Western Washington University
Western CEDAR
Modern & Classical Languages
Humanities
1998
Attitudinal Dimensions of Guaraní-Spanish
Bilingualism in Paraguay
Shaw N. Gynan
Western Washington University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs
Part of the Other Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature Commons
Recommended Citation
Gynan, Shaw N., "Attitudinal Dimensions of Guaraní-Spanish Bilingualism in Paraguay" (1998). Modern & Classical Languages. 61.
http://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs/61
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Humanities at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Modern & Classical
Languages by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected].
A t t i t u d i n a l D im en sio n s o f GuARANf-SPANisH
B ilin g u a lis m in P a r a g u a y
Shaw N. G ynan
Western Washington University
A bstract. Rubin’s ground-breaking study of Paraguayan bilingual at­
titudes toward the Guaranl-Spanish contact situation has been criticized by
de Granda. Here, recent attitudinal data confirm most of Rubin’s observa­
tions, while endorsing some of de Granda’s criticisms. This sample of largely
female, professional, bilingual Paraguayans is more loyal to Guarani; how­
ever, contrary to de Granda’s assertions, ethnolinguistic pride is more in evi­
dence for Guarani, and Spanish pride is more utilitarian. De Granda ques­
tions Rubin’s notion of ambivalence about Guarani, but these data support
Rubin’s position, despite the fact that monolingualism in either language is
not favored by a large majority. Counter to de Granda’s argument and in sup­
port of Rubin’s, these Paraguayans are as insecure about Guarani as they are
about Spanish. These informants do not reserve their linguistic insecurity for
what de Granda refers to as the spoken norm (Saussure’s parole), but instead
respond to parole and langue as a single entity.'
Introduction. Paraguay’s unique situation of Guaranl-Spanish bilingualism
has fascinated sociolinguists for at least forty years, and is perhaps even more
interesting to Paraguayans, who have a highly developed awareness of the
socioaffective, cultural, and political significance of their two languages. The study
of language attitudes provides an important perspective on the interaction of these
two languages and, as de Granda (1980-81:787) notes, may help shed light on the
social and psychological factors that influence language change. This report also
suggests issues of public opinion that language policy makers should consider in
determining the fumre roles of Paraguay’s two principal languages, especially with
respect to literacy education.
'The author would like to thank the Fulbright Commission and Western Washington
University for making this study possible. A special thanks is due to Kirsten Sutton for
coding the data analyzed here.
36
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Paraguayan language attitudes have been studied from a number of perspec­
tives using very different methods and subjects. Garvin and Mathiot (1956) ana­
lyzed the attitudes found in writings of Paraguayan intellectuals and they allude
as well to comments made during interviews. Rubin (1962) examined the use of
language in the media, the institutional support of language, and interviewed
widely. Rona (1966) developed a questionnaire that measured beliefs about Guaram
and Spanish, as well as the ability of the seven subjects in his study to translate
from Spanish to Guaram. Paraguay’s Ministerio de Educaci6n y Culto (1978)
surveyed school teachers and parents on their attitudes toward use of Spanish and
Guarani in the classroom. De Granda (1980-81) bases his analysis on his own
experience in Paraguay, and refers on occasion to a dissertation being written under
his direction. As part of a larger study of language attitudes in the school system,
Corvalan (1985) used a five question form to survey the attitudes of 12 bilingual
teachers. Sold (1991) used a detailed questionnaire to study the attitudes of a largely
adolescent population, focusing on language usage and function.
Of all the above mentioned studies, Rubin’s remains foundational, and despite
the passage of 35 years since the fieldwork, much of what Rubin documented in
National Bilingualism in Paraguay (1968) remains true in Paraguay in the late
nineties. Despite the lasting validity of many of Rubin’s conclusions about Para­
guayan language attitudes, this significant work has been criticized at length by de
Granda, who begins his analysis by rejecting the notion that Paraguayan language
attitudes have been well studied at all. De Granda dismisses Garvin anc''»<thiot’s
study because it focuses nearly exclusively on Guarani, and he sets asides Rona’s
study claiming that Rona’s conceptualization of attitude is sterile and mistaken.
Then, de Granda turns his attention to Rubin’s depiction of Paraguay’s sociolinguistic situation, which after praising its importance, he proceeds to describe as dis­
torted, outdated, incomplete, and simplistic. De Granda reviews and attempts to
revise five basic conclusions that Rubin makes. First, whereas Rubin insists that
language loyalty is felt toward Guaram and not Spanish, de Granda finds language
loyalty towards both. Second, Rubin finds pride in Guaram only, whereas de
Granda feels that both languages are the object of pride. Third, although Rubin
reports ambivalence towards Guaram, de Granda concludes that negative judg­
ments such as those cited by Rubin are simply no longer heard and would be vigorously
rejected if suggested. Fourth, while Rubin asserts that prestige is associated mainly with
Spanish, de Granda finds prestige associated with both languages. Finally, de Granda
addresses the issue of linguistic insecurity, which he feels Rubin has overlooked.
1. Study M ethodology and Subjects. All of de Granda’s objections to Rubin’s
conclusions are addressed with updated attitudinal data gathered by the author
during a Fulbright scholar award in Paraguay from July to December of 1995, the
purpose of which was to lecture on applied linguistics and to study sociolinguistic
aspects of Paraguayan bilingualism. Nearly all of the people with whom the author
A rnrU D IN A L
d im e n s io n s o f
OUARANf-SPANISn BILINGUALISM
37
interacted were involved in bilingual education, a group that includes both standardbearers for Spanish as well as fervent supporters of Guarani language maintenance.
Focus groups were conducted with two groups of 70 elementary school teachers
from Limpio, a city in Central Department (Figure 1) and a class of 25 social psy­
chology students at Catholic University of Asuncidn. Attitudes were also gleaned
from a series of interviews conducted with members of the National Commission of
Bilingualism, employees in the curriculum and orientation departments of the
Ministry of Education, and numerous other individuals involved with or interested
in Paraguay’s bilingualism. A short, preliminary questionnaire was developed,
based quite closely on comments made during the focus sessions and interviews,
and tested with a group of teachers at a workshop in Fernando de la Mora (Figure
1). The instrument was revised and expanded, readministered, and revised again.
Some participants, including the students in the social psychology class, asked
family members and acquaintances to fill out the questionnaire. During this pro­
cess (See Table 1 and Appendix), a total of four revisions were made and 650 people
were surveyed.
F igure 1. Departments o f Paraguay, with Detail o f Municipalities
in Central Department
38
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Q uestionnaire F orm
2
91
14.0
1
33
5.1
Respondents
Percent
4
247
38.0
3
279
42.9
Total
650
100.0
Table 1. Questionnaire Forms
Garvin and Mathiot, Rubin, Rona, de Granda, Corvaldn, Sold, and this author
cannot claim to fulfill the criteria of randomness and independence required for a
statistically generalizable sample; rather, we use a variety of available data, per­
sonal experience, and a theoretical framework of analysis to develop as clearly as
possible a social psychological portrait of Paraguayan bilingualism. The result is
necessarily incomplete, but the opinions of the 650 individuals who were surveyed
for this study are nevertheless worthy of attention, and should prove useful for
whoever has the means to conduct a formal, definitive investigation. Sociolinguistic
characteristics of the people surveyed are provided in Tables 2-8. As shown in Table
2, approximately 71% of the sample identified themselves as female and 21% as
male. The mean age of respondents was approximately 33 years, and half of them
N ot Answered
F emale
M ale
T otal
55
8.46
459
70.62
136
20.92
650
100.00
T able 2. Sex o f Respondents
had children who ranged, on the average, between eight and twelve years (Table
3). Close to half of the respondents were involved in education, as shown in Table
4, and while we were able to survey people from a variety of occupations, the
majority of respondents are from the professional classes. As to place of origin,
the majority of participants were from Asuncidn and Central Department. (Refer
to Table 5 and Figure 1.) Since Guarani is spoken more outside of these two areas,
we have cross-tabulated the data on place of origin with the language used in speak­
ing to the spouse of the survey participant. As the data clearly show, place of ori­
gin does predict patterns of language use. The sample in Asuncidn shows the high­
est rate of monolingualism in Spanish, whereas Central Department and depart­
ments further out show much higher rates of Guaram-Spanish bilingualism.
Data ONage OF
Number
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
R espondent
Y oungest Child
606
15
75
33.2
9.66
262
Eldest Child
327
1
1
37
7.8
6.47
45
12.4
8.58
T able 3. Age o f Respondents and their Children
39
ATTITODINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
Occupation
No contestd
Ama de casa
Artesano
Educador
Estudiante
Oficinista
Profesional
Servicio
Vendedor
TOTAL
(Not Answered)
(Housewife)
(Artisan)
(Educator)
(Student)
(Office Worker)
(Professional)
(Service)
(Sales)
N umber
Percent
87
52
15
305
51
62
40
13
25
650
13.4
8.0
2.3
46.9
7.8
9.5
6.2
2.0
3.8
100
Table 4. Occupation o f Respondents
Place OF
Origin
N ot
GuaranI % Spanish
Not Answered 3
AltoParani
0
Asuncidn
3
Caaguazd
9
CaazapS
0
Caninde)^
0
Central
10
Concepcion
0
Cordillera
5
Guaird
2
Itapua
0
Misiones
2
Neembucd
0
Paraguarf
2
Presidente HayesO
San Pedro
0
Total
36
4.4
0.0
1.6
14.1
0.0
0.0
6.1
0.0
9.8
13.3
0.0
7.7
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
5.5
13
0
78
4
1
1
31
1
5
2
2
7
0
6
0
3
154
% Bilingual % .Answered
19.1
6
8.8
46
0.0
2
66.7
1
42.9
67
36.8
34
6.3
40
62.5
11
25.0
1
25.0
2
100.0
0
0.0
0
18.8
94
57.0
30
11.1
6
66.7
2
9.8
30
58.8
11 •
13.3
6
40.0
5
25.0
6
0
75.0
13
50.0
4
26.9
0.0
4
100.0
0
16.2
16
43.2
13
0.0
1 100.0
0
25.0
5
41.7
4
23.7 297
45.7 163
%OF
%
67.6
33.3
18.7
17.2
50.0
0.0
18.2
22.2
21.6
33.3
0.0
15.4
0.0
35.1
0.0
33.3
25.1
T otal
650
68 10.5
3
0.5
182 28.0
64
9.8
4
0.6
1
0.2
165 25.4
1.4
9
51
7.8
15
2.3
8
1.2
26
4.0
4
0.6
37
5.7
1
0.2
12
1.8
650 100.0
T able 5. Origin O f Respondents By Language Used With Spouse
The patterns of language use by this sample of Paraguayans closely resemble
the distribution seen generally in urban Paraguay (see Sold’s study for a summary
of language census data). As can be seen in Table 6, just over a quarter of the re­
spondents communicate with their spouses in Spanish only, only 5% use Guarani
exclusively, and nearly half are bilingual. These data provide evidence of language
shift, since the rate of use of Guaram with childreh is much lower than with the
spouse. Since only 17.3%of these subjects use Guaranf outside the home with
teachers, these data ifiay also be interpreted as an indication of the differential
functional allocation of languages typical of a situatibn of bilingualisih with di-
40
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Spanish
Not
SPANISh
Guarani and Guarani
142
25
246
113
4.8
46.8
27.0
21.5
182
11
101
232
19.2
2.1
44.1
34.6
120
176
11
219
2.1
22.8
41.6
33.5
4
91
260
171
49.4
0.8
17.3
32.5
T able 6. Responses to Items on Language Use
Answered
Spouse
N
%
Youngest N
%
Eldest
N
%
Teacher N
%
Total
526
100.0
526
100.0
526
100.0
526
100.0
glossia, as described by Fishman (1967). Close to half of the respondents who
reported language use with the spouse also reported on language use with the el­
dest and youngest children. Of these respondents, as shown in Table 7, there are
three large groupings that are worthy of comment. First, nearly all monolingual
Spanish couples use Spanish only with their children. While most bilingual couples.
L anguage Spoken to E ldest C hild
Spanish
AND
N ot
Answered Spanish GuaranI GuaranI T otal
Spanish
Language
Guarani
Spoken
to
Spouse
Spanish &
Guaram'
N
%
N
%
N
%
Other
N
%
Total
N
%
5
4.2
2
13.3
94.7
4
26.7
14
7.7
2
40.0
23
7.3
29.7
3
60.0
169
53.5
108
54
0
0.0
7
46.7
1
0.1
2
13.3
114
100.0
15
100.0
3
1.7
0
0.0
10
3.2
111
61.0
0
0.0
114
36.1
182
100.0
5
0.0
316
100.0
T able 7. Language Use with Eldest Child
60%, use both languages with their children, nearly 30% use Spanish only. Fi­
nally, with respect to language use, by cross tabulating language use with both the
eldest and youngest child, we were able to ascertain that most parents tend to use
the same language or languages with both children, although there were 17 couples
who used both languages with the eldest and Spanish only with thE youngest (See
T able 8).
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANl'-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
L anguage U sed
Language
Used
with
Youngest
Child
Not
Answered
Guarani
Spanish
Bilingual
Total
Not
Answered
0
0
10
9
19
w ith
% Guarani
0.0
0
0.0
52.6
47.4
100.0
0
2
0
2
E ldest C hild
Spanish
and
% Spanish % Guarani
0.0
22
13.6
10
41
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0
138
2
162
0.0
85.2
1.2
100.0
1
17
84
112
% Total
8.9 32
%
10.8
0.9
1
0.3
15.2 167 56.6
75.0 95 32.2
100.0 295 100.0
Table 8. Respondent Language Use with Eldest and Youngest Child
To summarize, our sample comprises largely young, urban. Guarani-speaking,
professional, female adults. Roughly half of those who are raising children are
bilingual, and only two-thirds of the bilinguals are actually raising their children
bilingually. There are, therefore, in this sample, three groups that can be distin­
guished by strikingly different language behavior: monolingual Spanish speak­
ers, Guaram-Spanish bilinguals who are raising bilingual children, and bilinguals
who are not transmitting Guarani to the next generation. These differences may
be used to predict variation in language attitudes.
2. D esign of L anguage A ttitudes S urvey . Using a technique for the mea­
surement of attitudes that was developed by Likert (1932), the language attitudes
that were chosen for the written survey used in this study were derived entirely
from comments made during focus groups and interviews. This study represents,
therefore, a systematic examination of the folk linguistics of Paraguayan bilinguals,
which Preston defines as ‘the speech community’s reported norms for behavior’
(1989:119). As such, this study was not designed to test the hypotheses of Rubin,
de Granda, or any author. Nevertheless, the attitudinal dimensions that emerged
from this analysis include many of those reported by Rubin and later debated by
de Granda. With respect to language loyalty, both Rubin and de Granda use
Weinreich’s (1968) conceptualization, which, as de Granda points out, embraces
not only the notion of retention and defense from foreign intrusion, but also resis­
tance to lexical and functional change. This is a very complicated notion to test
with items on a questionnaire. Rubin reasons that since Spanish simply is not under
attack there is no need to develop a sense of loyalty towards it. Sole comes to the
same conclusion. De Granda, while conceding that loyalty towards Spanish may
be somewhat lower, insists that Paraguayans do indeed defend Paraguayan Span­
ish, as opposed to, say, Argentinian Spanish. He speculates that perhaps Rubin
concluded erroneously regarding this point because Paraguayans, unless asked
specifically, simply do not discuss this issue.
The present study tests the notion of language loyalty in two ways. First, we
ask subjects to indicate whether they think that the languages influence each other
negatively, and whether they wish to rid one language of influence from the other.
42
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
This question should answer the issue of the defense of the language from foreign
intrusion. Secondly, we can analyze the reported language behavior of some of
our subjects. We have already seen that among the bilinguals in our sample, there
is clearly greater loyalty to Spanish when it comes to using the language with
children. Another way to measure language loyalty, one used by Bills (1989), is
to use census data to determine what percentage of the population uses Guaram
and Spanish. Use of this straightforward measure eschews Weinreich’s complex
conceptualization that links retention to purism. Language loyalty, recast as re­
ported language behavior, is clearly higher for Guarani in the rural sectors and
higher for Spanish in the urban sector. These trends are already documented us­
ing the 1982 and previous census data by Sold (1991).
For both de Granda and Rubin, evidence for pride is found in the attribution of
special qualities or characteristics to the languages in question. They agree that
Guarani is the object of considerable pride, but while Rubin finds that positive
attitudes toward Spanish are related less to its special qualities and more to its
utilitarian value, de Granda reports that there is also considerable pride in Spanish.
To support this notion, de Granda asserts that bilinguals who have ‘the necessary
contrastive data’ show pride towards phonetic variants that distinguish Paraguayan
from Argentinian Spanish, such as the (putative) persistence of the phonemic dis­
tinction between the lateralized and palatal voiced slit fricatives (de Granda 198081:794). De Granda, however, makes no specific reference to an experimental
procedure that might have elicited the pride to which he refers. Bilingual informants
might have been presented with a pair of words distinguished by a contrast suppos­
edly typical of the difference between the Spanish of Argentina and Paraguay and
asked to express the level of pride they felt when presented with the Paraguayan
variant. The possibility that Paraguayans are proud of their particular variety of
Spanish is certainly intriguing, but during the focus groups that this author con­
ducted, the special qualities that de Granda originally used as the criterion for pride
were attributed by informants only to Guaram, which was described as a ‘sweet
language’, ‘in the blood’, and required to be authentically Paraguayan. These
comments were transcribed for the questionnaire using ‘Guarani’, substituting
‘Castilian’ in order to compare feelings of pride along these dimensions.
As for ambivalence, there really should be no dispute at all. De Granda simply
misinterprets Rubin’s comments. Referring to the Spanish translation of Rubin’s
book (1974:79), de Granda states that Rubin notes, with reference to Guarani,
‘clearly negative components derived from judgments (true or false, but in any
case socially current) related to the limited communicative or cultural value of
this language and its objective linguistic deficiencies’ (de Granda 1980-81:794,
translation by author). De Granda observes that it is extremely rare to hear such
negative comments. The problem with this analysis is that the negative judgments
to which de Granda objects directly follow Rubin’s statement that the monolin­
gual speaker of Guarani rarely rejects the language. In any event, the entire ques-
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
43
tionnaire, designed to allow for disagreement as well as agreement, will allow for
an assessment of the claim that negative comments about Guarani are unusual.
The matter of prestige is complicated by the fact that while de Granda agrees
with Rubin that Spanish is ascribed higher prestige, defined as the value of the
language for social progress, de Granda disagrees with the use of the term in this
manner. For de Granda, prestige is related to the ‘sphere of collective
values...perceived as positive by a given society’ (1980-81:795). In this sense, de
Granda concludes the following: ‘it appears to me indubitable, according to the data
with which I am directly familiar, that the national Paraguayan community as a
whole does not attribute prestige, apparently, to ... [monolingualism in] Guarani...,
but also not (and perhaps even less so) t o ... [monolingualism in] Spanish’ (198081:795, author’s translation). For de Granda, both languages are equally presti­
gious. In other words, both must be known by Paraguayans, precisely because of
the dichotomy between the utilitarian value of Spanish and the unifying/separatist value of Guarani. On this point, which is certainly a compelling argument to ac­
count for the unusually stable bilingualism for which Paraguay is famous, de
Granda appears to contradict his earlier rejection of Rubin’s argument that pride,
or the attribution of special qualities, is reserved for Guarani, whereas a more utili­
tarian function is ascribed to Spanish. In any event, with respect to the issue of
prestige as defined by de Granda, the focus groups conducted during this study
produced two comments: first, some wish to eliminate monolingualism in Guarani
or Spanish, and second, some insist that speaking one language and not the other
is acceptable. With respect to prestige as defined by Rubin, comments were made
about the need for Spanish to progress economically. All of these were included in
the questionnaire and, consequently, we are in a position here to test the issue of
prestige on which Rubin and de Granda agree as well as the issue on which they
disagree.
Turning to linguistic insecurity, de Granda reviews the distinction between
system and norm using Coseriu’s terminology (1952). ‘System’ is essentially syn­
onymous with Saussure’s langue and ‘norm’ indicates Saussure’s parole (Saussure
1974). De Granda suggests that Rubin’s exclusive focus on system omits analysis
of the norm (the way in which people actually speak). This is, of course, a per­
fectly legitimate distinction to make, but even de Granda moves back and forth
with disarming ease between the two conceptualizations in discussing Paraguayan
language attitudes, which leads him to appear to contradict himself. Recall that
de Granda, in his discussion of language pride, counters Rubin’s claim that Para­
guayans assign a largely utilitarian value to Spanish by referring to data on atti­
tudes toward speech variants that are purported to be distinctly Paraguayan. Here
he is using normative data to refute a comment by Rubin about attitudes toward
language systems. Later, he reverts to the idea of utilitonan pride of the Spanish
system to defend the notion that both languages are needed for very different rea­
sons by Paraguayan bilinguals.
44
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Regarding the norm, de Granda finds there is a very intense feeling of linguis­
tic insecurity, which he characterizes as illogical and inexplicable (1980-81:802),
and he explains that the problem is that the wrong linguistic system has been cho­
sen against which to compare spoken Guarani and Spanish. In other words, de
Granda believes that the standards chosen for Paraguayan Spanish and Guarani
should be much closer to the national spoken norms, and he warns that this mis­
taken choice of standards could lead to double-nested diglossia. De Granda’s con­
tention is that Rubin has not attended to this issue, but she has written about exactly
the same phenomena: awareness of language norms; the feeling that both Spanish
and Guarani are poorly spoken; and the pronounced dichotomy between the spo­
ken varieties that show the influence of the other language and the corresponding
written forms. The focus groups conducted during this study also refer to the issue
of the spoken norm, so once again we are able to report on how this substantial
sample of Paraguayans responds to items that measure attitudes toward spoken
Spanish and Guarani.
Since the majority of the individuals surveyed in this study by means of focus
groups and questionnaire were involved in education and/or parenting, a number
of items relating to language use were devised. For these questions, attitudinal items
from the 1978 Ministry of Edueation study were modified to determine the extent
to which these participants wished their children to use either language occasion­
ally or exclusively in school, with friends, and at home. Since mother tongue lit­
eracy was also a major issue for educators in Paraguay, a pair of items relating to
this was also included.
All attitudinal items were phrased in the form of a simple, declarative sentence
followed by a seven-point scale, the ends of which were labeled either ‘very
strongly disagree’ or ‘very strongly agree.’ Each interval on the scale was labeled
with a numeral as in 1 below:
(1)
Attitudinal scale used in questionnaire
Very
Strongly ___:
:
:
:
Disagree - 3 - 2 - 1
0
:
1
:
2
3
Very
Strongly
Agree
In the tables that follow, responses have been eoded with a 1 for the highest
level of agreement and a 7 for disagreement. Following the attitudinal section of
the questionnaire was a brief set of background questions, which aRE detailed in
AppENdix 1.
3. A nalysis of D ata. Both Rubin and de Granda in effect hypothesize five
distinct dimensions by which language attitudes may be measured: loyalty, pride,
ambivalence, prestige, and insecurity. In addition to these dimensions, we included
items about language use and bilingual education, since these were on the minds
of so many who participated in focus groups and interviews. Principal components
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
45
analysis (Systat 1992:71-91) was used in an exploratory fashion to determine the
extent to which the matrix of correlated responses to questionnaire items could be
decomposed into rotated orthogonal weighted linear composites that correspond
to the attitudinal dimensions hypothesized. The seven-factor solution presented in
Table 9 was reached after examining a variety of solutions produced by varying the
number of extracted factors and extracting sub-samples differentiated by such
background information as sex, origin, and language. This structure is intuitively
coherent, invariant regardless of demolinguistic profile, and explains over half of
the variance in response to questionnaire items. Because of the stabUity of the factor
Guaranf
Pride
GCOMP
GALGU
GSANG
GECON
CECON
CAUTH
GSANG
GCASA
GSOLO
CTODAS
GCOMP
GTODAS
ELGAS
ELGUAR
GENTOR
CENTOR
CHABLA
GSOLO
GAUTH
GHABLA
GALGU
GLEER
CLEER
GCASA
GDULCE
CDULCE
Variance
Percent
Mother
Spanish Guaranf Spanish Language Spanish Tongue
Purism Prestige Literacy
Use
Pride Prestige
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.1
-0.2
0.4
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
0.3
0.3
2.28
8.76
0.8
0.6
0.6
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
-0.1
-0.2
0.3
1.93
7.42
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
0.3
-0.2
0.3
-0.1
0.7
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.3
-0.1
-0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.2
1.99
7.67
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.3
-0.2
0.2
-0.1
0.3
0.1
-0.1
1.61
6.12
-0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
-0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
-0.3
0.1
-0.2
-0.1
1.85
7.10
-0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
-0.5
0.5
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.2
-0.3
0.0
1.97
7.58
T able 9. Principal Components of Questionnaire Items
(based on an analysis o f responses to questionnaire form 4; N=247)
-0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.47
5.65
46
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Structure, and since the question on monolingualism included in Form 3 was prob­
lematic, for reasons we will discuss below, the factor analysis chosen for presen­
tation here is based on the responses to Form 4 only (N=247). Mean responses to
these items and explanations of them are presented in Tables 10-16. A cluster
analysis of responses to items representing the seven factors produces four groups
with distinct attitudinal profiles. The results of the analysis are presented in Tables
17 and 18. Finally, the clusters were analyzed in order to determine the
sociolinguistic profile of each. Language use proved to be the most revealing of the
background variables examined, data for which aRE presented in TAble 19.
3.1 Guarani Pride. The first component of the questionnaire (Table 10) mea­
sures special qualities attributed to Guarani, which Rubin and de Granda refer to
as pride. De Granda’s preference that prestige not be interpreted as the usefulness
of a language for economic mobility is vindicated, since responses to that item are
related to pride; however, the ambivalence noted by Rubin and partly denied by
de Granda is in clear evidence. On the whole, these respondents see Guaranf as
GCOMP
N/(%)
Very Strongly Agree (1)
156
(31.7)
Strongly Agree (2)
112
(22.8)
Agree (3)
104
(21.1)
No Opinion (4)
40
(8.1)
Disagree (5)
31
(6.3)
Strongly Disagree (6)
1
(2.8)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
35
(7.1)
N
492
(100.0)
Mean
2.7
Standard Deviation
1.77
GALGU
N/(%)
241
(48.5)
84
(16.9)
75
(15.1)
27
(5.4)
14
(2.8)
20
(4.0)
36
(7.2)
497
(100.0)
2.8
1.85
GSANG
N/(%)
336
(55.3)
93
(15.3)
65
(10.7)
36
(5.9)
22
(3.6)
15
(2.5)
41
(6.7)
608
(100.0)
2.2
1.81
GECON
N/(%)
91
(14.3)
67
(10.5)
55
(8.6)
86
(13.5)
75
(11.8)
66
(10.3)
198
(31.0)
638
(100.0)
4.5
2.20
(GDULCl
N/(%)
438
(68.3)
87
(13.6)
66
(10.3)
15
(2.3)
11
(1.7)
10
(1.6)
14
(2.2)
641
(100.0)
1.7
1.32
Key:
GCOMP^—Quiero que mi hijo hable en guaranf con sus companeros.
GALGU—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen algunas asignaturas en guaranf.
GSANG—-La lengua del guaranf estd en nuestra sangre.
GECON—Para progresar econdmicamente, uno tiene que saber hablar guaranf.
(GDULCE)—El guaranf es una lengua dulce. (Item included for reference; not highly correlated with
other variables.)
1—Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 10. Guarani Pride
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
47
being in their blood and a sweet language, but while they agree that the language
should be used in some school classes, they are far less interested that their chil­
dren speak Guaram with their playmates, and strongly disagree that Guaram is
needed to progress economically.
3.2.
Spanish Pride. The attitudes that comprise what may be referred to as
Spanish pride are shown in Table 11. The same special qualities associated with
Guaram—sweetness and being in the blood—are found here along with the need
to speak Spanish in order to be authentically Paraguayan, but of note is that the
levels of endorsement for these qualities are substantially lower than for Guaram.
In contrast, endorsement of the notion that Spanish is needed to progress economi­
cally is substantially higher than for Guaram. Therefore, Spanish pride, is simi­
larly ambivalent, but in a way opposite to that seen in attitudes toward Guaram.
Returning to the de Granda critique of Rubin, these data clearly support Rubin’s
observation, supporting the notion that pride of Spanish is related more to utilitar­
ian reasons, whereas pride of Guaram is related to less tangible issues of
ethnolinguistic identity.
CECON
N/(%)
Very Strongly Agree (1)
198
(33.6)
Strongly Agree (2)
89
(15.1)
Agree (3)
43
(7.3)
No Opinion (4)
66
(11.2)
Disagree (5)
39
(6.6)
Strongly Disagree (6)
35
(5.9)
Very Strongly Disagree (7) 120
(20.3)
N
590
(100.0)
3.4
Mean
2.34
Standard Deviation
CAUTH
N/(%)
73
(12.3)
53
(8.9)
55
(9.3)
66
(11.1)
69
(11.6)
78
(13.1)
200
(33.7)
594
(100.0)
4.8
2.16
CSANG
N/(%)
116
(19.2)
74
(12.3)
79
(13.1)
93
(15.4)
66
(10.9)
58
(9.6)
117
(19.4)
603
(100.0)
3.9
2.14
(CDULCE)
N/(%)
182
(30.9)
100
(17.0)
115
(19.5)
62
(10.5)
48
(8.1)
42
(7.1)
40
(6.8)
589
(100.0)
3.0
1.90
Key;
CECON—Para progresar econ6micamente, uno tiene que saber hablar Castellano.
CAUTH—Para ser autteticamente paraguayo, uno tiene que saber hablar Castellano.
CSANG—La lengua del Castellano estS en nuestra sangre.
(CDULCE)—El Castellano es una lengua dulce. (Item included for reference; not highly correlated
with other variables.)
1—Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 11. Spanish Pride
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
48
3.3.
GuaranI P restige. Prestige, as conceived of specifically by de Granda, is
represented for Guaram in Table 12. Earlier versions of the questionnaire (See
Appendix.) included a very differently worded statement (GMONO) about the is­
sue of speaking one language and not the other, but use of the word monohnguismo
caused confusion, and, as can be seen, responses were evenly divided. The reword­
ing, which is much closer to de Granda’s concept of prestige, elicited far stronger
responses. Over 75% disagreed with the statement that it is acceptable to know
only Guaram. Associated with this attitude was a strong rejection of exclusive use
of Guarani in the home. This is just as de Granda predicted, that prestige conceived
of in this manner would not be attributed either to Guarani monolinguaUsm or
Spanish monolingualism. We will revisit this issue shortly during the discussion
of Spanish prestige.
Very Strongly Agree (1)
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (3)
No Opinion (4)
Disagree (5)
Strongly Disagree (6)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
GCASA
N/(%)
33
(6.7)
41
(8.3)
52
(10.5)
52
(10.5)
64
(13.0)
73
(14.8)
178
(36.1)
493
(100.0)
5.0
2.00
GSOLO
N/(%)
14
(5.8)
13
(5.4)
4
(1.7)
23
(9.5)
25
(10.4)
22
(9.1)
140
(58.1)
241
(100.0)
5.7
1.86
(CMONO)
N/(%)
69
(19.7)
43
(12.3)
27
(7.7)
57
(16.2)
37
(10.5)
31
(8.8)
87
(24.8)
351
(100.0)
4.1
2.24
Key:
GCASA—Quiero que mi hijo sdlo hable guarani en casa.
GSOLO—En el Paraguay, estd bien saber bablar s61o en guarani.
(GMONO)—Hay que eliminar el monolingiiismo en Castellano.. (Item included for reference; not
included in analysis.)
1—^Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 12. Guaram Prestige
3.4.
Spanish U se. Guaram use is associated with pride, as shown in Table 10,
but attitudes toward Spanish use exist quite independently of feelings of pride
(Table 13). This is not surprising, because whereas the bilinguals in this sample
who continue to use Guaram are proud of their linguistic heritage, Spanish pride
is manifestly more muted, and attitudes toward use are solidly affirmative. In
49
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
contrast, the idea of monolingual Guarani schooling that is associated with this
variable is endorsed with far less enthusiasm, and indeed a majority disagree with
it. This is a quantified confirmation of numerous reports that the author heard when
in Paraguay that some parents opposed exclusive or near-exclusive elementary
literacy programs in Guarani.
Very Strongly Agree (1)
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (3)
No Opinion (4)
Disagree (5)
Strongly Disagree (6)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
CTODAS
N/(%)
177
(35.4)
94
(18.8)
53
(10.6)
40
(8.0)
56
(11.2)
38
(7.6)
42
(8.4)
500
(100.0)
3.0
CCOMP
N/(%)
217
(43.2)
138
(27.5)
60
(12.0)
32
(6.4)
17
(3.4)
18
(3.6)
20
(4.0)
502
(100.0)
2.3
GTODAS
N/(%)
65
(13.1)
32
(6.5)
49
(9.9)
56
(11.3)
66
(13.3)
52
(10.5)
176
(35.5)
496
(100.0)
4.8
2.04
1.62
2.16
Key:
CTODAS—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen todas las asignaturas en castellano.
CCOMP—Quiero que mi hijo hable en castellano con sus companeros.
GTODAS—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen todas las asignaturas en guarani.
1—Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
I -—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 13. Spanish Use
3.5.
L anguage P lirism . What Weinreich referred to as language loyalty sub­
sumed a notion, defense of the language from foreign influence, that is more com­
monly known now as purism. De Granda suggests that loyalty (read: purism) ex­
ists toward both languages in Paraguay, which is strongly confirmed by the struc­
ture of this variable (Table 14). Quite unlike the issues of pride and prestige, re­
sponses to items about the purity of both Guarani and Spanish are highly interre­
lated. A significant majority disagrees with the idea that the languages influence
other negatively; this explains why there is no clear support for or opposi­
tion to the idea of language purity, since no clear need for such a measure is per­
ceived to exist. These data have a bearing on corpus planning, which in Paraguay
has tended to be dominated by purists.
50
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
Very Strongly Agree (1)
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (3)
No Opinion (4) •
Disagree (5)
Strongly Disagree (6)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
ELCAS
N/(%)
136
(21.5)
62
(9.8)
70
(11.1)
60
(9.5)
61
(9.6)
69
(10.9)
175(27.6)
633
(100.0)
3.8
2.33
ELGUAR
N/(%)
141
(23.8)
59
(10.0)
61
(10.3)
48
(8.1)
51
(8.6)
53
(9.0)
179
(30.2)
592
(100.0)
3.8
2.41
GENTOR
N/(%)
62
(9.7)
61
(9.6)
56
(8.8)
42
(6.6)
51
(8.0)
51
(8.0)
315
(49.4)
638
(100.0)
5.2
2.21
CENTOR
N/(%)
83
(13.9)
42
(7.0)
54
(9.0)
37
(6.2)
60
(10.0)
54
(9.0)
269
(44.9)
599
(100.0)
5.0
2.27
Key:
ELCAS—Hay que eliminar todo Castellano del guarani hablado.
ELGUAR—Hay que eliminar todo guarani del casteUano hablado.
GENTOR—-El guarani entorpece el casteUano.
CENTOR—El Castellano entorpece el guarani.
1^—-Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 14. Language Purism
3.6.
S panish P restig e . In the case of Guaram prestige, de Granda correctly
observed that none is attributed to monolingualism in the language, and even less
so for monolingualism in Spanish. As the results in Table 15 indicate, de Granda
describes in a highly accurate manner this aspect of Paraguayan language attitudes:
opposition to Spanish monolingualism is strongly associated with a sense of
Guarani authenticity, just as opposition to Guaram monolingualism is associated
with the need to speak a language (presumably Spanish) other than only Guaram
in the home. Nevertheless, the association of items that measure linguistic inse­
curity (We speak GuaramVSpanish weU) with the notion of Spanish prestige con­
stitutes a challenge to de Granda’s insistence on a conceptual distinction between
system and norm, that is, between language as an abstraction and language as
actually used. Following de Granda’s analysis, Spanish prestige should be distinct
from linguistic insecurity, but it is not. He also states that judgments about Guarani
use are much less negative than those about Spanish use, but the evidence here
shows that measures of insecurity about both languages are highly correlated. None
of this is surprising. While the theoretical distinction between system and use is
perfectly valid, when a non-linguist is asked to respond to a language label such
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
51
as ‘Guarani,’ s/he considers it in a global manner, synthesizing holistically the
abstract and the concrete aspects of it. De Granda relates linguistic insecurity, which
is, as he states, quite intense, to linguistic convergence. What is important to note
here is that while whatever convergence that may have occurred may influence
attitudes, the perception of convergence, as shown here, is quite low and not cor­
related with linguistic insecurity.
Very Strongly Agree (1)
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (3)
No Opinion (4)
Disagree (5)
Strongly Disagree (6)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
CHABLA
N/(%)
22
(3.6)
53
(8.8)
67
(11.1)
27
(4.5)
88
(14.6)
144
(23.8)
203
(33.6)
604
(100.0)
5.2
1.84
CSOLO
N/(%)
9
(3.8)
6
(2.6)
7
(3.0)
11
(4.7)
32
(13.6)
24
(10.2)
146
(62.1)
235
(100.0)
6.0
1.61
(CMONO) GAUTH GHABLA
N/(%)
N/(%)
N/(%)
31
316
69
(4.8)
(49.7)
(19.3)
55
71
31
(8.6)
(11.2)
(8.7)
75
66
35
(11.7)
(10.4)
(9.8)
26
16
53
(2.5)
(14.8)
(4.1)
41
103
37
(6.4)
(10.4)
(16.1)
123
31
26
(19.2)
(7.3)
(4.9)
228
95
106
(35.6)
(14.9)
(29.7)
641
636
357
(100.0)
(100.0)
(100.0)
5.2
2.8
4.3
2.28
1.91
2.28
Key:
CHABLA—Ac5 en e! Paraguay hablamos bien el castellano.
CSOLO—En el Paraguay, estfi bien saber hablar s61o en castellano.
(GMONO)—Hay que eliminar el monolingUismo en guarani. (Item included for reference; not in­
cluded in analysis.)
GAUTH—Para ser autdnticamente paraguayo, uno tiene que saber hablar guarani.
GHABLA—Acd en el Paraguay hablamos bien el guarani.
1—-Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T able 15. Spanish Prestige
3.7. M other T ongue E ducation. The last factor extracted in the analysis in­
volves mother tongue education (Table 16). In general, regardless of language,
these Paraguayan respondents endorse the idea that a child should be taught lit­
eracy skills in his or her mother tongue. However, it should be noted that opposi­
tion to use of Guarani for literacy education is nearly twice that of opposition to
use of Spanish. Responses to the notion that only Spanish should be used at home
are, on the whole, negative, and associated with support of bilingual education.
Recall that attitudes toward exclusive home use of Guarani were associated with
prestige. Finally, the idea that some classes should be taught in Spanish is strongly
52
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
endorsed and related to support for bilingual education. This contrasts with the
endorsement of Guarani for some classes, which was strongly associated with
Guarani pride. These data certainly do not contradict de Granda’s notion that while
Spanish is supported for its utilitarian function. Guarani serves, in Garvin and
Mathiot’s terms, a unifying and separatist function.
Very Strongly Agree (1)
Strongly Agree (2)
Agree (3)
No Opinion (4)
Disagree (5)
Strongly Disagree (6)
Very Strongly Disagree (7)
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
CALGU
236
(47.6)
106
(21.4)
55
(11.1)
42
(8.5)
13
(2.6)
14
(2.8)
30
(6.0)
496
(100.0)
2.3
GLEER
316
(49.5)
63
(9.9)
73
(11.4)
40
(6.3)
31
(4.9)
37
(5.8)
79
(12.4)
639(100.0)
2.7
CLEER
357
(59.6)
87
(14.5)
57
(9.5)
30
(5.0)
18
(3.0)
19
(3.2)
31
(5.2)
599
(100.0)
2.1
CCASA
53
(10.6)
46
(9.2)
50
(10.0)
66
(13.3)
83
(16.7)
65
(13.1)
135
(27.1)
498
(100.0)
4.6
1.74
2.18
1.72
2.04
Key:
CALGU—Quiero que a mi hijo le enseflen algunas asignaturas en Castellano.
GLEER—Si un alumno habla s61o guarani, debe aprender a leer y escribir primero en guarani.
CLEER-—Si un alumno habla s61o Castellano, debe aprender a leer y escribir primero en Castellano.
CCASA—Quiero que mi hijo solo hable Castellano en casa.
1—Definitivamente estoy de acuerdo.
7—Definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo.
T ab le 16. Mother Tongue Education
3.8. Cluster A nalysis. Since the sample comprises individuals of different
language backgrounds, we suspected that language behavior might be used to pre­
dict attitudinal differences. The procedure followed involved K-means cluster
analysis (Systat 1992), which identifies groups by maximizing between-group
variance and minimizing within-group variance. The results of the analysis of
responses to Form 4 of the questionnaire (N=247) are presented in Tables 17,18,
and 19. Based on a number of trial runs, a solution using four groups was chosen.
As shown in Table 17, a variable representative of each of the seven factors iden­
tified in the study was chosen for the cluster analysis. Between-group differences
were significant for all seven factors, and this significance was one criterion mo­
tivating the decision to identify four groups.
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANI-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
V ariable B etween SS
ELCAS
GSOLO
GECON
GLEER
CSOLO
CECON
CCOMP
319.16
555.23
225.04
751.58
123.11
313.81
37.82
DF
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
W ithin SS
946.02
278.24
813.43
251.10
482.87
798.98
586.17
DF
235
237
235
238
231
228
220
F-Ratio
26.43
157.65
21.67
237.46
19.63
29.85
4.73
53
Probability <
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T able 17. Analysis of Variance in Language Attitudes
Among Four Clusters o f Respondents
Members in each of the four clusters identified share certain attitudinal char­
acteristics. Members of the first cluster shown in Table 18 support mother tongue
literacy education in Guaram (GLEER) as well as Spanish usage (COMP), but
are anti-purist (GCAS) and show low pride in both languages (GECON and
CECON) and low prestige in both languages (GSOLO and CSOLO). The second
cluster is similar to the first in that its members support Guaram literacy educa­
tion and Spanish use. This group also shows low language prestige (GSOLO and
CSOLO), but this group is purist (ELCAS) and has much higher pride in both
languages (GECON and CECON). The third cluster is distinct from the first two
in that its members express high prestige toward and pride in Guaram, and low
prestige toward Spanish. This group also supports Guaram literacy education, is
purist, and approves of Spanish use. The final cluster is distinguished from all three
previous groups in that its members strongly disapprove of Guaram literacy edu­
cation and show high pride in Spanish.
P ro-Bilingual,
Low P ride &
Low P restige
ELCAS
GSOLO
GECON
GLEER
CSOLO
CECON
CCOMP
M
5.27
6.48
5.51
1.42
6.36
5.49
2.57
SD
2.01
0.86
1.73
0.78
1.31
1.73
1.64
P ro-B ilingual,
H igh P ride &
Low Prestige
M
2.36
6.70
3.13
1.30
6.52
2.56
1.92
SD
1.76
0.74
1.95
0.78
1.23
1.82
1.46
P ro-G uaranI,
H igh {*ride &
Anti-G uaranI,
H igh P ride &
High Prestige
M
SD
1.86
3.38
2.85
1.56
3.80
1.70
1.54
2.31
4.65
1.92
4.08
1.90
3.17
1.51
Low Prestige
M
SD
4.32
2.37
6.34
1.13
4.62
2.06
6.12
0.95
6.22
1.24
3.50
2.07
2.57
1.88
T able 18. Mean Language Attitude Scores and Standard Deviations
Among Four Clusters o f Respondents
Having identified four groups that are strikingly different in the language atti­
tudes held by their members, we now turn to an analysis of who comprises these
groups. The four clusters all have a good number of meihbers. As shown in Table
54
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
19, roughly a third has both low pride and prestige, a quarter has high pride and
prestige, a fifth is pro-Guaranf, and only 18% is anti-Guarani. Of all the background
variables examined, the most revealing was language use. The variable was con­
structed by identifying those parents who were raising their children in Spamsh and
those who were raising their children using at least some, and in a few cases all,
Guaranf. Nearly half of the parents raising their children only in Spanish are ‘antiGuaranf.’The rest are divided equally among the three other clusters. Parents who
are using at least some Guaranf with their children are distributed among the clus­
ters in a very different way. Over 70% are in favor of Guaram literacy education,
but these are divided roughly equally among high and low prestige and pride. Only
12% is pro-Guaranf and 16% are actually anti-Guaranf. This analysis strongly
suggests that language background has a profound influence on language attitudes.
Not
Answered
Cluster
Not Assigned
Pro-Bilingual,
Low Pride &
Low Prestige
Pro-Bilingual,
High Pride &
Low Prestige
Pro-Guaranf,
High Pride &
High Prestige
Anti-Guaram,
High Pride &
Low Prestige
Total
Spanish Only
Spoken to
Children
%
N
GuaranI and/or
Spanish Spoken
TOChildren
%
N
Total
%
1.21
33.60
0
6
0.00
18.18
0
18
32.13
N
3
83
23.27
6
18.18
21
38.18
64
25.91
40
25.16
6
18.18
7
12.73
53
21.46
20
12.58
15
45.45
9
16.36
44
17.81
N
3
59
%
1.89
37.11
37
159 100.0
33
100.0
55
0.00
100.0
247 100.0
T able 19. Language Behavior o f Respondents in Four Clusters
3.9. I nfluence of Sex and Occupation. We end this section on data analysis
with some comments on the influence of two other background variables, sex and
occupation. First of all, it is important to keep in mind that the questionnaire struc­
ture derived by principle components analysis was stable, even when performed
on sub-samples divided by sex, area, and language background. We therefore have
reason to believe that the influence of a disproportionate representation of female,
Spanish-speaking educators in this sample is limited to the magnitude of the attimdes identified. In Table 20, we present an analysis of the attitudinal clusters that
were identified above by sex. Cluster membership and sex do interact, as indi­
cated by the significant chi-squared value. The nature of the interaction is clear:
females are disproportionately present in the low pride and prestige cluster, whereas
males are disproportionately present in high pride clusters. Although we do not
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
55
have enough data for a valid chi-squared analysis of the interaction of attitudes
and occupation, it is reasonable to suppose that individuals whose work requires
less specialized training, who in Paraguay are mostly male and monolingual in
Guaram, would show a similarly more positive attitude toward Guarani. It is there­
fore very important that this sector of the population be represented in future studies
of language attitudes. We predict that attitudes toward Guarani in particular would
be even more positive than those identified in this study.
Female
Cluster
N
%
Pro-Bilingual
64
84.21
Pro-Bilingual
42 72.41
Pro-Guaram
34 73.91
Anti-Guaranf
31
75.61
Total
171 77.38
Test statistic
Value
Pearson chi-square
3.2
Likelihood ratio chi-■square
3.4
M ale
N
%
12 15.79
16 27.59
12 26.09
10 24.39
50 22.62
df
3
3
T otal
N
%
76
100.00
58
100.00
46
100.00
41
100.00
221 100.00
P<
0.4
0.3
T able 20. Sex o f Respondents in Four Clusters (with column percents)
4.
C onclusion. This survey of Paraguayan attitudes has confirmed some of de
Granda’s observations about Rubin’s work and calls into question others. The first
issue that de Granda raises, language loyalty, is better analyzed as language pur­
ism, and as such the Paraguayans surveyed here are divided. We can certainly
endorse de Granda’s criticism of Rubin’s assertion that Paraguayans are more loyal
to Guarani. They are equally loyal to both, although the level of loyalty, measured
as purism, is very low. When measured as language retention or transmission,
loyalty to Spanish is clearly increasing to the detriment of Guaram, but of course
it is essential to keep in mind that this sample is entirely Spanish speaking. The
study of the language attitudes of Guarani monolinguals, which we strongly rec­
ommend, will undoubtedly reveal very different levels of loyalty.
On the issue of pride, de Granda again feels that Rubin overemphasizes the pride
in Guarani and criticizes the idea that pride in Spanish is related to utilitarian at­
titudes, but the data from this study simply do not support this position, and we have
shown that even de Granda must resort to normative attitudes to refute Rubin’s
observations about attitudes toward the two language systems. Ethnolinguistic
pride is much more in evidence for Guarani, and Spanish pride is clearly more utili­
tarian. De Granda also does not accept the notion of ambivalence, especially as it
relates to negative comments about Guarani; however, in this study, there is ample
evidence of ambivalence. Of particular note is the cluster analysis, which reveals
that there is a sizable group of bilinguals who, while favoring mother tongue lit­
eracy education in Guaram, give exceedingly low scores in both prestige and pride
56
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
to Guaram, while at the same time endorsing Spanish use. On the complex issue
of prestige, de Granda’s concepmalization is very much supported by the data here;
prestige, when conceived of as perceived usefulness for economic progress, is
related quite clearly to the issue of pride; and as predicted by de Granda, monolingualism in either language is very clearly not favored by a large majority of this
sample. De Granda makes a point of analyzing the utilitarian value of Spanish as
a matter of prestige, not pride, but the evidence provided here shows that Spanish pres­
tige is associated with a rejection of Guarani as the authentic language of Paraguay.
Finally, de Granda’s restriction of linguistic insecurity to spoken norms and not
language systems is problematic. First of all, linguistic insecurity is related very
clearly to Spanish prestige. This is troublesome for de Granda’s contention, accord­
ing to which prestige should be a matter of attitude toward the language system,
Spanish or Guaram as a language, while insecurity should be related to the norm,
that is, language use. The evidence here shows that the system and norm are viewed
as one and the same; Paraguayans are indeed insecure about Spanish per se, and not
simply the way in which it is used. Furthermore, contrary to de Granda’s predic­
tion, these Paraguayans are every bit as insecure about Guaram use as they are about
Spanish use. Nevertheless, as de Granda notes, linguistic insecurity is remarkably
high; but can we then conclude that this self-denigration is illogical, as de Granda
asserts? The Paraguayans in this study who reject monolingualism in Guaranf do
so for utilitarian reasons: Spanish is essential in the modem world. The equally
strong rejection of monolingualism in Spanish (i.e. negative prestige) is due to very
different reasons: Guaranf is the authentic language of the Paraguayan people.
Unfortunately, in a society that may be facing change far more rapid than that which
occurred during the nearly 35 year presidency of Stroessner, some Paraguayans find
this argument difficult to accept completely. Located between two of the world’s
largest languages, partisans of Guaranf face the daunting task in the future of keep­
ing this language alive. This is indeed how Sole, using a very different way of
analyzing Paraguayan language attitudes, concludes her own work in this area,
noting that despite the considerably emblematic value of Guaranf, the fear is ex­
pressed that it will become just another folkloric relic. It is not at all illogical, curi­
ous, or surprising that these Paraguayans, unwilling to give up Guarani, and yet unable
to resist the powerful social forces that seemingly lead inexorably to language shift,
express linguistic insecurity about the future of national bilingualism .
R eferences
B ills , G arland D. 1989. The US census of 1980 and Spanish in the southwest.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 79.11-28.
C orvalAn , G raziella . 1985. Las actitudes del docente con respecto al uso de la
lengua nativa en la escuela primaria en el Paraguay. Revista Paraguaya de
Sociologla 68.95-108.
CosERiu, E u g e n io . 1952. Sistema, norma y habla. Montevideo, Uruguay:
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
57
Universidad de la Repdblica, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Instituto
de Filologia, Departamento de Linguistica.
DE G randa , G. 1980-81. Actitudes sociolinguisticas en el Paraguay. Boletm de
Filologia de la Universidad de Chile 31.787-805.
F ishm an , J. A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; Diglossia with and
without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23.29-38.
G arvin , P aul L., and M adeleine M athiot. 1956. The urbanization of Guaram lan­
guage. A problem in language and culture. Men and cultures. Selected Papers of
the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, ed.
by A.F.C. Wallace, 365-74. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
L ikert , R en sis . 1932. A technique for the measurement of attimdes. New York,
NY: Archives of Psychology 140.
P a r a g u a y , M in is t e r io d e E d u c a c i On y C u l t o , D ir e c c i On G e n e r a l d e
E d u c a c i On a n d th e O rg a n iza tio n o f A m er ic a n S tates . 1978. Algunos
aspectos del rendimiento escolar relacionados con el bilingiiismo. Buenos Aires,
Argentina: Ediciones Macchi.
P araguay , P residencia de la R ep Oblica , S ecretar Ia TCcnica d e P lan ihcaci On ,
D irecciOn G eneral d e E stad Istica , E ncuestas y C ensos .1993. Atlas censal,
11,19,27,35,41,51,59,67,75, 83,91,97,105,113,121,129,135, Asuncidn,
Paraguay: Direccidn General de EstadIstica, Encuestas y Censos.
P reston , D ennis R. 1989. Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. New
York, NY: Blackwell.
R ona , J. P. 1966. The social and cultural status of Guaram in Paraguay. Sociolin­
guistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, ed. by
William Bright, 277-298. The Hague: Mouton.
R ubin , J oan . 1962. Bilinguahsm in Paraguay. Anthropological Linguistics 4.52-58.
—. 1968. National bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton.
—. 1974. Bilingiiismo nacional en el Paraguay. Mexico, D. R: Instituto Indigenista
Interamericano.
S aussure , F erdinand d e . 1974. Course in general linguistics, ed. by Charles Bally,
Albert Sechehaye, andAlbertRiedlinger;trans. by Wade Baskin. London: Fontana.
SoLfi, Y olanda R. 1991. The Guaranl-Spanish situation. The Georgetown Jour­
nal of Languages and Linguistics 2.297-348.
S ystat. 1992. Graphics, Version 5.2, 424-31. Evanston, IL: Systat, Inc.
W ein reich , U r ie l . 1968. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The
Hague: Mouton.
58
SOUTHWEST JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 (1998)
A ppendix
Questionnaire Items
(abbreviations andform(s) on which items included indicated in parentheses)
A. Attitudinal Items
1. (GDULCE, Forais 1-4)—El guarani es una lengua dulce. (Guarani is a sweet
language.)
2. (GENTOR, Forms 1-4)—^E1 guarani entorpece el castellano. (Guaram' slows
down Spanish.)
3. (ELCAS, Forms 1-4)—Hay queeliminartodo castellano del guaranihablado.
(All Spanish must be eliminated from spoken Guarani.)
4. (GMONO, Forms 1-3)—Hay que eliminar el monolingiiismo en guaram'.
(Guarani monolingualism must be eliminated.)
5. (GSOLO, Form 4)—En El Paraguay, esti bien saber hablar s61o en guarani.
(In Paraguay, it is all right to know how to speak only Guarani.)
6. (GAUTH, Forms 1-4)—Para ser autdnticamente paraguayo, uno tiene que sa­
ber hablar guarani. (In order to be authentically Paraguayan, one has to know
how to speak Guarani.)
7. (GECON, Forms 1-4)—Para progresar econdmicamente, uno tiene que sa­
ber hablar guarani. (In order to progress economically, one has to know how
to speak Guarani.)
8. (GSANG, Forms 2-4)—^Lalengua guarani esta en nuestra sangre. (The Guaram'
language is in our blood.)
9. (GPOCO, Form 1)—Hay muy pocos que hablan el verdadero guarani. (There
are very few who speak real Guarani.)
10. (GHABLA, Forms 2-4)—Acd en el Paraguay hablamos bien el guarani. (Here
in Paraguay we speak Guarani well.)
11. (GLEER, Forms 1-4)—Si un alumno habla s61o guarani, debe aprender a leer
y escribir primero en guarani. (If a student speaks only Guarani, s/he should
learn to read and write first in Guarani.)
12. (GALGU, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen algunas asignaturas
en guarani. (I want my child taught some subjects in Guarani.)
13. (GTODAS, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen todas las asignaturas
en guarani. (I want my child taught all subjects in Guarani.)
14. (GCOMP, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que mi hijo hable en guarani con sus
companeros. (I want my child to speak in Guarani with his/her friends.)
15. (GCASA, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que mi hijo solo hable guarani en casa. (I want
my child to speak only Guarani at home.)
16. (CDULCE, Forms 2-4)—El castellano es una lengua dulce. (Spanish is a sweet
language.)
17. (CENTOR, Forms 2-4)—El castellano entorpece el guarani. (Spanish slows
down Guarani.)
ATrrrUDINAL d i m e n s i o n s o f GUARANf-SPANISH BILINGUALISM
59
18. (ELGUAR, Forms 2-4)—Hay que eliminar todo Castellano del guarani
hablado. (All Spanish must be eliminated from spoken Guarani.)
19. (CMONO, Forms 2-3)—Hay que eliminar el monolingiiismo en Castellano.
(Spanish monolingualism must be eliminated.)
20. (CSOLO, Form 4)—^En El Paraguay, estd bien saber hablar s61o en Castellano.
(In Paraguay, it is all right to know how to speak only Spanish.)
21. (CAUTH, Forms 2-4)—Para ser autdnticamente paraguayo, uno tiene que sa­
ber hablar casteUano. (In order to be authentically Paraguayan, one has to know
how to speak Spanish.)
22. (CECON, Forms 2-4)—Para progresar econdmicamente, uno tiene que saber
hablar casteUano. (In order to progress economically, one has to know how
to speak Spanish.)
23. (CSANG, Forms 2-4)—La lengua casteUano estd en nuestra sangre. (The
Spanish language is in our blood.)
24. (CHABLA, Forms 2-4)—Aca en el Paraguay hablamos bien el casteUano.
(Here in Paraguay we speak Spanish well.)
25. (CLEER, Forms 2-4)—Si un alumno habla s61o casteUano, debe aprender a
leer y escribir primero en casteUano. (If a student speaks only Spanish, s/he
should learn to read and write first in Spanish.)
26. (CALGU, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen algunas asignaturas
en casteUano. (I want my child taught some subjects in Spanish.)
27. (CTODAS, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que a mi hijo le ensenen todas las asignaturas
en casteUano. (I want my child taught all subjects in Spanish.)
28. (CCOMP, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que mi hijo hable en casteUano con sus
companeros. (I want my child to speak in Spanish with his/her friends.)
29. (CCASA, Forms 3-4)—Quiero que mi hijo s61o hable casteUano en casa. (I
want my chUd to speAK only Spanish at home.)
B. Background Items
1. (Forms 1-4)—^Edad, lugar de origen, sexo, profesidn (Age, place of origin,
sex, occupation)
2. (Form 2)—^Residencia actual, lenguas que se hablan en su hogar, escuela donde
ensena (Current residence, languages spoken at home, school where you teach)
3. (Forms 3-4)—^Edad del hijo mayor y menor, profesion de la pareja, lenguas
que se habla con la pareja, el hijo mayor, el hijo menor, y la maestra; comentarios (Age of oldest and youngest child, spouse’s occupation, languages spo­
ken with spouse, oldest child, youngest child, and teacher; comments)
4. (Form 4)—^prohibicidn del guarani, origen etnico (prohibition of Guaram, eth­
nic origin)