Volume 13 Issue 2 (2015) DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.461 Note: Linguistic Discovery uses Unicode characters to represent phonetic symbols. Please see Optimizing Display for requirements to accurately reproduce this page. How
Strong is the Case for Contact-Induced Grammatical Restructuring in Quechuan? Fernando
Zúñiga University of Bern 1.
Introduction[1] Pieter Muysken’s work since
the late 1970s on Northern Quechua has suggested the possibility that
grammatical structure may be restructured due to contact in a gradual, rather
than an abrupt, fashion (cf. Muysken 1977, 1980, 2000,
but especially Muysken 2009, which develops ideas
found in Arends 1993, 1996, and also Cardoso 2009).[2]
Additionally, he has proposed that such a “gradual transformation of an
expansion language, Incaic imperial Quechua, into a
morphologically more simple variety as it spread northward into Ecuador” (Muysken 2009: 77) is best seen as showing not only contact-induced
change without substrate influence (“koineization”) but
also contact-induced change with substrate influence (“creolization”),
and has offered some likely candidates for this development of Ecuadorian
Quechua (henceforth EQ): The Barbacoan family, spoken in coastal
southern Colombia and northern Ecuador, and the Jivaroan
family, spoken in the Andean foothills of southern Ecuador and northern Peru,
would be the most likely candidates [where we could identify a major dominant
substrate language that may have influenced EQ]. A detailed comparison of the
structural features of these languages and the specific traits of [EQ] still
needs to be made (Muysken 2009: 85). Muysken
also proposes specific traits of EQ where such an influence may be detected,
viz. the simplification of some parts of the morphology when compared with
other Quechua varieties and with Proto-Quechuan, “some
Shuar and Barbacoan loans
in flora/fauna [and] possible influence in local [EQ] grammar features” (Muysken 2012: 239). Other studies by this author consider
the possibility of substrate influence on EQ as well (cf. especially Muysken 2010, 2011b). The external history of EQ is known to some extent
(cf. Muysken 2011a, 2011b); the Ecuadorian varieties
emerged between the 15th and 18th centuries (i.e., the Incaic
expansion and the colonial periods) as the product of transplanted (mostly
southern) Peruvian varieties. The sierra was reportedly occupied by peoples
speaking Barbacoan, Jivaroan
and unclassified languages by the mid-16th century; Quechua seems to have been
the language of an urban elite at that time. By the end of the colonial period,
however, large parts of the sierra (both urban and rural) were reportedly
EQ-speaking. EQ would then be caught up between the expansion of its superstrate (Spanish as the prestige language) and the
marginalization or disappearance of most of its substrate (the non-Quechuan languages). Given this reconstruction of the
region’s linguistic ecology, it is actually only natural to look for
contact-induced phenomena in EQ. The goal of the present paper is to preliminarily assess
the available evidence in favor of some of Muysken’s thought-provoking
claims mentioned at the beginning. Based on the extant descriptive literature
on Quechuan, Barbacoan and Jivaroan, and concentrating on the loss and restructuring
of EQ morphology, this study concludes that there is still a substantial amount
of work to be done in order to render Muysken’s
intuitively attractive and possibly even correct case stronger. Unfortunately,
the current state of descriptive work on all the languages involved does not
allow us to be more confident as to how much of present-day EQ morphology is
really due to creolization possibly with a Jivaroan, or probably rather with a Barbacoan,
substrate. 2.
The morphology of EQ in genealogical and areal perspective Four morphological developments in EQ and can easily
be shown to represent deviations from Quechuan
patterns and were identified in Muysken (2009) as
innovations of this particular northern variety: some reduction in person and
number marking, the form and function of an erstwhile benefactive applicative, and
the make-up of (de-)verbal forms used in selected kinds of subordinate clauses.[3]
(I will very briefly address selected tense-aspect-modality-evidentiality
(TAME) markers at the end of this section.) The deviations are schematically
summarized in Table 1 below and discussed in turn in what follows. Within
Quechua, the relevant comparisons are made with the Ancash and Ayacucho
varieties, which stand for Central and Southern Quechua, respectively; Imbabura
Quechua (a variety from northern Ecuador) stands for EQ.[4] The
non-Quechua languages chosen —because of both data availability and spatial
proximity to EQ— are Awa Pit and Tsafiki (Barbacoan) on the one hand and Aguaruna
and Shuar (Jivaroan) on the
other.[5]
Table
1. Selected EQ morphology vis-à-vis Quechuan. Based
on Muysken (2009: 80) 2.1
Person/Number Marking First note that the inclusive vs. exclusive
distinction found in pronouns, possessive suffixes and verbal markers in most Quechuan varieties (e.g. in Ancash in (1) and Ayacucho (2)
in below) has been lost in EQ (3). Second, verb forms used with 1↔2
interactions in other Quechuan typically show
portmanteaus (e.g. ‑q in Ancash and ‑yki in Ayacucho),
whereas EQ has nothing of the sort. Moreover, the 1P marker -wa ~ -ma, still robust in most Quechua
varieties, is reportedly becoming obsolescent in EQ;[7]
the 2P marker ‑su
~ ‑shu is
already lost. (1) Ancash
Quechua present verb forms (Parker 1976: 105f)[8]
(2) Ayacucho Quechua present verb forms (Soto Ruiz 1976: 93f)
(3) Imbabura EQ present
verb forms (Cole 1982: 103-104,159-160)
Non-Quechuan languages of
the region show both dissimilar and similar argument-marking patterns. Barbacoan is known to have an egophoric
vs. allophoric distinction (also known under the names
conjunct vs. disjunct, assertor vs. non-assertor, or
congruent vs. non-congruent), either additionally distinguishing grammatical
relations (Awa Pit) or limited to egophoricity (Tsafiki): (4) Awa Pit argument marking: Egophoricity
+ GRs (Curnow 1997: 193f) e.g. pst: -w ‘egoph.sbj’ vs. -s ‘egoph.obj’ vs. -zi ‘alloph’ (5) Tsafiki argument
marking: Egophoricity (Dickinson 2002; also Moore
1979, Turner 1992) e.g. decl -yo ‘egoph’ (vs. Ø), inter
-yu ‘egoph’ (vs. Ø), etc. Jivaroan
languages, by contrast, has argument markers closer in function to the Quechuan ones — and note that both Aguaruna
and Shuar actually have portmanteau morphemes for 1↔2
interactions: (6) Aguaruna SAP↔SAP verbal
suffixes (Overall 2007: 317) -hamɨ ‘1sg→2sg’ vs. -himɨ ‘1pl→2sg’/‘2pl
→1’ (7) Shuar SAP↔SAP verbal
suffixes (Gnerre 1999: 68f)
Thus, even though contact with languages that have
different argument-marking patterns may explain part or all of the loss of the
relevant EQ verbal morphology, it is not easy to see how this would have worked
in the details, particularly so regarding the 1↔2 portmanteaus and considering
the quite different egophoricity-centered system of Barbacoan. The loss of clusivity
in EQ, on the other hand, is more plausibly attributed to contact with clusivity-less Barbacoan and Jivaroan, even though a contact-independent explanation is
certainly also possible. 2.2
Benefactive Applicative There would be more to say about the evolution of Quechuan benefactive (quasi-) applicatives, especially
regarding their form, but suffice it here to say that EQ only retains the
marker ‑pa and, more importantly,
that this marker is no longer an applicative or quasi-applicative.[9]
Whereas in Ancash verbal valency is clearly affected by the suffixation of ‑pu/‑pa (8) (in other Quechua varieties,
the applied object appears in the accusative instead of the benefactive
illustrated in 8a), in EQ the suffix conveys an honorific meaning without
altering the valency of the predicate and the syntax of the clause: (8) Ancash
Quechua (Parker 1976: 84, 119)
(9) Imbabura EQ (Cole 1982: 113, 185)
Is contact helpful here as an explanatory factor? As
far as I can judge from the extant descriptions, Barbacoan
languages do not have benefactive applicative markers, but those found in Jivaroan (particularly in Aguaruna),
are well-behaved (i.e., they are not valency-neutral like the present-day EQ
morpheme), i.e. they conform to the expected behavior of applicatives. The EQ
development might just as well have been contact-independent. 2.3
Subordinate Clauses Two types of subordinate clauses are relevant in the
present context: temporal adverbial clauses and purpose clauses. As to the
former, both EQ and other Quechua varieties have switch-reference forms, but EQ
does not mark person on them while other varieties do. The different-subject
forms of both Ancash (10) and Ayacucho (11) take possessive suffixes to convey
person and number of the different subject (illustrated here with 1st person
singular forms), whereas those of EQ have an invariable suffix ‑jpi (12): (10) Ancash
Quechua (Cole 1983: 2-3): Switch-reference (SS -r ~ -shpa vs. DS -pti-{psr})
(11)
Ayacucho Quechua (Hartmann 1994): Switch-reference (SS -stin ~ -spa vs. DS -pti-{psr})
(12) Imbabura EQ
(Cole 1983: 5): Switch-reference
Interestingly enough, Barbacoan
languages have switch-reference forms in temporal adverbial clauses, but they
do not mark person, therefore lending plausibility to the contact hypothesis. Jivaroan languages, by contrast, have switch-reference
forms that do mark person in such clauses. More information on concrete contact
scenarios, their intensity and duration, would be needed in order to come to an
attractive solution here. Regarding purpose clauses, note that other Quechua
varieties have deverbal nominalized forms there;
consider the Ancash (13) and Ayacucho (14) examples below with forms showing
the nominalizer ‑na, a possessive suffix, and the
benefactive/purposive suffix ‑paq ‘for’. By contrast, EQ uses a switch-reference form in
these clauses (15) (and, as expected, such forms do not mark person); note that
the markers (‑ngapaj
/ ‑chun)
differ from those employed in temporal clauses (‑shpa / ‑jpi): (13) Ancash
Quechua (Cole 1983: 3-4): Nominalized form
(14)
Ayacucho Quechua (Soto Ruiz 1976: 156): Nominalized form
(15) Imbabura EQ (Cole
1983: 6-7): SR
These purposive switch-reference forms are also used
in desiderative expressions in EQ. Here, again, other Quechua varieties employ nominalizations,
like the accusative-marked infinitive of Ayacucho Quechua below: (16) Desiderative (Soto Ruiz 1976: 157, Cole 1982: 38) Ayacucho
Quechua
Imbabura
EQ
Leaving aside the issue of what governs the
distribution between same-subject and different-subject forms in EQ (the data
in Cole 1983 suggest a direct/inverse-related 1/2 vs. 3 opposition playing an
interesting role here), as well as the intriguing and unclear etymology of ‑chun (which is a
3rd person imperative in other Quechuan varieties), I
will now turn to Bruil (2008) regarding the probable
evolution of such forms.[13] This author hypothesizes
that the loss of argument marking in subordination in general is due to Barbacoan influence (pp. 123f), that switch-reference forms
in purpose clauses is also due to contact with Barbacoan
(pp. 124, following a suggestion in Adelaar 2004:
149), and that the extension of such switch-reference forms to desiderative
constructions is due to Spanish influence (p. 126). Limiting myself here to the
second hypothesis, it is clear that both Barbacoan
and Jivaroan languages have morphologically simple
patterns with respect to subordinate clauses: adverbial and purposes clauses
show switch-reference forms in all languages (like EQ), but these do not mark
person in Barbacoan, even in different-subject forms
(like EQ) and do mark person in Jivaroan, even in
same-subject forms. Examples follow: (17) Awa Pit purpose clauses (Curnow 1997: 268-269)
(18) Tsafiki purpose clauses
(Moore 1979: 48)
(19) Aguaruna
purpose clauses (Overall 2007: 504)
(20) Shuar
adverbial clauses (Gnerre 1999: 74,76)
In the light of this evidence, Bruil’s
claim as to the possibility of Barbacoan influence
here is indeed a very attractive one.[14] 2.4
Selected TAME markers Finally, it is in order to at least mention the TAME
markers addressed by Muysken, viz. the reflexes of
Proto-Quechuan *‑yku, *‑yka, *‑ku, and *‑ri. The first two have been lost
in EQ; they mark dynamicity/direction and durativity in other Quechuan varieties, respectively. The marker ‑ku encodes
durativity in EQ, but in other Quechuan varieties, and
presumably also in Proto-Quechuan, it is a mediopassive morpheme. Awa Pit has an imperfective marker ‑(m)tu, which
is somewhat similar to Quechuan ‑ku, but even though they might be
considered linked (as two subtypes of diminished-transitivity markers), the
unclear details regarding the semantic change and the rather modest formal
similarity does not allow one to regard this mere finding as strong evidence in
favor of a contact-induced change mediopassive >
durative in EQ. Lastly, ‑ri
is an inchoative marker in Proto-Quechuan and other Quechuan varieties but a reflexive marker in EQ — a
hitherto unexplained development. The connection between inchoativity
and reflexivity is, at least formally, well attested elsewhere (cf. Spanish anticausative se,
evolved from a reflexive marker), but it is far from clear how Barbacoan influence would have worked here: neither Awa Pit
nor Tsafiki have a verbal reflexive proper, let alone
any related marker (e.g. a pronominal one) that would formally resemble EQ -ri (but Tsafiki has an inchoative suffix ‑di, which might have played a role). I was not able to see any other
connection between these developments, especially the latter two listed above,
and possible Jivaroan or Barbacoan
models. 2.5
Summary The above discussion of EQ deviations from the
patterns prevalent in Quechuan and possible
contact-induced developments can be schematically summarized in Table 2 below.
Table
2. Selected EQ morphology vis-à-vis Quechuan and non-Quechuan (First two columns reproduced from
Table 1 above) 3.
Discussion Muysken
(2009: 98) identifies the following timeline for selected changes in EQ:[15]
His final comments on these changes is indicative of his
koineization (non-substrate-influenced) vs. creolization (substrate-influenced) distinction mentioned at
the outset of the present article: The earliest changes […] may possibly be viewed as cases of
morphological simplification independent of individual substrates, while later
changes, such as the shift in meaning of the verbal suffixes -ku- and -ri-, must have a different
explanation, and could be due to substratal
influence. This would suggest a gradual restructuring towards the possible
substrate languages (which have now disappeared). Nonetheless, at least some of
the morphological simplification must have been gradual in nature as well. (Muysken 2009: 98) The data presented in Section 2 above lead to the
identification of possible substrate languages as schematically summarized in
Table 3 below; they mostly point towards Barbacoan.
Nevertheless, as Muysken himself says, some other,
now extinct, substrate languages cannot be ruled out.
Table 3. Selected
morphological phenomena in EQ Note that Bruil (2008) and Muysken (2009) disagree as to what motivated some of the
comparatively early changes in EQ; in particular, the restructuring of
morphological make-up of subordinate clauses is said to be due to Barbacoan influence by the former author but are presented
as possible cases of contact-independent innovation by the latter. Muysken says that later EQ innovations might have been
contact-induced, and they may very well have been, but the extant evidence from
Barbacoan seems to make the
unknown-and-extinct-language(s) suggestion more attractive — hardly firm ground
to continue reconstructing the exact details of EQ prehistory. In fact, two important questions posed by Muysken seem to me to be still somewhat open. First, “[c]an
we identify a single major dominant substrate language that may have influenced
[EQ]?” (Muysken 2009: 85). Based on the present-day
descriptions available to me, such a language would have to be Barbacoan (possibly Caranqui, as
suggested by Bruil 2008, 2011), rather than Jivaroan — with a strong emphasis on may, however. The new switch-reference morphology in EQ seems to be
the best evidence for contact-induced change. Second, “[w]hat features can be
readily explained through autonomous simplification processes and what features
would require a different, possibly substratist,
explanation?” (Muysken 2009: 85). I see two problems
with the quote at the beginning of Section 3 in this respect: Why is the
earlier loss of morphology autonomous, rather than the later loss? Why is the
shift of some TAME markers rather contact-induced? There does not seem to be a
direct motivating or driving force in either Barbacoan
or Jivaroan, let alone in Spanish, for such
developments. I thus conclude that, intuitively appealing though Muysken’s koineization hypothesis
is, a strong case in its favor is yet to be made, and the extant descriptions
of possible substrate languages does not allow one to be more confident here. Finally, let me zoom out and briefly comment on an
interesting hypothesis formulated by Muysken when
discussing the evolution of EQ. He suggests that there might be a correlation
between the outcome of such contact situations and the morphological make-up of
the participating languages: [The fact that radical restructuring in EQ led to the
loss of morphology in specific grammatical contexts and regularization rather
than a total loss] may be due to the agglutinative character of Quechua; in
that case we would predict that in general agglutinative languages undergo
different processes of restructuring than inflectional languages (Muysken 2009: 97). In other words, the outcome of such an alleged koineization process would be decisively determined by the
morphology-typological profile of the superstrate
language. Nevertheless, since the case for the specific koineization-cum-creolization process in EQ proposed in Muysken
(2009) is not particularly strong, and since, to my knowledge, no similar cases
have been made for other Quechuan varieties, we still
do not know whether this applies to Quechuan in
general — even though, as mentioned by Pieter Muysken
(p.c.), the evidence in favor of EQ as spreading comparatively late is indeed convincing.
Within Indo-European, to judge from the reasonably documented morphological
change documented in Germanic, Romance, Celtic, Slavic, and Indo-Aryan, it would
seem that radical restructuring does not necessarily lead to total loss of
morphology. Are there parallels from Turkic, Tungusic,
Eskaleut, Uralic, Bantu, and Dravidian (all examples
of “agglutinating” families) that support Muysken’s
proposal regarding the resistance of agglutination to total morphology loss?
His tentative prediction is both attractive and worth pursuing further, but
more work needs to be done, not only within Quechuan
but also within other language families, in order to obtain conclusive support for
such a claim. Abbreviations A agentive
argument of bivalent predicates, acc
accusative, agt agentive, all allative, alloph allophoric,
AP Awa Pit, asp aspect(ual), ben
benefactive, decl declarative, dim diminituve,
dir direct, dirct directional, DS different subject,
dur durative, dyn dynamic, egoph egophoric, EQ Ecuadorian
Quechua, evid evidential, excl exclusive, foc focus, fut
future, gen genitive, GRs
grammatical relations, hon
honorific, imper imperative, inch inchoative, incl inclusive, inf
infinitive, inter interrogative, intm intermediate, inv inverse, ipfv imperfective, irr
irrealis, loc locative, mpass mediopassive,
neg negative, nmlz nominalization, obj object(ive),
P patientive argument of bivalent predicates, pers person, pfv perfective, pl
plural, PQ Proto-Quechua, psr
possessor, pst past, qappl quasi-applicative, rec recent, refl reflexive, S single argument of monovalent predicates, SAP
speech act participant, sbj
subject, seq sequential, ser serial, sg singular, sim
simultaneous, SR switch-reference, SS same subject, TAME tense-aspect-modality-evidentiality, top
topic x→y ‘x
acting on y’ References Adelaar, Willem (with the
collaboration of Pieter Muysken) (2004) The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Arends, Jacques (1993) Towards
a gradualist model of creolization. Atlantic Meets Pacific. A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization,
ed. by Francis Byrne & John Holm, 371-380. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Arends, Jacques (ed.) (1996) The Early Stages of Creolization.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bruil, Martine (2008)
Innovations in the Ecuadorian converb systems:
grammatical change in language contact situations. M.A. thesis, University of
Leiden. Bruil, Martine (2011) The
emergence of future converbs in Imbabura Quichua: Pre-Hispanic language contact as a possible
explanation. Language Contact in Times of
Globalization, ed. by Cornelius Hasselblatt,
Peter Houtzagers & Remco
van Pareren, 27-44. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Cardoso,
Hugo (2009) Jacques Arends’ model of gradual creolization. Gradual
Creolization: Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends, ed. by Rachel Selbach,
Hugo Cardoso & Margot van den Berg, 13-23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo (1987) Lingüística
quechua. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos Bartolomé de Las Casas. Ciucci,
Luca & Pieter Muysken
(2011) Hernando de Alcocer y la Breve declaración del Arte y Bocabulario de la lengua del Ynga
conforme al estilo y vso de la provincia de Quito. El
más antiguo manuscrito de quichua del Ecuador. Indiana 28: 359-394. Cole, Peter (1982) Imbabura
Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Cole,
Peter (1983) Switch-reference in two Quechua languages. In Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar, ed. by John Haiman & Pamela Munro, 1-15. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Curnow,
Timothy (1997) A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An
indigenous language of South-Western Colombia. Ph.D. thesis, Australian
National University. Dickinson,
Connie (2002) Complex predicates in Tsafiki. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Oregon. Gnerre,
Maurizio (1999) Perfil descriptivo e histórico-comparativo
de una lengua amazónica: el shuar (jíbaro). Ms., University of Naples Federico II. Hartmann, Roswith (1994) Rimaykullayki: Unterrichtsmaterialien zum Quechua Ayachuchano - Peru. Zusammengestellt nach Clodoaldo Soto Ruiz’ Quechua
– manual de enseñanza. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Macario, Florens
(2014) Influences of contact phenomena on Ecuadorian Quichua
morphology, under consideration of Jivaroan and Barbacoan languages. B.A. thesis, University of Bern. Moore, Bruce (1979) Método para
aprender el idioma colorado. Gramática pedagógica, tomo I, lecciones 1-6.
Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Muysken, Pieter
(1977) Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase
of Ecuadorian Quechua. Lisse:
Peter de Ridder. Muysken, Pieter (1980) Sources
for the study of Amerindian contact vernaculars in Ecuador. Amsterdam Creole Studies 3: 66-82. Muysken, Pieter (2000) The
genesis of Lowland Ecuadorian Quechua and semantic transparency. Creoles, Pidgins, Sundry Languages: Essays
in Honor of Pieter Seuren, ed. by Jacques Arends, 973-988. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Muysken, Pieter (2009) Gradual
restructuring in Ecuadorian Quechua. Gradual
Creolization: Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends, ed. by Rachel Selbach,
Hugo Cardoso & Margot van den Berg, 77-100. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Muysken, Pieter (2010) The
copula in Ecuadorian Quechua. Linguistics
and Archeology in the Americas: The Historization of
Language and Society, ed. by Eithne Carlin &
Simon van de Kerke, 191-206. Leiden: Brill. Muysken, Pieter (2011a)
Relative clauses in Ecuadorian Quechua. Subordination
in Native South-American Languages, ed. by Rik
van Gijn, Katharina Haude
& Pieter Muysken, 251-266. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Muysken, Pieter (2011b) Change,
contact, and ethnogenesis in Northern Quechua:
Structural phylogenetic approaches to clause embedding predicates. Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia:
Reconstructing Past Identities from Archeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory, ed. by Alf Hornborg
& Jonathan Hill, 237-258. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. Muysken,
Pieter (2011c) Multi-verb constructions in Ecuadorian
Quechua. Multi-Verb
Constructions in the Americas, ed. by Alexandra Aikhenvald & Pieter Muysken,
133-156. Leiden: Brill. Muysken, Pieter (2012) Contacts
between indigenous languages in South America. The Indigenous Languages of South America. A Comprehensive Guide, ed.
by Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona,
235-258. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Overall,
Simon (2007) A Grammar of Aguaruna. Ph.D.
thesis, La Trobe University. Parker, Gary (1976) Gramática
quechua: Ancash-Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de
Educación. Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo (1976) Gramática quechua: Ayacucho-Chanca.
Lima: Ministerio de Educación. Turner, Glen (1992) Una breve
gramática del shuar. Quito: Instituto Lingüístico
de Verano. Van
de Kerke, Simon & Pieter Muysken
(2014) The Andean matrix. The Native
Languages of South America: Origins, Development, Typology, ed. by Loretta
O’Connor & Pieter Muysken, 126-151. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. [1] The author is grateful
to Rik van Gijn, but
especially to Pieter Muysken and an anonymous reviewer
for numerous and valuable comments on a previous version of this article. The
usual disclaimers apply. [2] See also Muysken (2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) and Van de Kerke & Muysken (2014). [3] See Muysken (2011c) for a slightly different (but compatible)
list of differences in morphosyntax between EQ and
other Quechua varieties. [4] It is worth noting
that there is non-negligible variation within EQ; as pointed out by an
anonymous reviewer, the Imbabura variety is geographically closer to the Barbacoan languages than to the Jivaroan
ones. [5] Bruil (2008) points out the relevance of the extinct Barbacoan language Caranqui as
probable substrate of EQ, but not much is known about the grammatical structure
of this language. [6] Or some other
case marker; in Ayacucho Quechua, e.g., it is the benefactive -paq. [7] According to an
anonymous reviewer, however, -wa is still in use in the Imbabura variety. It seems that
there is more variation in this respect within EQ in general, and within
Imbabura Quechua in particular, than the comparative literature on Quechua has
acknowledged hitherto. [8] The plural
suffix -ya
becomes -yaa
in open syllables. [9] A different
issue —not treated here— is the existence of an innovative benefactive compound
predicate based on cara-
‘give’ in EQ. Such applicative or pseudo-applicative constructions are
well-known from West Africa, as well as from southern and eastern Eurasia, but
the existence of a close parallel in Cha’palaa
(southern Barbacoan; Ecuador), mentioned by an
anonymous reviewer, is certainly worth exploring in greater detail. [10] Simple reflex of PQ *-špa (Cerrón-Palomino 1987: 196). [11] Either from PQ
*-pti or
innovative from *-q-pi (-agt-loc) (Cerrón-Palomino
1987: 195). The latter could well be a calque from Jivaroan:
Aguaruna reportedly has a subordinate deverbal form featuring nominalizing morphology and a
locative case marker (anonymous reviewer, p.c.). [12] Similar forms in other EQ varieties (Orr’s 1978
“ecuatoriano de la selva” as opposed to “ecuatoriano de la sierra” like
Imbabura EQ): ‑ngawa
in Pastaza, ‑ngaj
in Tena, ‑ngapa
in Napo (Cerrón-Palomino 1987: 240). [13] See also Muysken (2011b) for an overview of verbal morphology used
in complementation and subordination across Quechua varieties that pays special
attention to some variation within EQ. This author explicitly mentions
“possible substrate influence” when discussing the following EQ-specific
complex-predicate constructions: (a) verb of saying + future V form to express
desire/intention (Shuar); (b) verb of doing + V to
express ‘going to’ (Barbacoan, Chibchan,
Paezan and Tucanoan; for
the EQ variety under scrutiny, the relevant contact language is probably the
isolate Waorani); (c) ‑chun in subjunctive/purposive DS
forms (Tsafiki); and (d) use of yalli ‘exceed’ in comparisons
(perhaps from Barbacoan). [14] As Pieter Muysken aptly points out (p.c.), this raises the issue why
the chun-forms
are so widespread, extending to Quechuan varieties
spoken both in Tungurahua and the jungle; Barbacoan
could well have had a pervasive influence in all EQ varieties. See Bruil (2011) for additional discussion of -chun as DS marker
in the context of Barbacoan influence. [15] See also Ciucci & Muysken (2011) for
additional supporting evidence regarding the early date of many of the EQ
innovations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [ Home | Current Issue | Browse the Archive | Search the Site | Submission Information | Register for Updates | About | Editorial Board | Site Map | Help ]
Published by the Dartmouth College Library.
| |