority languages not only tackles the stigmatization problem by raising their status but also addresses their socioeconomic value as one of the key factors in ethnic language vitality and sustainable bilingualism (Ferguson, 2006; Grin, 2002).

In this paper, we focus on how urbanization through migration may have affected language attitudes and perceptions of language use among speakers of the Amazonian language Shipibo living in Cantagallo, Lima, Peru, an urban settlement characterized by a strong indigenous identity. We focus on language attitudes because we assume language identity is dynamic and negotiated, and language attitudes are an important factor that shapes them. The organization of the paper is as follows: we present first the history of the settlement of the Shipibo-Konibo community since they migrated from their rural homelands to the Capital Lima followed by our three research questions. Next, we present the methodology of the data collection, followed by a detailed discussion of results from both surveys. A brief conclusion is given at the end.

The history of the Shipibo-Konibo community in Cantagallo

The Shipibo-Konibo are one of the largest indigenous groups in the Peruvian Amazon region, with approximate 35,634 members (Ministerio de Cultura de Perú, 2017). These indigenous people are known as a riverside group because they have resided for a long time in the coastal zone of the Ucayali River and its affluents. However, today, the Shipibo-Konibo community is located in different areas within the Peruvian territory. In Lima, the capital of Peru, Shipibo-Konibo migration has intensified over the last two decades (Vega, 2014). One of the main waves of migration took place between 1996 and 2000, because the Shipibo-Konibo people were searching for better job opportunities and a better quality of education (Vega, 2014). However, migrations also occurred in previous years as a survival response to the violence brought about by what has been labeled Peru’s Internal Conflict (“Conflicto Armado Interno” in Spanish) that started in the 1980s and lasted in its most violent forms until the 1990s. During the years of the Internal Conflict, many indigenous populations suffered persecution from the insurgents and the armed forces (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, 2003). Therefore, the social configuration of the Shipibo-Konibo community of Cantagallo is the outcome of many migration stories.

Although many Shipibo-Konibo migrated to Lima and settled down in different areas, a group congregated mainly around the Native House (“Casa Nativa” in Spanish), also denominated “Tarata” (name of the street where the house was located), in the center of Lima. Years later, the Shipibo-Konibo people in this group found empty land next to the Rimac River, where what we know today as the Cantagallo settlement was built. However, another Shipibo-Konibo group recalls that Cantagallo was built up by the artisans who arrived in Lima to participate in a fair. This fair was held in the current location of Cantagallo. After the end of the fair, many artisans decided to stay in such a location. The formation of Cantagallo has also been traced back to the “Marcha de los Cuatro Suyos” (March of the Four Regions)³ in 2000, which was a historical march held in the streets of Lima, as well as in other regions, in which several indigenous representatives of the country, among them, Shipibo-Konibo groups from Ucayali, were congregated.

Although the population of Cantagallo is formed mainly by members of the Shipibo-Konibo community, migrants from other Amazon communities also live there, as well as with a significant number of migrants from the Andes, and residents of the city of Lima, to whom the Shipibo-Konibos refer to as “mestizos.” Despite the complex configuration of its population, Cantagallo has important representative organizations. In terms of political representation, the Shipibo-Konibo community is organized in three associations (named hereafter according to their Peruvian acronyms): AVSHIL (“Asociación de Viviendas de Shipibos en Lima”), ASHIREL (“Asociación de Shipibos Residentes en Lima”) and ACUSHIKOLM (“Asociación Comunidad Urbana Shipibo Conibo de Lima Metropolitana”).⁴ They have been able to make consensual agreements about basic services and trading related to their artisanal work (Espinosa, 2009, 2012, 2016; Tintaya Orihuela, 2017; Zavala and Bariola, 2010). It is through these associations that the creation of the intercultural bilingual school “Comunidad Shipiba” was achieved, where classes are taught both in Shipibo and Spanish. Likewise, after a series of administrative struggles with the Municipality of Lima, they have managed to agree with Lima authorities on the construction of a housing complex within the Cantagallo area. To accomplish this, the Shipibo-Konibos have agreed to temporarily relocate the community to other parts of Lima while construction takes place. The data reported in this study were collected at two different moments in the history of the Shipibo-Konibo community in Cantagallo. The first set of data was collected in 2002 at the initial stages of the establishment of Cantagallo and the second set of data was collected in 2017 in the context of the temporary resettlement mentioned above.

Given this complex history of an indigenous settlement in an urban environment that is characterized by the linguistic dominance of a non-indigenous language, Spanish, we developed the following research questions.

What were the main attitudes toward Shipibo as an indigenous language spoken within an indigenous community surrounded by a non-indigenous urban environment in the early stages of settlement (in 2002) and the later stages of settlement (in 2017)?

What were the main attitudes toward Spanish as a non-indigenous socially dominant language in the urban environment in 2002 and 2017?

How have speakers’ attitudes and perceptions about both languages been re-shaped during that period (2002–2017)?

Studying language attitudes in Cantagallo in 2002 and 2017

One of the most salient characteristics of the Shipibo-Konibo community of Cantagallo has been the communal focus on indigenous identity and the efforts to preserve and re-shape Shipibo-Konibo cultural and linguistic identity against the backdrop of the large city of Lima (Espinosa, 2009, 2012).⁵ In that context, the existence of a community of approximately 300 families with an indigenous identity poses the question of how linguistic identity was shaped at the beginning of the settlement and how it is currently re-shaped by the urban experience. To explore the issue of how prolonged immersion in an urban context where the majority language is socially dominant has shaped attitudes toward Shipibo in the Cantagallo community, we compare the results of a survey taken in 2002 at the earlier stages of its settlement and in 2017 at the moment in which temporary resettlement was taking place.

Methods

The survey

In 2002, a survey was conducted among 30 members of the Shipibo-Konibo community in Cantagallo, Lima, as part of a study on Spanish in contact with Shipibo (Sánchez et al., 2010). The survey consisted of 21 questions that focused on the participants’ data on sex, age, level of formal instruction, language experience in Shipibo and Spanish and participant’s attitude toward Shipibo and Spanish (Appendix A). Only part of the survey was reported by Sánchez et al. (2010), as the questions on attitudes toward Shipibo and Spanish were not the focus of that study. Fifteen years later, in 2017, a very similar questionnaire was administered to understand whether changes in the community’s perceptions of language preferences had taken place.⁶ Out of the 30 speakers in the 2017 group, nine speakers had also been interviewed in 2002.⁷ This allowed us the possibility of comparing their responses after 15 years. In 2002 and 2017, participants were interviewed in Cantagallo. Both studies were conducted in Spanish, with the interviewer transcribing and annotating the oral answers given by participants. Some of the questions requested factual information (age, length of exposure, etc., see the Appendix), but some of them were open-ended, and allowed for participants to provide their opinion on the topic of the question (for example, “what is your opinion of Shipibo?”).

The 2002 group

Participants in this group were 14 males and 16 females with an age range between 20 and 55, average age 37.3 years old. Twenty-six of them were from the Ucayali region; four were from the Loreto region on the border with the Ucayali region. Most of the participants considered Shipibo their L1 and Spanish their L2 and only two considered both languages as their L1s. All of them reported Shipibo to be the language they spoke in their childhood and three included Spanish also as a language spoken in childhood. Twelve participants reported having been raised by Shipibo monolingual parents, while 18 reported having at least one parent with some knowledge or use of Spanish. There was a wide range of variation regarding the years passed since their arrival in the city of Lima (although not necessarily in Cantagallo) from one month to 37 years. Age of arrival in Lima also varied greatly ranging from 13 to 47, with an average age of arrival of 30. Regarding participants’ level of instruction, 16 participants had elementary level education, 11 had secondary level education and three had college level education. All participants were members of the Shipibo-Konibo community in Cantagallo and, in that context, they maintained a strong sense of Shipibo-Konibo identity.

The 2017 group

Participants in this group included 13 males and 17 females ranging in age from 20 to 62 years old, average 35.5 years old, similar to the 2002 group. Nine participants from the 2002 study were included in this group (three males and six females). As in the 2002 group, the majority of participants in this group, 26, were born in the Ucayali region, three in the Loreto region and one was born in the city of Lima. All participants considered Shipibo their L1 and Spanish their L2, except one who stated that he understands Shipibo but does not speak the language. Two participants responded that they considered Shipibo and Spanish their L1s. All participants had a parent or a caretaker who spoke Shipibo, and only one participant had a parent who spoke Quechua and Shipibo. Twenty-four participants indicated that their caretakers spoke Spanish, although in two cases the use of Spanish was infrequent. Similar to the 2002 interviews, the range of years since arrival in Lima varied greatly from six to 37 years and so did age of arrival from three and a half years to 39 years of age. Five participants had elementary education, and they all belonged to the group of nine participants interviewed in 2002; 15 participants had secondary level education and 10 participants had some or complete post secondary education, making levels of formal instruction higher on average than that of participants in the 2002 survey.

Results

In this section, we present results of the questions about attitudes toward Shipibo and Spanish and, in the case of the 2017 survey, attitudes toward code-mixing.

2002 interviews

Twenty-seven participants reported speaking Shipibo in their childhood, while three reported speaking both Shipibo and Spanish. At the time of the interview, all participants reported Shipibo as the language they spoke at home, and only two participants indicated they also spoke Spanish at home. All speakers reported feeling comfortable speaking in Shipibo and 10 reported feeling comfortable speaking in Spanish too. Ten speakers reported speaking in both languages with friends, and all reported speaking in Shipibo with friends.

Attitudes toward Shipibo

The 2002 answers to the questions about language attitudes toward Shipibo can be grouped into three categories: (a) Shipibo is a source of community and/or indigenous identity (19 participants); (b) Shipibo is the language of self-expression (nine participants); and (c) Shipibo is important/should be official (two participants). In the first category, some of the responses include statements that point to maintaining connections within the community as in “Shipibo is important to speak with my old countrymen,” “It’s natural. I prefer children to learn Shipibo in my community before Spanish because you learn traditions, there are some words that can’t be translated into Spanish.” Other statements focused on the Shipibo language as a source of racial and community identity: “The Shipibo language is very important since ancient times because that is how we remember our ancestors,” “Shipibo is our dialect, and we speak in Shipibo because it belongs to our race,” “It’s our language because we are Shipibo,” “I feel fine, and I can’t forget it. I want to maintain my language because I am a native Shipibo,” or more directly: “It’s our language because we are Shipibo.” In the second category, some of the responses refer to Shipibo as a mother tongue: “A mother tongue cannot be forgotten” and as a better language for expression than Spanish: “there are expressions that cannot be translated into Spanish. For example, color.” Regarding the third category, Shipibo is beautiful. Several speakers referred to Shipibo as beautiful “It’s very beautiful, and I like to speak it a lot,” “It’s beautiful, it’s indigenous.” Some participants used words such as “important,” “better,” “nice” when providing their opinion about Shipibo, and one used the word “proud” in reference to the language. One participant provided a language policy proposal: “We should make Shipibo an official language at the regional level, it is very important for communication. I value my Shipibo language.” Overall, all responses were positive, and there were no negative opinions about Shipibo as a language.

Shipibo in the next generation

Concerning the question of whether the participant’s children speak Shipibo, which we take as an indirect measure of the participant’s commitment to Shipibo as a language, 29 participants stated that their children speak or should speak Shipibo, including three participants who had no children at the time of the interview. One participant did not respond to this question, and another one stated that her daughter does not speak Shipibo because her husband is not Shipibo and the daughter lived with him at the time of the interview. There were three types of answers that were most frequent: (a) it is important for children to speak Shipibo to preserve culture and traditions (13 participants); (b) children learn or should learn Shipibo and Spanish (11 participants); and (c) children do speak Shipibo (four participants). One participant mentioned the importance of Shipibo to communicate with family, and another one stated that children should learn Shipibo so that they would not “suffer” with Spanish. Overall, in the 2017 survey, participants seemed very much in favor of their children speaking Shipibo.

Attitudes toward Spanish

The answers to the question about participants’ opinions of Spanish can be categorized as follows. (a) Spanish is important for education and work, and it is the language of learning: “It’s natural to learn to read and write in that language. This language is good to know more things,” “It’s a tool for work,” especially important for the children: “It’s also very important to teach our children Spanish, so they do not suffer here when the teacher speaks to them in Spanish here.” (b) Spanish was also viewed as an instrument to broaden networks: “It’s to communicate with more people. Without that language, we wouldn’t be able to communicate with other persons” (nine participants). (c) Spanish is important to integrate into society (two participants), one participant asserted: “It is important for me to integrate us into society.” Another participant referred to the need to communicate with “mestizos,” a term used to refer to people perceived as not indigenous: “For conversation. As my children say, now we are in Lima among mestizos. We speak Spanish.” (d) It is beautiful: “Also beautiful but I almost don’t understand,” “Also important” (three participants). (e) Other responses: “I want to learn to speak my language and Spanish,” “Nice. You want to speak more Spanish to speak better,” “It is also important to learn Spanish to be somebody important” (seven participants).

2017 interviews

Unlike in 2002, 20 participants reported speaking both Shipibo and Spanish in their childhood, including four of the nine participants who in 2002 had indicated speaking only Shipibo in childhood. Eight participants indicated that their caretakers spoke only or mostly Shipibo, 18 indicated their caretakers spoke both languages and one indicated that one of his parents spoke Quechua. In this group, all participants reported speaking both Shipibo and Spanish at home. Four participants stated they speak Shipibo more frequently than Spanish and nine reported speaking Spanish with their children. One participant reported speaking Spanish with her husband because he is Ashaninka and another participant reported speaking Spanish with her neighbors because they are of Andean background and not of Shipibo background.

Four speakers reported feeling more comfortable speaking in Spanish; one of them was part of the 2002 interview and had reported then feeling more comfortable speaking in Shipibo. Nineteen speakers stated they felt more comfortable speaking in Shipibo, and seven participants indicated feeling comfortable with both languages, but some qualified their answers. One participant said that she felt more comfortable speaking in Shipibo but highlighted discrimination against the language. Other participants who feel more comfortable speaking Shipibo mentioned difficulties with Spanish pronunciation or lack of fluency in Spanish. Among those who reported feeling comfortable with both languages, one participant from the 2002 group reported a shift in dominance from Shipibo to Spanish.

Attitudes toward Shipibo

Twenty-nine participants responded to this question. Answers in the 2017 survey showed three categories similar to those we created for the 2002 survey. However, in contrast with the 2002 interviews, more categories emerged: (a) Shipibo as a source of community and/or indigenous identity (10 participants); (b) identity/pride even in the face of discrimination (nine participants); (c) Shipibo as the language of self-expression (five participants); (d) Shipibo as an important/happy language (two participants); and (e) Shipibo is being lost (one participant).

(a) Participants’ responses linked Shipibo to notions of belonging very explicitly: “It’s belonging, it’s family, it’s traditions,” “Speaking Shipibo is related to being Shipibo.” (b) There were several references to linguistic discrimination. One of the participants views speaking Shipibo as a way of acknowledging their roots despite discrimination. Another responded “I am proud. I am not ashamed.” Of interest is the statement by a third participant that Shipibo can be spoken once one has succeeded in life in reference to Shipibo being accepted among people who attend college. (c) As in 2002, Shipibo was perceived as a language of self-expression by five participants, as indicated by answers such as “It is my first language. I could never forget it,” “It is my language, and it is beautiful.” (d) There were other positive comments such as “It is happy” and “It has value.” (e) One participant, however, indicated that Shipibo has become endangered in recent years.

Shipibo in the next generation

Unlike in 2002, all participants indicated that they have children. The age range is wide and goes from two to 39 years old. The number of children per participant ranged from one child (seven participants) to six children (two participants). This time the answers were more varied and can be categorized as follows: (a) the older children speak/understand Shipibo but the younger children have limited Shipibo skills (10 participants); (b) the child/children have limited Shipibo skills, namely, they understand but they do not speak the language (10 participants); (c) all of the children speak/understand Shipibo and Spanish (five participants); (d) all of the children speak/understand Shipibo (two participants); (e) the child/children do not speak/understand Shipibo (two participants); and (f) the younger children speak/understand Shipibo but the older children have limited Shipibo skills (one participant). As we can see, new patterns have emerged after 15 years, and although there is a bilingual intercultural school in Cantagallo and many parents are proud of speaking Shipibo despite discrimination, in the view of many parents, transmission of the language has been affected, particularly regarding oral skills. It has affected younger siblings more than older ones.

Attitudes toward Spanish

Twenty-nine participants answered this question. While some categories that emerged in 2002 could also be found in the 2017 answers, unlike in 2002, negative opinions of Spanish emerged. These are the categories we identified: (a) Spanish is important for education and work (seven participants); (b) Spanish is an instrument to broaden networks (seven participants); (c) negative opinions (six participants); (d) positive opinions (six participants); (e) other (three participants); (f) no answer (one participant). Below, we expand on these categories.

(a) Participants identified Spanish with globalization, technology and knowledge: “It is needed to become educated, to study.” (b) Some participants view Spanish as necessary to communicate with others: “It is important to communicate with those who do not speak Shipibo.” Another participant pointed out the need to speak Spanish for work: “For shopping, or in a job they speak Spanish.” There is also the perception that speaking Spanish is mandatory in some contexts: “An obligation.” (c) Unlike in 2002, there were somewhat negative opinions of Spanish. A participant considers the exclusive use of Spanish upsetting. Another participant thinks that Spanish speakers: “do not translate correctly,” others consider Spanish a “borrowed” language and one participant thinks the reason some Shipibos speak Spanish is discrimination. (d) As in 2002, there were also positive opinions of Spanish: “It is a second language, and it is also good,” “It’s fine” or “It is like a complement, a legitimate translation.” (e) One participant focused on bilingualism: “Each parent must teach both languages to their children. They kill their own language if they only speak Spanish.” Another speaker referred to speaking Spanish as a form of experimentation. Overall, attitudes toward Spanish seem to be more varied in 2017 and include more negative views of Spanish and some awareness of discrimination against Shipibo as one of the reasons for language shift toward Spanish.

Attitudes about mixing languages

In the course of the 2017 interviews, 29 participants gave opinions about mixing languages. These can be classified into three categories: (a) explanatory (17 participants); (b) positive opinions (seven participants); and (c) negative opinions (five participants). (a) The majority of participants commented on the reasons why Shipibo speakers engage in code-mixing. Participant SP43 pointed out that sometimes long words in Shipibo, an agglutinative language, are replaced by short words in Spanish and that switching to Spanish was needed when using technical words. Participant SP44 noticed that Spanish was used when interlocutors do not know or do not understand Shipibo words and that Spanish was used to provide explanations. Participant SP45 pointed out that there are words that cannot be said in Shipibo but do exist in Spanish and that is why speakers mix languages. Other participants view code-mixing as part of a teaching/learning process that helps those with limited understanding. Six participants related code-mixing to general practice or the context of speaking Spanish. (b) There were positive opinions about code-mixing: “It is better to speak the two languages than only one,” “It is good to listen to both languages,” “It helps you to distinguish both languages,” “It is fine, what matters is sharing,” “It is appreciated, it is not bad speaking that way,” “It is good because that way they speak both languages.” (c) There were also negative opinions about code-mixing. Some participants find code-mixing worrisome as an indication of loss of Shipibo. Participant SP32 expressed concern that even community leaders engage in this practice. Participant SP35 identified this practice as part of Lima Shipibo. He does not like to mix and thinks this happens because they live in the city. Participant SP39 engages in code-mixing but thinks she should not, and participant SP04 thinks the practice indicates speakers “do not speak either (language) well.” Overall, code-mixing as a practice is acknowledged and most participants view it either in neutral or positive terms.

In the next section, we will discuss these results as answers to research questions 1 and 2, and we will provide a more detailed answer to research question 3.

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to explore three research questions.

What were the main attitudes toward Spanish as a non-indigenous socially dominant language in the urban environment in 2002 and 2017?

How have speakers’ attitudes and perceptions about both languages been re-shaped during that period (2002–2017)?

Concerning the first question, our data suggest that in 2002 and 2017 attitudes toward Shipibo were mostly positive and participants felt strongly that transmission of Shipibo to the next generation was possible and highly desirable. The Shipibo language was perceived by the majority in the group as a source of Shipibo-Konibo identity. This result is in line with previous literature (cf. Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Tabouret-Keller, 1997; among others). As mentioned earlier, Bucholtz and Hall (2004) distinguish between identity as practice, performance and indexicality. All of these aspects, as well as power relations, are structured and organized through ideology. If we compare the answers by the Cantagallo Shipibo speakers in 2002 and 2017, we see preliminary evidence of their language as an identity marker in some of these aspects, which will be confirmed when we examine the individual responses in detail. Firstly, Shipibo was perceived in 2002 and 2017 as part of community and indigenous identity by the majority of participants, as seen from the answers in Table 1. In addition, participants identify the language with their culture and traditions, with self-expression, which can be interpreted as performance and practice.

Table 1.

Attitudes toward Shipibo.

	2002 group	2017 group
Community/ Indigenous identity	19	10
Identity/pride (despite discrimination)	0	9
Self-expression	9	5
Importance/official/other positive	2	4
Shipibo is being lost	0	1
No answer	0	1
Totals	30	30

It is important to note that in 2017 awareness of linguistic discrimination against Shipibo surfaces in the participants’ responses, as well as the notion that Shipibo is endangered. Table 1 presents a classification of the participants’ individual responses into different categories (including “other positive”).

Thus, the 2017 group still sees the language as a marker of social practice and as an indexical of cultural and ethnic identity, although increasingly associated with discrimination and language endangerment. Of course, participants’ responses to survey questions are limited in scope but they are revealing of a change in perception.⁸ This change in perception is evidence of the dynamic nature of language attitudes and of the way in which they shape and are shaped by language ideology.

Regarding the second question, arguably, the main shift between 2002 and 2017 relates to the change in the perception of the socioeconomic power relations, manifested in opinions about Spanish. Attitudes toward Spanish in 2002 reflected an understanding of the power asymmetries between the two languages: Spanish opens the door to education and work, to networking and even to integration. It is even considered a “beautiful” language, as seen in Table 2. In 2017, it is still seen as a language for education and work (although to a lesser extent), but, most importantly, it is also associated with discrimination by 20% of participants, as we will see in more detail in the analysis of individual responses below. None of the early participants characterized it in such negative terms earlier.

Table 2.

Attitudes toward Spanish.

	2002 group	2017 group
Important for education and work	9	7
Instrument to broaden networks	9	7
Important to integrate into society	2	0
Positive opinions/beautiful/important	3	6
Negative opinions	0	6
Other	7	3
No answer	0	1
Total	30	30

In order to understand how attitudes and perceptions have changed in the period between 2002 and 2017, we compare the two groups’ responses not only to questions about their opinions of Shipibo and Spanish but also their responses to questions about languages spoken in childhood, languages spoken at home and languages in which the participant felt most comfortable, because they can give us a sense of identity as performance.

A comparison of both groups’ results with respect to participants’ perceptions of languages spoken in childhood, languages spoken at home and languages that the participant felt most comfortable with shows some differences between the 2002 and the 2017 groups concerning their perceptions (Table 3). These differences may be helpful in understanding the complexity of the linguistic situation in which the Shipibo-Konibo community in Cantagallo lives.

Table 3.

Perceptions on language spoken in childhood, at home and more comfortably, according to number of participants in each group.

	Language(s) spoken in childhood		Language(s) spoken at home		Language(s) spoken more comfortably
	2002	2017	2002	2017	2002	2017
Shipibo	28 (93%)	4 (17%)	28 (93%)	0 (0%)	19 (63%)	20 (67%)
Spanish	0 (0%)	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (3%)	3 (10%)
Both	2 (7%)	20 (67%)	2 (7%)	30 (100%)	10 (33%)	7 (23%)
No answer	0 (0%)	5 (13%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Totals	30 (100%)	30 (100%)	30 (100%)	30 (100%)	30 (100%)	30 (100%)

The percentage of participants who perceived Shipibo as the only language spoken in childhood is lower in the 2017 group (17%) than in the 2002 group (93%), and this includes four out of the nine participants interviewed in 2002. This appears to indicate that their years in Lima have changed their perception of how much Spanish they spoke in their childhood. In 2017, all of the participants stated that they speak both languages at home. This differs greatly from only 7% stating the same in 2002, indicating an increasing role for Spanish in the home. Thirty percent (30%) of the 2017 participants state that Spanish is spoken at home either by the children or when the parents are interacting with the children. This suggests a shift in language use (particularly a shift toward colingualism) between 2002 and 2017. However, it is also possible that this shift had already started before migration, as Kamwangamalu (2013, p. 14) suggests for similar cases. In this sense, although 93% of participants reported that Shipibo was the preferred language in 2002, it is also true that they had received some instruction in Spanish, and one third of them reported speaking Spanish comfortably in 2002, as seen in Table 3.⁹

It should be noted that patterns of bilingualism among children are very complex, as seen in Table 4, which reports the number of answers in each category (not numbers of children). Most responses indicate that children have limited proficiency in Shipibo (10), particularly younger ones (10), but one participant shows the opposite age pattern, seven indicate that children are proficient in the language and two respond that children do not speak Shipibo at all.

Table 4.

Language status of children (2017).

Older children speak/understand – Younger children have limited Shipibo	10
The child/children have limited Shipibo (they understand, but they do not speak)	10
All of the children speak/understand Shipibo and Spanish	5
All of the children speak/understand Shipibo	2
The child/children do not speak/understand Shipibo	2
Younger children speak/understand – Older children have limited Shipibo	1

Both of these response patterns (language use at home and children’s language proficiency) indicate an increasing generational shift toward bilingualism or monolingualism in Spanish. This situation is fairly typical of immigrant communities (cf. quoted in Appel and Muysken, 1984; Tosi, 1984). This outcome impacts the ethnolinguistic vitality of Shipibo, as the community assesses the increasing costs imposed on language maintenance in a context where Shipibo has little social prestige or economic value. In this sense, the shift from Shipibo to Spanish shows a clear case of utility-maximization (cf. Kamwangamalu, 2013). This pattern also indicates that Shipibo is no longer seen as a symbol of identity in practice, performance or indexicality, particularly for the younger generation.

Changes in attitudes and perceptions: A closer look

To understand whether the shifts we have described in the previous section reflect speakers’ perceptions of a change in the socioeconomic conditions around them, or whether they reflect a generational gap, we turn now to the subgroup that participated in the 2002 and the 2017 studies. A closer look at the responses provided by those nine participants common to both surveys shows no significant changes in their opinions about Shipibo. Participant SP06 expressed that Shipibo is beautiful in 2002. He also said that it is indigenous, and that he is proud to speak the language. In 2017, he reiterated those opinions. To him, Shipibo is belonging, family and traditions. Participant SP12 in 2002 saw Shipibo as a symbol of identity, and in 2017, he related Shipibo as a language to Shipibo identity. Similarly, participant SP19 2002 said Shipibo is very important, and it cannot be ignored as it is their language. She stated that she was proud to be Shipiba. In 2017, her response was similar. Shipibo is important; it is her mother tongue. That cannot be changed because those are their roots. Participant SP25 said in 2002 that he liked to speak Shipibo and he stated: “I think my culture is very important. People should not forget to speak Shipibo.” In 2017, he said he was proud of Shipibo. Participant SP15 said in 2002 that Shipibo is better and that other people ask her to teach them Shipibo. She reiterated this in 2017. SP27 said in 2002 that Shipibo is fine and she likes to speak it. In 2017, she said it has value. Participants SP29 and SP07 have not changed their positive opinions either: in 2002, SP29 said Shipibo is nice and easy to speak for her and, in 2017, she said it is fine. SP07 said in 2002: “It’s easier to communicate” and in 2017: “It is happy.” Participant SP04 said in 2002 that Shipibo is beautiful and, in 2017, she stated that Shipibo is her language because she was born that way.

When comparing the results of the nine participants interviewed in 2002 and 2017 regarding the answer to the question: “Do your children speak Shipibo?”, many differences emerged (see Table 5 for the overall responses). In 2017, four participants have children who are not fluent in Shipibo despite their positive approach to their children learning Shipibo in 2002. Participant SP04, who in 2002 answered: “yes, because I teach them,” had a more complex response in 2017. His four children born in Lima do not speak Shipibo, and only the two older ones speak both languages. Participant SP06 had no children in 2002 but stated that he would like for his children to speak Shipibo because it is a beautiful language. In 2017, this participant declared having three children, two of them, the younger ones, ages 8 and 12, are not fluent in Shipibo and the older one, age 14, understands Shipibo and speaks some words. Similarly, participant SP07 stated in 2002 that her children spoke Shipibo to preserve their culture. In 2017, of her three children, the oldest one, age 39, speaks and understands Shipibo and Spanish but the younger ones, ages 33 and 28, understand Shipibo but do not speak much. Participant SP19 stated in 2002 that her child, who was two years old at the time of the interview, should learn more Shipibo first and then Spanish. In 2017, her daughter understands Shipibo but does not speak it. A different pattern was found in the responses of two participants, SP25 and SP29, who in 2002 had stated that they taught Shipibo to their children. In 2017, they have older children (+20 years old) fluent in Shipibo, middle children who understand Shipibo but do not speak the language and a 13- and a 12-year-old, respectively, who speak Shipibo. SP29 also has a seven year old who speaks more Spanish, indicating some form of variability in the exposure that different siblings have had to Shipibo. Only one participant, SP12, who had stated in 2002 that their children spoke Shipibo to maintain their traditions, stated in 2017 that all his children speak Shipibo now. Finally, participant SP15, who affirmed in 2002 that her children spoke Shipibo, in 2017 stated that of her six children only the two younger ones, who live with her, speak Shipibo. Overall, the results from this subgroup of participants confirm increasing colingualism (cf. Schell, 2008).

Table 5.

Shipibo in the next generation in 2002 and 2017.

	2002 group	2017 group
Important to preserve culture and traditions	13	0
Children learn or should learn Shipibo and Spanish/Children do speak Shipibo	15	7^a
Children do not speak Shipibo	1	2
Older children speak/understand – Younger children have limited Shipibo	0	10
The child/children have limited Shipibo (they understand, but they do not speak the language)	0	10
Younger children speak/understand – Older children have limited Shipibo	0	1
No answer	1	0
Totals	30	30

This includes five children in the category “All of the children speak/understand Shipibo and Spanish.”

These results suggest that while the overall attitude toward the language has remained very positive, and even the institutional support variable has improved through the establishment of an intercultural bilingual education program in the local school, language proficiency and actual use have decreased substantially. In this sense, bilingual education, the positive attitude toward the language and the strong identification between language and ethnicity are not enough to counterbalance the negative social pressures against language maintenance, which include the overwhelming socioeconomic advantages opened by the majority language, that is, utility-maximization (cf. Kamwangamalu, 2013) discrimination against the Shipibo language and increasing contact with non-Shipibo speakers. These results show a complex picture of the relation between language attitudes and linguistic identity. Like other indigenous communities negotiating their identity in urban environments, such as the Quechua-speaking communities (Escobar, 2011), the Cantagallo Shipibo community has positive attitudes toward Shipibo and at the same time has become gradually aware and affected by the imbalance in social status between Shipibo and Spanish. As noted by Espinosa (2012), Shipibo urban communities are redefining and negotiating what it means to be Shipibo in an urban setting.

These factors can be seen when comparing attitudes toward Spanish among the nine speakers interviewed in 2002 and 2017. We found that their attitudes toward Spanish remain positive. Although the numbers are very small, there seems to be a pattern in which three of the four male participants in this group focus more on how useful Spanish is. Participant SP06 stated in 2002: “It’s beautiful. When I started studying in school, I liked it.” He liked to communicate with mestizos and was interested in learning more Spanish to better himself and teach his family. In 2017, he stated that Spanish means globalization and technology. Participant SP12 saw Spanish in 2002 as a tool for work; in 2017, he sees it as his L2. He thinks speaking Spanish strengthens people. The elders did not know it and now they are replacing them. Participant SP25 viewed Spanish as a way to communicate with more people in 2002. In 2017 he stated that one has to learn both languages to study. The fourth male participant, SP04, stated in 2002 that Spanish is also beautiful but he said he almost did not understand it and in 2017 he did not answer this question.

Three of the five female participants in this group focused on their desire to learn through Spanish and to learn Spanish. Participant SP07 said in 2002 that she likes Spanish because it allows her to learn more. In 2017, her opinion was very similar. She speaks Spanish to learn. She knows Shipibo and wants to learn Spanish. Her parents did not teach her Spanish. Participant SP15 in 2002 stated that she likes to hear Spanish and would like to learn it in order to speak better. In 2017 she said it is good to speak Spanish, but she does not understand much, especially technical words. Participant SP27 expressed the need for Spanish in order to learn more things and in 2017 she stated one has to learn Spanish. Participants SP29 and SP19 provided somewhat different responses in both surveys, although their responses were positive. In 2002, Participant SP29 said Spanish is nice. “You want to speak more Spanish to speak better,” and in 2017 she responded, “It is good.” Participant SP19 stated in 2002 that it is also important to learn Spanish to be somebody important and in 2017 that Spanish is a complement (to Shipibo), like a legitimate translation. These participants’ interest in Spanish as a gateway to learning is an interesting contrast to Zavala and Bariola’s (2008, 2010) findings, according to which working women used Shipibo in communal meetings as a symbolic index of gender and ethnic identity in the same urban setting.

Conclusions

In this study we have analyzed the changes in attitudes by speakers of Shipibo in Cantagallo, a small community located in the center of Lima, Peru. Our initial questionnaire was administered in 2002, shortly after the community moved to Cantagallo, and our final questionnaire was carried out in 2017, shortly before the community temporarily moved to another location while Cantagallo is rebuilt. Participants showed strongly positive attitudes toward Shipibo on both dates. In the initial study, speakers’ perception of their language strongly associated it with indexical, praxis and performance identity. For example, many participants identify the language with their culture and traditions – through birth or heritage (mother tongue), suggesting they view it as an indexical for the characterization of their ethnicity and social standing. Likewise, several of them indicate that they like to speak the language, that it should be taught and one of them suggests that she is asked to teach it, which can be construed as practice identity, as well as performance. Clearly, external forces had weakened these links in 2017. Specifically, while support and positive attitude toward the language remain strong, the younger generation is showing signs of rapid language shift, weakening the performance and praxis aspects of language identity. While the change is evident in the language use of the younger generations, it is also subtly apparent in the older ones as well. As migrants, this generation was aware of the socioeconomic opportunities available in the city, but perhaps with time, they have become more sensitive to the role that the majority language plays in having access to such socioeconomic opportunities. In this sense, the change in the perception of the socioeconomic forces around them (and identified with language) has eroded the linguistic identity associated with the minority language.¹⁰

Footnotes

Appendix A

Bio Questionnaire

Participant # _____________________________

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants in this study, the Cantagallo community and, in particular, Shipibo-Konibo representatives Jonás Franco Ahuanari, Demer Ramírez and Gustavo Ramírez. For assistance with data collection in 2002, we would like to thank Enrique Espinoza and José Elías-Ulloa, and for his help with data collection in 2017, we thank Wilmer Ancón (Sanny).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

Liliana Sánchez is a professor at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She has published Quechua-Spanish Bilingualism. Interference and Convergence in Functional Categories (John Benjamins, 2003), The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist Inquiries in the Quechua Periphery (John Benjamins, 2010), and Bilingualism in the Spanish-speaking world with Jennifer Austin and Maria Blume (Cambridge University Press, 2015). She has also co-edited the volume Information Structure in Indigenous Languages of the Americas (Mouton de Gruyter, 2010). She has published articles in journals on Quechua-Spanish bilingualism in journals such as Lingua, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, International Journal of Bilingualism among others. She has worked as a consultant for the Unit of Intercultural Bilingual Education at the Ministry of Education in Peru and for the Institute for the Evaluation of Quality in Education on curricular development for indigenous intercultural bilingual education. She is a co-founder of the PhD Program in Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition at Rutgers. She is currently working on the documentation and analysis of Southern Quechua and of Bilingual Spanish spoken by speakers of Shipibo and Ashaninka in Peru.

Elisabeth Mayer is a lecturer in Spanish and Hispanic Linguistics and the director of the Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies at the Australian National University. She has published Spanish clitics on the move, variation in time and space (Mouton de Gruyter, 2017), authored and co-authored articles in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, Language and Linguistics Compass, Australian Journal of Linguistics, and co-edited “Romance Linguistics in the Pacific: Variation in Time and Space” Australian Journal of Linguistics (2013). She is a co-founder of Romance Linguistics in the Antipodes, the only Hispanic Linguistic Research Centre in Australia. She is also the National chair of OzCLO (Australian Computational and Linguistics Olympiad) and a member of IOL, the International Linguistics Olympiad. Currently she is working on documentation and analysis of Bilingual Spanish spoken by Quechua and Ashaninka speakers in Peru.

José Camacho is a professor at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He has recently authored Introducción a la sintaxis del español (Cambridge University Press, 2018) and has published several articles on Shipibo and the Spanish spoken by Shipibo bilinguals. He is a co-founder of the PhD Program in Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition at Rutgers.

Carolina Rodríguez Alzza is a lecturer at Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Peru. She is a researcher in linguistics and anthropological topics at Grupo de Antropología Amazónica (GAA-PUCP). Her work is focus in Amazon area and indigenous people/languages. She leads a project on documentation and revitalization of language and culture of Iskonawa people. As part of this project, she has published: “Memorias de un contacto. Cuando los iskonawa contactaron a los misioneros” (in press), “Entre el ‘vivir huyendo’ y el ‘vivir tranquilos’: los contactos de los iskonawa del río Callería”(2017), “Prefijos de partes del cuerpo en la lengua iskonawa” (2017), “Relaciones gramaticales en la lengua iskonawa” (2015). She has also undertaken research on other indigenous languages and cultures (shipibo-konibo, yaminahua, ashaninka, puyanawa).

References

Andolina

Radcliffe

Laurie

(2005). Development and culture: Transnational identity making in Bolivia. Political Geography, 24(6), 678–702.

Appel

Muysken

(1984). Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Reprinted by Amsterdam University Press.

Bratt Paulston

. (1994). Linguistic minorities in multilingual settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bucholtz

Hall

(2004). Language and identity. In Duranti

(Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–394). Oxford: Blackwell.

Choi

J. K.

(2003). Language attitudes and the future of bilingualism: The case of Paraguay. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(2), 81–94.

Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (PERÚ). (2003). Informe final. Lima: Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación.

Cotler

(2011). Paradoxes of development. In Crabtree

(Ed.), Fractured politics: Peruvian democracy past and present (pp. 53–66). London, UK: Institute for the Study of the Americas.

Defensoría del Pueblo. (2016). Cronología: El caso de la comunidad indígena urbana Shipibo-Konibo de Cantagallo. Retrieved from http://www.defensoria.gob.pe/blog/cronologia-caso-comunidad-indigena-urbana-shipibo-konibo-de-cantagallo/

Dorian

N. C.

(1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

10.

Edwards

(2010). Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

11.

Escobar

A. M.

(2011) Dinámica sociolingüística y vitalidad etno-lingüística: quechua y aimara peruanos en el siglo XXI. In Adelaar

W. F.

Valenzuela

Zariquiey

(Eds.), Estudios en lenguas andinas y amazónicas. Homenaje a Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino (pp. 125–145). Lima, Peru: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

12.

Espinosa

(2009). Ciudad e identidad cultural ¿Cómo se relacionan con lo urbano los indígenas amazónicos peruanos en el siglo XXI? Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines, 38(1), 47–59.

13.

Espinosa

(2012). To be Shipibo nowadays: The Shipibo-Konibo youth organizations as strategy for dealing with cultural change in the Peruvian amazon region. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 17(3), 451–471.

14.

Espinosa

(2016). La política indígena en la ciudad: El caso de las comunidades urbanas Shipibo-Konibo. In Surraltes

Espinosa

Jabin

(Eds.), Apus, caciques y presidentes: Estado y política indígena amazónica en los países andinos (pp. 103–122). Lima: IFEA, IWGIA, PUCP.

15.

Ferguson

(2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

16.

Fishman

(1964). Language maintenance and language shift as fields of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32–70.

17.

Fishman

(1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

18.

García

M. E.

(2004). Rethinking bilingual education in Peru: Intercultural politics, state policy, and indigenous rights. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 348–367.

19.

Garrett

(2010). Attitudes to language, key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Giles

Bourhis

R. Y.

Taylor

D. M.

(1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles

(Ed.), Language, ethnicity and inter-group relations (pp. 307–348). London: Academic.

21.

Giles

Johnson

(1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68, 69–100.

22.

Grin

(2002). Using language economics and education economics in language education policy. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Language policy division. DGIV. Strasbourg: Conseil d’Europe.

23.

Gynan

S. N.

(1998). Migration patterns and language maintenance in Paraguay. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(2), 259–270.

24.

Hornberger

N. H.

(1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A southern Peruvian Quechua case (Vol. 4). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

25.

Hornberger

N. H.

Coronel-Molina

S. M.

(2004). Quechua language shift, maintenance, and revitalization in the Andes: The case for language planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 167, 9–67.

26.

Howard

(2004). Quechua in Tantamayo (Peru): Toward a “social archaeology” of language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 167, 95–118.

27.

Howard

(2007). Por los linderos de la lengua: Ideologías lingüísticas en los Andes. Lima, Perú: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos/Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú-Fondo Editorial.

28.

Howard

(2011). The Quechua languages in the Andes today: Between statistics, the state and daily life. In Heggarty

Pearce

(Eds.), History and language in the Andes (pp. 185–213). London: Palgrave.

29.

Kamwangamalu

(2013). Rural-urban and south-north migrations and language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 222, 33–49.

30.

King

(2000). Language ideologies and heritage language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3, 167–184.

31.

Kroskrity

P. V.

Field

M. C.

(Eds.) (2009). Native American language ideologies: Beliefs, practices, and struggles in Indian country. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

32.

Manley

M. S.

(2008). Quechua language attitudes and maintenance in Cuzco, Peru. Language Policy, 7, 323–344.

33.

Meek

(2011). Failing American Indian languages. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 35, 43–60.

34.

Ministerio de Cultura de Perú. (2017). Pueblo Shipibo-Konibo. Retrieved from bdpi.cultura.gob.pe/printpdf/pueblo/shipibo-konibo

35.

Ministerio de Educación de Perú. (2017). Lenguas originarias del Perú. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.gob.pe/campanias/lenguas-originarias-del-peru.php

36.

Panizo Jansana

. (2017, July 19). Roundtable discussion between Peru and Mexico about language policies. Paper presented at the Diplomatic Academy of Peru, Lima.

37.

Sallabank

(2013). Attitudes to endangered languages. Identities and policies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Sánchez

Camacho

Elías

(2010). Shipibo-Spanish: Differences in residual transfer at the syntax-morphology and the syntax-pragmatics interfaces. Second Language Research, 26(3), 329–354.

39.

Schell

(2008). Colinguals among bilinguals. World Englishes, 27(1), 117–130.

40.

Silverstein

(1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne

(ed.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

41.

Spolsky

(2012). Family language policy - the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11.

42.

Tabouret-Keller

(1997). Language and identity. In Coulmas

(Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 315–326). Oxford: Blackwell.

43.

Tintaya Orihuela

M. Á

. (2017). Empoderamiento psicológico en la Comunidad Shipibo-Konibo de Cantagallo y sus relaciones con el sentido de comunidad y el bienestar. Lima: Pontifical Catholic University Masters Thesis.

44.

Tosi

(1984). Immigration and bilingual education. Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.

45.

Tuominen

(1999). Who decides the home language? A look at multilingual families. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 140(1), 59–76.

46.

Urla

(2012). Reclaiming basque: Language, nation, and cultural activism. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

47.

Vega

(2014). Buscando el río: Identidad, transformaciones y estrategias de los migrantes indígenas amazónicos en Lima Metropolitana. Lima: PERÚ CUADROS E.I.R.L.

48.

Zavala

Bariola

(2008). ‘Enra kopiai, non kopiai. In Niño-Murcia

Rothman

(Eds.), Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other languages (pp. 151–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

49.

Zavala

Bariola

(2010). Discurso, género y etnicidad en una comunidad de Shipibos en Lima. Discurso y Sociedad, 4(3), 615–642.