Ecuadorian Quichua, descriptive sketch and variation
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: Ecuadorian Quichua, descriptive sketch and variation
Physical Description: Book
Language: Quechua
Creator: Carpenter, Lawrence Kidd
Publication Date: 1982
Subjects / Keywords: South America   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: South America
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000318865
oclc - 09205778
System ID: UF00077398:00001

Full Text





Copyright 1982


Lawrence Kidd Carpenter


What sets worlds in motion is the interplay of differences,

their attractions and repulsions. Life is a plurality,

death isu niformity. By suppressing differences and

peculiarities, by eliminating different civilizations and

cultures, progress weakens life and favors death. The ideal

of a single civilization for everyone, implicit in the cult

of progress and technique, impoverishes and mutilates us.

Every view of the world that becomes extinct, every culture

that disappears, diminishes a possibility of life.

Octavio Paz, from Seven

Voices by Rita Guibert


There are times when, through the eyes of my mind, I can

still see bits and pieces of almost four years spent among

Ecuador's Indian people. The crystalline dew on the fields,

the sweet, pungent smell of eucalyptus burning in

early-morning fires, the quiet serenity of the

countryside-all provide a backdrop to the daily activities

of the runa. These activities run the full range-of human

experience. The joyous sounds of birth, the controlled

sounds of a recitation for family and friends of a poem

learned in school, the angry sounds of a property boundary

dispute, or the haunting, sad sound of a velorio vwake"--all

are brought together producing a composite of life in the

'Ecadorian car_ o I am fortunate to have experienced -it.

lThen 7 first arrived in Ecuador my paramount concern was

to learn the Quichua language and how it varied from place

to place. Fortunately for me, the people fror whom I-

learned were adamant in their insistence that I know -hom the

language fit into life as a whole. "Yon cannot learn to

speak Quichua unless you know how it is used." As a result,

I learned such more than what a given word or phrase means;

the runa taught me how and when it is used, enabling me to

participate, observe, and intervene in the daily events of

their culture. I aa forever indebted to the runa for

shoving me the ways of the people of the earth. Through

their patience and insistence, they have provided me with

experience, knowledge, and understanding that I shall never


In addition to the runa of Ecuador with whom I lived,

many other people in that country and this, in one way or

another, aided with the progress of the dissertation. In

Ecuador the staff and members of the Comisi6n Fulbright

helped, in every possible way, to facilitate my research.

The difficult times were easier knowing that Maria Eugenia

Freile, Jenny Castillo, Maria Mogollon, Marcelo Erazo

(Director of the Comision), and Wallace Kiederling (U.S.

Embassy Cultural Attache) were available whenever needed.

In addition to the Comision Fulbright, the director of the

Museo Tiacional de Antropologia e Historia, Bern"n Crespo

Toral, allowed access to museum facilities.

Tater periods -o Tiel wiork i have been greatly facilitated

by the Director of the Instituto de Patrimonio Cultural,

Dra-, Maria del carmen Molestina. Her honest, objective

criticisms, suggestions, and encouragement to continue

research in the region are deeply appreciated.

Throughout the field stay, Eduardo Montesdeoca of the

%nstituto Otavaleio de Antropologia constantly provided

insights from his own linguistic research. He and his

fa-ily were always ready to engage in provocative and

stimulating conversations about interethnic relations. In

many ways, he was instrumental for the easy transitions from

rural to urban areas, and his interest in successful

research is forever appreciated.

There are many other people from Otavalo who helped make

my stay in their city one of joy and constant excitement.

Lucy and Alberto Buano, Marge Endara, Srta. Lola, Srta.

Maria, Don Arcesio Soza, Nieves Rodrigues, Comadre Eva, and

Sapo Nuarez often challenged my findings and offered

invigorating conversations. They and many other residents

of Otavalo were eager to listen and help clarify sometimes

ambiguous extra-linguistic behavior.

Research in other areas of Ecuador would not have been

possible were it not for the logistic arrangements made by

Laura Goldman, Paul Warpeha, Jaime Issac Reibel, Tim

Justice, Coretta Justice, Candy Bannerman, Carlos Eitzen,

Patty Titzen, Lynn A. Meisch, Lynn Hirschkind, Cathy

-Tonnaham, Sarah 'Lrd, lvwe Steucher, Dorothea Steucher,

Mercedes Amuendsen, Linda Escobar, Carolyn Orr, John

Boddleson, and Carol Panli. My introduction to some

indigenous communities was initiated by these people. They

unselfishly shared their data on local regionalisas and made

research in different ethnic communities much more

productive. Lynn Meisch was especially helpful in

explaining the important role of weaving and textiles in the

Andes. She gladly provided information and endured many

hours of discussions about the spread of Quichua.. Her vigor

and excitement regarding the Indian peoples is highly

contagious, and parts of the investigation would not have

been realized without her encouragement. I a -very grateful

for her support.

Although the majority of this research was conducted in

Ecuador, final :analyses and presentation took place in the

United States. The support and encouragement of ay family,

especially my mother, Mrs., Daisy Vaughan, and ay

grandmother, Mrs. Ola Montgomery, have been constant and

free-flowing. It is deeply appreciated, always remembered,

and I thank thea warmly.

Elizabeth Veatch, Mel Asterken, Marion Ritchie, Sally

nYdelaan, Kevin Healy, Lawrence E. Bruce, Jr., and William

Dyal of the Inter-American Foundation (which provided most

of the research funding) have been especially encouraging

and instrumental in my being able to bridge the gap between

academia and government., They have helped -se better

understand the role of language in the political arena, and

the role of development agencies in the third world. I -am

very grateful to these people and to the. Foundation for

providing the auspices for my research.

Friends and colleagues at the University of Florida have

provided an unending source of encouragement and fresh

ideas. Shoko Hanano, Ron Kephart, and Maggie MacDonald were

always eager to enter linguistic discussions of a


comparative nature. Michael Painter, Jane Collins, Marcia

TBuchanan, Beth -iggs, Sandy Witt, James ncKay, Sue Miceli,

Lawrence ficeli, John Riceli, Jean Gearing and Carlton

Willials were very encouraging and supportive of my attempts

to look at Quichua -culture through language.. Carlton

Williams has served as a jack-of-all-trades. He has been

confidant, logistician, reliever of traunas, and diacritic

specialist. I thank him for his steadfast support.

Vicki Turner and Jerry Smith were especially helpful and

supportive of my attempts to deal with the Northeast

Regional Data Center, the Script program, and producing the

manuscript on the computer.

In addition, certain faculty of the Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida have been

very encouraging and supportive of my applications of

linguistics to agricultural domains through Spanish. Dr.

Diana Kanoy, Dr.. Linda Moody, Drx. ,Karen 'Koch, Dr. Hank

7Puray, Dr. T'avid ?tultey, Dr. Jerry Sartaini 'r. Bike

Tolbert, Dr.,Bill Burk,.Dr. Keith Carter, Dr. Dick Matthews,

Dr. Stan Schank, Dr. Chris Andrew, and Dr. David Bryan

greatly aided ay understanding of agricultural systems and

withstood many seminars on the relation of language and

agricultural practices. They have been a joy to work with

and their support has been unselfish and constant.

Many other people willingly provided intellectual

stimulation while discussing the field data. Various


sections of this dissertation have benefited from their

analytical probings and suggestions. For their time and

consideration I am very grateful to Dr. John Rove, Dr.

Patricia Lyon, Dr. Johannes Wilbert, Dr. Laura Nader, Dr.

Tharles Wagley, Dr-. orman Whitten, Dr. frank Salomon, Dr.

Joseph Casagrande, Dr. Louisa Stark, Dr. Ted McDonald, Dr.

William Meyers, Richard LaBrie, Robert Vaughn, Frances

Vaughn, Glenn Vaughn, Andrew Watson, Valerie Estes, Leo

Chavez, Cathy Ota, and Barry Traub. It should be noted that

Dr. Stark was instrumental in my initial introduction to

the Otavalo area in 1972; I shall be forever grateful to

her for her criticisms and suggestions.

The weabers of my doctoral committee cannot be adequately

thanked for the various types of aid and support they gladly

provided during the preparation of the final manuscript.

Dr. Ruthellen Crews and Dr. Jayne Harder helped me

understand -aniy pedagogical concerns relating to instruction

in a miinrity language and education of those vho speak it.

Dr. Allen Burns was always eager to discuss aspects of the

dissertation and provide relevant information from his own

Research. Many applications of the linguistic analysis to

broader anthropological concerns were facilitated by his

focused inquisitiveness. Dr. D. Gary Miller often

encouraged and helped me go beyond what was sufficient. His

targeted, intellectually objective probing stimulated the

comprehension of various linguistic processes and phenomena.

Ris constant stretching of the intellect is greatly

appreciated and will always be remembered.

No words can adequately describe the stimulation,

encouragement, and support I have received from my commi-ttee

chair, Dr. M.J. Harduan. Above all else, she instructed me

in the ways of data collection, linguistic analysis, and

interpretation, something I had sought since my first

exposures to "lowland" varieties of American English and

foreign languages. She taught me to respect the "frontiers

of research" and to actively seek expansions of those

frontiers. She has provided an understanding of and respect

for the complex linguistic systems of human language.

Through her teaching and dynamic explanations of linguistic

phenomena, I first experienced an awareness of language from

the phonetic level to the language's status and position in

relation to other manifestations of human social behavior.

She taught ve to accept a given language's -uni ue -structure

as ta valid, completely adequate means of 0omuni-cation:

liberation from the Indo-European grid is an enlightening

and rewarding experience. For all the light bulbs she

turned on, I aa extremely grateful and thank her varmly.

In addition to those who freely gave of their time and

help in the United States, I aust finally thank those with

mhoa I most closely worked in Ecuador. The experiences they

allowed me to share are as vivid now as then. I would like

to acknowledge the people with whom T sost closely worked.

Carlos Conteron, Rosalina Arrayan, Daniel Charlin, Nati

Charlin, Polivio Sarango, Azhuca, Segundo Guamn Quindi,

Alberto Noa, Magdalena Ursina, Jacinta Noa, Jorge Alberto

Change Changa, ilberto Guerrero, Rosa Lema, Amado Ruiz, and

Lola Potosf unselfishly gave of their -time and vast


The bonds that exist between my compadres, comadres, and

myself have been firmly established due to many shared

experiences. Their openness and willingness to allow me to

participate in their family and daily lives cannot

adequately be described. They were and continue to be very

supportive of my attempts to speak Quichua, understand its

complexities, and perceive its relation to the environment.

Kuapari Daniel and Kumari Zoila have been trusting, willing,

and encouraging from the beginning of my field stay..

Kuampari Calixto, Kumari Rosa, Kumari Eva, Kumpari Alberto,

Kumari ?lichi, Kumari Rosa F., Kumpari Pedro and Kumari

Carmen never hesitated to correct my mistakes and Tolunteer

informative data. They always responded to my questions

with what anst have seemed to be obvious answers to them,

and patiently drilled ae until they -were satisfied. I an

forever indebted to them for opening a Quichua window on the


Finally, I would like to acknowledge my ayvadus Jaime

Orlando, Fabian, Luis Fabian, Hunberto, Oscar Luis, and

Esteban for their unfailing honesty when trying to teach

"knapali lulinsu" the simplest of phrases, the best of

games, and the most basic of that which was readily apparent

to them. I hope they are soon able to benefit from the.

results of the research that was possible only with their

participation and cooperation.

Shinaka kashpaka, kayta kikinkunapakni, kikinknnata niva

ura kunkayta nshapasha. Kunankarin, kikinkuna nuka aylla

knyntamari. Ninan-ninanta agradisipani. ialla nalla

tigrasha. Shuyavapankilla.



PRBFABCE a. a. . a,, . il

ACKOWLEDG TS . . . . . . .. iv


I.. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1

Organization . .
Purpose . . .. .
Theoretical Perspectives .
Data Base and Methods .
Corpus . .. . .
Sources. .. .. .
Sites . . . .
Study Organization .* .
Syabols and Terms . .
'Ecology . .. . . . .
Demography . . .
Geographic Distribution .
Number of Speakers . .

. . . . 3
. . . . 13
. . . . 6
. . . .. . 9
. . . . 10
. . . . 12
. a . . . 12

. . . . 19
. . . . 20
. a. . .. 20
. . . . 24

Classification . . . ... . .a
Brief Description -of Ecuadorian Quichua
SHistory .
Internal -Variation . .
Sociolinguistic Concerns .. ..
Concurrent Languages .. .. .
Indigenous Languages . . .
Glottopolitical Considerations ...
Notes . . . . . . .


Peruvian Quechua .
Early Investigations .
Recent Investigations
Ecuadorian Quichua . .
Early Investigations .
Recent Investigations
Notes . . . . .

a a a. .* -a *I - -a

* a. a. a. a .. a. a
a. a a. a. a a

. 31
. 33
. 36
. 41
. 43
. 43
. 50
. 57
. 63

. 65

. 68
. 68
. 69
. 78
. 79
. 80
. 97


Linguistic Postulates . .. . ... .
Bipartization and Body Duality . -
Politeness . . .. . . .
Animate and Inanimate . .
Hiuan and Non-human . . ... ..
Other Semantic Areas . . ..
Action Orientation . ...
Topographic Relationships . ...
Texture and Shape .. .. .
Biographic Sketches . . . ... .
Nicolas and Roberta .. . .
Rodolfo . . . . . .
Daniel and Zoila . . . ... ..
Notes . . .. . . . .

IV. .PHONOLOT . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . .
Background . . . .
Dialects Studied . ..
Phonetic Inventory . .
Phonemic Inventory .
Production of Segmental Phonemes
Consonants (Non-syllabics)
Occlasives ... ......
Affricates . . .
Fricatives . ... . .
Wasals . . .
Laterals . . .
Vibrants . .
Semi-Consonants -.
Vowels (Syllabics) . . .
Tront, unrounded vowel .
Back, rounded vowel .
Central, unrounded vowel
Phonemic Contrasts . .
Consonants . . .
Vowels . . . . .
Suprasegmentals .. . ..
Stress . . .
Intonation . .
Syllable Structure ... ,- -.
Phoneme Distribution . . .
Occlusive/Occlusive .. .
Occlusive/Fricative ..
Occlusive/Nasal . . ..
Occlusive/Liquid . .
Fricative/Occlusive . .
Fricative/Nasal . .
Pri-cative/S emi-Consonant
Nasal/Occlusive . .

* 4, 4 .4 4
*I 4 r.4.44
* 4.4.. 4 4

4 4 4 .4 4

* 6.4 4 4,
*-I 4 4.

.4 .4I .4 S
.4 .4 .4 4 4

4 4. 4 4 .






Nasal/Fricative . .... ..... 189
Nasal/Nasal .. .. .. 190
Basal/Liquid . . ... .~. . 190
Nasal/Semi-Consonant .. ... 190
Liquid/Occlusive . 190
Liquid/Nasal . . .. . ... 191
LiquiA/Seii-Consonant . . . .. 191
Semi-Consonant/Occlusive .. . 191
Semi-Consonant/Liquid . ..,. ... 192
Semi-Consonant/Nasal .. . -, 192
Semi-Consonant/Liquid . . 192
Semi-Consonant/Seai-Consonant .,. .. 192
Morpheme Structure Rules .... .,.. .. 193
Orthographic Considerations .. . . 195
Phoneae List with Illustrative Examples .. 195
Consonants . . . . . 195
Vowels . . . . . .. . 198
Transcribed Texts . . . .. .,. .. 198
Notes . . . . . . . 198

V.. .HOBPHOLOGY .. ... . . . . . . 200

Boots .
Numbers .
Nouns .*
Verbal Roots
Copula .
Suffixes .
Substantive Suf
Substantive I
-kuna .
-ta ..
-man .
-manta .

-pak .
-pura .
-shna .
-v .
-ntik .
-wan .
-laya .

4, .
* 4

* .
*s .
. .

S. .

.e .
* 4

* 6
* 4

4 .

* *

s . . ,. . W

* 4 4 1 a . *

Sonals .. .

4 .4 4 4 4 .4 .

o . . .
* 0 W 0 a a

tion . . .. ...
ionals ..

) -------ws,


Substantive Derivationals . . "241


-ni- . . .
-gu . . . .
-yuk .. .. .
-rk .. . .
-ya- . . .

-la- . . .
Verbal Suffixation .
Subordinators .
-kpi . . .
-shpa . ..
-chun . . . .
-nkapak ... .
Past Temporals .
-rka- . . .
-shka- . .
Person Inflection
-y . . . .
-ni . . . .
-nki .. . ...
-n . . .
-nchik . .
-shnka . . . .
-nka * a
-shun . .
Conditional .
-man . .
Verbal Aggregate .
-chik . .
Verbal Qualifiers
Thenatics .. .
-ri- .
-ja- . . .
chi- .
-naja- . *. .
Qualifiers . .
-pa- . .. .
--a- . . .
-riya- . .
-gri- . .
-naya- . .
-ijacha- .
-paya- --
Nouinalizers .
-nkichu .
-k ..
-na . . . .
-nka ..
-y . . . .
-shka .. -
Derivational Processes
Compound Suffixation .
Independent Snffixation

. a .0 a. '

. a
* .
* .
* .
* .
* a
a *

* a
* .
* .a
* a
* .
. .

* .
. .
. .

* *
* .

. .



* .4

* a

* S

* a

* a

* a

* a

* a

* a

a -a .a.a -

* a *

* S
* S
* 4r *
a S a
* a a
*- a a

* a
* a
* a
* a

a a

a a

* a

a a -a
-a 4
* a
* a

* .
.a a
* *

a a
* a

* a

* a a

* r

* *

. a .-


*I a



Independents Open to Further Suffiration .

-rak- ..
-nari .
-yari -
-na .
-pash -
-lla .
-ai- .
-shi .
-tak. .
-chu .
-ka .
Summary . .
NOTES . ..

. 9. . .

a S 4i ,4 0

. . .e .

. .r . .

* a e a *o *
. . . C
. . . .
. . . .
. .r .


Introduction . . . .
Phrases ... . .
Noun Phrases .
Verb Phrases ..
Clauses ... . .
Independent Clauses .
Dependent Clauses .
Sentence Constituents ...
Sentence/Clause Distinctions
Intonation . . .
Declarative . .
Exclamative . .
Interrogative .
Imperative: . .
Sentence Suffixation . .
Sentence Types . . .
Transitive Sentences . .
Intransitive Sentences .
Copula .. .. . .
Sentence Complexity ... .
Simple Sentences .....
Complex Sentences . a .
Other Syntactic Features .

Reduplication .

* 0 0

Innovative Syntactic Chang
Subordination . . .

* .

* .r
* 0

* .0


* .

* a

. .o

* a
. .

. 4
* .
* .
* .
. .
. .

. .

0 0 0 a .

* a a.. ,. .

* 4 0. 0 .4 0 .
* 4 0 0 0 0 .
. 0 4 4 0 4. a
* 0 0 0.0 . .
. o 0 0 a.
. 0 0 . a .
. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
* 0 0 0 0 0 0
* 0 0 0.. 0 0

* a a a .o a .a
0 0 0 0 .
. 0 0 0 0 . .
.r r ..

es ,. ... .
. .. .. .. .

If. i

4 *0~ .~ a a 4 S- 4 0

Introduction 355
) Phonological Variation . . . . 357
orphological Variation . . . . 371
SSyntactic Variation . . . . 75





. 355

Lexical Variation . . .. .,. . .... 376
Dialectology and Some Educational implications 377
Background . . . . . . . 377
Data Base . . . . ... 379
Analysis of Correspondences . . 380
Summary . . . . . . ... 386
Notes . . . . . . . . 387


Introduction . . . .. . . 388
Indigenous Participation in Formal
Education . . . . 388
Official Attitudes Towards Bilingual
Education .. ...... ... 392
Present Policy . . . . ... 393
Bilingual Education in Ecuador . . 397
Bilingual Education and Social Stratification 402
Cultural Considerations . . 404
Linguistic Considerations ....,. 410
SSociolinguistic Considerations . 412
Summary . ... ..... . . ... 415
otes . . .. . . 417

II. COCLSIS . . . . . . . . . 8

Appendix page


Proto-Quechua ..... .
Ancash-Yaru Alphabet (QI) .
Ayacucho-Cuzco Alphabet (QII) .
Junin-Huanca (QI). . < .
Ancash-Huailas (QI) .. . ...
Cuzco-Collao (QII) . .
Cajamarca-Canaris (QII) .
San Martin (QII) . .. .
Ayacucho-Chanca ( ) . . .

SAMPLE TEXTS . .. . . . .

Oriente Texts . -. . .
Aukakunamanta . . . .
De los Aucas . .
About the Aucas . .

0 .0 v

* ,. .* .
* 4. .


. . . . 433

.4 '.4 -0 -0 .4r
.4 4 .


Shu Warmi Ishkay Wawata Chariy . . . 436
Una nujer con Dos Criaturas . . . 438
A Lady with Two Children .. . . 440
Sierra Texts ,. , . . .. . 441
Chachimbiruman . .. . . 441
Going to Chachimbiro . .. . .. 442
:Tinkapyanta .. . ... 442



About the Hinga .. .,... ... .


. d 0 . a a . a a



Notas .* . . ..
Notes . .* . .



BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . ...


C .* ,* C .


Introduction .
A Basic Concept .
Substantive roots and suffixes
Basic verbal constructions .
Derivationals . . ...
Imperatives . . .
Verbal Specifiers .
Some Independents .
Complex suffixation ..
Another Postulate . .
Aspects of Dialectology ..
Notes . . . .


Abbreviations . . . . .
Symbols . . . ..


* .r
* a

* -a

* a

* *
* a

* a

* a r.0 -

* ar ar ai S S

* a a a a a

* S ~~ a a


* Sr .5 '
* a C

a .. a C

* a *e
* a a
* a a a

* .* .r ..*

* a a
* a
* a .

* a














Table -paQe

1. Official Population and Literacy Figures .... ..... 27

2. Mono- and Bilingualisa Reported in the 1950 Census 31

3. Quichua-speaking Population . . .... . 31

4. Quechua Pamily Classification . .. . . .. 32

5. Dialects of Ecuadorian Quichua . .. .. .. 42

6. Contents of IEP Grammars. . . . .... . 73

7. Phonetic Chart . . . . 151

8., honenic Chart . . .. . 153

9. Consonant 'lusters. . . . . . .187

10. Relative Order of Relationals .. .. 230

11. Relative Order of Derivationals and Relationals 246

12.. Relative trder of (Closing) Verbal Inflections . 251

13. Verbal Qualifiers .. . .... ....... 276

14. General Order of Independent Suffixes . 302

15. Toun Phrase Expansion . . . 334

16. Verb Phrase Expansion . .. . 337

17. Thonological Processes -, .. . 382

18. Morpheme Innovations.. - .... .. 384


Figure .page

1. Ecuador . . .. . . . . 2

2. Research Sites . . . . . . . 16

3. Distributions of Quichua Dialects . . 21

4. Intermontane Basins . . . . . . 23

5. Pre-Conquest Quechua Expansion. . .. . 37

6. Present-day Quechua Distribution .. . . 40

7. Distributions of Indigenous Languages .. . .. 51

8. -oicing after Nasals ., ... . .. ... . 359

9. Areas of -o Voicing .. . . . . .. 360

10.. Occlusive Voicing after Vowels .,. . . 361

11, Occlusive Voicing after Vs, Gs, and Ns. .. 362

12. Voicing after Vs, Cs, -s, a~d Liquids ., ... . 363

13. Phonetic Reductions ... . . ... . 364

14. Realization of Word-Final /k/ . . . . 366

15. ,spiration and Spirantization .., ... 367

16. Realization of Liquids . . . . 368

17. Iaplology and Metathesis .. .. -. -.. 370

18. Reduction of the Distributive Suffix -, . 372

19. Realization of /-pak/ . . . . . . 373

20. Realizations of /-rka/. .. ..... . . 374


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Grandate Council
of the Universit-y of Florida in Partial Fnlfullment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



Lawrence Kidd Carpenter

August, 1982

Chair: M.J. Hardman

Major Department: Linguistics

There are at least ten separate indigenous languages in

Ecuador., Quichua, the largest, is spoken in the Andean

highlands and the eastern lowlands; the majority of the

approximately three million speakers resides .in the


Quichna belongs to the Quechna language family. 'Other

ertant members are distributed from southern Colombia to

northwestern Argentina. Ecuadorian Quichua is subdivided

into central and non-central varieties with at least seven

and six dialects, respectively. Since each distinct ethnic


group uses a different Quichua dialect, the resulting

variations are indicative of the diversity of Ecuadorian


Because such. dialect diversity has led to mutual

unintelligibility in other Quechua-speaking areas, the

present study vas conceived to study systematically the

dialects, determine their nature, and address implications

for development programs.

Based on research in various Quichua-speaking communities

and the literature survey, this study examines language

ecology, phonological and morphological systems, aspects of

geographic and social dialectology, and implications for

national and international development programs., The

appendices include comparative Peruvian data, texts,

instructional materials, and elicitation lists.

This study describes the basic structure of the dialects

and discusses intelligibility across linguisti-c boundaries.

The greatest variation occurs among the central dialects,

introduced as a trade language. in pre-Inca times. Less

variation is found in the non-central dialects, introduced

as the Inca Conquest language and as a trade langnageiun the

colonial era. The study also confirms that even though

Quichna is moribund in some regions, it is quite vigorous in


While many innovations in Ecuadorian Quichua are

attributable to the increasing influence of Spanish, Quichua


is active. and will survive in many regions for several

generations. Ultimately, the future of Quichna depends on

several factors, not the least of which are the extent of

use in education and whether the non-indigenous population

accepts the indigenous cultures as human and worthy of



The principal goal of this investigation is to provide a

description of Ecuadorian Quichua and its variation. Since

ay initial exposure to Quichna in 1972, I have always been

intrigued by its complexities and have sought to learn more

about its usage.. Quichua is a non-western language and, as

such, is different from Indo-European languages such as

Spanish and English. Therefore it was felt that observance

of Quichua's role and usage in situ was a necessary

prerequisite for any investigation and description of the

language s nature and structure. It is for these reasons

that I have conducted almost four years of field work among

Qnichua speakers.

Quichua is used to refer to varieties of -the -ajor

indigenous language spoken in the highland and eastern

lowland regions of Ecuador.. (See Figure 1 for a map of

Ecuador.) The present thesis describes one of the.two major

subdivisions in detail, examines and compares the variations

of Quiihua in general, discusses the important role of this

language in Ecuadorian society, and draws some implications

for development programs such as bilingual education.

The present chapter is divided into two major sections;

the first provides a description of the organization of this

thesis, and the second provides an ecology of Quichua.


418 A




- 2


f -


Figure 1: Ecuador


-o o'-



- I



As indicated below in the ecological treatment of

Quichua, the Quechua (1) famtil is geographically

distributed over a large area of the Andean and upper Amazon

regions and, as a consequence, exhibits a substantial amount

of dialect variation. In Peru the amount of dialect

variation has led to mutual unintelligibility in some areas

and has resulted in separate distinct Quechua languages. In

Ecuador, the dialect variation of the central Sierra coupled

with an overlay of the Quechua language as spread by the

Incas (and later by the Spanish) has resulted in a diverse

and complicated dialectology of Ecuadorian Quichua. As late

as 1974, Ecuadorian Quichua was described as *..not yet

sufficiently defined' (Torero, 1974). Consequently, this

investigation is designed to provide a description of

Ecuadorian Quichua, aspects of its dialectology, and a

clarification of -the relationships across -various dialects

in order to contribute to the knowledge of the language

family as a whole. The focus of this study on varieties of

the language family spoken in Ecuador is intended to

continue the needed description of Quechua dialectology.

Although aany investigators have referred to aspects of

Qunechua dialectology (Cerr6n -alomino, 1976; Coombs, et al.,

1976; Cusihuaman, 1976; Orr, 1978; Parker, 1969; Quesada,

1976; Soto Ru3rz, 1976; Stark, 19751 Stark et al.,, 1974), the

most inclusive and enlightening descriptions and

classification remain those of Torero (1974). As impetus

and a basis for ramparison, the classification which Torero

proposes in El 2uechua I la Historia Social Andina (1974) is

used throughout this study.

Adapting Torero's methodology to Ecuador, I decided to

gather as much linguistic data as possible from a sample

representing speakers of the various dialects of Ecuadorian

Quichua.. These data were then analyzed for phonological,

morphological, lexical, syntactic, and semantic variation.

Combined with existing studies and investigations, the

resulting information is used in the search for answers to

the following questions: To what extent does dialect

variation occur in Ecuadorian Quichua? Is it negligible or

does it lead to unintelligibility? If mutual

unintelligibility occurs among certain dialects, is

communication maintained? If so, how? Within the range of

dialects, which is/are the more conservative? regarding

which aspects? The more innovative? Regarding which

aspects? Are:all the linguistic levels equally innovative

or conservative? Is there intra- in addition to

inter-dialect variation? How was Quechua spread into

Ecuador? From where? By whom? Once? More.than once? Do

dialects cluster into major groupings? What external

linguistic pressures influence dialectology? What are

attitudes of Indians and non-Indians towards the language?

Are their prestigious dialects? Is Quichua in decline or


While answers to such questions may be of interest -to

quichu6logos Quichuists' and other linguists, by

application they may be useful in the reconstruction of

Proto-Quechua, and thereby shed light on past- population

movements. Differences in Qnichna aay also yield

information on language movement which may or ,ay not

parallel population movements. In other words, is the

Qnichua of a given area the result of an introduced

Quechua-speaking population of is it the result of the

adoption of the language by a conquered population. The

Quichua dialects spoken by the Saragurenos and Salasacas are

representative of the former situation and those spoken by

the Otavalenos and the Loretanos are representative of the.


In addition to the intrinsic value of answers to the

above questions for linguists and anthropologists, they -aay

also be useful to -governmental and educational

administrators. For example, the consideration and

undertaking of bilingual education programs rreates a

growing demand for descriptions of Ecuadorian Quichna. Such

descriptions are useful in the selection of sound, judicious

national education policies, especially those pertaining to

the linguistic minorities. In addition to their usefulness

in policy decisions, linguistic descriptions are useful,


beneficial, and necessary for the preparation of pedagogical


My first introduction to Ecuadorian Quichua was as a

Peace Corps Volunteer in 1972 and 1973. During this-time I

became increasingly aware of the salience of the language

and the role and position of its speakers within Ecuadorian

society. However the bulk of the field work.for the present

investigation occurred from October, 1977, to September,

1979. After returning to the University of Florida,

portions of the field data were reanalyzed as a check.using

the Northeast Regional Data Center facilities. In addition

to the primary field data, relevant secondary sources from

the existing literature were consulted and incorporated into

the study.

Theoretical Perspectives

The present investigation was- undertaken with two goals

in aind-: first, to answer questions regarding the nature of

Ecuadorian Quichua, and second, to provide a scientific

analysis of the linguistic system and its variation across


A sound structural description is seen as a means to

achieve the above goals. The decision to provide -a

structural description was dictated by two concerns. First,

the most productive discovery procedures in the field

situation -re-ain those.which are structurally based, and

second, such a description provides necessary primary

information useful to further investigations.

Structurally-oriented discovery procedures are extremely

-useful or the acquisition and analysis of data in field

-conditions. Once the collected data have -been described

within a structural framework that is faithful to and

respectful of the inherent nature of the language, the data

and their description may then serve as a necessary basis

for further theoretical or applied linguistic

investigations. After a structural description is available

of the linguistic items, their arrangements within a system,

and the processes they undergo, one may then use such

primary information to evaluate (and construct) different

theoretical models regarding the nature of hunan language.

Fortunately for the analysis of any language, various

theoretical models currently exist which allow for the

presentation froa different perspectives of the primary

data. The data any be presented so as -to allow for a

general overview of the language, or it may be presented

from a specifically highlighted perspective. Regarding the

phonological level, data aay be presented as a study of the

various contrasting points within the phonemic system, or as

a study of the sequences of phonological processes which

generate well-formed constructions. At the morphological

level, individual morphemes may be described by their

arrangement and distribution, by the transformations they

undergo, or by a combination of both. At the semantic

level, ethnoseaantic analysis provides information regarding

the nature.of the underlying fundamental bedrock .concepts of

the language and how these concepts determine the behavior

and social interactions of the speakers. The often -elusive

semantic level may also be analyzed from the deep structure

perspective of case grammar or of generative semantics.

Finally, componential analysis of the semantic level

provides information on the structuring of the language.into

domains consisting of elements that share at least. one

semantic feature.

It is the task of the anthropological linguist to use the

different theoretical models mentioned above in ways which

best represent the nature and structure of the language

under investigation. In other words, portions or all of

these models in different combinations are used to

elucidate, illustrate, and interpret the language data

available in the corpus. Tn opposition to this 'eclectic

structuralism' approach is the (sometimes forced)

application of the primary data to a given theory which

often leads to a distorted perception of the language.

In light of the above discussion, my desire to present a

description of Ecuadorian Quichua useful to both linguists

and the indigenous people, and the fact that no single

theory may adequately explain all the subtle complexities of

human language, I decided to describe the field data using

an eclectically structural base. In instances where a

particular theoretical model most adequately explains an

individual linguistic phenomenon, the appropriate mode is

incorporated into the overall description. The linguist

sust use all theories and explanatory devices available in

order to present a linguist description of the salient and

distinctive features of the language.

After a givenisynchronic variety of a language has been

described, questions regarding variation in the language may

then be addressed. The extensional investigation of dialect

variation can only occur once a primary structural

description of the language is available. The bulk of the

present thesis is concerned with such a primary description

of Ecuadorian Quichua; the remainder of this study takes

this primary description as base in order to answer

questions about Ecuadorian Quichua dialectology.

"Data Base and Methods

The basic discovery procedures and methodology derive

from those of Pike (1947), Nida (1946), and Samarin (1969).

In combination with classroom training using informants,

these procedures are further interpreted and refined by

Hardman (2). These procedures not only provided a framework

for data collection, but also provided the methodologies

which were used for analysis in the field of the primary

data. In addition to the above, Torero's (1974)


classification was taken as a point of departure, and the

methodologies he utilized to determine the degree of mutual

intelligibility across dialects (and auechna languages) were

adapted to the Tcuadwrian situat-ion.,

Below are descriptions of the corpus collected during -the

field stay, the sources which provided the data, and the

sites visited.

Corpus. One of the joys of field work in Ecuador is that

there are all types of opportunities available. to observe

the use of Quichua in sitn. In addition formal elicitation

sessions are much more easily arranged in environments

familiar to the native speaker of Quichua. From the data

collected in all these situations there -emerged two basic

types of data: free.texts and elicitation lists.

The free texts consist primarily of tape recordings and

the available printed material in Quichua. Included in the

tape-recordings are autobiographical sketches (the first

Sierra text of Appendix B), life histories, retellings of

legends and myths (both Oriente texts of Appendix B),

weddings, wakes, baptisms, confirmations, musir contests,

medicinal sales pitches, prayers, incantations, business

negotiations, ot cetera. -Included in encantations, business

negotiations, et cetera. Included in the.printed materials

are bilingual texts, pamphlets in Quichua describing the

educational system, primers and other pedagogical materials

in Quichua, political slogans and graffiti, et cetera.

The -elicitation lists were used primarily in formal

elicitation sessions with native Quichua speakers, and were

designed to illustrate and clarify specific aspects of

Qnichi-r some were word lists and others were i-tended to

elicit paradigms. After an overall linguistic description

was available for the variety studied, elicitation lists

were constructed to yield information on phonological and

syntactic variation in Ecuadorian Quichua.

The initial study of Quichua preceded via the bilingual

method (Pike, 1947) using Spanish as the primary contact

language. Since some of the informants were bilingual or

multilingual, English, Portuguese, and French were also used

on occasion as contact languages. As my proficiency in

spoken Quichua grew, the use of the monolingual method

fPike, 1947) for data collection also increased. Although

misunderstandings did occasionally arise, in many areas the

use of the monolingual method was the only way to carry out

the linguistic investigation.

Sources. The majority of the sources used in this study

are primary; countless hours were spent in various Indian

communities and many people provided the bulk of the data.

Here possible, a random cross-section of a given community

was consulted. By including data from both sexes along the

parameters of age, residence, and mobility, it was possible

to acquire information from a broad range of the Quichua

speakin-g population within a given dialect area. In

addition to the acquisition. of data on the nature of

Ecuadorian Quichna and its geographic dialectology, the use

of such a varied range of linguistic consultants also

provided provocative information on social dialectology.

although the primary focus of this study is the description

of Ecuadorian Qnichua and its geographic dialectology,

linguistic variations associated with social processes and

phenomena are presented throughout.

Secondary sources consist of personal communication (with

non-native Quichua speakers) and texts and articles written

by Quichua speakers as well as other investigators of the

language. (See Chapter 2.)

Sites. During the initial planning of the field

investigation, hoped to gather information about the

Quichua language from at least one site within each of the

known dialect areas. However, certain political

altercations arose w-hich prevented -y frequent travel within

the country. Approximately one fourth of the field stay was

devoted to clearing up the resulting misunderstandings. Due

to the inconveniences caused by these altercations, I had to

limit the dialect investigations to the non-central

varieties where I had already collected the majority of the

data. In spite of these unforeseen difficulties, I was

nonetheless fortunate enough to be able to travel throughout

many areas of Ecuador. Whenever possible, I collected a

wide range of data from several locations, sometimes under

adverse physical conditions (3).

The following list provides by province the sites from.

which data are included in this study. After each site an

abbreviation is given for the dialect area which the site

represents. The abbreviations are used titroughont the text.

The 15 indicated dialects are listed on page 20, where-their

geographic distribution is described.

TIbabura Otavalo (lab.)

Mariano Acosta (lab.)

Natabuela (lab.)

San Roque (Imb.)

Calpaqua (Imb.)

San Antonio (Tab.)

Tbarra (lab.)

Quichinche (aIb.)

Espejo (lab.)

San Rafael (lab.)

San Pablo (mTb.)

Gonzalez Suarez (Tab.)

Pichincha Calderon (Pch.)

Cayambe (Pch.)

Guallabamba (Pch.)

Quinche (Pch.)

Checa (Pch.)

Puembo (Pch.)

Tnabaco (Pch.)

Sangolqui (Pch.)

Cotopaxi Latacunga (Ctp.)








Pillaro (Tsl.)

Pelileo (Tsl.)

Baios (Tsl.)

Rosario thurusanga (Tsl.)

Chibuleo Sam Pedro (Tch.)

Rouipata (Tpl.)

Guaranda (Blv.)

Riobanba (Nch.)

Troje (Nch.)

Nizag (Sch.)

Canar (Cir.)

El Taabo (Cur)

Ingapirca (Cnr.)

BibiJn (Cir.)

Gualaceo (Azy.)

Cuenca (Azy.)

Saraguro (Lja.)

Las Lagunas (Lja.)

Ona Capac (Lja.)

Gunodel (Lja.)

Loreto (Npo.)

Chonta Cocha (Wpo.)

Sno (Npo.)

Caspi Sapa (Npo.)

Limoncocha (Npo.)

Primavera (Npo.)

Lago Agrio (Npo.) (Chn.)

Ahuano (Tna.)

Misahuallf (Tna.)

Tena (Tna.)

Archidona (Tna.)

Baeza (Tna.) (lob.)

Papallacta (Pch.)

Pastaza Puyo (Ptz.)

Arajuno (Tna.)

Tarqui (Ptz.)

Tigueno (Huan)

The last site, Tigneno, is inhabited by Huaurani rather:

than Quichua speakers (See the language ecology for a

discussion of Huaurani.), and was visited to find out the.

degree of influence between the two languages The decision

to include this site was reached after discussions of the:

Hnan by Loreto (Bpo.) Quichna speakers.

The nap in Figure 2 gives the location of the sites..

Dots indicate places visited :by -this investigator, and

squares represent sites of the secondary sources.

--_-1--111 -CL~-_II -- I_---^-_ __ -Y *_--PI--r.l;Y^C~C~YY_ LiT

: 16

Research Sites

Pignre 3~

Study Organization

The study is organized into chapters treating the

following topics: an ecological statement, a survey of the

literature, an ethnographic sketch, the phonological system,

the surphological system, salient syntactic features,

dialectology, implications, and conclusions. In the last'

chapter dialect areas based on linguistic and cultural

features are identified and points of departure for future

research are suggested, Immediately after the chapters are

appendices containing the following: Quechua phonologies,

sample texts (both highland and lowland), analysis of a text

by morpheme, instructional materials, elicitation lists,

text of the Ecuadorian President's inaugural speech, text of

the bilingual education law, and symbols and teras.

Following the appendices are the bibliography and

biographical sketch.

Syabols and "Teras

In the present investigation, the following conventions

are employed throughout.

1ith the excepti-on of 'the phonology chapter, all examples

of Ecuadorian Quichua presented are written using a phonemic

orthography. Since the phonological system can vary from

dialect to dialect, separate phonemic alphabets were

developed where necessary employing the methodology and

procedure proposed by Pike (1947). In addition to phonemic

transcription, some examples in the phonology chapter are

given in phonetic transcription indicated by square brackets

(r 3). The alloaorphs of the individual morphemes are

indicat-ed by slants Tn/). Regarding the diacritics, an

apostrophe indicates phonesi-c aspiration, e.g., piti-

*cut.4 This usage of the apostrophe is different from the

usage of the same di-acriti in investigations of Peruvian

Quechua. In Peruvian and Bolivian Quechua as well as

Aymara, Jaqaru, and Kawki the apostrophe as a diacritic

indicates glottalization while the quotation marks (") as

diacritics indicate aspiration. Since glottalized

consonants do not occur in Ecuadorian Quichua the apostrophe

is used for aspiration; this is more consistent with more

recent studies of Ecuadorian Quichna (Mnysken, 1977; Stark

and Muysken, 1977; Yanez, 1974). An acute accent indicates

suprasegmental non-penultimate stress, e.g., wagrana 'a

cow?'. Quichua examples presented from secondary sources

nailtain -the original orthography -of the source.

Within the word, morphemes are separated by periods, as

in ruai.kuna 'stones.' Verb roots, which are bound, are

followed by a hyphen, as in wakta- 'snack.' masediately

contiguous suffixes which are unable to close a construction

are indicated by preceding and following hyphens, as in -pa-

'politeness/curviness.' Any nominal, verbal, or independent

suffix which aay close a construction is preceded by a

hyphen, as in -shi 'reportati-ve.'

In addition to the above symbols and terms employed

throughout the text, the abbreviations presented above with

the sites are used in the following manner.

Japi- 'take (lab.)'

'choose (.Ich.) '

'find (Tsl.)'

This means that the root japi- is glossed as 'take' in the

lababnra dialect, 'choose' in the Northern Chiaborazo

dialect, and 'find' in the Salasaca dialect. Any occurrence

of an abbreviation following a morpheme or gloss indicates

the source dialect of said items. When a given morpheme

occurs throughout the Quichaa of Ecuador, the usage of the

abbreviation 'B1cQ.' indicates this fact. For example:

warmi 'woaan ({cQ.)*

This means that in all dialects the root warmi is glossed as



A language ecology is a description of the environment in

which a given language is found. It presents an overview of

phenomena external to the linguistic system which can have

an influence or an effect upon the natural progression of

the language and provides an understanding of the

interaction of language with other social systems and


institutions. The following ecological statement explains

various aspects of the Qnichua language's existence within

Ecuador by examining the language from the perspectives of

demography, history, sociolinguistics, et cetera.


Geographic Distribution. The dialects _of-unadorian

Quichaa (EcQ.) are located inthe highlands (Sierra) and the

eastern lowlands (Oriente), but not in the coastal region

(Litoral). In the highlands, a different dialect of Quichua

is encountered almost everytime one crosses the ridges

connecting the two major mountain ranges. Listed from north

to south the 12 known Sierra dialects include.Zababura

(nub.- Pichincha (Pch.), Cotopaxi (Ctp.1., "Salasaca (Tsl.).,

Chibaleo (Tch.), Platillo (Tpl.), Bolivar (Blv.), north

Chiaborazo (Nch.), South Chimborazo (Sch.), Caiar (Cr.),

Azuay (Azy.)., and Loja (Ija.).. The three known Oriente

dialects are the Napo (Npo.), Tena (Tna.), and Pastaza

(Ptz.).I The map in Figure 3 illustrates the geographic

distributions of these EcQ dialects.

Ecuador is indeed a land of geographic contrasts. The.

three aajor regions, the coastal plains, the highlands, and

the eastern lowlands offer almost unparalleled geographic

diversity. The coastal plains extend close to 60 miles (100

kilometers) inland and, with the exception of the southern

coast, all have an abundance of lush tropical vegetation.

Figure 3: Distributions of Quichua Dialects


Many areas of the coastal region are used for the intensive

agriculture of crops such as coffee, cacao, and bananas.

Guayaquil, the country's largest seaport, economic and

industrial center, is the major coastal urban area.

'rom the coastal plains, one ascends the western range of

the Andes. At 6,271 meters (20,576 feet), the snow-covered

volcano Chiaborazo is Ecuador's highest peak; on a clear

day it can be seen from Guayaquil, almost 150 kilometers

distance. The high, often active volcanic peaks are

separated by passes that allow one to enter the intermontane

callejln 'valley* between the two Andean ranges. This high

calle-in averages 2,800 meters (9,186 feet) in altitude and

has a year-round spring-like climate; such of the country's

population resides here. The capital, Quito, and the third

largest city, Cnenca, are located in this interaontane


The eastern and western ranges come within 100 kilometers

(60 -iles) of each other in Ecuador, it is the shortest

distance separating the ranges along the: entire Andean

chain. Joining the two major ranges are several connecting

ridges, which create 15 intermontane basins (Basile, 1974) i

The aap in Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of these

basins. As one flies north to south, such topography

presents a ladder-like appearance.

Volcanic as well, the eastern range has as its highest

peak, Cayambe. Reaching 5,790 meters (18,997 feet), this

0 100

"- -.._ .' .\





2 Ibarra

3 Quito

4 Toachi

5 Amb a t o

6 Riobamba

7 Guaranda

8 AIxau s

9 Canar

10 Cuenca

II J u bones

12 Loja

13 Z arum a

14 Cat.amayo

15 -a cttT T

Figure 4: Tntermontane -Basins





massive snowcap sits just north of the equator. As with the

western range, high passes must be crossed before one

descends to the Oriente, or eastern lowlands.

Proi wind-swept passes as high as 4,300 meters (14,000

feet), one drops quickly to the tropical rainforest at

approximately 615 meters (2,000 feet). From this rapid

decline, many streams and tributaries form the headwaters of

the Amazon River. The ecology of the rain-forest is very

fragile; in some areas, the environment is being altered by

clearing vast tracts of land for cattle production and for

oil exploration, and removal of crude petroleum.

There are three major routes of descent from the

highlands to the eastern lowlands; from Pinampiro, Quito,

and Banos to the east- The spread of the Quichna language

seems to have followed these highland to lowland transects.

Proa the initial area in the lowland foothills, the language

appears to have followed the Napo river east-rard. Along the

Tastaza-the major river of the southern 'Oriente-the

Quichua spoken there seems to be a merger of downriver

expansion from the Sierra as well as upriver expansion from

the Peruvian Oriente- Consequentl-y -the distribution and'

variation evident in the present-day Oriente dialectsof\
,...._.-..-----,__- ----------
Quichua has been in part determined by --trade -and

coaaunication along the headwaters of the Amazon River..

Nfuber of Speakers. Depending on the source consulted, -(

there are between one half and four million Quichua speakers

among_ the_ ore-than seven million inhabitants of Ecuador \

As the Tcuadorian government has begun taking census data

every 12 years since 1950, official population figures do

exist. However, *since categories relating to language and

to provincial boundaries are either not leationed or are

inconsistent from one census to the next, it is difficult

to determine rates of growth or decline using the official

census information. Furthermore, the census gathering

procedure itself often leads to skewed numerical data. For

example, usually the census taker is a blanco '(upper class)

white' and therefore immediately suspect upon entering an

indigenous community; within a single ethnic group such as

the Canaris, it is often difficult for even an Indian from

one community to enter another community without meeting a

barrage of sticks and stones. In the 1950 census the

hesitancy of census takers to enter certain indigenous

coMnnities such as Caamendo and La CompaIia in the lababura

province and Coluabe and llicto in the Chimborazo province

caused the data to be either missing for the area or to be

simply created (Anonymous Census Taker, Personal

oammunication) (~t).

All three censuses provide information regarding

literacy, but due .to the different age parameters used in

each, the data do not lend themselves to intra-census

comparisons; in the 1950 and the 1974 censuses, literacy was

given for those of 10 years of age or over, whereas in the

1962 census it is given for those over six years of age..

Literacy is officially defined as -the '...ability to read

and write a simple paragraph in any given language...'

f(inisterio de Econuoba, 1950) (5). Tn reality the

respondents were usually asked if they could write their

name (Anonymous Census Taker, Personal Communication). By

taking the mechanical production of one's name as an

indication of literacy, the resulting figures are probably

skewed. Unfortunately, these are the figures used in the.

preparation of national and international governmental

reports and documents. Such reports based only on strict

quantification of social phenomena do not reflect the subtle

complexities inherent in the realization of such a

phenomenon. In the case where writing one's name is

equivalent to literacy, the different perceptions of writing

are -not reflected in the quantified reports of literacy

figures. In some varieties of Ecuadorian Quichua ishkribina

in school and kilkana-refers to 'writing as before.' For

those who can write only their names, kilkana is used.

However, the production of the name seems to be more of an

artistic endeavor. The number of angles in the curve of a

letter are counted as are the number of concavities or

convexities from the end of a word which determine where the

'i' is dotted and the *t' is crossed (6). In response to na

kanpak shutia ishkribirkanki 'did you already write your

name?' one often hears _a kilkarkani 'T already wrote it (as
before).' Such aspects of literacy perception -ana

interpretation are often ignored in government reports and

documents and consequently provide an illusion of high

literacy rates within the country's population.

Table 1 gives the total of the populations and literates
as reported in the official censuses of 1950, 1962, and

1 1
I Official Population and Literacy Figures
f Census Population Literate Percent
| 1950 2,214, 500 1,245,665 56.3 I
( 1962 4,476,007 2,326,278 51. "
| 1974 6,521,710 5,413,038 83.0 |

Although figures in Table 1 appear to indicate a rather
high literacy rate for the.entire country as well as a

quantum leap in the ratio of literates to the general

population, this is simply not true in the rural areas,

especially those with substantial Indian populations. -It

ua-y be noted that in no census is there any information

regarding the size or even the names of the Indian

populations themselves; it is possible, however, that such
information may be covertly given as the percentage of the

population that '...wears shoes...' or '...sleeps in a

bed...' (Ministerio de Econoafa, 1950).

The first official census is the only one that provides ."

i nforation regarding the .amltilingual situation of Ecnador. \

French, English, Bulgarian, etc., are considered the major

languages in addition to Spanish, whereas Quichna is defined

as an "aboriginal language" and anything else spoken-by the

indigenous populations of the country is an 'aboriginal

dialect' (Ministerio de Econoama, 1950).

Although Ecuador is a multilingual nation (see Concurrent

Languages), the 1950 census implies that the population is

either monolingual or bilingual with Spanish as one of the

two languages.. However, even though Spanish is the assumed

language for bilinguals, other examples of bilingualism

abound in which Spanish plays no part. In the highlands for

example, awoug -the Otavalenos, there exists some

Qnichua-English bilingualism. In the central highlands,

there are examples of Chai-pi Shiai-Qnichua bilinguals.. (See

Concurrent Languages for an explanation of Chawpi Shimi.)

Among the southern Saragurenos, many are involved in cattle

raising which requires travel due east to the Oriente. This

region of the eastern lowlands is inhabitated by the Shuar,

often referred to as the jTvraro," or 'Jtbaro,' in much of

the existing literature. Since negotiations regarding land

and cattle-grazing possibilities are sometimes conducted

with Shuar who do not speak Spanish, some Saragurefios also


speak the Shuar language, and some Shuar are conversant in

the.Saragnro fLja.) dialect of Quichua.

In the eastern lowlands the situation of linguistic

interface is more intense; in addition to Quichua, there are

eight distinct unrelated indigenous languages spoken. In

-ast cases, meatrers of these various ethnic groups are in

contact with neighboring groups. However, due to the

relative isolation of certain indigenous populations, the

sometimes resulting bilingualism is between the respective

languages of the groups involved and not Spanish.

Accompanying the advance of oil production technology, the

Spanish language- (accompanied by English) is only recently

effectively penetrating the 'interior' jungle region.

In addition to bilingual individuals, there are those who

are fluent in three or more languages. One informant from

the Napo Region is not only diglossic in varieties of jungle

Quichua, but is also conversant in Spanish, Huau, and

English. fluan is am unrelated indigenous language spoken

near his home, and he learned English while working for the

Texaco oil exploration teams.

In the highlands, some OtavaleSos are among the more

multilingual. The dominant textile industry has caused some

Ota-vale-os to 'become 4irterna-tional migrants' and the

existing multilingualism among them is a reflection of the

necessity to communicate with prospective non-Spanish

speaking clients. For example, some informants, all of whom

are traveling business coierciantes and negociantes, are

fluent in Quirhua, Spanish, Trench, and English. An-other

group has fluency in Quichua, Spanish, and Portuguese..

There is even one informant who speaks Quichua, Spanish,

English, and some Japanese. While these cases do present

interest-ig exra-ples -of multilitgualisa, it should be noted

that such individuals are a minority relative to the vast

anubers _of--Qu3ichua--aonalincignals. As one leaves the

Panazerican Highway, the incidence of monolingualism rises;

closer to the Panamerican (referred to as la pana in the

Sierra) increasing bilingualism with Spanish is found.

While Table 2 provides the information regarding

monolingnalisa and bilingualism presented in the 1950

census, it is apparent from the preceding discussion that

such data, based on the assumption that Spanish of

the :to languages used by a bilingual, is erroneous and

therefore does not provide a complete representation of the

general .lingiistivc situation within Ecuador .

More recent studies (Stark, forthcoming) provide a

clearer understanding of the numbers and distributions by

regions of present-day Quichna speakers. A suanary of the

information in these investigations is given in Table 3 with

the approximate totals -of uichna speakers and percentages

of those who are monolingual in the various Sierra provinces

and Oriente region.

I sono- and Bilingnalism Reported in the 1950 Census I

at ive/S panish




Quichua-speaking Population



% Ronolingual



This Ecuadorian variety of the Quechua language family

(7) is classified as a member of the Chinchay__iisn.of \ f

Waupuy Quechua, or Quechna IIB, hereafter QUB (Torero,

1974). This major division has a geographic extension from

- ---------- -------------~ -----U-~- --- ~-~----- -~

_ __


southern Colombia to northwestern argentina, as far east as

Tabatinga in Brazil, and in small enclaves in major North

t-erican, South American, and European cities; it is

i-teruptexd only by Spanish, "Ayara (a Jaqi language spoken

in the Bolivian altiplano region), and by varieties of

Quechua I, Waywash, and Jaqi languages other than Ayuara

which are spoken in the central Peruvian highlands. Table 4

provides a branching diagram of Torero's classification.


Quechua Family Classification I

/ Pativilca

I f Yaru I
/ Wankay ~-na anca
l/ "'..-T--uangascar
Proto- I
I Pacaraos
SY\ ungay--- IIA --Lincha
I /NIncahuasi
/\/ "Cajamarca "
1 WampyI
S Chachapoyas
\ / Ecuador
\ /Ayacucho
\IC=--cuzco I
'S an ti agu eno

(adapted from Torero, 1974) I
I i

Within Ecuador, the language is called Quichua. The use

of this term -rather than indigenous terms in reference to

the indigenous language appears to have been a foreign

innovation (Rowe, Personal "romaunication), During the early

colonial period the language was often referred to as la

lenqua general general language The first Ecuadorian

reference calls it la lenqua coman 'common language,' or

runa shiai 'language of the people' (Nieto Polo, 1964).

Today, the word 'Quichua' is generally used by non-native

speakers to refer to the language. In addition, the word is

used to refer to other distinct Indian languages as well.

While native speakers also use 'Quichua' on specific

occasions, e.g., talking to non-native speakers, almost

every ethnic group has a unique way of referring to the.

language in inter-group communication such as yanka shimi

"independent language,' among the inhabitants of Otavalo,

Tuna shimi 'Indian language,' among the inhabitants of

Lareto, laa shi-i TInca language,' among the Salasacas or

in ano *Inca-ese,' among the speakers in the Sibundoy region

of Colombia.,

Brief -Description of Ecnadorian Quichua

Quichua is an agglutinative, suffixing langua e.

The phonetic inventory consists of three vowel phonemes,

and, depending on the dialect, up to 30 consonant phonemes.

These include aspirated and plain voiceless stops and

affricates, voiced stops, fricatives, nasals, flap and

assibilated vibrants, laterals, and glides. Unlike other

Andean indigenous languages, the aorphophoneuics are not

extensive and in most cases are phonologically conditioned,.

Within the morphology, roots and suffixes constitute the

morpheme form classes; to date only one prefix-like element

has been discovered, but its use is geographically

restricted to jungle Quichua used only to mark

certain affinal kin terms. The combination of the root and

suffix form classes creates stems. The root class is

composed of nominals, verbals, ambivalents, and particles.,

The.suffixes are classified as nominal, verbal, and

independent; these elements indicate almost all gramnatical

relationships between the constituent elements of each

utterance. Both derivational and inflectional nominal and

verbal suffixes may be followed by independent snffixes.

Certain suffixes may be combined to function at the phrase

or discourse level in addition to the aord level. Various

suffixes in sequence may occur on a single root or stem.

The nominal roots, ambivalent roots, and particles are free

forms whereas the -verbal roots are always bound. A change

in classification of the roots is accomplished through

nominalization and verbalization with a preponderance of the


Since the majority of the grammatical relationships are

indicated by suffixes, a prescribed word order in a Quichua


utterance applies only to certain elements of noun phrases.

Verbs tend to be phrase or sentence final, but accusative

complements may occur in this position as well. Clause

subordination is accomplished via suffixes which focus on

whether the actor of the subordinated verb is identical to

or distinct from the actor of the verb in the principal

clause. Combinations with certain independent suffixes

indicates the simultaneity or consecutiveness of the

subordinated verb to the main verb. Discourse elements

include the use of demonstratives and the independent suffix

-ka. Depending on the element to which it is attached, the

suffix indicates whether the discourse is advancing to a new

topic, returning to an older one, or continuing with the

elaboration of the current topic.,

In addition to these specific linguistic features,

Ecuadorian Quichna shares with other members of the Quechua

family certain linguistic postulates (Harduan, 1978), which

are reflected in -the morphology, -syntax, -and -seuantics.

Outstanding among the linguistic postulates are those of

politeness and body duality; not only are these concepts

linguistically marked, they are also manifested in the

behavior, social relationships, and general culture of

Quichua speakers.


Quichua appears to have been brought into Ecuad!or. in at

least tvo distinct-periods. \As spread by the Chinchay from

the central and southern Peruvian Coast, it was probably

used as early .as 900 LAD. as-a trade language along the
<-,--- -^~ /--*"" ---" -' "" --- --- --*-"" -/ -- .--^ ^ ^---- ___^-- -^ ^._ ~- ~-~ ^"~ -i---^-
Pacific coast of Ecuador during the Chinchay, cult ral

florescence, and from there spread into the intermontane

valleys of the central Ecuadorian highlands.J Later, withJ

the northern expansion of the Tnca Empire into Ecuador

beginning in 1455 (Hemming, 1970), Quichua was introduced

again as the Chinchay Inca conquest language. rThis secondI

Quichua influx provided a linguistic overlay on the already ,

extant varieties of the :Uichua previously introduced by the

Chinchay (8). As Torero (1974) explains, '..,-the presence!

of Quechua in Ecuador can only be explained linguistically

as having preceded front the central .and southern Peruvian

coast figure 5 provides a map showing Ite expansion of

Quechua at the height of the Inca Empire.

With the defeat of the Palta in 1455 under the Inca Tupac

Yupanqui, the SaragureSos were brought in as aitiae to

-teach Inca language and culture to the recently conquered

Ecuadorians. Proceeding north for the conquest of the

Calaris, after which entire Canar villages were moved south

to Pern,. Tnpac Tupangui began his city in Tnaibauha,

modern-day Cuenca. It was this new administrative center

which was used as a base for the northern Conquest, and as

Figure 5: Pre-Congnest Quechua Expansion


Such became the second capital of the expanding Inca Empire.

After Tupac Yupanqui's death, his son, Huayna Capac,

continued the northern expansion and, in the process,

brought the Salasacas as itifiaae into the central highlands.

-The Inca forces soon conquered the regionally powerful Quitu

Kingdom making it the second capital of Tahuantinsnyu.

L ) Shortly afterwards in 1478, fnayna Capac's armies were

engaging the northern Cara in conflict., Putting up a

fierce, seventeen-year defense, the Cara did not yield until

1495. They were the last group to be conquered in the Inca

northern expansion.

|Less than 100 years after the Inca expansion into

Ecuador, rsebastian de Benalcazar began the_.panish-Conqest
-___ -
of Ecuador in 153 Some. of the groups recently conquered

by the Incas quicklyy began .to switch allegiance and to

learn Spanish. Although some groups lost Quichua entirely,

in .otier regions varieties of -te language -continued -to

flourish and to be spread by early Spanish missionaries in

their efforts to utilize a single indigenous language to

christianize the local populations.

Although some varieties of the thinchay trade language

may have been spoken along the Ecuadorian (and Peruvian)

coast, this is no longer true. As the Spanish Conquistadors /

gained control of the coastal regions during the Conquest

and early colonial era, the varieties of coastal Quechua and

many of the remaining indigenous languages soon began to

disappear.U Today only members of the Chibcha language:

family are located in the northern Ecuadorian coastal

region. Cayapa and Colorado (Tsatchela) are the extant

members of this family remaining in Ecuador.

The highland varieties of Quichua continued and

eventually spread into the upper Amazon basin.j

Consequently, during the last half millennium in both

Ecuador and Peru, the language family has spread from west

to east, from the coast across the Andean ranges and into

the Oriente regions. As mentioned earlier, it is spoken

today at least as far east as Tabatinga in western Brazil"

(Stark, Personal Comaunication). Regarding the distribution

of present day Quichua, the only difference from the early

colonial distribution is that the language is spoken in the /

Oriente-and no longer along the coast; during the early

colonial period, the opposite was probably true. Figure 6

provides a map illustrating present-day distributions of the

Quechuna faaily.

.iI!f~ ~

Figure 6: Present-day Quechua Distributi-on



IntSernal aviation

Since aspects of dialectology of Ecuadorian Quichua are

one of the concerns of this investigation, these internal

variations of Ecuadorian QIIB are -riefly mtroduced here.

Saithin Ecuador, Quicnha exhibits variation at the

phonological, aorphological, syntactic, and lezxeic levels.

There are at least 14 dialects of Ecuadorian QIB subdidd //
into two major groups, central and non-central. The central

varieties exhibit a substantial amount of innovation and

variation and most of these dialects probably have their

origin in the varieties of Quechua spread by the Chinchay.

The central dialects of the highlands include Cotopaxi /

(Ctp), Bolivar (B-v), northern Chinborazo (Nch), Platillo
(Tpl), Chibuleo (Tch), Pichincha (Pch), and Salasaca (Tsl)..

As previously stated, the speakers of the last dialect were

aitiuae moved from "Bolivia by the Tncas, but this dialect is

included as a central variety because of its location and

interplay with the surrounding dialects. \The Oriente:(

varieties of central Ecuadorian Quichua include the Tena\

(Tna) and the upper regions of the Pastaza (Ptz.) dialects,

lost of the non-central dialects of Ecnadorian Qichua

probably have as their genesis the variety of Quechna that o

vas introduced during the Inca Conquest. {The highland

dialects include those in the provinces of Imbabura (mlb),

southern Chimborazo (Sch), Calar (Cffr), Azuay (Azy), and

Loja (Lja), while the Napo (Npo) variety constitutes the


only non-central Oriente dialect.j although some innovations

occur, the non-central dialects are the more conservative..

Table 5 -provides a branchig M diagram of these divisions.


Dialects of Ecuadorian Quichua





-- -- --- -----

Within the two major groups, central and non-central,

zeabers are generally mutually intelligible vithli the major (y

groping, while actual intelligibility across this Aivision j

is usually much less likely. For example, although some

minor phonological, syntactic, and lexical adjustments are

made, speakers of the mlbabura and Napo dialects understand







_____ _____ __

each other quite readily in Quichua, whereas speakers of the

former dialect prefer to communicate in Spanish, with

speakers of the Salasaca dialect, each group claiming that

the other speaks a. ...lazy, -iTed, uniitellitgiible... '

variety of Quichua.

Sociolinuaistic Concerns

The position of Quichua and its speakers in relation to

other languages and groups is defined by several factors,

including |dialinguistic, glottopolitical, and ethnological

concerns. As a result, it is difficult to describe

Ecuadorian Quichua as a homogeneous language. For example,

the percentage.of bilingualism can vary from ten to ninety

percent the percentage of bilingualism with Spanish can vary

fro .ten to ninety percent depending on the ethnic group and

the particular dialect of 2uichua. Also affecting the

percentage of bilingualism is sex and occupation; _ore men
- --- _^- -- -__----.^-------- --~'~' ----l--"*^~~i -C-u.. ^ .. r., ..=--- ^--
tend to be bilingual than oamen, and in some areas, more

negociantes 'business people' tend to be bilingual than
those not engaged in marketing activities. As illustrated

above, one can be bilingnal and not necessarily speak

Spanish. Therefore, a discussion of the concurrent

languages spoken in Ecuador is included in the following


Coacarrent Lanuages. The following treats indigenous

languages and Spanish spoken in the country., Several

non-indigenous languages, often European, are also spoken.

For the.sake of discussion, the former group is referred to

as "Ecuadorian languages,' while the latter group is

referred to as 'non-Ecuadorian languages.' i

Although many of these non-Ecuadorian languages like i/6

Bulgarian and Lebanese Arabic, have fewer than one hundred

speakers in the country, this does not imply that these \ ii

languages have no influence on Quichua. For example, in the

Korean-owned restaurant in Otavalo, the only type of Korean

cuisine offered was came bulcoqugn bulkoki aeat.' In a

Quichua conversation among the restaurant's kitchen

employees, the following was heard:

Chay bulknkita na aunajunimari.

I1T really donft li*e that bulkoki.'

Thay demonstrative

bulkuki- bulkokf

-ta accusative

na negation

mana- want

-ju- -progressive

-ni- 1p

-mari emphatic

Paralleling the acquisition of "skunk" into' American

English (i.e., the borrowing of both -the item and the form),

the adoption of both the Korean item and the fora into

Qaichua illustrates the effect, albeit small, that any given

language may have upon another. With the temporal extension

of contact between the two languages, their mutual :influence

becomes greater. Similar instances involving other

non-Ecuadorian languages are discussed where applicable.

Perhaps the most widely known of the Ecuadorian languages

and usually the second Languae spokenp byndian bilinguals

is Spanish, the country's only official language. This

variety of Spanish is uniquely Ecuadorian and there are

several dialects spoken within the country. Among other

features, certain syntactic constructions help distinguish

Ecuadorian Spanish from the remaining varieties. Due to

indigenous substrate influence, the following examples are- i

basically Quichua syntax with Spanish lexical items.

Deme trayendo.

'Bring it -to me.'

Vendra breve.

*Come quickly.'

In a .ore standard variety of Spanish the above phrases are

generally realized as follows.


'Bring it to se.'

Venga pronto.

'Come quickly.'

While syntactic constructions like the above help

distinguish Ecuadorian Spanish in general, various stages of

certain phonological processes are indicative of dialect

differences within the country. Outstanding among these are

the processes of vibrant assibilation, feismo, yefsao, and

sseso. Basically, these processes describe the changes in

pronunciation which occurred during the transfer of standard

Castillian Spanish to the New World. Vibrant assibilation

means that the trilled vibrant of Castillian Spanish has

acquired a sibilant quality in parts of the New World. The

variations in the New World pronunciation of the palatal

lateral, /tf are the concerns of ieismo and yefsmo. Both

processes treat the fusion of the Iberian palatal lateral.

/t/ and the palatal semi-consonant /y/. In the process of

elsmoa the palatal lateral is realized as a voiced palatal

fricative, [1]; in yefsmo it is realized as a palatal

semi-consonant, [y]. Finally, -the process of seseo

describes the phonetic realization of the voiceless alveolar

fricative, /s/, in both syllable- and word-final position.

The process of ceceo treats the fusion of the Iberian theta

/9/ and the alveolar /s/. Basically, the process of seseo


treats the fusion of two Iberian phonemes into the /s/ in

Latin America, while the process of ceceo indicates that the

phonemic distinction has been maintained, i.e., the two

Iberian phonemes have not fused.

SIn some cases, Spanish phonological processes parallel

those of Quichna. In other words, vibrant assibilation and

elsmo share the same geographic distributions in the

highlands. The separation of the southern from the central

and northern dialect areas of highland Spanish is

illustrated below. For example:

Sp. llora

---> [Eora

---> [ora]

Q. llaki

--> [ iakil

--> t[aki ]

Sp. rapido

---> [ Rapido ]

--> rapidol

Q. runa

---> [Runa]

--> [runa

'(s)he cries'

southern Sierra

elsewhere (in Sierra)


southern Sierra



southern Sierra



southern Sierra


Since the southern Sierra has been and is one of the more

isolated regions of Ecuador, the more conservative

pronunciations in this area reflect characteristics of

sixteenth century Spanish, Areas vith iaore frequent -outside

contact reflect characteristics of seventeenth century

Spanish (9).

Neither of these phonological processes, feismo nor

vibrant assibilation, are direct influences of Quichua;

both _prlcesses occur in other areas of the Spanish-speaking

world where Quichua has never existed. Whether- the

occurrence of these processes in Quichua derives from

internal or external motivations remains to be determined.

However, it should be pointed out that in all of Latin.

America the maintenance of the Iberian palatal lateral and

the palatal semi-consonant distinction resulting in the

voiced palatal fricative. pronunciation of the palatal

lateral 4in calle -street' and the pronunciation of the

palatal semi-consonant i3n lcaT -'s)he, it fell-! 'This

occurs only in the central and northern Ecuadorian Sierra

and in the Tucuman region of northwestern Argentina. Both

areas are located near or. on the peripheries of ancient

Tawantinsayo, the Inca Empire. 1 Also derived from the

phonemic palatal lateral /t/, the voiced palatal fricative

Tz] occurs in the Quichua varieties of both places. As

possible substrate influence during the early colonial

period, Ehe occurrence of this phonological process in

49 \
Quichua perhaps may have been influenced by the natural

sound change of the Spanish which was concurrently spoken in

these areas.|

Obviously one of the areas with frequent contact during

the colonial period is the coastal region.. The most notable

differences between Sierra and coastal Spanish are the
t l
processes of yelsno and ceceo. Yelsso has occurred when

both the standard Castillian palatal lateral and the palatal

semi-consonant are realized as a palatal semi-consonant, as

in Spanish /llora/ --> yora] and /cayd/ --> [kay]j on the

coast. The process of ceceo refers to the fusion of two

significant sounds of standard Castillian, /s/ and /9/, into

a single sound in the Americas. This one phoneme, /s/,

usually has four automatic variants. The aspirated variant

distinguishes coastal Spanish from that of the Sierra. For

example, estos 'these' is pronounced (ehtoh], or.even [eto],

in most of the coastal area.

Perhaps the following -eample will help clarify the

amount of phonetic variation possible in Ecuadorian Spanish.

The first transcription below is from southern Sierra

Spanish while the second is from the northern coastal

region. Both are broad phonetic transcriptions of la aarea

esti-vaciando 'the tide is going out.'

[la aarea esta -4asiyando] (Imbabura)

Sla mahea ta -basndu] (Esmeraldas)

Although united by a common standardized orthography,

understanding the variation in spoken Spanish often causes

initial difficulties. Such variation in the official

language should be one of the concerns of bilingual

education policy makers, Unfortunately, it is not.

Although people are aware of some of the dialect

differences, it is of little concern in the planning of

bilingual programs. It has often been said that ...even

though the best Spanish is spoken in Loja, and the coastal

people swallow their s's, we all speak pure Castillian


Indigenous Languages. In addition to Spanish, at least

ten separate indigenous languages are spoken in .Ecuador.

There are three representatives of the -acro-Chibchan phylum

of the Barbacoan languages (Colorado, Cayapa, Coaiquer),

two, possibly three. embers of the western Tucanoan

languages ISiona, Secoya, Tetete), two sister languages of

the Shuaran branch of Proto-Jivaroan (Shuar, Achuar), a

member of the: Zaparoan family (Zaparo), two isolate

languages (Cofin, Huau), and a Trecently nascent -creole

(Chavpi Shimi). The Barbacoan languages are located in the

coastal region, Chavpi Shimi in the highlands, and the:

remainder in the eastern lowlands. The map in Figure 7

illustrates present day geographic distributions of these

distinct indigenous languages.

i 59

i G l) oic+

2 J I V.A R

3 C H I'B'C





Figure 7: Distributions of Inaigenous Languages



i -.- G



Although references to these language groups were sade

throughout the historical period, much of the present-day ,

linguistic knowledge is derived from works of the Sumaer_ .

Institute of Linguistics (SILl. In 1981, the late President

of Ecuador, Jaime Roldos, expelled this aissi-onary -group

fro .the country. If the Institute actually leaves Ecuador,

future investigations of these sometimes -oribund languages

will depend on the. efforts of independent scholars.

Examples of the existing literature produced by the SIL

resulting from their investigations of these. Oriente

languages are given in the bibliography.

TBecause of former and present-day trade routes that exist

in the three geographic regions of Ecuador (Oberel, 1967),:

some of these indigenous languages have more contact with

Quichua (and Spanish) than do others. For example, despite T

the fact that Colorado, Shuar, and Iababura Quichua do not

share a contiguous linguistic -onndary, there is contact
between these ethnic groups. Since some Otavalenos from /J

Imbabura are traveling negociantes, they are seen almost

everywhere in Ecuador. As well, some Otavalenos work as

migrant laborers on the banana plantations of the coast and

consequently have contact with the Colorados. Direct

planned contact among these three groups occurs when an

apprentice to an Otavalo bruin curerr* must travel to the

coastal Colorados and the eastern lowland Shuar, to receive

part of their training and instruction. Although few people

actually undertake such journeys, many Otavalenos are aware

of the necessity of any aspiring bruin to do so. This

apparently happens with other ethnic groups as well. For

example,. when a member of a lowland Quichna-speaking group

Visited. in Otavalo, I introduced him to the.residents .of the

communities where T was working. After the initial

conversational pleasantries, invariably the first question

asked by both parties was ' you really know how to


Based on remaining toponyms in the Otavalo region, it is 1

quite possible that the language spoken there prior to

Quichua was a member of the Barbacoan fajilyl This no
.,..,- - ^/ .-- '-- -^ ------ ---
longer extant language is referred to as Caranqui or Cara

TVillegas, 1977). The larger pre-existing language probably

extended from Colombia down the western slopes of the

western cordillera and down the intermontane valley to Quito

(Stark, forthcoming)..

Trade appears to have been extensive between the Cayapas

and the Caranquis. Identical weaving motifs appear in the

textiles of both groups, and certain yarns were '..,obtained

by trade through Indians of the interior mountain region..,.

(Barrett, 1925)_

during and after the Inca Conquest, highland Caranqui or

Cara was partially replaced by Quichua. After the Spanish /

Conquest, Caranqui was completely replaced by Quichua, and

Spanish was introduced as well. Today, the three existing


aeabers of the Thibcha language family in Ecnador, Colorado,

Cayapa, and Coaiquer, continue a westward progression to

avoid the onslaught of non-Indians who wish to use their

land for agriculture.

Df the nine indigenous languages in the Ecuadorian

Oriented, six have fewer than 1,000 speakers each. Within

the western Tucanoan family, various studies indicate that

Siona is being replaced by Secoya and Spanish (Stark,

forthcoming; Tickers, 1976).. Since only three elderly

speakers of Tetete were contacted in 1965, it is very

probable that this language is now extinct.
V -'- \
Of the two isolate languages, Cofan is probably moribund.

With fewer than 500 speakers (Stark, forthcoming), this

group is- undergoing considerable pressure from two main

sources as a result of the joint venture by Cepe-Texaco, the

oil consortium. This venture has turned the Cofan region

into the nation's center for oil exploration and removal.,

The introduction of this new technology to the region has

attracted both highland and lowland Quichua speakers as well

as blanco and mestizo colonos 'colonizers' in search of

eaployaent. Whether the Cofan become bilingual or

completely assimilate to the dominant culture remains to be


The other isolate language, Huau, seems to be fairly

stable (Tost, Personal Communication). This may be due in

part to the missionaries' maintenance of the Ruau as 'the

jangle tribe of savage Aucas.' Despite the attempt by the

missionaries to 'protect' the ITuan and isolate them, the

Ecuadorian government plans to construct a road through the

Haan Protectorate. The opening of such a road is bound to

encourage already emerging alliances between the Huan and

the lowland Quichua. Tt remains to be seen whether the 'uan

conserve their separate ethnic identity or assimilate to the

lowland Quichna culture or to Ecuadorian society.

Of the remaining indigenous languages sharing the eastern

lowlands with Quichna, Shuar and Achuar are not declining.

With:their own printing pr sses, schools, and radio, the

Shuar are extremely politicised; this group has held

'leadership workshop* for other indigenous groups. Often

referred to as Jivaro (or Jibaro) in the literature, the

Shuar were never reconquered by the Spanish after the

uprising of 1599 (Harner, 1972). The Shuar -ailtain contact

with the Qnichua-speaking Saragurenos of the highlands to

the est., Some Saragurenos spend considerable amounts of

time-in the Shuar region and are consequently bilingual :in

Quichua and Shuar. Even one group of the more remote Achuar

are now beginning to emulate the Shuar. Therefore, being

the largestindigenous ethnic group in the eastern lowlands,

the Shuar appear to be quite -vital and expanding the range

of their influence. Observing the interface between the

Shuar, Quichua speakers of the Saraguro dialect, and those

of the Pastaza dialect should provide some interesting

insights into synchronic cultural contact and change.

The remaining indigenous language, Chawpi Shii, __is of

recent genesis, probably within .this.century .,_(Nuysken,

1978). Chawpi Shiai, or Media Lengua, is spoken in the

areas.,around San Andres Pil~16 of the central highlands and

Oia Capac of the southern highlands. This is unusual since.

tiae language is -of such recent birth and has so few

speakers. That Chawpi Shiai is a separate language and not /2

a speech style is evidenced by the fact that speakers must

learn either Spanish or Quichua as a second language.

Basically, Chawpi Shiai consists of Quichna syntax and
\ _---------I ----------- ^/
Spanish lexical items. For example, the following
phonetically transcribed utterances from Spanish, Chawpi

Shini, and Quichua are glossed as 'What are you doing?'

Sp /ke ase. s/

CS /inki.da azi.ngi/

Q /ima.da nra.ngi/

As illustrated, roots are shared biy Spanishand Chapi ~ i

Shiai while suffixes are shared by Chawpi Shimi and Quichua.
....... ..- Ll ;-....~~---------------
Obviously, difficulties In classification do arise. fatherr ,

than relate the language lexically to Spanish or

syntactically to Quichua, the best procedure at present is

to consider Chawpi Shimi as an isolate example of


The above brief summary of concurrent languages spoken

within the political boundaries of Ecuador is illustrative

of the continuing linguistic diversity of the region. While

some languages like Tetete nay completely disappear, -others

like Chaupi Shimi may appear and increase. Although many

more languages were spoken at the time of the Spanish

Conquest, efforts to linguistically unify the country by the

official use of Spanish have not been entirely successful.

While much of Ecuador's population is bilingual in Spanish,

Quichna remains the native language of as many as half the i/

country's inhabitants.j FThe degree of influence of the

remaining indigenous languages on Quichua is determined by

the degree of contact with and vitality of a given ethnic


Glottopolitical Considerations

In multilingual societies, the dynamics of linguistic

systems are usually complicated enough without the..influence

of extra-linguistic factors. nonetheless, forces outside

the linguistic system often affect either positively -or

negatively the role of the language in society. On the one

hand, legal institutions may give the language full official

status and thereby positively influence native perception

and pride (as did Peru with Quechua and Aymara). On the

other hand government institutions ay -in -effect -ignore-the

indigenous languages, or worse yet, perpetuate the myth that

the indigenous languages are chaotic ramblings which fail:in

their attempt to attain the "purity" of true human


communication. 7In Ecuador, legal, economic, religious, and

educational institutions affect, both directly and

indirectly, the status and perception of Quichua in that


As is true with many languages, the first inconsistency

regarding the status of Ecuadorian Quichua is the

non-agreement of linguistic and political boundaries. By

comparing the dialect distributions with the provincial

boundaries, one can easily see the lack of conformity

between the two systems. Contrary to popular belief, each

province does not possess its own dialect. For example,

within the Tungarahua Province of the central highlands, at

least three dialects are known, i.e., Salasaca (Tsl.),

Chibuleo (Tch,), and Platillo (Tpl,), On the.other hand,

the dialect spoken in the Imbabura province of the northern

highlands extends north into the Carchi province and south

into the northern Pichincha province. 'By comparing the

Quechua language family distributions, one can -easily see

that this phenomenon is not restricted to Ecuador. With the

collapse of the Inca Empire after the Spanish Conquest, the

political .bonndaries of Tahnantinsuyu rather quickly gave

way to those reflecting Spanish desires and requirements.

The inconsistency between linguistic and political

boundaries may initially appear innocuous, but programs-of

most social institutions are usually restricted to the

provincial, or even the cantonal levels. Because of the


poliVical limits within which a well-designed program aust

operate, it can, and does, often fail. For example, a

bilingual program for speakers of Imbabura Quichua may

further marginate those living on the peripheries of the

dialect area unless the linguistic rather than provincial

boundaries are included in the program design. On the other

hand, a provincial-wide bilingual program in Tungurahua vill

not be acceptable to many speakers unless specific

linguistic and ethnic differences are equally treated in

program design and materials production.

Finally, when an international boundary divides a

linguistic area, ethnic cohesion can be seriously

jeopardized unless certain restrictions are alleviated.,

Fortunately, many groups are extremely adept at border

crossings so that long distance trade and family ties Ray be

maintained internationally- Such is the case with the Napo

(Npo.) and Pastaza (Ptz.) dialects of Oriente Quichua.

However, -when political tensions --etaeen neighboring

countries increase, an ethnic group divided by an

international boundary may suffer the consequences. Such is

the case with the Shuar and the Achuar. -any non-Indians do

not realize the effect of this externally imposed boundary,

but are aware of its existence. Tn a discussion about the

capture of vast tracts of the Ecuadorian Oriente by Peru,

one usually hears the following.

No ganaron el petroleo sino los jibaros.

~-S-CC.--~I--I ____ ~ --FL-- I.-I-I-I11I-~ 1- ) I-~__ SY~;JI~-Clr~~Li~LIUY--r~-~C.

.~.rr*F;.tUr..rm~~~-F 5 I~

'They didn't get the oil, but they did get the

Jibaros (Shuar).'

Obviously, political boundaries will continue to change,

as did the Ecuadorian provincial limits between the

censnses, or as do international boundaries around the

world. Whether or not shifting limits lead to linguistic

autonomous independence or heteronomous interdependence will

be determined by the specifics of each case.

The use of indigenous languages by government

institutions usually reflects the political perceptions of

the language's role. Below is an English translation of the

Quichua text of Jaime Roldos4 inaugural address as it

appeared in El Comercio, Quito's leading newspaper., It is

followed by an English translation of the Spanish text also

appearing in the newspaper.. The original Quichua and

Spanish texts are provided in Appendix H.

Today, not worthlessly like last year we will carry

each other along.. Now, we will take all people along.

From taking some people along, we will live doing

whatever needs to be done.

Now, to whom am I talking brusquely. Only to the

whites? Only to those who know? No. I an

all people who live in this land. To the people who

live in the land where the sun rises: Shuar, Huan,

Secoya, Siona, Cofan, to all the people that live in

the mountains; to those people that live in the land

where the sun is lost: the Colorado, Cayapa- to all

the Castillians- -to all thousands and thousands -o

people, to all of us that live in this mother earth:

to the white people, to the black people, even to those

people who have come here from far away.

By helping among all, we will go forward. By not

speaking to the worthless air with just our mouths,

saying whatever, we will open up doing what is

remembered, until the sadness is made better.

This morning, not in vain like last year we work

now, all men together we will go forward. -All the men

of our country we will live doing, working, laboring.

Now, I ask myself, to whom shall I speak?. To whom

will ay word be directed? Only to the literate, -only

to those who know? No.. I speak for all aen that live

in this country. I speak to the men that live in the

region where the sun is born (Oriente): Shuar, Ruau

Secoya, Siona. 1 speak to the men who live in the aost

remote regions of our country. I speak to the men who

live in the region where the sun sets (Occidente):

Colorados, Cayapas. I speak to the thousands and

thousands of men to live united in our mother earth,

with white men, with black sen, with all, including

with men who come from far-away countries.


We must all cooperate, help each other, in order to

go forward, so that our work be not in vain and in

order to liberate the poor from misery ana sadness.

is can be seen from the translations, the texts are

rather different. Although the speechwriter may have

desired the message of the second translation, the

composition of the first version was delivered, since only

the Quichua text was read over radio and television. The

choice of words, many of them perjorative, more adequately

reflects the government's perception of Quichna's role.

Interestingly, no mention is made of the Quichua speaking

groups in Ecuador, but the remaining indigenous groups are

mentioned by name. In many ways, the Qnichaa language is

obviously still thought of as a type of trade language,

where trade may be conducted in the political realm.

Fntheraore, the overall tone of speech was as dominants

addressing subordinates, i.-e, an attempt -will be wade to

change, but the status quo will remain constant. The

Indians with whom I listened to the speech were amused at

the perjorative reference to non-Indians, and were .pleased

at the president's attempt to speak Quichna, but were

basically unimpressed with the overall tone. As they

continued to weave, one informant said fga kutin iwallatak-

parlaiun 'they are.speaking the same again.'

As evidenced by the inaugural address, Quichna is

receiving increased recognition. However, in spite of

efforts by various individuals and groups, Quichua has not i

yet received_ official status. T rtheraore, the overall tone

of speech was as that of dominant addressing subordinates.

1. Quechua refers toth-a-anguage familyand-Quichna /
reTers -o varieties. oXthisaifl spoken-in-Ecuador 'I
Colombia, and noprthwestern..Argentina; this is
primarily a European distinction.>'.-

2. A new field manual based on these refinements is
forthcoming (Hardman and Hamano, Personal
Communication). This field manual is already in use
at the University of Florida.

3. I am reminded of two specific occasions. The sale
members of one Sierra comannity which was especially
hostile to outsiders met me at the comannity entrance
tith rocks, sticks, and (life) threatening stances.
Fortunately, this potentially violent situation was
diffused. By the time of the visit to that community
I was able to speak a certain amount of Quichua, but
from a different dialect. The community members -who
set me seemed to be amazed (and intrigued) that a
-foreigner was attempting -to speak their language.
Permission to enter the community -was not gi-ven until
I promised to learn their dialect and until we spent
the remainder of the day drinking chicha and trago.

The other occasion occurred when I-was returning
to the field base after spending two weeks in an
isolated Oriente community. After a two day hike to
the Napo river and an eight hour upstream canoe ride,
a passenger carelessly tossed a cigarette out of the
canoe. The -ind blew the cigarette into the open.
gasoline containers at the back of the canoe
resulting in an ear-splitting explosion.
Miraculously and fortunately none of the twenty-some
passengers and crew were injured, just wet.
Unfortunately, the collected data, camera, and tape
recorder were submerged, and most of the data
collected from that community were washed downstream.
(The data were recollected at a later date.)

4. This creation of data seems to prevail in many
circumstances; for example, rather than do actual
field investigations for projectile points,
university students will often fabricate both the
number and kinds of points found.

5. This definition is adopted from the 1950 COTA
Conference held in Bogota, Coloabia.

6. The use of angles and concave/convex parameters are
very important when investigating aspects of Andean
social interaction. In other words, the plains of
Wazca are said to be produced using repeating
combinations of 13 and 17 angles. The use of
concave/convex parameters are an important feature of
lexical structure of Quechua body parts (Stark,

7. There is an earlier somewhat parallel classification
proposed by Parker (1969). However, in order to be
consistent with more recent Andean studies, Torero's
system is used in this thesis.

8. fluysken (1977) refers to the Chinchay variety as
VChinchay Standard' and the Inca overlay as 'Chinchay

9. Tn deciphering the Spanish orthography used to
represent Quechna, the following works were
consulted: Luna, 1623; Owen, 1625; Oudin, 1622.


Due in part to the large geographic distribution of the

Quechua family, the diversity and varieties of the language

family have been the object of the many investigations

realized since Santo Toams' 1552 grammar. Comprising this

chapter are brief synopses of several of the Quechua

language studies that were: consulted during field research

and thesis preparation.

In addition to these primarily linguistic studies,

literally thousands of documents remain which refer to

Qnechna (or Qnichua) in some may.. Although precise

linguistic analyses are relatively few, the Quechua language

family is by far the most documented indigenous language;of

the western -hemisphere. This wealth of documentation is .due

in part to the incessant proclivity of early chroniclers and

administrative bureaucrats of the Spanish empire. For

example, by 1635 approximately 400,000 royal edicts had been

decreed (although not all in or about Quechua) (Herring,

1968); by 1681, the increasingly unmanageable quantity of

documents were re-edited into a document containing only

,400 of the -ost important laws (Recopilacion de las Leyes

de las Indias). Although many of these documents have been

republished, others unfortunately are lost or unavailable


(1). In recent years, linguistic and other social science

studies of the Quechua family have rapidly increased. Leon

(1946) and Larrea (1977) provide extensive bibliographies

listing works focusing on Ecuadorian Indians. Rivet and

Crepqui-ontfurt (1951-1956) provide a monumental four volume

bibliographic source for works on Quechua and Aymara.

Nonetheless, since the focus of this thesis is primarily the

description and dialectology of the non-central dialects of

Ecuadorian Quichua, only those works having direct relevance

to the present linguistic investigation are reviewed. Other

studies of the language and its speakers are used when they

contain information useful to a particular section. A more

extensive review of the Peruvian Quechua studies is

available in Davidson (1977).

When surveying the available linguistic studies

pertaining to the Quechua language family, it is useful to

have a basis for comparison. Fortunately, a grammatical

taxonomy has been developed and proposed by Hardman (Harduan

and Hamano, 1981) which adequately serves as a comparative


briefly Hardaan's taxonomy categorizes grammars as two

basic types, primary and extensional grammars.. Primary

grammars provide grammatical information of a given

language, and are further subdivided into professional and

public grammars. A professional primary grammar is intended

for linguists studying the same language (family) or for

- .J.A '.a-** N -r

those who share the same theoretical ilk and contains

extensive exemplification.,, A public primary grammar is

intended for the general public and indicates grammatical

structure without formal justification, but with

explanations and examples.

Extensional grammars are those -hich are built upon the.

information provided by primary grammars; the information is

reanalyzed for specific purposes or for the addition of

other relevant material. Extensional grammars consist of

three types: theoretical, applied, and extended. A

theoretical extensional grammar is designed for the

evaluation, illustration, argumentation, or comparison of

theories., An applied extensional grammar usually contains

additional information necessary for the resolution of

different problematic or for application to different

situations. For example, contrastive and pedagogical.

graraars are useful in regular and bilingual education or

for propagandizing the equally valid complexities of any

language. Finally, an extended extensional grammar has the

information of a primary grammar as its base and includes

sociolinguistic and historical analyses. Such grammars may

provide information on situations of cultural contact

reflected in the language or may result in primers and

textbooks to be used in education. Consequently, most the

grammars reviewed below are classified according to the

above taxonomy and the salient aspects of each investigation

are listed.

Peruvian Quechua

The varieties of the Quechna family spoken in Peru since

te .Spanish Conquest have received the aost attention. This

is in part due to the acceptance and the -perpetaation -of

Peruvian -Qnethua, especially the TCuzco variety, as the

Imperial language of the Tncas. By analogy with

sociolinguistics of Iberian Spanish, the Conquistadors

assumed that the language of Tawantinsayn's capital, Cuzco,

had to be the most prestigious form; they were unaware of

Quechua's recent adoption by the Incas as a conquest


Of the many available investigations of Peruvian Quechua,

several stand out as de riqueur references. Early

pre-twentieth century works include those of Santo Toaas

(1947, original in 1552) and Holgunn (1952, original in

1607). The more recent studies reviewed include Torero

11974) and the six reference grammars produced -by -the

Institute de Estudios Peruanos.

Early Investigations

Regarding Peruvian (and general) Quechua studies, two

important works were published within less than a century

after the Spanish Conquest. Although both present an

extremely latinized view of the language for use by the

Church for christianizatin of the local population, the.

following two works are still valuable today as the only

primary references on sixteenth and early seventeenth

century varieties of the Quechua language.

Appearing less than 30 years after the Conquest, Santo

Touls* Grauatica o Arte de la Lenqua General- (1552),

hereafter Gramdtica, is invaluable; it represents Chinchay

Quechua, a language spoken along the Peruvian coast as late

as the early colonial period. Although no longer extant in

the present century, this variety was most probably spread

along the Pacific coast as a trade language by sea-faring

merchants before and possibly during the Inca occupation.

In 1607 Gonzalez Holguin published Gramitica o Arte nuevo

de la lenqua general de todo SI Peril, llaada lenqua

qquichua o del inca, hereafter Arte nuevo., Representing

what appears to be the Inca Quechua dialect spoken in Cuzco,

this variety was used and spread by the Tncas as a conquest

language during expansion. This volume, describing a

variety of Quechua long under the influence. of the

neighboring Taqi languages, represents the dialect

erroneously assumed by the Spaniards to be Imperial Quechua;

it is the earliest reference of Cuzco Quechua.

Recent Investigations

Regarding more recent studies of Peruvian Quechua,

Torero's Quechua .a historic social andina (1974) is

indispensable for both linguistic and cultural

investigations related to the language.

In the first of two major sections, Torero proposes a

classification of the not always mutually intelligible

members of the Quechna language family which is distri-buted

geographically ftro southern Colombia to northern Argentina

(as well -as small enclaves in major North American and

European cities). The system consists of two major

divisions. Quechua I (hereafter QI), 'Waywash,' is spoken

almost continually in the central Peruvian sierra

departments of Ancash, Huanuco, Pasco, Junin, north- and

southeast Lima, and northeast Ica; it is the less

geographically extensive and more conservative., Quechua II

(hereafter, QII), *famupuy,' covers most of the remaining

sierra and jungle areas and, as such, is the more extensive

and innovative division. 0I is distinguished from QII by

the use of vowel length to indicate first person possession;

it is-further subdivided into the Waylay and Wankay

varieties. QII is subdivided into Tungay and Chinchay.

Tungay, IQTIA, although closely related to QI, is

distinguished from the remaining dialects by the use of /-y

-yni/ to indicate first person possession. Chinchay,

divided into TIB and QII:E, is distinguished by the use.of

/-ni/ to indicate first person. Due to its side

distribution, this is the variety often referred to as 'la

lengua general' in the early writings. Table 4 gives a

branching diagram of the above classification. Torero

(1979) then posits the following five distinct languages,

each dialectically diverse, belonging to the Quechua family

within Peru.

1. Ayacncho-Cuzco,

2., Ancash-Yaru,

3. Jauja-Huanca,

4. Canaris-Cajamarca, and

5. Chachapoyas-Lamas.

He concludes this first section by providing two possible

orthographies which utilize various doublets in order to be

applicable to all dialects of the five major languages.

These orthographies appear in Appendix A.

The remainder and the bulk of Torero's work consist of a

historical and cultural analysis of Quechua., In the first

part he discusses the role of Quechua and its diffusion in

ancient Peru from the social, geographic, demographic, and

political perspectives; the second part describes how

Quechua was used by the Spaniards as an instrument for

destruction of the Andean world, colonial control, and


In sumaary, Torero's work serves a dual purpose: -not

only does it provide a generally well-motivated

classification system which is used as a point of departure

in subsequent investigations, it also provides

sociolinguistic information useful in understanding the

general ecological parameters of any given Quechua language

or dialect.


In 1976 a collection of six 'reference grammars,' along

with their accompanying dictionaries, was published in Peru.

These grammars, now viewed as standard references, are the

results of a project that received impetus from the.

implementationn of Quechna as an official language! within.

Peru. These 'less complicated, more accessible* granaars

are directed toward the bilingual, for informal

self-instruction and satisfaction of linguistic

inquisitiveness. Although these volumes may be used to

disseminate information about the various Quechua languages

to other linguists, a major aim of the project was to create

graamars which could be used by the Quechua-Spanish

bilingual to facilitate acquisition, fluency, and

understanding of Quechna as a complex, yet structured

language. For the 'quechu6logo' the general layouts of the

six grammars are complementary and therefore very useful in

dialectology. These public primary grammars are.indicative

of mt only -the .liaguistic -diversity within Peru, but also

the Peruvian government's continuing interest in Quechua

since .its establishment as a regular course of study at the

Universidad Nacional de San Marcos in 1577. Unfortunately,

the course has not been regularly offered,

Closely following Torero's classification, the division

of QT into Waylay and Wankay is represented by Parker's

Granmtica Ancash-Huailas (1976)(hereafter AR) and

Cerron-Paloaino s Gra tica- Junin-Huanca (1976) hereafter

JH), respectively. QIIA, Tungay, is represented by

Quesada*s Gramitica Calamarca-Caiaris (1976) (hereafter Cif).

The division of Chinchay into QIIB is represented by Coombs,

Coombs, and Weber's Graaitica San Martin (1976) (hereafter

SE). QIIC is represented by both Soto-Ruiz"s Grawatica

Ayacucho-Chanca (1976)(hereafter AC) and Cusihuaman's

Gramatica Cuzco-Collao (1976) (hereafter CC). All the above

grammars contain from seven to eleven chapters. Common to

all volumes are chapters:treating the linguistic ecology,

phonology (2), noun phrases, verb phrases, enclitics, and

complex sentences. The distribution of these and the

remaining chapters are illustrated in Table 6

r"-'- ------------------------------------*
1 I
j -Contents of IEP Graamars
I \
I AC -JH iA CC. :- SE j
SEcology + + + + + +|
SPhonology + + + + + +
[ Grammar Generalities + + + + +
( Simple Sentences +' + + + +
( Noun Phrases + + + + + +
I Verb Phrases + i + -+ -+ + (.
7 Enclitics -* + 4 -+ I-
I Derivation + +
c Complex Sentences + + + + + + 1
( Question/Negation 4 + j
- Particles + + + 1
I Phrase Structures + (
( Derived Phrases +
I Possessives +
I Interjections/Idious +
- -

Parker's Ancash-Huailas (AH) grammar has a structuralist

framework and contains enough examples to support his

statements. Information, particularly phonological (See

Appendix A), on subdialects of AH are included vhen

necessary, and are illustrative. Although the phonology and

morphology sections are well documented, .some of the

statements regarding enclitics and complex phrases could use

further exemplification.

Of the two representatives of QI in this collection,

Cerron- Palomino's Junin-Huanca (JH) grammar seems to be

more complete. In the phonology chapter, the data are

arranged to illustrate processes rather than phonemic

contrasts. (Huanca is distinguished phonologically from the

raaaining dialects by lateralization of */r/.) Chapters 5

and 6, treating noun phrases and verb phrases respectively,

are well-illustrated, concise descriptions of Toots and

suffixes, both inflectional and deriTational.

Ques-ada's Cajamarca-Ca-aris (CN) grammar is the only

volume of the collection representing QIA. A very brief

phonological statement illustrates both synchronic and

diachronic processes of this dialect rather: than phonemic

contrasts. The organization of the remaining chapters

indicate a quasi-transformational approach to the relatively

small data base. In addition, a verbal conjugation paradigm

reflects an Indo-European orientation to the Quechua tense

system. The chapter on particles seems to be classified

according to the translations rather than the data. The.

chapter on enclitics is -ore complete than in the preceding

two volumes, but the presentation lacks cohesion.

Coombs, Coombs and Reber's San Martin (SM) grammar.

provides a description of a little-studied variety of

Quechua spoken in the Peruvian jungle (as opposed to the.

Sierra dialects), Unfortunately, many statements presented

suggest a strong Indo-European orientation towards the data,

such as reflecting a third person singular and plural

pronominal set and a verbal conjugation paradigm reflecting

this number-marked system. One of the better chapters on

enclitics, this description not only contains illustrative

examples, but explains in detail the sometimes peculiar

behavior and subtle meaning changes caused by inclusion of

this suffix class on Quechua phrases. Using a sample text,

the behavior of some enclitics at the discourse level is

illustrated. Short chapters on possessive and negative

constructions seen to have been added as -an afterthought,

but the chapter.on interjections, idioms, and greetings

discusses an area of nQechua treated barely or not at all in

the -remaining -graamars.

Soto Ruiz's Ayacacho-Chanca (AC) grammar represents QTIC.

The phonology chapter presents phonemic charts and describes

their production, but is practically devoid of phonemic

contrast examples. The next two chapters explain word

classes and sentence types, but are again lacking sufficient


illustration. The chapters treating noun phrases and verb

phrases appear to have a rather latinate framework; not

only is the third person singular and plural system given,

but some tenses are translated into the Spanish subj3umtive

mood. As presented, this could lead to the assumption that

sach subjunctive information is marked within the Quechua

verb; instead, it is often expressed in many dialects by

Talidational enclitics. As one of the better chapters of

this volume, derivation examines a very productive Quechua

process. The chapter on adverbials mixes both particles and

certain substantives, although examining them in a somewhat

confusing fashion. Basically, what the author calls time,

place, and modal adverbials are distributed and function

within many dialects of Quechua as a substantive subclass.

The last volume of this collection, and also one of the

most complete, Cusihuaman s Cuszco-Collao (CC) grammar

represents another variety of QITC. n, earlier variety of

this dialect was chosen by Spanish Conquistadores as the

standard imperial Quechua since it was spoken in Cuzco,

capital of the Inca Empire. Because of its close proximity

to and sustained contact with earlier varieties of Aymara, a

Jaqi language (Hardman, 1979), this variety exhibits heavy

influence from the latter language in all component levels.

Since the phonology closely resembles that of Aymara (cf

Appendix A), it has led some investigators, by comparing

only this variety of Quechua with Aymara, to erroneously

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - - mvs