A Sociophilological Account of the Formation and Evolution of the Term Língua Geral, with Emphasis on Amazonia

This article critically reevaluates the role of structural change in the development of the concept of Língua Geral, as proposed in Rodrigues (1986,1996, 2010; see also Edelweiss, 1947, 1969; Dietrich, 2014). In Rodrigues’s model, two languages, Língua Geral Paulista and Língua Geral Amazônica, emerged from the Tupi and Tupinambá languages spoken by bi- or multilingual Mamelucos (Luso-Amerindian mestizos) over the 17th and 18th centuries. However, a socio-philological analysis (Wright, 1982, 1991, 1994, 2002) applied to a broad sample of Luso-Brazilian colonial sources, reveals that contemporaries neither attributed a characteristic variety of Língua Geral to the Mamelucos nor classified Língua Geral diatopically. Moreover, in 18th c. Amazonia, the linguistically non-Tupi-Guarani Tapuia peoples, rather than the Mamelucos, were explicitly identified as agents of linguistic change (Daniel, 2004 [1757-1776]); however, no new name emerged. Thus, although language contact and shift undeniably occurred and undoubtedly contributed to structural change, the Mamelucos’ central role in the formation of the Língua Geral cannot be sustained. We also analyse the theory that the Língua Geral was a creole language, which several researchers have focused on, e.g., Argolo (2011a/b, 2012a/b, 2016); Lee (2005), Oliveira; Zanoli; Modolo (2019), which appears to arise from Rodrigues’s proposals, despite his rejection of the hypothesis. We show that there is no evidence for a widespread, stable pidgin phase in Língua Geral. Moreover, the diachronic structural divergences earlier authors commented on are exaggerated by the comparison of the two diachronic extremes, i.e., 16th /17th century varieties with 19th century ones. However, the inclusion of 18th century data smooths the diachronic developments. We therefore develop a revised trajectory for the concept of Língua Geral in which we propose that perceived changes in function rather than observed structural divergence were responsible the shift from using Língua Brasílica in 17th century Jesuit publications to Língua Geral in the 18th century. Our research highlights the need for a re-assessment of the term Língua Geral, and, in particular, the anachronistic Ausbau of periodizations and varieties on the basis of later perceived structural Abstand (Kloss, 1967, 1976, 1978) that do not correspond to contemporary usage.