1 Switch reference in western South America DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION Rik van Gijn University of Zürich Switch-reference systems occur in a number of languages spoken in a contiguous area in western South America, across language families, and even across macro culture areas (Andes and Amazon). At first sight, this is suggestive of contact-induced diffusion, but the different systems show rather a lot of variation. This paper gives an overview of the switch-reference structures found in Western South America, taking a multi-variate approach to the phenomenon. In addition, it discusses the likelihood of horizontal transmission hypotheses to explain the current distribution of switch reference in South America. 1. Introduction The following examples come from genealogically unrelated languages spoken in the adjacent Upper Amazon and Andean regions of western South America (1) Cavineña [TACANAN], Guillaume 2008: 702, 725 a. udya =tu-ke =Ø [imeta-tsu] mare-kware then =3SG-FM (=1SG.ERG) point.at-IDENT shoot.at-REM.PAST ‘Then I pointed my rifle at it (a peccary) and shot it.’ b. [tu-ra mare-wa=ju] =tu pakaka-wa 3SG-ERG shoot.at-PERF=NONID =3SG(-FM) fall-PERF ‘He (Lucio) shot at it (the porcupine), and it fell down.’ (2) Yurakaré [ISOLATE], Van Gijn 2011: 181 a. ti-bëjta-ø-ja ti-la-mala-ø samu 1SG-see-3-IDENT 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar ‘When the jaguar saw me, it ran away from me.’ b. së bëjta-y-ti ti-la-mala-ø samu 1SG.PRN see-1SG.S-NONID 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar ‘When I saw the jaguar, it ran away from me.’ (3) Cofán [ISOLATE], Fischer & Van Lier 2011: 237
50
Embed
Switch reference in western South Americaffffffff-be1c...1 Switch reference in western South America DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION Rik van Gijn University of Zürich Switch-reference
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Switch reference in western South America
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
Rik van Gijn
University of Zürich
Switch-reference systems occur in a number of languages spoken in a contiguous area in western
South America, across language families, and even across macro culture areas (Andes and Amazon).
At first sight, this is suggestive of contact-induced diffusion, but the different systems show rather a
lot of variation. This paper gives an overview of the switch-reference structures found in Western
South America, taking a multi-variate approach to the phenomenon. In addition, it discusses the
likelihood of horizontal transmission hypotheses to explain the current distribution of switch reference
in South America.
1. Introduction
The following examples come from genealogically unrelated languages spoken in the adjacent Upper
Amazon and Andean regions of western South America
(1) Cavineña [TACANAN], Guillaume 2008: 702, 725
a. udya =tu-ke =Ø [imeta-tsu] mare-kware
then =3SG-FM (=1SG.ERG) point.at-IDENT shoot.at-REM.PAST
‘Then I pointed my rifle at it (a peccary) and shot it.’
b. [tu-ra mare-wa=ju] =tu pakaka-wa
3SG-ERG shoot.at-PERF=NONID =3SG(-FM) fall-PERF
‘He (Lucio) shot at it (the porcupine), and it fell down.’
(2) Yurakaré [ISOLATE], Van Gijn 2011: 181
a. ti-bëjta-ø-ja ti-la-mala-ø samu
1SG-see-3-IDENT 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar
‘When the jaguar saw me, it ran away from me.’
b. së bëjta-y-ti ti-la-mala-ø samu
1SG.PRN see-1SG.S-NONID 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar
‘When I saw the jaguar, it ran away from me.’
(3) Cofán [ISOLATE], Fischer & Van Lier 2011: 237
2
[khasheye=ndekhu=ja ñoña]=si te [matachi=ja tsa=ma ondikhu]=pa
complements, fear complements, modifying relations (relativization), coordination
3.3. Additional remarks
Stirling (1993) argues for a much broader functionality of switch reference. In her perspective, switch
reference is about congruence between eventualities, of which referential continuity forms a sub-
function. One common aspect to the systems surveyed by Stirling is nevertheless that referential (non-
)identity (whether syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic) always seems to form part of the pivot, even if it
may be overridden by other, non-referential factors, whereas the other pivot types may be absent. For
this reason, I have chosen to take referential (dis)continuity as the basis for coding. Nevertheless, a
number of languages in the sample show deviations from the referential (dis)continuity basis, and in a
number of cases these deviations occur to satisfy another, discourse related principles, in line with
Stirling’s work. I have kept track of these discourse principles as well, but they were not taken into
account for the distance calculations, because they were too disparate. I come back to the types of
13
discourse-related principles at work in the languages of the sample throughout section 4 and in section
5.
The variables discussed in the previous subsection form the basis for the comparison between the
South American languages in this study. However, further variables are imaginable that have not been
coded here for lack of sufficient useful data. I will briefly mention a few additional constraints that
may provide fruitful lines of inquiry for future research.
Typologists have been concerned with what constitutes same and different in terms of
referentiality, beyond the specific role that is being tracked. SR systems may differ in whether or not
they allow for inclusion of the tracked participant in one of the clauses into the group of participants in
the other clause to be interpreted as an identity relation. Perhaps another way to state this point is
whether an SR system is sensitive to person value, or to person + number value. In principle, this
would yield three types of systems: one where the pivot may include the controller under an identity
reading, one where the controller may include the pivot, and one where strict identity is required for an
identity reading. Unfortunately the languages surveyed in this study show too many gaps with respect
to this parameter for it to be useful from a comparative perspective.
Another potential variable is whether, in a situation of a chain of marked clauses and one controller
clause, marked clauses always refer to the next clause (whether a marked clause or a controller clause)
or whether all marked clauses refer to the one controller clause. This could lead to a typology of local
scope systems versus global scope systems, and perhaps a third, flexible, system. Some grammars of
the languages coded in the database do actually discuss this aspect, and I will briefly mention some
aspects relating to this variable, but there is not enough material to warrant a useful comparison
between all languages in the sample.
Finally, languages may differ in terms of whether they employ their SR system for tail-head
linkage (de Vries 2005). Again there is some information on this for a few languages, which I will
briefly discuss below, but not enough material for a full comparison.
4. SR patterns in the Andes and Upper Amazon
This section describes the patterns found for the languages in the sample, discussing the facts for each
family (4.1 - 4.8), the isolates (4.9) and the odd-ones-out (4.10).
4.1. Quechuan
To my knowledge, all Quechuan languages have a switch-reference system, and there is quite a bit of
common ground between the systems in the different languages. However, the Ecuadorian Quechuan
languages show deviant patterns. Figure 2 indicates how the Quechuan languages in the sample relate
to each other, based on the classification in Hammarström et al. (2014).
14
Figure 2: The Quechuan languages in the sample
An overview of SR markers and their functions is shown in Table 8. The first column displays the
languages in the sample, the second the subclassification into Quechua I (central Peru), Quechua IIB
(Northern Peru, Ecuador), and Quechua IIC (Southern Peru, Bolivia); the status of what is often called
Quechua IIA (though Hammarström et al. 2014 give no additional letter to this group) is controversial
because it does not form a unity in itself but rather a group that falls in between Quechua I and II
(Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 186). The third and fourth columns show the identity markers for
temporal/conditional clauses (column 3) and for purpose clauses (column 4). The non-identity markers
for the same two contexts are shown in columns 5 and 6. All markers are suffixes that attach to the
verb.
Table 8: Quechuan SR markers
IDENTITY MARKERS NON-IDENTITY MARKERS
TEMPORAL/CONDITIONAL PURPOSE TEMP/COND PURPOSE
Jauja Wanca I l pti
Tarma I r pti
Huallaga I ʃpa r pti
Ancash I ʃpa r(nin) pti
Pacaraos II ʃpa pti
San Martin IIB ʃpa pti
Chachapoyas IIB ʃ(pa) ti
Imbabura IIB ʃpa ngapah hpi ʧun
QUECHUAN
Pacaraos
San Martin Chachapoyas Imbabura Chimborazo
Cuzco Ayacucho Bolivian
QUECHUA I
QUECHUA II IIB
IIC
Huallaga Jauja Wanca North Junín Ancash
15
Chimborazo IIB ʃpa ngapak kpi tun
Ayacucho IIC spa stin pti
Cuzco IIC spa qti
Bolivian Quechua IIC spa qti
As can be seen in Table 8, there is a fair amount of overlap in the forms, which moreover suggest a
diachronic development within the family. The markers shared by most languages are -ʃpa/-spa for
temporal/conditional same-subject clauses and -pti with several (related) variations for different-
subject clauses. The Quechuan subgroups can be recognized to some extent on the basis of the
markers: the same-subject marker -r/-l only occurs in Quechua I languages, and the purpose markers
are an innovation in Quechua IIB. In fact, San Martín and Chachapoyas Quechua are geographically
intermediate between the Quechua I area and the other languages of Quechua IIB. Imbabura and
Chimborazo are furthest removed from what seems to be a core Quechua system. Not only do they
have separate markers for purpose clauses, they also are the only two languages where the DS marker
for temporal/conditional clauses without a /t/. In the IIC group Ayacucho differs from Cuzco and
Bolivian Quechua. The latter two are often regarded as part of the same dialect continuum (Adelaar
with Muysken 2004: 187).
Huallaga Quechua has both -ʃpa and -r. According to Weber (1989: 299) there is no functional
difference between the two markers, they are used in parallel contexts. However, the fact that -ʃpa
requires an inflectional subject marker and -r does not allow for any overt inflectional person marker
makes the former the preferred option in some cases. Cole (1983), for Ancash, mentions that the
difference between -r and -ʃpa in Ancash is determined by relatedness of events: -r is used when the
events are related (e.g when the occurrence of one event depends on the other), -ʃpa is used when this
is not the case. The form -rnin in Ancash is in free variation with -r. The element -nin is homophonous
with the third person subject agreement marker, but it does not have that function in the form -rnin
(Cole 1983: 14).
In terms of same-subject marking, Pacaraos (Adelaar 1987) sides with the Quechua IIC
languages, which all have only the marker -ʃpa for same-subject temporal clauses.6 As mentioned, the
northernost Quechua IIC languages Imbabura (Cole 1982, 1983) and Chimborazo (Beukema 1975)
have acquired SR markers for purpose clauses. The opposition -chun (non-identity) versus -ngapaj
(identity) found in Imbabura Quechua can be found in purpose clauses, but it extends to desire
complements. Imbabura Quechua, unlike most of its relatives, developed a SR opposition for purpose
relations, of which the identity marker -ngapaj shows a potential affinity with Awa Pit’s (non-identity)
purpose marker -napa7 and whose non-identity marker -chun may be related to e.g. Tsáfiki’s purpose
6 There is an alternation in Chachapoyas Quechua (Weber 1975) between - ʃpa, which is mainly used in conditional contexts,
and -ʃ which is used in other contexts. 7 The source of this marker, however, is probably Quechuan, from a combination of irrealis nominalizer -na and benefactive
marker -paq.
16
marker (non-SR sensitive) -chu.8 Quechua was introduced only late, after the Spanish arrival, in an
area formerly dominated linguistically by an extinct, probably Barbacoan language Cara (Bruil 2008),
so mutual influence is probable, also in the form of (Barbacoan?) substrate in Imbabura Quechua. In
Imbabura Quechua, the “subjunctive” SR system has expanded to mark complements of desire verbs
as well, possibly under Spanish influence (Bruil 2008).
Ayacucho Quechua (Hartmann, ed. 1994) has two same-subject temporal markers, -spa and -stin.
The latter is used when the events occur simultaneously. The marker -ʃtin as an adverbial clause
marker is found in North Junín, or Tarma Quechua, but not with SR functionality, and regionally
restricted (Adelaar 1977: 101). The opposed different-subject/simultaneous construction is marked
with the durative marker -ʧka and the different subject marker -pti.
In terms of their semantics, the group of temporal/conditional markers usually has a rather broad
range of possible interpretations, including temporal overlap, succession, simultaneity, condition
(standard and concessive), and often also reason. In San Martín Quechua, SR extends to relatives as
well (Howkins 1977). Certain interpretations are the result of the combination of the SR marker with
some other marker. For instance, in Ayacucho Quechua, different-subject reason interpretations result
from the combination of the SR markers with the assertive enclitic =mi, and a concessive reading in
combination with the additive enclitic =pas.
Another type difference between the markers is the effect they have on person marking on the
dependent predicate. Many of the Quechuan SR markers have a nominalizing effect in that they
require the subjects of the dependent verbs to be marked by possessor suffixes.
(5) Huallaga Quechua [QUECHUAN], Weber 1983: 281
chaya-pti-nchi qoyku-shaq
arrive-NONID-1INCL.POSS give-1FUT
‘When we (incl) arrive, I will give it to him.’
Some of the markers are incompatible with person inflection.
(6) Bolivian Quechua [QUECHUAN] , van de Kerke 1996: 8
p’acha-ta t’aqsa-y ni-spa ni-wa-rqa
cloth-ACC wash-IMP say-IDENT say-1OBJ-3SG.PST
‘“Wash the clothes” saying, she said to me.’
There is some variation between the Quechuan languages with respect to this parameter, although the
tendency is clearly towards nominal person inflection for non-identity marked clauses, and no person
8 Here there is a possible, but less likely Quechua source -chun for third person imperative (Bruil 2008).
17
inflection for identity marked clauses, as is shown in Table 9.9 In Pacaraos Quechua, different subject
clauses are combined with person inflection, which is identical for possessive and subject (Adelaar
1987) do strictly speaking it is impossible to tell whether there is verbal or nominal inflection.
Table 9: subject person inflection in marked clauses in Quechuan languages
Imbabura Quechua controllers and pivots can to a large extent be defined syntactically, involving
the S/A argument in both cases, but Cole (1983) indicates the following exceptions to this pattern:10
(7) Imbabura Quechua [QUECHUAN], Cole 1983: 6-7
a. ali-mi Ø/ñuka/kan/*pay Juzi-wan parla-ngapaj
good-EVID one/I/you/*he José-COM speak-IDENT
‘It is good that one/I/you/*he speaks with José.’
b. ali-mi Ø/*ñuka/*kan/pay Juzi-wan parla-chun
good-EVID one/I/you/*he José-COM speak-NONID
‘It is good that *one/*I/*you/he speaks with José.’
Impersonal main clauses in Imbabura Quechua control the SR suffixes in an unusual way, the
identity marker -ngapaj forces either an impersonal reading or a SAP reading, the non-identity marker
forces a personal non-SAP reading. It is not clear to what extent ‘deviations’ from the subject pattern
9 In Pacaraos Quechua, different subject clauses are combined with person inflection, which is identical for possessive and
subject (Adelaar 1987) do strictly speaking it is impossible to tell whether there is verbal or nominal inflection. They are
nevertheless grouped with the nominal inflection group. In Tarma Quechua, subject inflection for identical subject clauses is
optional, therefore it appears in both coleumns. However, an r-clause with person inflection is rare (Adelaar 2011). 10 Curnow (1997: 280) reports for the Barbacoan language Awa Pit that similar clauses to the ones in (7) are always marked
with the same-subject (infinitive) marker, even though the subjects are different. Since in these contexts there is no different-
subject counterpart, they are not considered in this study.
18
occur in other Quechuan languages, and whether they show any systematicity. Howkins (1977)
mentions that there are instances where constructions with identical subjects are nevertheless marked
with the non-identity marker -pti in San Martín Quechua. Unfortunately no generalizations are made,
and Howkins calls it a marginal phenomenon. Ebina (2011: 34) claims for Cuzco Quechua that “the
use of -spa or -qti seems to depend on whether the two actions are considered to comprise one (in case
of -spa) or two different events (in case of -qti)”, unfortunately without examples. Bruil (2008) shows
that in Imbabura Quechua, the purposive complement of certain verbs (e.g. munana ‘want’ and
cachaca ‘send’) can get identity markers on them in cases of different subjects. It seems likely that
more ‘non-standard’ usages will come to light on closer inspection.
All in all, the Quechuan languages show a picture of a clear genealogical core, which must have
been in place before the diffusion of the different languages. However, it also shows signs of contact-
related phenomena, particularly in the Ecuadorian languages, which have developed a SR system for
purpose clauses which extended further, possibly under Spanish influence, into complements of desire
verbs at least in Imbabura Quechua.
4.2. Tacanan
The small Tacanan language family consists of 7 (Hammarström et al. 2014) languages spoken in
northern lowland Bolivia. The patterns of SR are much less homogeneous than they are for Quechuan
languages. The three Tacanan languages in the sample are Cavineña, Ese Ejja, and Araona. There is
also information available for Reyesano, or Maropa (Guillaume 2012) but that language does not seem
to have a SR system. The position of the sample languages in the Tacanan tree are given in Figure 3.
Figure 3: The Tacanan languages of the sample
Of the three Tacanan languages in the sample, Cavineña seems to have the simplest system, with two
opposing markers, -tsu (identity) and =ju (non-identity), shown in (8), a repetition of (1).
‘It is because they do that that they call them “wild (forest)” foreigners.’
The temporal SR markers in Guambiano are unspecified for either sequentiality or simultaneity. There
are alternative construction types to specify (non-)completion but hey are much less common, and not
SR sensitive (Branks 1980: 14). Branks (Ibid.) also mentions the opposition -endu vs. -gocha for
counterexpectational events, but it is unclear whether the opposition refers to an identity versus non-
identity distinction.
Tsafiki hardly has any person/agreement marking on the verb; there is only a non-obligatory
subject plural marker -la. It is unclear whether that marker can appear in the marked clauses. In Awa
Pit, marked clauses, like nearly all subordinate clauses, are non-finite and lack person marking. In
Guambiano verbs marked with a SR marker do not carry any further person inflection. The switch-
reference markers may also occur on the conjunction marker inch- (inchen versus incha) to form
when/while clauses.
One of the salient aspects of Tsafiki SR is that it seems to encode event continuity rather than strict
subject (non-)coreference, although subject (non-)coreference is one of the factors that can trigger
either disjoint or same reference markers. Example (14) shows that referential continuity can be
30
overridden by temporal continuity, in this case causing the disjoint reference marker to appear in spite
of referential continuity of the subject participants.
(14) Tsafiki [BARBACOAN] Dickinson 2002:138
Junni manjanasa, watate aman chide laribi manjimanti' .
junni man=ja-na-sa wata=te aman chide
then again=come-PROG-NONID year=LOC now bone
la-ri-bi man=ji-man-ti-e
come.out-CAUS-PURP again=go-SIT-REP-DCL
‘They say then coming back, after one year he went to take out the bones (of his dead wife).’
Event (dis)continuity can lead both to the appearance of identity markers in the absence of referential
identity, and - as in (14) to non-identity marking in the presence of referential identity (Dickinson,
p.c.)
The Barbacoan languages seem to show less coherence than some of the other families reviewed in
this paper, and it may well be that these languages were influenced by other languages. However,
many elements remain unclear, especially for Guambiano and Cha’paala. If one should posit an
original system for the Barbacoan languages, however, one would be inclined to include both the
temporal and purpose clauses, since the other languages in the area either do not have purpose clauses,
or if they do (like e.g. Imbabura and Chimborazo Quechua) they are deviations from the genealogical
pattern.
4.6. Tucanoan
The Tucanoan languages discussed in this study are given in Figure 7. Unfortunately, western
Tucanoan languages are seriously underdescribed and therefore underrepresented here.
Figure 7: The Tucanoan languages of the sample.
The basic pattern for eastern Tucanoan languages is slightly different from the previous cases
discussed in this section, with a single marker for non-identity, and a paradigm of nominalizers with
TUCANOAN
Cubeo Desano
Guanano Tuyuca
WESTERN
EASTERN
EAST
Siona
WEST
31
information on gender and number for identity relations.18
Table 23 displays the set of SR markers for
Tuyuca, used in conditional clauses (see Barnes 1975, 1990, Galeano & Barnes 1977).
Table 23: SR markers of Tuyuca
identity non-identity
masculine singular gɨ
ri feminine singular go
plural ra
All of the other eastern Tucanoan languages in the sample, Guanano or Kotiria (Waltz 1981, Stenzel
2013, this volume), Desano (Miller 1999), Cubeo (Maxwell & Morse 1999) follow similar basic
patterns, although there do seem to be some differences in the categories recognized in the same-
subject categories: the Guanano system includes a special marker for non-SAP participants, whereas
for Cubeo, the relevant distinction is between animate and non-animate. The four Eastern Tucanoan
languages are compared in Table 24.
Table 24: Basic SR markers in four Eastern Tucanoan languages
IDENTITY NON-ID.
M.SG F.SG 3SG INAN.SG PL PL.INAN 3PL
Tuyuca gɨ go ra ri
Desano gɨ go rã kɨ
Guanano kɨ / i ko ro ro (g)a ʧɨ
Cubeo (ka)kɨ (ka)ko karõ kawɨ ke ereka
The Cubeo system seems to be the most elaborate, extending beyond temporal to conditional clauses
tand purpose clauses as well, and it includes a host of different markers. The Cubeo markers are given
in Table 25 (Maxwell & Morse 1999). 19
Table 25: The Cubeo SR system
IDENTITY NON-ID
M.SG F.SG NEUT PL.NONNEUT PL.NEUT
SIM/COND (ka)kɨ (ka)ko karõ kawɨ ke ereka
WHEN rĩ ere / rõre
PURP ø pe
18 I ignore the so-called implicit chain here described by Longacre for Guanano, because it does not meet the defining criteria
of SR (morphological marking). Moreover, as is discussed in Stenzel (this volume) it is questionable to what extent the DS
interpretation of those chains is a 19 The conditional uses the same bound forms as the simultaneous construction, but in addition is combined with the element
32
CONC wakari wareka
The system of Siona is slightly different, although some similar building blocks recur. In Siona (Bruil
2014) temporal and (semantically) coordinate clauses, but has two systems for different temporal
situations. In the (relative) present tense, the dependent verbs are inflected for person, though in a
different way than would be the case in independent clauses. A three-way distinction is made between
feminine singular (-ko) masculine singular (-kɨ) and plural (-hɨ) in present tense contexts. In addition,
different-subject clauses are marked with the SR suffix -na. Effectively, this is a zero versus -na
system of marking SR. In the relative past tense, there is an opposition -ni (SS) versus -na (DS), and in
addition, the non-identity cases are marked for number/gender with a slightly different set of markers
(see Table 26).
Table 26: The Siona SR system
TENSE/ASPECT PERSON/NUMBER IDENTITY NON-IDENTITY
NUM/GEN SR NUM/GEN SR
PRESENT M.SG -ko -ko
F.SG -kɨ Ø -kɨ na
PL -hɨ -hɨ
PAST M.SG -o
F.SG Ø ni -ɨ na
PL -de
Although the system in Siona, the only western Tucanoan language in the sample, is slightly different
from the other systems, the basic contours in that there is an interaction with the number-gender
markers, are also in place, albeit in a different way.
For the Tucanoan languages, we can also conclude that the SR system shows clear similarities
across the family, which suggests that the SR system was established before the dispersal of the
languages. The fact that Siona, as a western Tucanoan language, has a slightly different system
suggests post-dispersal change, as does the more elaborate system of Cubeo.
4.7. Aymaran
Most Aymaran languages or dialects have reduced or lost their SR system, but comparative evidence
suggests that the family may have had a more elaborate SR system that interacted with person
marking. Central Aymaran dialects that have preserved an identity vs. non-identity opposition have a
system as in Table 27 (adapted from Cerrón-Palomino 2000, 2008).
Table 27: Aymaran SR system
33
identity non-identity
simultaneous -sa -ipana
successive -sina
At least the non-identity marking can be expanded to mark conditional relations by adding the marker
-xa. A parallel construction exists in Quechuan languages (Ibid: 149).
There is evidence that the SR system was more elaborate in proto-Aymara. The Morocomarca and
Huancané dialects preserved an entire DS paradigm (Briggs 1993, cited in Cerrón-Palomino 2000:
244), shown in Table 28.
Table 28: The SR system of Morocomarca Aymara
Person value different-subject marker
1st person -inyana
2nd
person -imana
3rd
person -ipana
4th
person -isana
The paradigm, perhaps under the influence of Quechuan, broke down, and only the third person non-
identity form was preserved and generalized as a different-subject marker for all person values. As is
discussed by Cerrón-Palomino (2008) the extant SR systems of Aymara to a large extent have become
functionally equivalent to Quechuan SR systems.
The Aymaran languages, in spite of their historical and current importance, are underdescribed, and
many aspects of the SR systems in the languages of this family remain unclear. Therefore they are not
taken into account in the distance measures.
4.8. Uru-Chipaya
The small Uru-Chipaya family consists of two languages, Uru, or Uchumataqu, and Chipaya. Chipaya
has an active system of SR, whereas the now extinct languages Uchumataqu (Hanns 2008) seems to
have only remnants of a SR system. The SR system in Uchumataqu is strictly speaking not a SR
system in terms of the definition given above, but it is included here for the sake of correspondence (it
is not included in the database and the graph derived from it). It marks a combination of relative tense
and coreferentiality as indicates in Table 29 (Hannss 2011: 288):
Table 29: The SR markers of Uchumataqu
+coreferential/+simultaneous -ku
-coreferential/-simultaneous -na
34
Hannss (Ibid. 289) stresses that the scanty data of this extinct language do not allow for any definite
conclusions about the SR system of Uchumataqu. The Uchumataqu system does seem rather different
from the one found in its sister language Chipaya, which has an infinitival marker -z which marks
same-subject complements of verbs of desire and knowledge. Different-subject counterparts for these
types of complements interact with tense/mood and aspect. Irrealis complements are marked with the
suffix -ñi, realis complements of knowledge verbs are marked with -chi or -ta depending on the
aspectual value, the former adding a resultative focus. The non-identity markers -chi and -ta have
nominalizing qualities, and all of the above markers have wider distributions where they do not seem
to mark referential discontinuity. In addition, Chipaya has a SR system for its purpose clauses, marked
by the suffixes -japa (identity)20
and -jo (non-identity), although there are exceptions to the (non-
)coreferentiality requirements (Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 262). Finally, Chipaya has a SR system for
temporal clauses, consisting of the markers in Table 30 (Ibid: 152).
Table 30: The temporal SR markers of Chipaya
identity non-identity
simultaneous -kan(a) -an(a)
consecutive -zhku; -a -tan(a)
The difference between -zhku and -a is that the former expresses a necessary condition or prerequisite
for the main event to take place, whereas the latter does not.
The surviving SR markers of Uchumataqu are probably related to the simultaneity markers of
Chipaya, suggesting an older SR system which broke down in Uchumataqu, retracting to mark
temporal clauses only, perhaps under the pressure of Quechuan and Aymaran languages, as well as
Spanish (Hannss 2008: 8-10). Language contact and language loss seems to have had a destructive
effect on the SR system in the case of Uchumataqu.21
4.9 Isolates
It is difficult to say anything about the diachrony of the SR systems in the isolates of the area. There
are SR systems in Yurakaré, Kwazá, Paez, Cofán, and Urarina. The first two languages are spoken in
the south of the area under consideration in this paper (Bolivia/east Brazil), the latter three in the north
(north Peru, Ecuador, south Colombia).
A review in terms of formal overlap, given in Table 31 does not reveal obvious correspondences.
Potential formal correspondences, e.g. between the non-identity markers of Kwazá and Cofán, or
between the identity markers of Kwazá and Páez are excluded to be the result of contact, given the
20
The identity marker requires the presence of mediopassive -z(i). 21
See also Hannss (2011) for a more complete comparison between Uchumataqu and Chipaya subordination
strategies, which tend to be more analytical in Uchumataqu and more synthetic and concatenating in Chipaya.
35
enormous geographical distance between the languages. Even Páez and Urarina, whose non-identity
markers have the element -na are spoken too far apart for them to have been of direct influence to each
other.
Table 31: SR markers of the isolates in the sample