Cover not available
Part of
Variation Rolls the Dice: A worldwide collage in honour of Salikoko S. Mufwene
Edited by Enoch O. Aboh and Cécile B. Vigouroux
[Contact Language Library 59] 2021
► pp. 133–160

Substrate influence in Northern Quechua languages

 | Radboud University, Nijmegen | 
Quechua language varieties spread northward into parts of Ecuador, Colombia, and Northern Peru, and were adopted as a native language by speakers of earlier Pacific, Highland, and Amazonian languages in a process of language shift. This process started in the fifteenth century with the Inca state, and is still going on in some regions in the Piedemonte, where speakers of smaller languages are acquiring Quechua as a second, and their ultimately primary language. These Quechua varieties underwent numerous changes which this chapter investigates from the perspective of substrate influence, building on knowledge gathered in creole studies. The chapter further discusses the extent to which substrate influence is relevant to all Northern Quechua varieties or only a subset thereof.
Keywords: Norther Quechua varieties, Northern expansion, substrate influence, cafeteria principle, mutual reinforcement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The sociolinguistic history and the position of Northern Quechua in the Quechuan family
  • 3.Theoretical and methodological considerations
  • 4.General features of Northern Quechua varieties possibly due to substrate influence
    • 4.1Collapse of the genitive and benefactive cases
    • 4.2The loss of the inclusive/exclusive distinction
    • 4.3Phonological features
    • 4.4Nominal reference marking
    • 4.5The reinterpretation and reduction of the Quechua copula ka- as a clitic under the possible influence of Chicham
    • 4.6The spread in use of a negative existential verb illa-, possibly modelled on Chicham or Barbacoan
    • 4.7Change in the status of the evidential
  • 5.Highland Ecuadorian Kichwa
    • 5.1The development of a desiderative involving the verb “say” in the southern highlands
    • 5.2Dual hortative
    • 5.3Switch reference in purposive nominalization
  • 6.Lowland Kichwa: Intentional or future with “do”
  • 7.Colombian Inga
    • 7.1The introduction of diminutive or pejorative suffixes
    • 7.2The potential marker -ntra
    • 7.3Object marking
  • 8.Peruvian South Pastaza Quechua
    • 8.1Nominal person marking
    • 8.2Inalienable kinship
    • 8.3Vocative
    • 8.4Indirect object marking
  • 9.Conclusions and discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.59.06muy
References (48)
References
Adelaar, W. F. H. 1987. Aymarismos en el quechua de Puno. Indiana 11: 223–231.Google Scholar
2008. Towards a typological profile of the Andean languages. In Evidence and Counter-evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, Vol. 2: General Linguistics, A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken & J. Wiedenhof (eds), 23–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Cajamarca Quechua and the expansion of the Huari state. In Archeology and Language in the Andes: A Cross-Disciplinary Exploration of Pre-History [Proceedings of the British Academy 173], P. Heggarty & D. G. Beresford-Jones (eds), 197–217. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in collaboration with P. Muysken). 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Beier, C., Bowser, B., Michael, L. & Wauters, V. 2014. Diccionario Záparo Trilingüe: Sápara-Castellano-Kichwa / Castellano-Sápara y Kichwa-Sápara. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
Birchall, J. 2014a. Argument Marking Patterns in South American Languages. PhD dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
2014b. Verbal argument marking patterns in South American languages. In The Native Languages of South America: Origins, Development, Typology, L. O’Connor & P. Muysken (eds), 223249. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bruil, M. 2008. Innovations in the Ecuadorian Converb Systems: Grammatical Change in Language Contact Situations. Master’s dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Crevels, M. & Muysken, P. 2005. Inclusive/exclusive distinctions in the languages of South-Western South America. In Clusivity, Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive–Exclusive Distinction [Typological Studies in Language 63], E. Filimónova (ed.), 311338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cusihuamán, A. G. 1976. Gramática Quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Dillard, J. L. 1970. Principles in the history of American English: Paradox, virginity, and cafeteria. Florida Foreign Language Reporter 8: 32–33.Google Scholar
Fabre, A. 2002. Algunos rasgos tipológicos del Kamsá (valle de Sibundoy, Alto Putumayo, Sudoeste de Colombia) vistos desde una perspectiva areal. In Current Studies on South American Languages, M. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira & H. van der Voort (eds), 169–198. Leiden: CNWS.Google Scholar
Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Heggarty, P. & Beresford-Jones, D. G. (eds). 2012. Archeology and Language in the Andes: A Cross-Disciplinary Exploration of Pre-History [Proceedings of the British Academy 173]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holman, T.W. 1988. Waorani verb affixes. In Workpapers Concerning Waorani Discourse Features, Vol. 10: Language Data [Amerindian Series], E. G. Pike & R. Saint (eds), 57–69. Dallas TX: SIL.Google Scholar
Howard, L. 1977. Esquema de los tipos de párrafo en camsá. In Estudios en camsá y catío, L. Howard & M. Schöttelndreyer (eds), 1–67. Lomalinda, Colombia: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Editorial Townsend.Google Scholar
IIAD (Instituto Interandino de Desarrollo). 1975. Urdimal Tiempomunda. Ambato: Instituto Interandino de Desarrollo.Google Scholar
Jaeger, A. 2006. Typology of Periphrastic ‘Do’-Constructions. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juajibioy Chindoy, A. & Wheeler, A. 1974. Bosquejo Etnolingüístico del Grupo Kamsá de Sibundoy, Putumayo, Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano and Ministerio de Gobierno.Google Scholar
Juank, A. 1982. Aujmatstai Yatsuchi: Manuel de Aprendizaje de la Lengua Shuar, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. Quito: Mundo Shuar.Google Scholar
Keesing, R. M. 1988. Melanesian Pidgin and the Oceanic Substrate. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Krasnoukhova, O. 2012. The Noun Phrase in the Languages of South America. PhD dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, S. H. 1974. Sufijos despectivos en inga. Revista Colombiana de Antropología 16: 357361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. The Inga Language. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. H. 1989. Sayings of the Ancestors: The Spiritual Life of the Sibundoy Indians. Lexington KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Moore, B. R. 1966. Diccionario Castellano-Colorado, Colorado-Castellano. Llacta 22: 95221.Google Scholar
1979. Método Para Aprender el Idioma Colorado (Gramática Pedagógica), Vol. 1, Lecciones 1 a 6. Quito: ILV.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13: 83–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1977. Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
 2000. Semantic transparency in Lowland Ecuadorian Quechua morphosyntax. Linguistics 38: 973–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The copula in Ecuadorian Quechua. In Linguistics and Archeology in the Americas: The Historization of Language and Society, E. B. Carlin & S. C. van de Kerke (eds), 191206. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Collapse of genitive and benefactive case in Ecuadorian Quechua? Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 48: 255260.Google Scholar
2019. El kichwa ecuatoriano: Orígenes, riqueza, contactos. Quito: Abya Yala.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. The early stages of Ecuadorian Quechua. In Contact, Structure, and Change: A Festschrift for Sarah G. Thomason, A. Babel & M. Sicoli (eds). Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. & Smith, N. 1986. Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis [Creole Language Library 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieto Polo de Aguila, S. J. T. 1753/1964. Breve Instrucción o Arte para entender la Iengua común de los indios, según se habla en la provincia de Quito. Llacta 20: Complete issue.Google Scholar
Pellizzaro, S. M. 1969. Shuar: Apuntes de Gramática. Quito: Offsetec.Google Scholar
Ross, E. 1963. Introduction to Ecuador Highland Quechua or Quichua in Ten Easy Lessons. Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Saad, G. M. 2018. A Grammar Sketch of Shuar: Focus on the Verb Phrase. Master’s dissertation: Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Seler, E. 1902. Notizen über die Sprache der Colorados von Ecuador. In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, 317. Berlin: A. Asher.Google Scholar
Singler, J. V. 1988. The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis. Language 64: 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. C. & Chau, E. 1983. Jivaroan magical songs: Achuar anent of connubial love. Amerindia 8: 1–27.Google Scholar
Tödter, C., Zahn, C., Waters, C. W. & Wise, M. R. 2002. Shimikunata Asirtachik Killka Inka-Kastellanu (Diccionario Inga-Castellano) [Serie lingüística Peruana 52]. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Tuggy, J. C. l966. Vocabulario Candoshi de Loreto [Serie Linguistica Peruana 2]. Pucallpa: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Urban, M. 2018. The lexical legacy of substrate languages: A test case from the southern Ecuadorian highlands. Transactions of the Philological Society 116: 435–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Kerke, S. & Muysken, P. 2014. The Andean matrix. In The Native Languages of South America: Origins, Development, Typology, L. O’Connor & P. Muysken (eds), 126–151. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Floyd, Simeon
2024. Ecuadorian Quechua and Quechuan classification. Journal of Historical Linguistics DOI logo
Urban, Matthias
2023. Evidence and Methods for Investigating Substratal Languages. In Linguistic Stratigraphy, ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Urban, Matthias
2023. The Barbacoan Languages and the Southern Ecuadorian Highlands. In Linguistic Stratigraphy, ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
van Gijn, Rik, Justin Case, Martine Bruil, Simon A. Claassen, Karolina Grzech & Nora Julmi
2023. Lexically driven patterns of contact in alignment systems of languages of the northern Upper Amazon. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Van Gijn, Rik, Sietze Norder, Leonardo Arias, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Matheus C. B. C. Azevedo, Allison Caine, Saskia Dunn, Austin Howard, Nora Julmi, Olga Krasnoukhova, Mark Stoneking & Jurriaan Wiegertjes
2023. The social lives of isolates (and small language families): the case of the Northwest Amazon. Interface Focus 13:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.