Patterns of Linguistic Diffusion in Space and Time: The Case of Mazatec

  • Jean Léo LéonardEmail author
  • Marco Patriarca
  • Els Heinsalu
  • Kiran Sharma
  • Anirban Chakraborti


Complexity theory is a major interdisciplinary paradigm which provides a unified framework for natural and social sciences. At an operative level, it is based on a combined application of quantitative and qualitative methods at various phases of research, from observations to modeling and simulation, to improve the interpretation of complex phenomena (Anderson in Science 177:393–396 1972; Ross and Arkin in Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:6433–6434 2009). Among the many applications, ranging from physics to biology and the social sciences, the study of language through the methods of complexity theory has become an attractive and promising field of research. In this contribution we consider the complex and interesting case of the Mazatec dialects, an endangered Otomanguean language spoken in south-east Mexico by about 220,000 speakers (SSDSH 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016; Gudschinsky 1955, 1958).

List of Abbreviations






Santo Domingo




San Pedro Ixcatlán




(Santa Maria) Jiotes


San Lorenzo


San Miguel Huautla


San Mateo Yoloxochitlán


San Miguel Soyaltepec


San Jerónimo Tecoatl

(abréviations reprise de Kirk 1966).



Anirban Chakraborti and Kiran Sharma acknowledge the support by the University of Potential Excellence-II grant (Project ID-47) of JNU, New Delhi, and the DST-PURSE grant given to JNU by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.

Kiran Sharma acknowledges the University Grants Commission (Ministry of Human Research Development, Govt. of India) for her senior research fellowship.


  1. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beijering, K., Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W. (2008). Predicting intelligibility and perceived linguistic distance by means of the Levenshtein algorithm. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 13–24.
  3. Bolognesi, R., & Heeringa, W. (2002). De invloed van dominante talen op het lexicon en de fonologie van Sardische dialecten. Gramma/TTT: tijdschrift voor taalwetenschap, 9(1), 45–84.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (2005). Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goebl, H. (1998). On the nature of tension in dialectal networks. A proposal for interdisciplinary research. In G. Altmann & W. Koch (Eds.), Systems. New paradigms for the human sciences (pp. 549–571). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gudschinsky, S. (1955). Lexico-statistical skewing from dialect borrowing. International Journal of American Linguistics, 21(2), 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gudschinsky, S. (1958). Mazatec dialect history. Language, 34, 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gudschinsky, S. (1959). Proto-Popotecan. A Comparative Study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. International Journal of American Linguistics, 25(2).Google Scholar
  11. Heeringa, W., & Goosken, C. (2003). Norwegian dialects examined perceptually and acoustically. Computers and the Humanities, 57(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinsalu, E., Patriarca, M., & Léonard, J. L. (2014). The role of bilinguals in language competition. Advances in Complex Systems, 17(1), 1450003. Scholar
  13. Jamieson, C. (1996). Diccionario mazateco de Chiquihuitlán. Tucson: SIL.Google Scholar
  14. Jamieson, C. (1988). Gramática mazateca. Mazateco de Chuiquihuitlán de Juárez. México: D. F: SIL.Google Scholar
  15. Killion, T., & Urcid, J. (2001). The Olmec legacy: Cultural continuity and change in Mexico’s Southern Gulf Coast lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(1/2), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirk, P. L. (1966). Proto-Mazatec phonology (Doctoral dissertation). Washington: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  17. Kirk, P. L. (1970). Dialect intelligibility testing: The Mazatec study. International Journal of American Linguistics, 36(3), 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Léonard, J. L., dell’Aquila, V., & Gaillard-Corvaglia, A. (2012). The ALMaz (Atlas Lingüístico Mazateco): From geolinguistic data processing to typological traits. STUF—Language Typology and Universals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 65(1), 78–94. Scholar
  19. Léonard, J. L., & Kihm, A. (2014). Mazatec verb inflection: A revisiting of Pike (1948) and a comparison of six dialects. In J. L. Léonard & A. Kihm (Eds.), Patterns in Mesoamerican morphology (pp. 26–76). France: Hal—CCSD.Google Scholar
  20. Léonard, J. L., & dell’Aquila, V. (2014). Mazatec (Popolocan, Eastern Otomanguean) as a Multiplex Sociolinguistic “Small World”. In U. Bereczki (Ed.), The languages of smaller populations: Risks and possibilities. Lectures from the Tallinn conference. Tallin Hungarian Institute’s Series: Miscellanea Hungarica (pp. 27–55). Tallin: Balassi Instituudi & Tallinna Ungari Instituut.Google Scholar
  21. Léonard, J. L. (2016). Diversification, diffusion, contact: Modélisation géolinguistique et complexité. Lalies, 36, 9–79.Google Scholar
  22. Léonard, J. L., & Fulcrand, J. (2016). Tonal inflection and dialectal variation in Mazatec. In E. Palancar & J. L. Léonard (Eds.), Tone & inflection: New facts and new perspectives. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs (Vol. 296, pp. 165–195). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Meneses Moreno, A. B. (2004). Impacto político, social y cultural de la presa Miguel Alemán en la comunidad mazateca de la isla del Viejo Soyaltepec (Master Thesis). Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.Google Scholar
  24. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mufwene, S. S. (2012). The emergence of complexity in language: An evolutionary perspective. In Á. Massip-Bonet & A. Bastardas-Boada (Eds.), Complexity perspectives on language, communication, and society (pp. 197–218). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Mufwene, S. S. (2013). The ecology of language: Some evolutionary perspectives. In E. K. Nakayama Nenoki do Couto, D. B. Albuquerque & G. P. Aráujo (Eds.), Da fonologia à ecolinguística. Ensaios em homenajem a Hildo Honório do Couto (pp. 302–327). Brasilia: Thesaurus.Google Scholar
  27. Nicolaï, R., & Ploog, K. (2013). Frontières. Question(s) de frontière(s) et frontière(s) en question: des isoglosses à la “mise en signification du monde. In J. Simonin & S. Wharton (Eds.), Sociolinguistique du contact. Dictionnaire des termes et des concepts (pp. 263–287). Lyon: ENS Editions.Google Scholar
  28. Patriarca, M., & Heinsalu, E. (2009). Influence of geography on language competition. Physica A, 388, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pike, K. (1948). Tone languages. A technique for determining the number and types of pitch contrasts in a language, with studies in tonemic substitution and fusion. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, J., & Arkin, A. P. (2009). Complex systems: From chemistry to systems biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 6433–6434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. San Miguel, M., Eguiluz, V. M., Toral, R., & Klemm, K. (2005). Binary and multivariate stochastic models of consensus formation. Journal of Computer Science Engineering, 7, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwartz, D. (2016). Transforming the tropics: Development, displacement, and anthropology in the Papaloapan, Mexico, 1940s–1960s (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago. Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Secretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano (SSDSH). (2011–16). Microrregión 13: Zona Mazateca. Mexico: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Solé, R., Corominas-Murtra, B., & Fortuny, J. (2010). Diversity, competition, extinction: The ecophysics of language change. Interface, 7, 1647–1664.Google Scholar
  35. Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews, 8, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wichmann, S. (2008). The emerging field of language dynamics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Léo Léonard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Patriarca
    • 2
  • Els Heinsalu
    • 2
  • Kiran Sharma
    • 3
  • Anirban Chakraborti
    • 3
  1. 1.Sorbonne Université, STIHParisFrance
  2. 2.National Institute of Chemical Physics and BiophysicsTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.School of Computational and Integrative SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations