On one hand, we find the processes for standardization of the writing system, several of them have
started decades ago as community projects, advised and restrained by experts from institutions like
the INALI.
These processes of standardization are complex because they are based on languages that are,
in principle, illiterate (Moreno, 2016, 53-59) and do not have alphabetic writing. This doesn’t imply
that they are not suitable for having a writing system since most languages can develop a system for
graphical
expression.

However,

it is

important to note that the

processes

of

standardization

of

the
writing
system

are

lengthy,

changing,

and

imply

a

multidisciplinary

construction

where

several
viewpoints
and

perspectives

meet.

Speakers

of

these

languages,

bilingual

teachers,

writers,
translators,
cultural

promoters

and

language

specialists

have

participated

in

the

writing

standards
configuration processes.
Currently, writing standards exist for the following languages: Hñähñu, Maayataan, Mocho,
Kakchikel,
Tsotsil,

Tseltal,

Tojolabal,

Mam,

Zoque,

Chol,

Pima,

Pápago,

Pima,

Tének,

Yaqui,
Totonaco, and a few more still in preparation.
In a complementary manner, a document exists that proposes a classification for the state of
each language based on the number of registered speakers in the population census by INEGI named:
Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales en riesgo de desaparición (National Indigenous Languages at risk of
disappearance) published in 2012 by INALI.
Considering this document as a starting point, we propose some criteria to classify the state of
these languages; however, it is a first proposal that should be complemented with other approaches:
A.
Active and dynamic languages with writing standards.
B.
Active and dynamic languages without writing standards.
C.
Languages with little dynamism and with writing standards.
D.
Languages with little dynamism and without writing standards.
E.
Languages with different degrees of risk of disappearance without a writing system and are
mainly oral.
The
dynamic

situation

of

a

language

is

determined

by

the

number

of

people

who

use

that
language in an oral level, as much as a reading and writing one. To make this categorization the degree
of
risk

and

the

number

of

people

entitled

by

the

INEGI

was

assumed,

in

addition

to

opening
considerations
in

specific

cases

when

direct

contact

and

diverse

experiences

propose

concrete
modifications,
for example,

languages

in with a

high risk of disappearance that have activities of
strengthening and active, continuous and recent revitalization.
Indigenous Languages speakers’ profile
It is
fundamental to consider the

linguistic competences of the speakers as actors that will
directly intervene in diverse actions achieved as part of a writing and reading promotion program, be
that
coordinators,

trainers

or

beneficiaries.

The

following

proposal

describes

different

profiles

of
indigenous languages speakers that will help to define methodologies to carry out specific strategies.
Table 1. People with Spanish as a Mother Tongue (LMEs)
80