Post-Stroessner Language Planning in Paraguay

(Paraguayan language policy: a sociolinguistic and post-colonial perspective)


Shaw N. Gynan, PhD

Western Washington University

In keeping with the theme of the Second International Symposium on Language Policy, this analysis of language planning and policy in Paraguay will illustrate what we have learned about the field and to suggest what we still need to learn. A sociolinguistic profile will provide an estimate of the present situation of language contact in demographic and social psychological terms, an historical analysis, and predictions for the future of Paraguay’s two official languages. A language policy analysis will confirm what has been observed in other situations of language contact, as well as to place some assumptions about the management of language in society in critical perspective.

Joshua Fishman, in discussing essentialist versus sociolinguistic views of language policy, while pointing out that none of the authors in a recently edited volume of his subscribes to a primordialist position, also acknowledges the influence of the essentialist and the primordialist points of view. These arise from the history and folkloric heart of a people, affecting behavior such as language planning and language policy. The present analysis highlights the importance of ethnographic description, within an historical and discursive framework, for revealing the social psychological mechanisms that mediate the perceptions of the ethnolinguistic activist of situations of language contact and the language planning and policy that is based on those perceptions.

A Sociolinguistic Profile of Paraguay

Paraguay is known for its high rate of bilingualism, as well as for the fact that an indigenous Amerindian language, Guaraní, is spoken by the majority. The population of Paraguay is around 40% monolingual in Guaraní, 50% bilingual, and just over six percent monolingual Spanish (see Table 1). There is much deviation from these rates. Asunción is only 2.4% monolingual in Guaraní, nearly 74% bilingual, and just over 21% monolingual in Spanish. In contrast, San Pedro is over 80% monolingual in Guaraní, only 17% bilingual, and not even one percent monolingual in Spanish.

The map of Paraguayan language use in Figure 1 facilitates a clearer understanding of this situation. Asunción, and the largely urban Central Department are shaded dark blue to indicate high rates of bilingualism. The rate of bilingualism in Asunción is lower than in Central Department because of the high incidence of Spanish monolingualism in the capital. Leaving Central Department, rates of bilingualism drop and give way to predominance of Guaraní monolingualism, shown by red shading at the fringes and in the departments beyond, the heart of Guaraní-speaking territory. A second map in Figure 2 displays language behavior is by the 217 census districts, documenting the extent to which bilingualism has penetrated the countryside, and shows as well with green shading the predominance of Portuguese in eastern districts near Brazil.

The distribution of bilingualism and Guaraní monolingualism coincides with the urban-rural division of the population. Table 2 shows that Paraguay in 1992 was evenly divided between urban and rural inhabitants. The majority of bilinguals, 75%, was urban, and an even larger majority of Guaraní monolinguals, 82.9%, was rural. Nearly 89% of Spanish monolinguals were urban. Language use and area of residence interact with gender, as shown in Table 3. There are only about 2,000 more females than males, with notable deviations from these proportions by area and language. More females live in urban areas and more males in rural areas. There are over 70,000 more male than female Guaraní monolinguals, and there are more female than male speakers of Spanish.

Evidence of more economic opportunities for men in Guaraní and for women in Spanish is found in Table 4. Cross-tabulations of language and sex with employment reveal variation by language. Whereas nearly 77% of males were employed, 79% of females were not. This disparity is greater for speakers of Guaraní, among whom male employment is higher and female unemployment is much higher. The opposite is true for bilinguals and monolingual Spanish speakers. Since only a very small proportion of female Guaraní monolinguals is employed, we need only look at the totals for employed Guaraní monolinguals (Table 5), the majority of whom are farmers. Non-farming jobs in the urban sector provide more work for women, which explains why women speak more Spanish than men.

Relationships among language, area, sex, employment, and schooling are shown in Table 6. Guaraní monolingualism is negatively correlated with use of other languages, urban residence, and female employment. Bilingualism is positively correlated with urban residence, years of schooling, and female employment but negatively correlated with male employment. Since Guaraní monolingualism is predominant in the rural interior and most work is traditionally done by males, Guaraní confers a clear economic advantage to men.

The fact that Guaraní is associated with economic opportunity and that bilingualism and Spanish monolingualism confer relatively little advantage, and only in the urban sector, helps explain the stability of the language situation in Paraguay. Distribution of language by age in Table 7 reveals another interesting dimension. While the country’s population is evenly divided between urban and rural, this distribution varies by language. The country is 40% monolingual in Guaraní, but over 65% of the rural sector is monolingual in Guaraní. The rate of rural bilingualism is less than half that of the country as a whole.

Language use and area of residence interact with age, which can be seen by comparing the data in Tables 8 and 9. The majority of Guaraní monolinguals in urban areas are under the age of 20. In urban areas in 1992, over 140,000 school aged youngsters were monolingual in Guaraní. In the rural sector, close to 57% (760,000) of the monolingual Guaraní-speaking population is under the age of 20. The total monolingual Guaraní population under 20 was approximately 900,000 out of just over 4,000,000. The rate of reproduction among speakers of Guaraní and bilinguals is higher than among Spanish monolinguals, leading to the prediction that Guaraní will grow faster than the other language use groups.

Predicting Future Rates of Paraguayan Bilingualism

Forecasts of numbers of speakers of different languages in Paraguay were made using data from four Paraguayan census publications (1950, 1962, 1982, 1992, see Table 10). Changes in the distribution over time can be illustrated by juxtaposing cartographic snapshots of the country (Figure 3). Although bilingualism increases in Paraguay, as shown by the forecasts, it occurs in a limited number of departments, those that already urban. Rural Guaraní monolingualism is on the increase in San Pedro, Caazapá, Amambay, and Concepción.

An Historical Sketch of Bilingualism in Paraguay

The history of the origin of Paraguay’s mestizo population can be traced to the early incursions by the Spaniards, who founded Asunción on August 15, 1537. Guaraní men gave their women to the settlers, bestowing upon them the title of tovaya, brother-in-law (Raine p. 38). The close relationships that the governor in 1549, Domingo Martínez de Irala, had developed with the indigenous population lead him to oppose the establishment of the encomienda, the division of land and Indians among the conquistadors. The governor’s opposition had consequences fundamental to the survival of the Guaraní language.

Hernando Arias de Saavedra, Hernandarias, who governed Paraguay at the turn of the 16th century, also opposed encomienda (Raine 4) and he encouraged the Jesuits to establish missions that by 1630 covered over 150,000 square miles. These missions proved successful despite devastating raids from Paulist mamelucos in the north.

Hernandarias’s Jesuit mission policy had left the Paraguay Creoles at a disadvantage. Consequently, in the early 17th century, the Paraguayan Creoles collaborated with the mamelucos in aiding the raids of the missions. The division between Jesuit and Creole partisans continued under the governments of Frías (Raine 47) in the 1620s and Hinestrosa in the 1640s. Hinestrosa sided with the Jesuits and allowed the mission Guaraní Indians to be armed, who by 1651 successfully repelled the last maloca raid (Reiter 45).

The Creoles fought the Jesuits and their mission Guaraní Indians until the Spanish crown expelled the Jesuits from all of the Americas in 1767, which lead to the spread of over 100,000 Guaraní-speaking mission residents throughout Paraguay. The ensuing independence movement in Paraguay, the first Latin American revolt against the Spanish crown, was associated with a small minority of Spanish-speaking creoles.

Spain’s holdings in Paraguay ended only 50 years after the expulsion of the Jesuits. The pattern of support of the rural Guaraní-speaking population and persecution of the Spanish-speaking elite continued under El Supremo, José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, who assembled "an ignorant, subservient mob of 1,000 delegates" (Warren 155), the largely Guaraní-speaking congress that elected Caraí Francia (his Guaraní honorific meaning lord) dictator in October of 1814.

In 1826 Francia demanded all landholders show proof of title, returning to public holding half of the area east of the Paraguay river (Warren). Francia leased the land to peasants with the condition that they plant what the government wanted so that he could supply his large army (Lewis 16). His repressive government required a network of Guaraní-speaking spies, pyragüés, or hairy soles. By his death in 1840, the old Spanish-speaking elites had been eliminated. Francia had made his peasantry, with their leaseholds, fanatically patriotic.

The next dictator, Carlos Antonio López, increased government landholdings to 98% (Lewis 17). López pursued foreign relations and was responsible for establishing Paraguay’s participation in international politics, but he had to deal with a legacy of his predecessor: a large and influential community of liberal Paraguayan exiles, who had been run out by Francia to Buenos Aires.

The army that the son of Carlos Antonio Lópéz, Mariscal Francisco Solano López amassed to fight the war of the Triple Alliance was largely Guaraní -speaking, evidence of which is a propaganda newspaper published in that language for the troops (Raine 187). Although Mariscal López did not pursue the Spanish-speaking élite as had Francia, the effect of the war was just as devastating on it. The battle of Tuyutí in 1866, as reported by Masterman, "annihilated the Spanish race in Paraguay." Of between 550,000 and 800,000 Paraguayans in 1863, only about 250,000 remained by 1871. Of those, 150,000 were women, 14,000 were men, and 81,000 were children (Raine 187).

Paraguay was occupied after the war by the Brazilians, and members of the foreign Paraguayan Legion who had been in exile in Argentina returned. A legionnaire, Juan Bautista Gill, was installed as president, but by 1877 he was overthrown in a revolt lead by General Bernardino Caballero, a nationalist, who ruled from 1880 to 1886 and then lead the armed forces (Lewis p. 19). Caballero was forced to sell off vast governmental lands to foreign speculators. In 1887 anti-Caballero forces formed the Centro Democrático, which became the Liberal Party, supposedly supportive of parliamentary democracy and free enterprise (Lewis 20). Caballero responded by forming Arena, the National Republican Association or Colorado Party. Although the Liberal Party ruled when Paraguay won the Chaco War under Liberal Eusebio Ayala, at the end of the war, nationalists demanded social reform (Lewis 17) and Rafael Franco took over in a coup on February 17, 1936. In May of 1936, a law was passed which provided for the expropriation of latifundios, with resale on easy terms to the peasantry. 200,000 hectares were sold to 10,000 families. In 1940, a new constitution provided for a Council of State, modelled after Mussolini’s corporate state. Shortly after the new constitution, Estigarribia died in a plane crash, and the old Liberals return with Morínigo as straw man (Lewis 24-25). Morínigo spoke fluent Guaraní and under his administration pyragüés proliferated.

Juan Natalicio González, a member of the Colorado Party and author of Proceso y Formación de la Cultura Paraguaya, as well as articles on national socialism in the journal Guaranía (Lewis 29), built up a storm-trooper organization called the Guión Rojo to break up the Febrerista and Communist hold on the labor movement (Lewis 31). The result was the collapse of the coalition government lead by Morínigo, and civil war in 1947. A brigade of 15,000 py nandí, or Guaraní-speaking barefoot ones supported Morínigo and the Colorados against the Febreristas and Communists. The Guionistas also were given carte blanche to enter and search houses without warrant. At war’s end the Colorados were firmly in control of the army and the country. By 1954, Stroessner would lead the country under the control of the Colorado party through the next 35 years of its history. Stroessner was toppled in a coup in 1989. Stroessner’s party has remained in control since with intermittent violence and four presidencies.

A Post-Colonial Discourse on Language Purism

The fall in 1989 of Stroessner’s 35 year dictatorship of Paraguay was followed by dramatic changes in Paraguayan language policy. Spanish remains official, but since 1992 Guaraní has enjoyed the same status (Paraguay 1994: 29). MEC considers de facto submersion in Spanish of monolingual Guaraní-speaking children ineffective, exacerbating problems of attendance and illiteracy (Paraguay 1994: 19). Mother tongue literacy training in Guaraní is viewed as the solution, despite some opposition (Paraguay 1994: 30, 36). Those who advocate Guaraní mother tongue literacy have different objectives. This kind of debate was witnessed in Corsica by Jaffe, who identifies essentialism as a primary tenet of dominant language ideology that holds that "languages are distinct, bounded, autonomous systems which correspond directly with and define cultural identities" and that "language and identity are framed as biological inheritances" (Jaffe 1999: 120-121). Jaffe asserts that essentialism has strategic value since it corresponds to the constructs that have been developed in society. Jaffe claims that the sociolinguistic "perspective proscribes purism, accepts and validates social and linguistic diversity, and makes political or social agendas the basis for language judgments and practices" (Jaffe 1999: 121).

Sociolinguistic language planners in Paraguay favor transitional bilingual education (TBE) until grade three to facilitate the student’s transition to study in Spanish (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo 1993: 6), by development of reading ability in jopara, a form of Guaraní characterized by code-switching, code-mixing, and/or language borrowing. Essentialist language planners favor two-way maintenance bilingual education to foment literacy in "pure" Guaraní, from which most Spanish loanwords have been expunged (Paraguay 1995a; Corvalán, et al. 1993: 358).

Jaffe frames her analysis of Corsican language politics in a larger discursive context, noting that language activists are constrained, in the process of defending their language and identity, by dominant discourses (Jaffe 1999: 32). Post-colonial theory has proven useful to the analysis of the discursive context of purism in Paraguayan language policy. King notes that "[p]ost-colonial should mean the period beginning with national independence in contrast to the colonial, but in recent theory the new nations are regarded skeptically as neo-colonialist" (1996 17). Whether a country is post-colonial can be determined by analyzing the metaphors used to describe the nation. Language may become part of a modernizing movement that engages in "the construction of a usable past (including a history of victimization, heroes, and enemy others), a national language, and the assertion of a cultural uniqueness which has been suppressed" (King 1996: 20). Language policy documents in Paraguay show just such essentialist modernizing:

"Despite the aggravating circumstance that for many years it was proscribed from use in school, the native language sought refuge in the intimacy of the home and in the heart of poets. Today not only is it a national language consecrated by the National Constitution, but as well vehicle for relevant cultural manifestations: journalism, poetry, theatre. The most beautiful and emotive Paraguayan music, the most authentic expression of the Paraguayan soul are in the Guaraní language." (MEC 1994: 3)

Language becomes the symbol of victimization, and represents suppressed cultural uniqueness, as King predicts. This metaphor is clearly indicative of nationalism.

The ironic outcome of the defense of the ethnolinguistic identity of the colonized is that the colonizers "contribute to Western cultural and political imperialism by mapping the territory for invasion of and colonizing the Others’s assumption about himself" (King 1996: 18). Efforts to revindicate indigenous languages, by this reasoning, may be assimilationist; however, the situation in Paraguay is hardly so simple, since the colonizer arguably has been at least partially assimilated by the mass of the colonized as the caraí.

The metaphors used in language policy discourse also point to the degree of nationalism. Henningsen, analyzing extreme forms of puristic linguistic nationalism, notes that since Hegel disparaged the Volksgeist of the German-speaking peoples and Marx was not interested in questions of ethnic identity, ". . . the emancipatory impetus of Herder’s archaeology of the people’s knowledge . . . became the armory for assertive movements of exclusionary nationalism" (1989: 31). Henningsen, while cautioning that he is "not envisioning Hitler behind all the language and literature reformers" (1989: 51), identifies three puristic metaphors in Nazi genetic theory: race, blood, and contamination, suggesting that there are parallels between these and the themes of language purism. Considering the tendency to national socialism in Paraguay, which is historically associated with incitement of the Guaraní rural interior, one might expect to find in language policy documents metaphors indicative of a primordialist (Fishman 446) exclusionary nationalism. These metaphors are present in recent Paraguayan language policy documents:

"The union of European and Indian. . . produced the racial synthesis in the mestizo, expression of a new humanity uniquely American, and through the march of time, typically Paraguayan. But this new Paraguayan humanity is a total symbiosis of the earth, blood, and spirit. The new offspring is a child of the new land, adopted by his own progenitor, which is Mother Earth. For this reason, the child of the Guaraní woman and the Spanish adventurer holds, as a consequence of his origins, an intense American Patriotism, and possesses from the cradle the spirit of American Land, and is linked by his very birth to Paraguayan land" (Russo, as cited in MEC 1994: 3).

The primordialist concepts of race and blood are established as fundamental to Paraguayan national identity; however, it should be reiterated that the argument that this construction of identity is an imposition of European colonialism is difficult to sustain, because the nation actually preserved certain aspects of pre-columbian political structure. Miguel Chase-Sardi, a Paraguayan anthropologist remarked that one need only scratch the surface of the apparently Europeanized rural Paraguayan to discover the patterns of Indian culture.

The MEC document in which Ramírez Russo is cited presents an intriguing account of how racial contamination occurred in Paraguay:

"Since the European expeditions were essentially comprised of single men, according to the Guaraní mentality, they could be assimilated to their group by means of kinship, formalization of a pact of friendship through the offering of their women. It was thus that caciques from the area surrounding Asunción - Cupiraty, Moquiracé, Mairarú, among others - presented themselves before the Spaniards with their daughters and neices, offering them to them in the belief that this link would become the true tie of friendship and formalization of a pact of alliance, based on the Guaraní system of the brother-in-law, the tovayá" (MEC 1994: 2).

The authors thus exonerate the invaders, finding the leaders of the indigenous culture responsible for miscegenation, and evaluating the event in a positive light, using "friendship" and "alliance" to characterize the taking of Guaraní women.

The policy document is ambiguous with respect to the morality of this event:

The Hispanic-Guaraní amalgam based on an unlimited polygamy produced an abundant mixed race, which rapidly overtook in numbers the Spaniards and Creoles and whose most notable, characteristic sign was the preeminent maintenance of the mother tongue. The mixed-race child was raised by the indigenous mother, who inculcated in him her language. Through this communication, she transmitted to him her ancestral culture, the secrets of the flora and fauna, the extraordinarily rich wealth of her lands, the descriptions of her body, her anatomy, her incipient astronomy, among others. The entire scientific world of her flora and fauna finds its expression in the Guaraní language’ (MEC 1994: 2).

Terms such as "unlimited polygamy" here and "disorganized miscegenation" in this document imply that the taking of the Guaraní woman was immoral. Therefore, the three elements of race, blood, and contamination that Henningsen finds associated with exclusionary nationalism are present. Once the racial origins of the Paraguayan people are established, the connection to language is made. The Guaraní may have lost autonomy and even racial identity, but their essence is in the language, which becomes the sacred transmitter of the values and identity of the culture.

Purism is an important component in Paraguayan language planning documents, expressed here as an objective of bilingual education:

"To produce coordinate bilinguals, that is, individuals capable of using Guaraní and Spanish in any context with equal ability, but maintaining the codes of the systems separate" (MEC 1994: 22).

This statement sets forth the principle of purity for both languages, and calls for a functional equivalence. In another MEC document, the principal way to maintain the systems separate is to restrict word-formation to Guaraní roots (MEC 1995c). This puristic activity is the mechanism by which primordialist, exclusionary nationalism is realized in Paraguayan language policy.

The idea that language purism may be assimilationist raises the question of intent and outcome. Along this line, Spivak prefers Derridean philosophical and psychoanalytical deconstruction to Foucault’s political analysis of ethnocentrism (1994 [1988]: 89), noting that "a nostalgia for lost origins can be detrimental to the exploration of social realities within the critique of imperialism" (1994 [1988]: 87). Zabus also advocates the "post-colonial linguistic" analysis "by the deconstructionist Jacques Derrida, who argues that Western culture is nostalgically yearning for a certain kind of ‘authentic’ speech and has imposed idealizations derived from standardized writing back onto speech" (1996: 31). Spivak and Zabus thus emphasize the mythopoeic aspects of assimilationist constructions of a colonized people’s ethnolinguistic identity. These kinds of constructions are certainly evident in the language policy documents examined here.

Griffiths, however, suggests that the purpose of language purism may be intentional assimilation of colonized peoples: "[c]onstructions of pre-colonial society are at best mythic and at worst deliberative fictions of the new ruling élite" (1996: 168). Safran, citing Gellner (1983), similarly, explains that "intellectuals play a dominant role in the development of nationalism by manipulating language as an instrument for the expression of collective consciousness" (Safran 1999: 82). Bolke-Turner (1995) makes this argument for the case of Purified Guaraní, but while Bolke-Turner’s use of such turns of phrase as "manipulation of language" in referring to the idealization of Guaraní appears to ascribe political intent, that author prefers to focus on the ends, "whether conscious or not" (1991: 11).

On the basis of my own ethnographic observation of language planning in Paraguay over a period of six months, I can see no justification for the claim that the call for purism and functional parity in Paraguayan language policy documents is intentionally assimilationist. The membership of the National Bilingualism Commission is drawn from the elite, with representatives from the fields of anthropology, education, linguistics, and sociology, but as Safran notes, the tendency of the elite language planner to "legitimize, upgrade and restructure the dialect in order to turn it into a proper vehicle for the expression of a national sentiment" (1999: 82) is not universally held by members of the ethnic elite. This observation would lead to the prediction that in Paraguay corpus planning is characterized by disagreement over puristic tendencies in response to prolonged language contact. We have seen that such division exists among the members of the National Bilingualism Commission between essentialists and sociolinguists.

Not only the evidence for assimilationist intent ambiguous, but purism in Paraguay language planning is arguably not assimilationist at all. With reference to indigenous languages of the Americas, Cerrón-Palomino (1983) defends the point of view that language purism is anti-assimilationist:

"the dominated languages suffer the impact of a massive influx from the dominating systems, to such an extent that they see themselves, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the violence with which they have been attacked, distorted in their most intimate details, a fact that constitutes the beginning of their own extinction. In such situations, it is obvious that an anti-purist attitude of acceptance-and even promotion-of exogenous influences will result in benefitting the assimilationist tendencies that underly the propagation of the dominant language" (1983: 46, translation by author).

Cerrón-Palomino’s call for what would be labelled "puristic idioms," indigenization or traditionalization of language (Neustupny 1989), the purpose of which is to eliminate lexical convergence and assimilation, is fraught with difficulty.

Sociolinguists emphasize the practical challenges to language purism. The prospects of indigenization are not good according to Annamalai, because "There is no attested case of reversal of convergence" (1989: 225-226). Wexler (1971), viewing the problem of literary languages in a diglossic framework, notes that closure of the high language variety to outside influence exacerbates the differences between the two varieties, which renders the teaching of literacy more problematic. Dorian (1994) opines that language purism hampers language revitalization or revival and recommends compromise in order to increase the probability of success. Another difficulty with Cerrón-Palomino’s defense, is that indigenization may be another form of linguistic imperialism in the guise of language purism that actually hastens the forces of assimilation. Gareth underscores this problem, noting that "[t]he denial of the possibility of using colonial languages to represent post-colonial experiences is a simplistic assertion of authenticity often made alongside dubious claims concerning the ways in which culture is inscribed in language. It assumes that cultures in the contemporary world which continue to function in pre-colonial indigenous languages have not themselves been subject to colonial hybridization" (Gareth 1996: 168-169). By this reasoning, even an indigenous language purified of external lexical influences, such as Pure Guaraní, may still be semantically and discursively isomorphic with the medium of communication associated with colonizing powers.

While the motive for support of Guaraní purism is political, the cause may be a deeper, personal longing that finds its expression necessarily within the dominant discursive economy, which in the neo-colonialist Paraguayan context is necessarily assimilationist and nationalist; however, in the present analysis, the need for authentic speech cannot be dismissed as "sentimental primitivism" or "nostalgic yearning," but instead is more profitably submitted to a social psychological analysis of language attitudes.

Karmela Liebkind, from a social psychological perspective, identifies language as a source of shame (Liebkind 143). In Paraguay, speakers of the dominant language have learned Guaraní out of shame at not knowing the subordinate one, and the speakers of the subordinate language who become literate in the superordinate one are ashamed not to be able to do the same in their mother tongue. Ethnolinguistic activists expressed these kinds of shame during in-depth interviews, which require the metalinguistic awareness that arises from bilingualism to develop. The shame noted by activists is due to functional disequilibrium between the bilingual’s two languages, and the restoration of equilibrium, or linguistic sociofunctional parity, referred to as reivindicación by Paraguayan ethnolinguistic activists, is the solution sought. The expression of this desire for linguistic sociofunctional parity occurs in Paraguay within a exclusionary nationalistic discursive framework.

Fishman recently notes many people subscribe to essentialism and that "if human beings define categories, whether for themselves or for others, as real, then they are real in their consequences" (Fishman 1999 447). Purism in Paraguay’s project Guaraní revindication is as anti-assimilationist as humanly possible. The need for linguistic socio-functional parity is satisfied through puristic corpus planning and a language policy of maintenance bilingual education, the discursive features of which reflect and arise from the discursive economy of exclusionary nationalism. As disturbing as this reality may be, the primordialism, essentialism, and exclusionary nationalism that inhere in Paraguayan language policy arise from and correspond to a nearly 500 year history of maintenance of Guaraní, whose speakers have been bought off by successive generations of politicians in order to suppress, brutally, liberalizing and democratizing forces. Those leaders themselves have been unwittingly assimilated to the ethnolinguistic identity of the masses they manipulate.

It is hoped that this analysis of Paraguayan language planning and policy will deepen our understanding of the interaction of discursive context and the social psychological mechanisms that mediate language policy formulation. Surely the future will require a more refined understanding of language planning and language policy, activities which will certainly not abate as we struggle to manage and preserve the legacy of the thousands of languages that will still be spoken in the world in the next millennium.