Upload
buinhi
View
242
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Switch reference in western South America
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION
Rik van Gijn
University of Zürich
Switch-reference systems occur in a number of languages spoken in a contiguous area in western
South America, across language families, and even across macro culture areas (Andes and Amazon).
At first sight, this is suggestive of contact-induced diffusion, but the different systems show rather a
lot of variation. This paper gives an overview of the switch-reference structures found in Western
South America, taking a multi-variate approach to the phenomenon. In addition, it discusses the
likelihood of horizontal transmission hypotheses to explain the current distribution of switch reference
in South America.
1. Introduction
The following examples come from genealogically unrelated languages spoken in the adjacent Upper
Amazon and Andean regions of western South America
(1) Cavineña [TACANAN], Guillaume 2008: 702, 725
a. udya =tu-ke =Ø [imeta-tsu] mare-kware
then =3SG-FM (=1SG.ERG) point.at-IDENT shoot.at-REM.PAST
‘Then I pointed my rifle at it (a peccary) and shot it.’
b. [tu-ra mare-wa=ju] =tu pakaka-wa
3SG-ERG shoot.at-PERF=NONID =3SG(-FM) fall-PERF
‘He (Lucio) shot at it (the porcupine), and it fell down.’
(2) Yurakaré [ISOLATE], Van Gijn 2011: 181
a. ti-bëjta-ø-ja ti-la-mala-ø samu
1SG-see-3-IDENT 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar
‘When the jaguar saw me, it ran away from me.’
b. së bëjta-y-ti ti-la-mala-ø samu
1SG.PRN see-1SG.S-NONID 1SG-MAL-go.SG-3 jaguar
‘When I saw the jaguar, it ran away from me.’
(3) Cofán [ISOLATE], Fischer & Van Lier 2011: 237
2
[khasheye=ndekhu=ja ñoña]=si te [matachi=ja tsa=ma ondikhu]=pa
old.man=CLF(PL)=DEF make=NONID REP clown=DEF that=ACC wear=IDENT
tsa='ka=en=ja ko'fe=‘ya
that=CMPR=ADV=DEF play=MIR
‘Reportedly, after the elders made (the clothes), the matachi clown wore them and played like
that.’
(4) Cuzco Quechua [QUECHUAN], Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 117-8
a. wawa-kuna runasimi-ta rima-spa-nku allin ka-sha-nku
child-PL quechua-ACC speak-IDENT-3PL good be-PROG-3PL
‘When the children speak Quechua they are/feel well.’
b. wawa-kuna runasimi-ta rima-qti-nku mana vali-n-man-chu
child-PL quechua-ACC speak-NONID-3PL not worth-3-POT-NEG
‘If the children spoke Quechua it would not be good.’
These examples look rather similar at first sight: they all involve what seem to be classic switch-
reference (henceforth SR) systems: a combination of two clauses, where one of the clauses is marked
for whether the subject of the next clause is the same or different from the subject of the dependent
clause.1 There are many more examples of languages, from different linguistic families, with similar
constructions in western South America.
This raises the question how this situation came about. One appealing possibility is to say that SR
spread through contact between the different groups, which has been suggested before (e.g. Dixon &
Aikhenvald 1999, Aikhenvald 2002, Crevels & Van der Voort 2008, van Gijn 2012). However, in
order to substantiate this claim, we need to look in more detail at the similarities and differences
between the different SR systems in the languages of western South America, and then evaluate
whether there is a contact scenario that would fit the results.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. In the first place, it gives a general overview of SR systems in
western South America. Whereas overviews of SR in North America (Jacobsen 1983, McKenzie,
forthc.), Australia (Austin 1980, 1981) and Papua New Guinea (Roberts 1997) are available, no such
overview exists for South America. This paper intends to fill that gap. In the second place the paper
evaluates - to the extent that this is possible - the likelihood of contact-induced diffusion as a possible
explanation for the current distribution of SR systems in western South America. The paper is
structured as follows: Section 2 briefly introduces the geographical area under consideration, and the
sample of languages considered in this study. Section 3 focuses on the delimitation and
parameterization of switch reference as it is approached in this paper. Section 4 discusses the patterns
1 The opposing choices in the SR systems discussed in this paper are glossed as ident (identity) vs. nonid (non-
identity) throughout the paper for the sake of correspondence.
3
found for the different language families and language isolates in the family. Section 5 is a discussion
of the result in the light of potential contact versus inheritance scenarios. Section 6, finally, concludes
the discussion by summing up the major findings.
2. Western South America and the sample
Western South America is one of the most diverse areas in the world in terms of genealogy, containing
many isolate languages and smaller language families, but also in terms of structural diversity (see e.g.
Dahl 2008). Within this area, a distinction is often made between highland languages of the Andes,
and lowland languages of the upper Amazon. Both areas are generally regarded as diffusion areas.
Different scholars have proposed lists of shared features for the languages of the Andes (e.g. Büttner
1983, Torero 2002) as well as for the Amazon (e.g. Derbyshire & Pullum 1986, Payne 1990, Dixon &
Aikenvald 1999). Many of these features are contrastive (see Torero 2002, Dixon & Aikhenvald 1999,
Van Gijn 2014a), suggesting that the two macro areas form distinct cultural-linguistic blocks. On the
other hand, archaeological and ethnological evidence suggests that the ‘separation’ of these two
culture areas is a rather recent phenomenon, and that contacts between lowland and highland cultures
were common in the past (Renard-Casevitz et al. 1988, Taylor 1999). This latter view is corroborated
by more recent linguistic studies, which take a wider perspective: several continent-wide typologies
(Michael 2010 on phoneme inventories, Krasnoukhova 2012 on NP structure, Birchall 2014 on
argument encoding) suggest a broad east versus west split which does not coincide with the traditional
border between the Andes and Amazon. Similarly, Van Gijn (2014a) shows that the Upper Amazon,
stretching from the eastern slopes of the Andes well into the Amazon conforms neither to the
Amazonian nor to the Andean profile, calling into question the reality of the split.
As mentioned above, there are many unrelated families in western South America whose members
seem to have a comparable system of marking some of their complex sentences for SR. Families with
SR systems include Quechuan, Aymaran, Tacanan, Panoan, Jivaroan, Tucanoan, Barbacoan, Uru-
Chipaya as well as a few isolate languages such as Kwazá, Yurakaré, Paez, Cofán, and Urarina. In the
sample to be discussed below, I have tried to have each family known to have a SR system represented
by at least two, preferably three members, plus all of the isolates. I briefly describe the families and
isolates with SR systems here.
Quechuan: language family with a large extension, ranging from northern Chile and Argentina to
southern Colombia, mostly in the Andean regions, although some lowland languages also exist. A
main subdivision is made between Quechua I and Quechua II languages, the former referring to the
languages spoken in central Peru, the latter to the languages spoken to the north and south of that area.
The spread of Quechua II is associated with the Inca Empire; Quechua I spread is older and more
4
compact, dated around the first half of the first millennium by Torero (1984, cited in Adelaar &
Muysken 2004: 181), but there is no clear consensus.
Tacanan: small language family of limited geographical distribution in north Bolivia, with some spill-
over into Peru. Tacanan is linked to Panoan in deeper time (Key 1968), but there is no absolute
consensus about this link (see Hammarström et al. 20142). For that reason Tacanan and Panoan are
considered as separate families in this paper.
Panoan: one of the major language families of the Peruvian lowlands, with some extensions into Brazil
and Bolivia. The languages are generally thought of as relatively homogeneous, arguably reflecting a
relatively recent diversification. Adelaar & Muysken (2004: 419) mention that “all Panoan groups
presumably originate from the Cumancaya culture (1000 AD)”.
Jivaroan: small language family consisting of four closely related languages, spoken in north-western
Peru and southern Ecuador. There are intricate links with Andean societies, mostly belligerent. The
Jivaroan languages have split very recently, perhaps as recent as 500 years ago (Maurizio Gnerre,
Martin Kohlberger, Simon Overall p.c.).
Tucanoan: languages belonging to this language family are spoken in two major, non-contiguous
zones in north Peru/Ecuador on the one hand, and eastern Colombia/Brazil on the other. The main
division is threefold, between western, eastern, and central Tucanoan languages. Especially westrn
Tucanoan languages are underdescribed and as a result also underrepresented in this study. Eastern
Tucano languages are spoken in the complex Vaupés area, involving a high degree of interaction,
especially with Arawakan Tariana.
Barbacoan: small language family spread along the Ecuadorian coastal area and southern Colombia.
There is a division between northern (including Awa Pit) and southern (including Tsáfiki) languages,
the latter being more closely related than the former (Curnow & Liddicoat 1998). Barbacoan may have
had a wider distribution in pre-colonial times, possibly including the important language Cara,
although there is no conclusive evidence that this was indeed a Barbacoan language (see Adelaar &
Muysken 2004: 142, Bruil 2008: 10-12).
Aymaran: today, the language family consists of three languages. The biggest language, Aymara, is
mainly found in the southern tip of Peru around Lake Titicaca, and in the adjacent area in the north-
western Bolivian Andes. The other two extant languages, Cauqui and Jaqaru, are spoken in west-
central Peru, just south of Lima. There is a long-term and intimate interaction with Quechuan.
2 http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/taca1255, accessed 26-09-2014.
5
Although Aymaran languages surviving today have reduced or lost their SR systems, comparative
research suggests a more elaborate system in the past.
The isolates and odd-ones-out: Several (near) isolates also have (remnants of) a SR system. From
north to south: Páez (South-western Colombia), Cofán (northern Ecuador), Urarina (northeastern
Peru), Cholón (central Peru), Uchumataqu (western Bolivia), Kwazá (western Brazil, close to the
Bolivian border), and Yurakaré (central Bolivia). Apart from these isolates, there are a few languages
that belong to families that do not have a SR system generally, but which have nevertheless developed
one. They are the the Arawakan language Tariana (western Brazil, close to Colombia), the
Nambikwaran language Mamaindê (Rondônia), and the Chibchan language Tunebo. Further removed,
the Chibchan language Panare also seems to have a SR system.
Two further languages are not part of the sample for various reasons.
Tupian: the vast Tupian stock consists of over 40 extant languages that are spread almost over the
entire northern half of the continent. A number of Tupian languages have a coreferential third
argument marker as well as a non-coreferential one. The system in most of these languages, however,
is different from what is considered to be SR here, since the use of the coreferential marker extends to
the noun phrase (possession) and often has taken on other functions (e.g. it marks intransitive third
person in Mekens - Galucio 2014). Moreover, in most languages it does not extend beyond third
persons - although some languages, Like Kayabí, have coreferential markers for all persons (Dobson
2005).
Macro-Jê: Rodrigues (1999) mentions that some Macro-Jê languages have what looks like a switch
reference system in coordinate clauses, notably Kipea, Canela (Timbira) and Maxakali, all three
languages spoken in the east of Brazil. Although the existence of these SR systems in eastern South
America is highly interesting, the area falls out of the scope of this paper.
The sample used for the present study is given in Map 1; the numbers in the map refer to the languages
in Table 1, the gray dots represent languages that are discussed to some extent, but do not form part of
the sample for which distance measures were calculated, due to lack of sufficient data.
6
MAP 1: Sample used in this study
Table 1: Languages of the sample and their affiliations
Nr Iso code Name Family
1 tuf Tunebo Chibchan
2 pbb Páez Isolate
3 gum Guambiano Barbacoan
4 cub Cubeo Tucanoan
5 kwi Awa Pit Barbacoan
6 gvc Guanano Tucanoan
7 cbi Cha'palaachi Barbacoan
8 des Desano Tucanoan
9 tae Tariana Arawakan
10 tue Tuyuca Tucanoan
11 qvi Imbabura Quechua Quechuan
12 snn Siona Tucanoan
13 con Cofán Isolate
14 cof Tsafiki Barbacoan
15 qug Chimborazo Quichua Quechuan
16 acu Achuar Jivaroan
17 jiv Shuar Jivaroan
1
23
456
7
8910
11
12
1314
15
1617
181920
2122
2324
2526
27 2829
30 313233 34
353637
38 39
40 41
42
4344
7
18 mpq Matís Panoan
19 ura Urarina Isolate
20 agr Aguaruna Jivaroan
21 mcf Matsés Panoan
22 quk Chachapoyas Quechua Quechuan
23 qvs San Martín Quechua Quechuan
24 shp Shipibo Panoan
25 swo Shanenawa Panoan
26 cbr Kashibo-Kakataibo Panoan
27 qxo Ancash Quechua Quechuan
28 qub Huallaga Quechua Quechuan
29 amc Amawaka Panoan
30 qvp Pacaraos Quechua Quechuan
31 qvn North Junin Quechua Quechuan
32 xwa Kwaza Isolate
33 qxw Jauja Wanca Quechua Quechuan
34 ese Ese Ejja Tacanan
35 aro Araona Tacanan
36 wmd Mamaindê Nambikwaran
37 cav Cavineña Tacanan
38 quy Ayacucho Quechua Quechuan
39 quz Cusco Quechua Quechuan
40 ure Uchumataqu Uru-Chipaya
41 yuz Yurakaré Isolate
42 cap Chipaya Uru-Chipaya
43 ayr Central Aymaran Aymaran
44 quh Bolivian Quechua Quechuan
3. Switch reference
In this section I will first give the outlines of the type of constructions I look at in this paper, and then
discuss a multivariate approach to the phenomenon under study.
3.1. Delimiting SR
Switch reference has been the object of a considerable amount of studies, and yet it is still elusive
as a phenomenon, in part because SR is not a single-variable phenomenon, in part also because it has
aspects in common with a host of related phenomena (see Van Gijn & Hammond, this volume). The
major reference work scholars still refer to for a canonical definition of switch reference is the edited
volume by Haiman & Munro (1983), who define the phenomenon as “an inflectional category of the
verb, which indicates whether or not its subject is identical with the subject of some other verb” (p.
ix). The ongoing discussions especially since Haiman & Munro (1983) have made it clear that switch-
8
reference is a multi-layered, multi-factorial phenomenon with many connections to other types of
reference tracking and discourse-structuring systems. Attempting to isolate a group of structures
within this realm and call them switch-reference systems is a serious challenge, and will most
probably always involve some arbitrary decisions. Nevertheless, on the basis of the parameters given
above, I will attempt to come to a description of the kinds of structures that I will consider for this
paper, which enables me to compare languages to each other.
In the first place, I will look at switch-reference systems. That is, most if not all languages may
have complex sentence constructions that can only be used for same-subject relations, or perhaps
(though probably less commonly) only for different-subject relations, but the hallmark of switch-
reference systems is that they form opposing, and mutually exclusive pairs of encoding patterns used
in the same type of construction, where one encoding is characterized as indicating identity, and the
other as non-identity. So the first limitation we pose onto switch-reference systems is that a) there is a
- minimally binary - opposition between two encodings that denote similar interclausal semantic
relation types, b) the opposition is principally determined by referential (non-)identity between two
participants in different events - such that both or all construction types are highly restricted in their
referential interpretation.3
Second, I compare only those systems that can be said to form a morphological paradigm, i.e.
where all, or all but one of the possible values in the opposition are marked by some overt morpheme
or morphological operation as compared to independent clauses. This includes (bound) pronouns that
are formally different from their counterparts in independent clauses (for at least one of the opposite
SR values). Not included are those oppositions characterized by the presence or absence of pivotal
arguments only.
Third, I look at those constructions that involve interpretation domains for which the interpretative
resolution lies outside the clause or predication proper, but inside the next interpretative domain,
whether a sentence or a clause chain. This criterion rules out long-distance reflexives that can also
have their antecedent within the clausal domain. Interpretative resolution involves at least two
arguments, a referentially dependent or relative argument and an anchor or controller argument.
Fourth, I only look at those systems that apply regardless of person value. Some reference-tracking
systems, like logophoric systems or so-called fourth-person systems as found in e.g. Central Alaskan
Yup’ik (see e.g. Payne 1980, Woodbury 1983) and similar systems in a number of Tupian languages
(see e.g. Jensen 1999), tend to apply only when third persons are involved. This means that the system
as it exists in most present-day versions of Tupian languages (which are spread throughout the
continent, including some parts of western South America) are not taken into consideration, as they
have special pronominal forms for coreferent third persons only, even though a system has been
reconstructed for Tupian which involved all persons (Jensen 1990, 1998). Furthermore, there are some
3 This does not mean that I do not consider pragmatic factors that can override the referential basis, but I regard them as
conditions, thus highlighting the role of referential identity, which seems to play a role in all of these systems, even if they
are heavily influenced by pragmatics of inter-event coherence (Stirling 1993).
9
other differences between the Tupian system and the SR systems as found in western South America,
such as that the coreferent bound pronoun in Tupian is also used for the possessor, and the fact that it
is the coreferent rather than the non-coreferent forms that are marked.
3.2. A multivariate approach to SR
Even within the confines of the definition above, switch-reference systems can differ from each other
on a number of aspects. It is precisely these variable aspects that may give us clearer insights into
possible connections between SR systems in different languages. The approach taken in this paper,
therefore, is to regard these aspects as variables, which in turn form the basis for a distance measure
between the different SR systems presented in Section 5 below. Such a multivariate approach to
comparative linguistics has proven to be useful in typology (Bickel 2010a, b, 2012, Corbett 2005,
2012, Van Gijn & Zúñiga 2014) but also in family-internal comparison (Van Gijn et al. 2015) and
contact situations (Van Gijn & Hammarström in prep).
The variables considered here are based on the typological literature on SR (notably Haiman &
Munro 1983, Foley & Van Valin 1984, Stirling 1993, Huang 2000, Bickel 2010b, Matić et al. 2014,
and on Van Gijn & Hammond, this volume). A relational database was set up that allows for the
systematic storage and comparison of the relevant information of the values for these variables. The
database is sorted by marker: each marker forms a separate entry in the database; all the variables and
values that follow are assessed with respect to each individual marker.
Figure 1 (Van Gijn & Hammond, this volume) shows the several meaningful parts of a SR
construction.
Figure 1: The parts of a SR construction
The marked clause necessarily contains a SR marker, which refers to a reference clause participant
(the controller participant). The pivotal argument of the marked clause is the relativ participant. There
is furthermore a relationship between the clauses as well as between the pivotal arguments, and one or
domain
Marked clause Reference clause
Marker
relative participant
controller participant
context
relation
relation
10
more markers encoding at least the latter relation. Wider aspects of SR concern the domain within
which it operates (typically a multi-clausal unit) and the wider context (often a narrative context).
Each of these component parts of a SR construction gives rise to one or more variables.
Unfortunately the available information on the languages in the sample, though generally of high
quality, did not allow for the consideration of the full range of variables, but most key variables could
be assessed to the extent that makes a comparison possible.
In what follows I discuss the variables that are kept track of in the database in three thematic
groups: the markers, the marked clause, the inter-clausal relations, and the categories of the relative
and controller participants. Finally, I briefly discuss contextual conditions that may interfere with the
basic system.
Since at least N-1 of the total number of constructions that are in opposition to each other is
required to have some formal marker, we can keep track of the markers themselves. In the first place,
marker-related variables involve the phonetic form of the marker, but also - more abstractly - its
morphological properties, like the type of morpheme, what host it attaches to, and the position with
respect to that host. The database contains the variables and their values displayed in Table 2.4
Table 2: SR markers - formal variables and their values
variable values
Morpheme form (open value)
Fusion isolating, concatenative, non-linear, zero
Host verb, verb phrase, clause, none
Position pre, post, in, free
The phonetic form variable obviously has an open value list, since the variation is in principle not
restricted. This variable is mainly important to be able to determine whether or not phonetic substance
is transferred from one language to another, as well as the family-internal stability of the actual forms
of the markers.
The fusion values relate to the phonological independence of the SR marker(s), combinations are
obviously possible. The host values give information about the selection restrictions of the SR
markers, and the position distinguishes markers that precede a host from those that follow, or those
that are expressed simultaneously with their host (in), or those that are not positioned with respect to a
host (free). The list of values is a reflection of what is encountered in the languages of the sample and
by no means complete.
Apart from marking identity or non-identity, a SR marker may encode further information, which
leads to en expansion of the number of SR markers beyond two. The additional values also form an
4 Most of these values are built up from the data provided by the languages in the database, so that the values for each
variable are not exhaustive. Since I look at oppositions, “zero” morphology is also taken into consideration, though without
making any claims about the “reality” of zero morphemes. The sets of questions (apart from the ones relating to interclausal
semantics) are asked separately with respect to identity and non-identity markers.
11
open-ended list, which is built up on the basis of the empirical facts presented by the languages of the
sample, leading to languages whose SR markers also encode TMA values, in particular mood
distinctions (realis versus irrealis), those that mark referential aspects of participants (person, number,
gender), and those that additionally mark the type of interclausal semantics of the construction. The
additional functions of SR markers in the data set are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: SR markers - additional functions of SR markers
variable values
Additional inflectional categories TMA, referential values
A switch-reference construction typically consists of one or more marked clauses and a controller
clause. One of the possible differences between SR systems between languages is whether or not the
presence of a SR marker has any consequences for person inflection in the marked clause. The
variable and its values pertaining to the marked clause are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Marked clause variables and their values.
variable values
person marking in marked clause as in independent clause (present), as in independent clause
(absent), different from independent clause (absent), different
from independent clause (present - i.e. different person inflection)
Another criterion of potential cross-linguistic variation that relates to the construction as a whole is
the order of clauses. Is SR marking anaphoric or cataphoric, i.e. is the order marked clause - reference
clause, or vice versa, or perhaps both options are possible. If both options are available, but there is a
clearly stated preference for one over the other, this is considered as a separate situation type (see
Table 5).5
Table 5: The variable “clause order”and its values
variable values
clause order marked-reference; reference-marked; no preference; preference
for marked-reference; preference for reference-marked
Languages with an SR system may show variation in terms of the semantic or syntactic functions
involved in SR. Potential controllers and relative arguments of SR constructions may be describable in
5 Admittedly, this allows for some degree of subjectivity. In practice, however, positional preference seems to be
clearly distinguishable.
12
terms of syntactic roles (e.g. subject), in terms of semantic roles (e.g. actor), or pragmatic roles (e.g.
topic). Since these categories may or may not be equivalent for controller and relative arguments, they
need to be coded separately for identity and non-identity relations. Table 6 gives the values
Table 6: The categorial restrictions variables and their values
variable values
Participant roled involved in SR S/A (nominative), S/P (absolutive), S (intransitive
participant), A (ergative), P (accusative), Agent, Topic
Languages (or SR markers within languages) may furthermore differ with respect to the types of
semantic contexts in which they occur. It is rather difficult to assess the semantic range of SR markers
sometimes, as it may depend on context. I have tried, on the basis of explicit statements by the authors
as well as examples given in the grammatical descriptions, to be as complete as possible. The values
have been generated in a bottom-up fashion and defined semantically, based on the idea that contact-
induced language change is rooted in semantics (and pragmatics) - see e.g. Heine & Kuteva (2005),
Matras & Sakel (2007). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the semantic types per marker are
open to modifications in the light of more detailed data analyses in some cases. The values are given
in Table 7.
Table 7: Interclausal semantics.
variable values (bottom up)
semantics
clause linkage
temporal (simultaneous, overlapping, after, before), condition (standard, counterfactual),
purpose, reason, concession, desire complement, perception complements, knowledge
complements, fear complements, modifying relations (relativization), coordination
3.3. Additional remarks
Stirling (1993) argues for a much broader functionality of switch reference. In her perspective, switch
reference is about congruence between eventualities, of which referential continuity forms a sub-
function. One common aspect to the systems surveyed by Stirling is nevertheless that referential (non-
)identity (whether syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic) always seems to form part of the pivot, even if it
may be overridden by other, non-referential factors, whereas the other pivot types may be absent. For
this reason, I have chosen to take referential (dis)continuity as the basis for coding. Nevertheless, a
number of languages in the sample show deviations from the referential (dis)continuity basis, and in a
number of cases these deviations occur to satisfy another, discourse related principles, in line with
Stirling’s work. I have kept track of these discourse principles as well, but they were not taken into
account for the distance calculations, because they were too disparate. I come back to the types of
13
discourse-related principles at work in the languages of the sample throughout section 4 and in section
5.
The variables discussed in the previous subsection form the basis for the comparison between the
South American languages in this study. However, further variables are imaginable that have not been
coded here for lack of sufficient useful data. I will briefly mention a few additional constraints that
may provide fruitful lines of inquiry for future research.
Typologists have been concerned with what constitutes same and different in terms of
referentiality, beyond the specific role that is being tracked. SR systems may differ in whether or not
they allow for inclusion of the tracked participant in one of the clauses into the group of participants in
the other clause to be interpreted as an identity relation. Perhaps another way to state this point is
whether an SR system is sensitive to person value, or to person + number value. In principle, this
would yield three types of systems: one where the pivot may include the controller under an identity
reading, one where the controller may include the pivot, and one where strict identity is required for an
identity reading. Unfortunately the languages surveyed in this study show too many gaps with respect
to this parameter for it to be useful from a comparative perspective.
Another potential variable is whether, in a situation of a chain of marked clauses and one controller
clause, marked clauses always refer to the next clause (whether a marked clause or a controller clause)
or whether all marked clauses refer to the one controller clause. This could lead to a typology of local
scope systems versus global scope systems, and perhaps a third, flexible, system. Some grammars of
the languages coded in the database do actually discuss this aspect, and I will briefly mention some
aspects relating to this variable, but there is not enough material to warrant a useful comparison
between all languages in the sample.
Finally, languages may differ in terms of whether they employ their SR system for tail-head
linkage (de Vries 2005). Again there is some information on this for a few languages, which I will
briefly discuss below, but not enough material for a full comparison.
4. SR patterns in the Andes and Upper Amazon
This section describes the patterns found for the languages in the sample, discussing the facts for each
family (4.1 - 4.8), the isolates (4.9) and the odd-ones-out (4.10).
4.1. Quechuan
To my knowledge, all Quechuan languages have a switch-reference system, and there is quite a bit of
common ground between the systems in the different languages. However, the Ecuadorian Quechuan
languages show deviant patterns. Figure 2 indicates how the Quechuan languages in the sample relate
to each other, based on the classification in Hammarström et al. (2014).
14
Figure 2: The Quechuan languages in the sample
An overview of SR markers and their functions is shown in Table 8. The first column displays the
languages in the sample, the second the subclassification into Quechua I (central Peru), Quechua IIB
(Northern Peru, Ecuador), and Quechua IIC (Southern Peru, Bolivia); the status of what is often called
Quechua IIA (though Hammarström et al. 2014 give no additional letter to this group) is controversial
because it does not form a unity in itself but rather a group that falls in between Quechua I and II
(Adelaar with Muysken 2004: 186). The third and fourth columns show the identity markers for
temporal/conditional clauses (column 3) and for purpose clauses (column 4). The non-identity markers
for the same two contexts are shown in columns 5 and 6. All markers are suffixes that attach to the
verb.
Table 8: Quechuan SR markers
IDENTITY MARKERS NON-IDENTITY MARKERS
TEMPORAL/CONDITIONAL PURPOSE TEMP/COND PURPOSE
Jauja Wanca I l pti
Tarma I r pti
Huallaga I ʃpa r pti
Ancash I ʃpa r(nin) pti
Pacaraos II ʃpa pti
San Martin IIB ʃpa pti
Chachapoyas IIB ʃ(pa) ti
Imbabura IIB ʃpa ngapah hpi ʧun
QUECHUAN
Pacaraos
San Martin Chachapoyas Imbabura Chimborazo
Cuzco Ayacucho Bolivian
QUECHUA I
QUECHUA II IIB
IIC
Huallaga Jauja Wanca North Junín Ancash
15
Chimborazo IIB ʃpa ngapak kpi tun
Ayacucho IIC spa stin pti
Cuzco IIC spa qti
Bolivian Quechua IIC spa qti
As can be seen in Table 8, there is a fair amount of overlap in the forms, which moreover suggest a
diachronic development within the family. The markers shared by most languages are -ʃpa/-spa for
temporal/conditional same-subject clauses and -pti with several (related) variations for different-
subject clauses. The Quechuan subgroups can be recognized to some extent on the basis of the
markers: the same-subject marker -r/-l only occurs in Quechua I languages, and the purpose markers
are an innovation in Quechua IIB. In fact, San Martín and Chachapoyas Quechua are geographically
intermediate between the Quechua I area and the other languages of Quechua IIB. Imbabura and
Chimborazo are furthest removed from what seems to be a core Quechua system. Not only do they
have separate markers for purpose clauses, they also are the only two languages where the DS marker
for temporal/conditional clauses without a /t/. In the IIC group Ayacucho differs from Cuzco and
Bolivian Quechua. The latter two are often regarded as part of the same dialect continuum (Adelaar
with Muysken 2004: 187).
Huallaga Quechua has both -ʃpa and -r. According to Weber (1989: 299) there is no functional
difference between the two markers, they are used in parallel contexts. However, the fact that -ʃpa
requires an inflectional subject marker and -r does not allow for any overt inflectional person marker
makes the former the preferred option in some cases. Cole (1983), for Ancash, mentions that the
difference between -r and -ʃpa in Ancash is determined by relatedness of events: -r is used when the
events are related (e.g when the occurrence of one event depends on the other), -ʃpa is used when this
is not the case. The form -rnin in Ancash is in free variation with -r. The element -nin is homophonous
with the third person subject agreement marker, but it does not have that function in the form -rnin
(Cole 1983: 14).
In terms of same-subject marking, Pacaraos (Adelaar 1987) sides with the Quechua IIC
languages, which all have only the marker -ʃpa for same-subject temporal clauses.6 As mentioned, the
northernost Quechua IIC languages Imbabura (Cole 1982, 1983) and Chimborazo (Beukema 1975)
have acquired SR markers for purpose clauses. The opposition -chun (non-identity) versus -ngapaj
(identity) found in Imbabura Quechua can be found in purpose clauses, but it extends to desire
complements. Imbabura Quechua, unlike most of its relatives, developed a SR opposition for purpose
relations, of which the identity marker -ngapaj shows a potential affinity with Awa Pit’s (non-identity)
purpose marker -napa7 and whose non-identity marker -chun may be related to e.g. Tsáfiki’s purpose
6 There is an alternation in Chachapoyas Quechua (Weber 1975) between - ʃpa, which is mainly used in conditional contexts,
and -ʃ which is used in other contexts. 7 The source of this marker, however, is probably Quechuan, from a combination of irrealis nominalizer -na and benefactive
marker -paq.
16
marker (non-SR sensitive) -chu.8 Quechua was introduced only late, after the Spanish arrival, in an
area formerly dominated linguistically by an extinct, probably Barbacoan language Cara (Bruil 2008),
so mutual influence is probable, also in the form of (Barbacoan?) substrate in Imbabura Quechua. In
Imbabura Quechua, the “subjunctive” SR system has expanded to mark complements of desire verbs
as well, possibly under Spanish influence (Bruil 2008).
Ayacucho Quechua (Hartmann, ed. 1994) has two same-subject temporal markers, -spa and -stin.
The latter is used when the events occur simultaneously. The marker -ʃtin as an adverbial clause
marker is found in North Junín, or Tarma Quechua, but not with SR functionality, and regionally
restricted (Adelaar 1977: 101). The opposed different-subject/simultaneous construction is marked
with the durative marker -ʧka and the different subject marker -pti.
In terms of their semantics, the group of temporal/conditional markers usually has a rather broad
range of possible interpretations, including temporal overlap, succession, simultaneity, condition
(standard and concessive), and often also reason. In San Martín Quechua, SR extends to relatives as
well (Howkins 1977). Certain interpretations are the result of the combination of the SR marker with
some other marker. For instance, in Ayacucho Quechua, different-subject reason interpretations result
from the combination of the SR markers with the assertive enclitic =mi, and a concessive reading in
combination with the additive enclitic =pas.
Another type difference between the markers is the effect they have on person marking on the
dependent predicate. Many of the Quechuan SR markers have a nominalizing effect in that they
require the subjects of the dependent verbs to be marked by possessor suffixes.
(5) Huallaga Quechua [QUECHUAN], Weber 1983: 281
chaya-pti-nchi qoyku-shaq
arrive-NONID-1INCL.POSS give-1FUT
‘When we (incl) arrive, I will give it to him.’
Some of the markers are incompatible with person inflection.
(6) Bolivian Quechua [QUECHUAN] , van de Kerke 1996: 8
p’acha-ta t’aqsa-y ni-spa ni-wa-rqa
cloth-ACC wash-IMP say-IDENT say-1OBJ-3SG.PST
‘“Wash the clothes” saying, she said to me.’
There is some variation between the Quechuan languages with respect to this parameter, although the
tendency is clearly towards nominal person inflection for non-identity marked clauses, and no person
8 Here there is a possible, but less likely Quechua source -chun for third person imperative (Bruil 2008).
17
inflection for identity marked clauses, as is shown in Table 9.9 In Pacaraos Quechua, different subject
clauses are combined with person inflection, which is identical for possessive and subject (Adelaar
1987) do strictly speaking it is impossible to tell whether there is verbal or nominal inflection.
Table 9: subject person inflection in marked clauses in Quechuan languages
NO PERSON INFLECTION NOMINAL PERSON INFLECTION
Huallaga identity -r identity -shpa non-identity -pti
Jauja Wanca identity -l non-identity -pti
Tarma identity -r identity -r, non-identity -pti
Ancash identity -r(nin) non-identity -pti
Pacaraos identity -shpa non-identity -pti
San Martin identity -shpa non-identity -pti
Chachapoyas identity -sh(pa) non-identity -ti
Imbabura all
Chimborazo all
Ayacucho identity -stin identity -spa, non-identity -pti
Cuzco identity -spa non-identity -qti
Bolivian Quechua identity -spa non-identity -qti
Imbabura Quechua controllers and pivots can to a large extent be defined syntactically, involving
the S/A argument in both cases, but Cole (1983) indicates the following exceptions to this pattern:10
(7) Imbabura Quechua [QUECHUAN], Cole 1983: 6-7
a. ali-mi Ø/ñuka/kan/*pay Juzi-wan parla-ngapaj
good-EVID one/I/you/*he José-COM speak-IDENT
‘It is good that one/I/you/*he speaks with José.’
b. ali-mi Ø/*ñuka/*kan/pay Juzi-wan parla-chun
good-EVID one/I/you/*he José-COM speak-NONID
‘It is good that *one/*I/*you/he speaks with José.’
Impersonal main clauses in Imbabura Quechua control the SR suffixes in an unusual way, the
identity marker -ngapaj forces either an impersonal reading or a SAP reading, the non-identity marker
forces a personal non-SAP reading. It is not clear to what extent ‘deviations’ from the subject pattern
9 In Pacaraos Quechua, different subject clauses are combined with person inflection, which is identical for possessive and
subject (Adelaar 1987) do strictly speaking it is impossible to tell whether there is verbal or nominal inflection. They are
nevertheless grouped with the nominal inflection group. In Tarma Quechua, subject inflection for identical subject clauses is
optional, therefore it appears in both coleumns. However, an r-clause with person inflection is rare (Adelaar 2011). 10 Curnow (1997: 280) reports for the Barbacoan language Awa Pit that similar clauses to the ones in (7) are always marked
with the same-subject (infinitive) marker, even though the subjects are different. Since in these contexts there is no different-
subject counterpart, they are not considered in this study.
18
occur in other Quechuan languages, and whether they show any systematicity. Howkins (1977)
mentions that there are instances where constructions with identical subjects are nevertheless marked
with the non-identity marker -pti in San Martín Quechua. Unfortunately no generalizations are made,
and Howkins calls it a marginal phenomenon. Ebina (2011: 34) claims for Cuzco Quechua that “the
use of -spa or -qti seems to depend on whether the two actions are considered to comprise one (in case
of -spa) or two different events (in case of -qti)”, unfortunately without examples. Bruil (2008) shows
that in Imbabura Quechua, the purposive complement of certain verbs (e.g. munana ‘want’ and
cachaca ‘send’) can get identity markers on them in cases of different subjects. It seems likely that
more ‘non-standard’ usages will come to light on closer inspection.
All in all, the Quechuan languages show a picture of a clear genealogical core, which must have
been in place before the diffusion of the different languages. However, it also shows signs of contact-
related phenomena, particularly in the Ecuadorian languages, which have developed a SR system for
purpose clauses which extended further, possibly under Spanish influence, into complements of desire
verbs at least in Imbabura Quechua.
4.2. Tacanan
The small Tacanan language family consists of 7 (Hammarström et al. 2014) languages spoken in
northern lowland Bolivia. The patterns of SR are much less homogeneous than they are for Quechuan
languages. The three Tacanan languages in the sample are Cavineña, Ese Ejja, and Araona. There is
also information available for Reyesano, or Maropa (Guillaume 2012) but that language does not seem
to have a SR system. The position of the sample languages in the Tacanan tree are given in Figure 3.
Figure 3: The Tacanan languages of the sample
Of the three Tacanan languages in the sample, Cavineña seems to have the simplest system, with two
opposing markers, -tsu (identity) and =ju (non-identity), shown in (8), a repetition of (1).
(8) Cavineña [TACANAN], Guillaume 2008: 702 & 725
a. udya=tu-ke =Ø [imeta-tsu] mare-kware
then=3SG-FM (=1SG.ERG) point.at-IDENT shoot.at-REM.PAST
TACANAN Ese Ejja
Araona
TAKANIK-
CHAMIC
ARAONA-
TROROMONO
Cavineña
19
‘Then I pointed (my rifle) at it (a peccary) and shot it.’
b. [tu-ra mare-wa=ju] =tu pakaka-wa
3SG-ERG shoot.at-PERF=NONID =3SG(-FM) fall-PERF
‘He (Lucio) shot at it (the porcupine), and it fell down.’
The markers for same subject (-tsu) and different subject (=ju) are not equivalent in that the former is a
suffix that attaches to verbs, and the latter an enclitic that attaches to the last element of the
subordinate clause. The opposition between the markers is found for temporal clauses of succession or
overlap. Like is the case in all subordinate clauses in Cavineña, there is no person marking in the
marked clause.
The basic system of Araona in the description of Pitman (1980) is given in Table 10.
Table 10: The SR system of Araona as described in Pitman (1980)
RELATION TYPE IDENTITY NON-IDENTITY
sequence -tso -hao
purpose/reason ezae poho
concession bime powe
Pitman (1980) analyzes the top two markers as suffixes and the rest as free forms. The system is
slightly different in Emkow (2006) who analyzes =tso as a clitic that attaches either to the verb or to
the auxiliary if there is one. She has no examples of clauses marked with -hao in her corpus. Emkow
furthermore mentions that, while =tso requires the subject of the marking and reference clause to be
the same in most circumstances; this is not the case when either the marked or the reference clause is a
copula clause.
(9) Araona [TACANAN], (Emkow, 2006: 682)
[hana ti a=tso] zotokana a-bei pi=po=rna
food eat AUX.TR-SEQ jaguar COP-aggressive NEG=AUX.COP=NEG
'After (the Araona) had given food to the jaguar the jaguar was not aggressive,'
The concessive opposition is not discussed in Emkow, the purposive identity versus non-identity
construction is recognized; the opposition for purpose clauses pa= ... =pojo versus pa=... ezae,
whereby SR marking effectively takes place with the opposition =pojo /poho/ (a verbal clitic with the
same distribution as =tso) and a phonologically free form ezae /ɛzaɛ/.
The system in Ese Ejja is quite different. Table 11 displays the SR markers of Ese Ejja (Vuillermet
2012, 2014). Vuillermet analyzes the SR markers of Ese Ejja (Tacanan) as enclitics, because they are
not part of the phonological word, although they are positionally and selectionally restrictive.
20
Table 11: The SR markers of Ese Ejja (Tacanan)
IDENTITY
MARKER RELATION TYPE CONTROLLER DEPENDENT
xehoho Reason Subject (S) Absolutive (S/P)
axehoho Reason Ergative (A) Subject (S)
xemo Conditional (standard) Subject (S) Absolutive (S/P)
axemo Conditional (standard) Ergative (A) Subject (S)
ximawa Temporal When Subject (S) Absolutive (S/P)
ximawaa Temporal When Ergative (A) Subject (S)
axe Temporal When Subject (S/A) Object (P)
maxe Temporal When Subject (S/A) Subject (S/A)
NON-IDENTITY
hoho Reason Subject (S/A) Subject (S/A)
hoxemo Conditional (standard) Subject (S/A) Subject (S/A)
ximawaho Temporal When Subject (S/A) Subject (S/A)
aho Temporal When Subject (S/A) Subject (S/A)
The Ese Ejja SR system has in common with Araona that it has different sets of markers for different
semantic relations between clauses, but the commonalities end there. In fact, as we will see in the next
section, Ese Ejja SR is rather like Panoan SR. Like Panoan languages, apart from having markers
specialized for the type of relation between the marked clause and the final clause, the language has
different markers for different types of combinations of categories of controlling and dependent
participants, including a split between A and S and a subject to object coreference marker. There are
also some differences (like an absolutive pivot, an S to A pivot, a marker for reason clauses). In terms
of the phonetic form of the markers, moreover, there are many differences with the Panoan ones, and a
possible overlap with Cavineña and Araona only in the temporal (when) non-identity marker.
Vuillermet (2014) shows that most of the markers are in fact taken from other parts of the grammar, in
particular case markers. Another salient aspect of the phonetic form of the markers is the recurrence of
phonetic strings across the paradigm, suggesting a past where perhaps a number of the feature values
had a more separative exponence. This may hint at the fact that the SR part of the system could in fact
have been much simpler. Whether or not person inflection appears on the verb of the marked clause is
dependent on other criteria, and in fact orthogonal to SR marking (see Vuillermet 2012, 2014 for more
details).
The Tacanan languages, in conclusion, show a rather disparate pattern, with each language
displaying a rather different system. Whereas the system in Cavineña is not unlike the Quechua style
SR, with two opposed markers applying in temporal contexts, the system of Ese Ejja is rather more
21
like the Panoan languages. This makes for an interesting case because Tacanan, the family to which
Cavineña and Ese Ejja belong, is sometimes claimed to be related to Panoan, although this has not
been convincingly proven.11
If Ese Ejja indeed is more conservative than the other Tacanan languages
in terms of its SR system, perhaps Araona, and especially Tacanan, have lost many of the features of
their original system due to contact with Inca factions (see Renard-Casevitz et al. 1988), making the
system rather more like Quechuan.
4.3. Panoan
The relevant categories of controllers and relative arguments for most languages in the sample are
readily describable in terms of subject (S/A). Deviations from this generalization are found in the
Panoan languages, which have a complex system interacting with transitivity, as well as with
interclausal semantics. At the core of Panoan systems is a system with different markers for events
that precede, are simultaneous with, or follow the event in the reference clause in time. In addition,
identity markers in all Panoan languages are sensitive to the transitivity of the controller event, leading
to a minimum of 6 identity markers, as indicated in Table 12:
Table 12: Minimum ingredients of Panoan SR systems
Relative time dependent event relative argument controller argument
anterior S/A S
S/A A
simultaneous S/A S
S/A A
posterior S/A S
S/A A
Non-identity markers generally exist for the three relative time situations, but do not interact with the
transitvity value of the reference clause. The systems of the individual languages are more complex
than this core system. The Panoan languages of the sample (see Figure 4) all have these basic
oppositions, but also make additional distinctions.
11 Interestingly, Loos (p. 227) mentions the forms of the SR markers as a possible point of overlap between the Panoan and
Tacanan languages. This is not corroborated by the present study.
22
Figure 4: The Panoan languages of the sample
The systems of Shipibo-Konibo (Valenzuela 2003) and Kashibo-Kakataibo (Zariquiey 2012)
overlap to a considerable extent, including the form of the markers, clearly suggesting a common
source. Table 13 displays the identity markers in both languages, for the different relative time types,
organized by form of the marker.12
Table 13: identity markers of Shipibo and Kashibo
Marker Relative time Controller Relative
Shipibo Kashibo Shipibo Kashibo Shipibo Kashibo Shipibo Kashibo
-ax -ax After After/While* S S S/A S/A
-xon -xun After After/While* A A S/A S/A
-taanan -tanan After While S/A S/A S/A S/A
-a -ia After While S/A S/A/P P P
-i -i While While S S S/A S/A
-kin -kin While While A A S/A S/A
-anan -anan While While S/A S/A** S/A S/A*
-nox -nux Prp Prp S S S/A S/A
-no(n)xon -nuxun Prp Prp A A S/A S/A
-tankëx After S S/A
-tankëxun After A S/A
-këtian After P S/A/P
-këx After S P
-këxun After A P
12 * = Also used for conditionals; ** =Only if objects are different
PANOAN Kashibo-
Kakataibo
Shipibo-
Konibo MAINLINE PANO-NAWA
Matsés Matis
MAYORUNA
KASHIBO
HEADWATERS Amawaka Shanenawa
23
It is clear from the table that, even though there are a number of differences between both systems,
they share a good part, both in terms of organization of the system and in the forms of the markers13
,
although there have apparently been some semantic shifts, and Kashibo-Kakataibo has a more
elaborate system, in particular with respect to successive relations.
Matís and Matses belong to a different branch than Kashibo Kakataibo and Shipibo, and they are
also geographically rather far away. Nevertheless, their systems of SR are also unmistakably Panoan,
including the forms of the markers. The systems of Matses and Matis allow for a systemic
organization of Table 14. Data from Matsés come from Fleck (2003), for Matis from Ferreira (2005).
Table 14: Identity markers in Matsés and Matis
Relative time Relative participant Controller Matsés Matis
Anterior S/A A ash ash
S/A S shun shun
S/A A tanec
S/A S tanquin
S/A A anec
S/A S anquin
S/A P ac ak
Simultaneous S/A S ec ek
S/A A quin/en kin
S/A P sho sho
Posterior S/A S nush nush
S/A A nun nun
S/A S nuec
S/A A nuen
The system of Matses, with a number of extra markers for anterior events, shows some similarities
with the system of Kashibo-Kakataibo, suggesting that the original Panoan system was rather more
complex than the core system indicated in Table 12. The several markers for succession relations in
Matsés have subtle meaning differences, forming three pairs, on the basis of how much time may pass
between the events.14
(10) Matsés [Panoan], Fleck 2003: 1093
a. -ash/shun adjacent or with intervening time periods
b. -anec/anquin two parts of the same episode (first is a locomotion verb)
13
The SR markers in Panoan languages, which in most cases seem tob e complex, have similar correspondences
to the case systems in the different languages oft he family, a feature also found in for instance in Tacanan and
Jivaroan languages. This merits a study in ist own right, but goes beyond the scope of this paper. 14
Similar factors play a role in Shipibo-Konibo fort he markers -tian (temporally adjacent versus -n (mostly
temporally non-adjacent).
24
c. -t-anec/t-anquin adjacent sequential episodes
They moreover differ in the additional meanings they can take on: -anec and -anquin have a single
interpretation ‘after’, the element -t preceding these markers adds further possible interpretations as
reason clauses. The suffixes -ash and -shun can have additional interpretations condition, reason, and
concession (Fleck 2003: 1083). The suffix -ec in Matsés can also be used for purpose relations.
Finally, they differ in terms of a default object co-reference, which is strongest for -anquin, weakest
for -shun (Ibid. 1093).
With regard to non-identity markers, there is slightly more variation, as can be seen in Table 15,
which also includes data from Amawaka (Sparing-Chavez 2007) and Shanenawa (Vieira-Cândido
2004).
Table 15: Non-identity markers in the Panoan languages of the sample
shipibo cashibo amawaka shanenawa matses matis
anterior ketian an cun kɨn an an
ken bon bo
simultaneous nontian këbë(tan) hain aj na
ain mainun
aintian
posterior non nun non nun teno
Apart from temporal adjacency in at least Matsés and Shipibo-Konibo, there seems to be little
influence of discourse cohesion on the SR systems of Panoan languages. Nevertheless, in Kashibo-
Kakataibo there is a special construction involving two non-identical subjects, which may trigger
identity morphology.
(11) Kashibo-Kakataibo [PANOAN]. Zariquiey 2011: 592
a. uni pakët-këbë kaisa xanu kwan-akë-x-ín
man.ABS fall.down-NONID:S/A/P NAR.REP.3 woman.ABS go-REM.PST-3-PROX
‘It is said that, when the man fell down, the woman went.’
b. uni pakët-ia o-i kaisa xanu
man.ABS fall.down-IDENT.S/A/P>P FACT-S/A>S NAR.REP.3 woman.ABS
kwan-akë-x-ín
go-REM.PST-3-PROX
‘It is said that, when the man fell down, the woman went (but she saw him or was in
some way interested in or compromised with the event, because he was her husband,
her enemy or something like this).’
25
In (11a) the dependent clause carries a different subject marker indicating no overlap at all between
the participants of both clauses. In (11b), however, the same two events are encoded by a different
construction, involving a factitive element o- with an identity marker (S/A to S). Moreover, the
dependent verb form pakët-ia carries an identity marker core to P. According to Zariquiey (Ibid, 593),
“the subject of the main clause tends to be interpreted (1) as a perceiver and/or (2) as someone
emotionally concerned with the event”. It seems therefore that the factitive element syntactically
functions as a transitive verb, with the same subject as the main clause, and the same object as the
subject of the dependent.15
Amawaka has different succession identity markers depending on whether the shared participant
has been identified before (-cun for succession, -hain for simultaneity) or not (-havan for succession, -
haivaun for simultaneity).
All in all it seems clear that the systems in the different Panoan languages come from a common
ancestor. So if SR has diffused into Panoan languages through contact, it must have happened before
the languages started to fission. The differences between the systems may be attributable to contact,
but may also be due to internal processes of change. There is no clear independent evidence to
substantiate either claim.
4.4. Jivaroan
The Jivaroan family is rather young, and is therefore expected not to display very much variation
between its members. Nevertheless, the SR system, as shown in the contributions to this volume by
Overall and Gnerre, is rather different from those of the surrounding languages.
Figure 5: the Jivaroan languages considered in this study
The main criterion that sets the Jivaroan SR systems apart from most other SR systems in South
America is the fact that their SR system is intertwined not only with interclausal relation markers, but
also with the person-number agreement system.
The basic system of Aguaruna identity markers is given in Table 16 (Overall 2007: 390).
15
A similar type of incorporation of indirect participation exists in Yurakaré, for directives (see Van Gijn 2011
for details).
JIVAROAN Shuar
Achuar
SHUARIC
Aguaruna
26
Table 16: Aguaruna identity markers
SINGULAR PLURAL
First person -nu suppression of apocope / -i
Second person -mɨ
Third person nasalization of stem-final vowel
As can be seen in Table 16, the identity markers change according to the number of the subject, and -
in the singular - according to the person value of the subject. It can also be observed that some of the
person/identity markers are non-linear operations, another uncommon element in South American SR
systems.
The non-identity markers are slightly more complex, as they interact directly with interclausal
relation type and stem type as well, as can be seen in Table 17 (Overall 2007: 395)16
Table 17: Aguaruna non-identity markers.
RELATION PERSON/NUMBER
2SG 2PL 1/3
non-temporal - -taĩ
sequential -mɨ-nĩ -humɨ-nĩ
-mataĩ
simultaneous -ĩ
Table 17 shows that marking of non-identity relations, apart from person marking, interacts with
interclausal semantics. For the second person forms a different-subject element -nĩ can be
distinguished. The different interclausal semantics are in a number of cases overtly signalled: non-
temporal identity clauses carry an additional marker -sa (not present in non-temporal non-identity
clauses) which precedes the person/SR marker. Simultaneity clauses are additionally marked wih -ku
in both identity and non-identity clauses. A further conspicuous feature of non-identity markers in
Aguaruna is the first person - third person syncretism or collapse.
Finally, Aguaruna has a non-canonical subsystem of switch-reference with two markers, indicated
in Table 18.
Table 18: Non-canonical SR marking in Aguaruna
Suffix Role in marked clause Role in controlling clause
-ma non-subject subject
-tatamana subject object
16 The overview is slightly adapted to the needs of this paper, and is in fact more complex - see Overall 2007 and this volume
for details.
27
A number of characteristics and markers fom the Aguaruna system are also found in the other two
Jivaroan languages. In Shuar (Gnerre 1999, Saad 2014), the identity markers can be described by the
same template, as shown in Table 19 (Saad 2014: 121). The main differences are found in the plural
identity markers.
Table 19: Identity markers in Shuar
SINGULAR PLURAL
First person -n -r(i)
Second person -mɨ -rum:
Third person nasalization of stem-final vowel -war/-r:
Similarly, the non-identity markers of Shuar look very similar to those in Aguaruna, following the
same template, with some slight differences between the markers. In Shuar, like in Aguaruna, an
element can be isolated for the second person forms, which contributes the different-subject meaning:
-n, shown in Table 20 (based on Saad 2014: 115).
Table 20: Non-identity markers in Shuar
RELATION PERSON/NUMBER
2SG 2PL 1/3
non-temporal - -taĩ
sequential -mi-n -rumi-n
-mataĩ
simultaneous -inia (...) -ĩ
Some of the interclausal semantics are overtly marked in the same way as in Aguaruna: -sa for non-
temporal identity clauses, -ku for simultaneity clauses. Ku- appears between the elements -inia and -ĩ
of the non-second person form.
Like Aguaruna, Shuar also has a non-canonical part to its SR system. The suffix -ma marks that the
object of the marked clause is identical to the subject of the reference clause, as can be seen in
example (12) where the relevant connection between the clauses triggering the marker -ma is the first
person participant.
(12) Shuar [JIVAROAN]. Saad 2014: 142
suma-ru-ka-ma nuat-ka-mia-ha
propose.to-1SG.OBJ-INTS.PFV-IDENT.OBJ>SUBJ marry.woman-INTS.PFV-REM.PST-1SG
‘After she proposed to me, I married her.’
The characteristics of the system in Achuar are less clear. The examples given in Fast (1981) give rise
to Table 21
28
Table 21: SR markers in Achuar temporal clauses
1SG 2SG 3SG 1PL 2PL 3PL
SS kun kum k kur krum iniak
DS -when mtai k(u)min mtai krin krumin inai-mtai
DS-while jai amin jai arin armin uinai
There are some clear formal correspondences to Shuar forms as well as to Aguaruina forms - though to
a lesser extent, and in terms of the system, Achuar displays a 1-3rd
person syncretism in non-identity
relations (although the third person plural forms are slightly deviant, interaction with interclausal
semantics in non-identity clauses, and a recurring element -ku which may reanalysable as the
dependency-marking suffix also present in the other two Jivaroan languages. Achuar is currently
studied by Martin Kohlberger, which will undoubtedly lead to a more complete picture of the SR of
the language.
In sum, although the languages (or the analyses) seem to differ on some points, there is a clear
commonality to all systems, hallmarks of which are the forms of the markers, the intertwining with
person marking, a 1-3rd
person syncretism for the non-identity forms, and interactions between no-
identity marking and interclausal semantics.
4.5. Barbacoan
The Barbacoan language family consists of 7 (Hammarström et al. 2014) languages, mainly spoken in
western Ecuador, and south-western Columbia. The four Barbacoan languages of the sample (see
Figure 6) are Tsafiki (Dickinson 2002), Cha’paalachi (Vittadello 1988, Floyd 2010), Guambiano
(Branks 1980), and Awa Pit (Curnow 1997).
Figure 6: The Barbacoan languages of the sample
Table 22, from Floyd & Norcliffe (this volume) shows the basic structures of the SR systems in the
four languages.17
17 Vittadello does not regard -nu/-sa as SR opposites, and has some DS examples for -nu.
Tsafiki Cha’palaachi
Guambiano BARBACOAN COCONUCAN
CAYAPA-
COLORADO
UNCLASSIFIED
BARBACOAN Awa Pit
29
Table 22: SR markers in Barbacoan languages
TEMPORAL PURPOSE
IDENTITY NON-IDENTITY IDENTITY NON-IDENTITY
Cha’paala tu / ʔ ɲu / ɲa nu sa
Tsafiki to sa
Guambiano a en
Awa Pit na napa
A much more detailed analysis of the Barbacoan languages is found in the contribution by Floyd and
Norcliffe to this volume, I confine myself to the main variables of this study. All markers are suffixes
that attach to verbs, but there are quite some differences between the forms of the SR markers,
although there seems to be some overlap between closely related Cha’paala and Tsafiki, whose
sequential identity markers seem to be related, as well as the non-identity purpose marker of Cha’paala
and the non-identity sequential marker of Tsafiki. Tsafiki also has a marker -nan that indicates disjoint
reference in reason clauses (though no same reference counterpart), and -ñu /-ña in Cha’paala seems to
extend to reason clauses.
(13) Cha’paala [BARBACOAN] (Floyd 2010: 118)
Ke-mu de-e-ñu'=mityaa jeen uyala ti-la-a-ka
do-AG.NMLZ PL-become-NONID=RES wild foreigner say-COL-FOC-DUB
‘It is because they do that that they call them “wild (forest)” foreigners.’
The temporal SR markers in Guambiano are unspecified for either sequentiality or simultaneity. There
are alternative construction types to specify (non-)completion but hey are much less common, and not
SR sensitive (Branks 1980: 14). Branks (Ibid.) also mentions the opposition -endu vs. -gocha for
counterexpectational events, but it is unclear whether the opposition refers to an identity versus non-
identity distinction.
Tsafiki hardly has any person/agreement marking on the verb; there is only a non-obligatory
subject plural marker -la. It is unclear whether that marker can appear in the marked clauses. In Awa
Pit, marked clauses, like nearly all subordinate clauses, are non-finite and lack person marking. In
Guambiano verbs marked with a SR marker do not carry any further person inflection. The switch-
reference markers may also occur on the conjunction marker inch- (inchen versus incha) to form
when/while clauses.
One of the salient aspects of Tsafiki SR is that it seems to encode event continuity rather than strict
subject (non-)coreference, although subject (non-)coreference is one of the factors that can trigger
either disjoint or same reference markers. Example (14) shows that referential continuity can be
30
overridden by temporal continuity, in this case causing the disjoint reference marker to appear in spite
of referential continuity of the subject participants.
(14) Tsafiki [BARBACOAN] Dickinson 2002:138
Junni manjanasa, watate aman chide laribi manjimanti' .
junni man=ja-na-sa wata=te aman chide
then again=come-PROG-NONID year=LOC now bone
la-ri-bi man=ji-man-ti-e
come.out-CAUS-PURP again=go-SIT-REP-DCL
‘They say then coming back, after one year he went to take out the bones (of his dead wife).’
Event (dis)continuity can lead both to the appearance of identity markers in the absence of referential
identity, and - as in (14) to non-identity marking in the presence of referential identity (Dickinson,
p.c.)
The Barbacoan languages seem to show less coherence than some of the other families reviewed in
this paper, and it may well be that these languages were influenced by other languages. However,
many elements remain unclear, especially for Guambiano and Cha’paala. If one should posit an
original system for the Barbacoan languages, however, one would be inclined to include both the
temporal and purpose clauses, since the other languages in the area either do not have purpose clauses,
or if they do (like e.g. Imbabura and Chimborazo Quechua) they are deviations from the genealogical
pattern.
4.6. Tucanoan
The Tucanoan languages discussed in this study are given in Figure 7. Unfortunately, western
Tucanoan languages are seriously underdescribed and therefore underrepresented here.
Figure 7: The Tucanoan languages of the sample.
The basic pattern for eastern Tucanoan languages is slightly different from the previous cases
discussed in this section, with a single marker for non-identity, and a paradigm of nominalizers with
TUCANOAN
Cubeo Desano
Guanano Tuyuca
WESTERN
EASTERN
EAST
Siona
WEST
31
information on gender and number for identity relations.18
Table 23 displays the set of SR markers for
Tuyuca, used in conditional clauses (see Barnes 1975, 1990, Galeano & Barnes 1977).
Table 23: SR markers of Tuyuca
identity non-identity
masculine singular gɨ
ri feminine singular go
plural ra
All of the other eastern Tucanoan languages in the sample, Guanano or Kotiria (Waltz 1981, Stenzel
2013, this volume), Desano (Miller 1999), Cubeo (Maxwell & Morse 1999) follow similar basic
patterns, although there do seem to be some differences in the categories recognized in the same-
subject categories: the Guanano system includes a special marker for non-SAP participants, whereas
for Cubeo, the relevant distinction is between animate and non-animate. The four Eastern Tucanoan
languages are compared in Table 24.
Table 24: Basic SR markers in four Eastern Tucanoan languages
IDENTITY NON-ID.
M.SG F.SG 3SG INAN.SG PL PL.INAN 3PL
Tuyuca gɨ go ra ri
Desano gɨ go rã kɨ
Guanano kɨ / i ko ro ro (g)a ʧɨ
Cubeo (ka)kɨ (ka)ko karõ kawɨ ke ereka
The Cubeo system seems to be the most elaborate, extending beyond temporal to conditional clauses
tand purpose clauses as well, and it includes a host of different markers. The Cubeo markers are given
in Table 25 (Maxwell & Morse 1999). 19
Table 25: The Cubeo SR system
IDENTITY NON-ID
M.SG F.SG NEUT PL.NONNEUT PL.NEUT
SIM/COND (ka)kɨ (ka)ko karõ kawɨ ke ereka
WHEN rĩ ere / rõre
PURP ø pe
18 I ignore the so-called implicit chain here described by Longacre for Guanano, because it does not meet the defining criteria
of SR (morphological marking). Moreover, as is discussed in Stenzel (this volume) it is questionable to what extent the DS
interpretation of those chains is a 19 The conditional uses the same bound forms as the simultaneous construction, but in addition is combined with the element
32
CONC wakari wareka
The system of Siona is slightly different, although some similar building blocks recur. In Siona (Bruil
2014) temporal and (semantically) coordinate clauses, but has two systems for different temporal
situations. In the (relative) present tense, the dependent verbs are inflected for person, though in a
different way than would be the case in independent clauses. A three-way distinction is made between
feminine singular (-ko) masculine singular (-kɨ) and plural (-hɨ) in present tense contexts. In addition,
different-subject clauses are marked with the SR suffix -na. Effectively, this is a zero versus -na
system of marking SR. In the relative past tense, there is an opposition -ni (SS) versus -na (DS), and in
addition, the non-identity cases are marked for number/gender with a slightly different set of markers
(see Table 26).
Table 26: The Siona SR system
TENSE/ASPECT PERSON/NUMBER IDENTITY NON-IDENTITY
NUM/GEN SR NUM/GEN SR
PRESENT M.SG -ko -ko
F.SG -kɨ Ø -kɨ na
PL -hɨ -hɨ
PAST M.SG -o
F.SG Ø ni -ɨ na
PL -de
Although the system in Siona, the only western Tucanoan language in the sample, is slightly different
from the other systems, the basic contours in that there is an interaction with the number-gender
markers, are also in place, albeit in a different way.
For the Tucanoan languages, we can also conclude that the SR system shows clear similarities
across the family, which suggests that the SR system was established before the dispersal of the
languages. The fact that Siona, as a western Tucanoan language, has a slightly different system
suggests post-dispersal change, as does the more elaborate system of Cubeo.
4.7. Aymaran
Most Aymaran languages or dialects have reduced or lost their SR system, but comparative evidence
suggests that the family may have had a more elaborate SR system that interacted with person
marking. Central Aymaran dialects that have preserved an identity vs. non-identity opposition have a
system as in Table 27 (adapted from Cerrón-Palomino 2000, 2008).
Table 27: Aymaran SR system
33
identity non-identity
simultaneous -sa -ipana
successive -sina
At least the non-identity marking can be expanded to mark conditional relations by adding the marker
-xa. A parallel construction exists in Quechuan languages (Ibid: 149).
There is evidence that the SR system was more elaborate in proto-Aymara. The Morocomarca and
Huancané dialects preserved an entire DS paradigm (Briggs 1993, cited in Cerrón-Palomino 2000:
244), shown in Table 28.
Table 28: The SR system of Morocomarca Aymara
Person value different-subject marker
1st person -inyana
2nd
person -imana
3rd
person -ipana
4th
person -isana
The paradigm, perhaps under the influence of Quechuan, broke down, and only the third person non-
identity form was preserved and generalized as a different-subject marker for all person values. As is
discussed by Cerrón-Palomino (2008) the extant SR systems of Aymara to a large extent have become
functionally equivalent to Quechuan SR systems.
The Aymaran languages, in spite of their historical and current importance, are underdescribed, and
many aspects of the SR systems in the languages of this family remain unclear. Therefore they are not
taken into account in the distance measures.
4.8. Uru-Chipaya
The small Uru-Chipaya family consists of two languages, Uru, or Uchumataqu, and Chipaya. Chipaya
has an active system of SR, whereas the now extinct languages Uchumataqu (Hanns 2008) seems to
have only remnants of a SR system. The SR system in Uchumataqu is strictly speaking not a SR
system in terms of the definition given above, but it is included here for the sake of correspondence (it
is not included in the database and the graph derived from it). It marks a combination of relative tense
and coreferentiality as indicates in Table 29 (Hannss 2011: 288):
Table 29: The SR markers of Uchumataqu
+coreferential/+simultaneous -ku
-coreferential/-simultaneous -na
34
Hannss (Ibid. 289) stresses that the scanty data of this extinct language do not allow for any definite
conclusions about the SR system of Uchumataqu. The Uchumataqu system does seem rather different
from the one found in its sister language Chipaya, which has an infinitival marker -z which marks
same-subject complements of verbs of desire and knowledge. Different-subject counterparts for these
types of complements interact with tense/mood and aspect. Irrealis complements are marked with the
suffix -ñi, realis complements of knowledge verbs are marked with -chi or -ta depending on the
aspectual value, the former adding a resultative focus. The non-identity markers -chi and -ta have
nominalizing qualities, and all of the above markers have wider distributions where they do not seem
to mark referential discontinuity. In addition, Chipaya has a SR system for its purpose clauses, marked
by the suffixes -japa (identity)20
and -jo (non-identity), although there are exceptions to the (non-
)coreferentiality requirements (Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 262). Finally, Chipaya has a SR system for
temporal clauses, consisting of the markers in Table 30 (Ibid: 152).
Table 30: The temporal SR markers of Chipaya
identity non-identity
simultaneous -kan(a) -an(a)
consecutive -zhku; -a -tan(a)
The difference between -zhku and -a is that the former expresses a necessary condition or prerequisite
for the main event to take place, whereas the latter does not.
The surviving SR markers of Uchumataqu are probably related to the simultaneity markers of
Chipaya, suggesting an older SR system which broke down in Uchumataqu, retracting to mark
temporal clauses only, perhaps under the pressure of Quechuan and Aymaran languages, as well as
Spanish (Hannss 2008: 8-10). Language contact and language loss seems to have had a destructive
effect on the SR system in the case of Uchumataqu.21
4.9 Isolates
It is difficult to say anything about the diachrony of the SR systems in the isolates of the area. There
are SR systems in Yurakaré, Kwazá, Paez, Cofán, and Urarina. The first two languages are spoken in
the south of the area under consideration in this paper (Bolivia/east Brazil), the latter three in the north
(north Peru, Ecuador, south Colombia).
A review in terms of formal overlap, given in Table 31 does not reveal obvious correspondences.
Potential formal correspondences, e.g. between the non-identity markers of Kwazá and Cofán, or
between the identity markers of Kwazá and Páez are excluded to be the result of contact, given the
20
The identity marker requires the presence of mediopassive -z(i). 21
See also Hannss (2011) for a more complete comparison between Uchumataqu and Chipaya subordination
strategies, which tend to be more analytical in Uchumataqu and more synthetic and concatenating in Chipaya.
35
enormous geographical distance between the languages. Even Páez and Urarina, whose non-identity
markers have the element -na are spoken too far apart for them to have been of direct influence to each
other.
Table 31: SR markers of the isolates in the sample
Identity Non-identity
Yurakaré (Van Gijn 2006) -ja [ha]
-ya [ja]
-ti [ti]
Kwazá (Van der Voort 2004) -t(j)a [ta], [tja] -si; -dyta [si] [dɨta]
Paez (Jung 2008) -tsja [ ts
ja]
-i: [i:], [j]
-mej [mej]
-te [te]
-i:na [i:na] [jna]
-mejna
Cofán (Fischer 2007) -pa [pa] [mba] -si [si]
Urarina (Olawsky 2006) -ne [ne] -na [na]
The Yurakaré SR system partly looks like (some) Quechuan languages22
in that SR is in particular
found in temporal and conditional clauses, and in that it has both finite (person-marked) and non-finite
constructions, but is different in that the finite forms are not nominalizations with a possessor subject.
In terms of semantic relation types Yurakaré goes further than most other languages in that it includes
relative clauses and perception complements into the SR system. Like Quechuan languages, chains are
usually short, and the language makes extensive use of tail-head linkage (Van Gijn 2014b) - as does
Cavineña (Guillaume 2011). Interestingly, the SR markers are also found elsewhere in the grammar,
with different functions. The marker =ja is a theme marker, especially used on subject NPs, the irrealis
identity marker =ya is homophonous with the reportative from the finite verbal paradigm, which in
turn probably derives from the verb -ya- ‘to answer’. The non-identity marker -ti possibly derives from
the demonstrative ati. There may be potential for a contact-induced influence, possibly from Quechua,
or perhaps from Tacanan.
The SR system in Kwazá (as well as in the nearby isolate language Aikanã) is characterized by
longer chains. There is furthermore a slightly different situation for the third person as compared to the
SAPs: whereas the latter function on a -ta versus -si opposition, the former have an opposition of -t(j)a
versus -dyta. The SR system may be used for a number of different semantic relations, like coordinate
relations, purpose, manipulation (to order), reason, consecutive, and overlapping temporal relations, a
cosubordinate clause “procures its meaning from the context” (Van der Voort 2004: 654). Although it
is unclear what - if any - the diachronic precedents of the Kwazá system are, there is a potential case of
convergence with another isolate of the area, Aikanã (Hein van der Voort, p.c.).
The three northern isolates, Paéz, Cofán, and Urarina are also quite different. The Paéz markerd
opposition between -tsja and -te can be used for (at least) temporal ‘when’ relation, hypothetical
22 Among them the closest variety: Bolivian Quechua (see Lastra 1968).
36
conditionals, and reason relations, and the addition of the suffix -pa to each of the SR markers encodes
concessive relations. There are additional oppositions: -i: (or -j after vowels) versus -i:na (or -jna after
vowels) for simultaneity relations, and -mej versus -mejna for ‘without’-clauses. These seem to be
reanalyzable into one opposition of zero (identity) versus -na.
Cofán markers -pa (/mba/ after a nasal vowel) and -si mark sequential temporal relations (and by
extension also reason clauses). SR-marked clauses often appear in chains, and seem to display
different degrees of integration with the main clause. Positionally they are relatively free, appearing
before, inside and after main clauses (Fischer 2007).
In Urarina, the only construction that falls within the definition of SR given above are complements
of desire. Same-subject want complements are marked with the infinitive marker -na and do not carry
any person inflection; different-subject want complements are marked with the suffix -ne and do carry
person inflection.
(15) Urarina [ISOLATE], Olawsky 2006: 762, 767
a. kʉ kunʉhe-ʉrʉ hãʉ ɲãe atiĩ be-na
there insist-PL-3 because already nevertheless tell-IDENT
here-ne
want-NEG:3
‘As they insisted, she still did not want to tell.’
b. tʉrʉ-s=ne heri-ji
arrive-3=NONID want-NEG:3
‘He(i) does not want him(j) to come.’
For the northern isolates, it makes sense to look at Barbacoan, Tucanoan, and Jivaroan languages for
possible contact influences. Siona has a different subject marker -na for temporal clauses, Aguaruna
and Shuar have a different-subject temporal clause marker -n and Cha’palaa has a different-subject
temporal marker -ñu or -ña. Imbabura and Chimborazo Quechua, as well as Awa Pit have similar
markers for non-identity purpose clauses, containing the element -na. The correspondences between
these markers and with the non-identity markers in Páez and Urarina may certainly be coincidence,
given the rather common and short form /na/ (and especially given the fact that the far-away Uru-
Chipaya family has similar non-identity markers) but they may also be the result of contact. It remains
a conspicuous fact that the area contains languages from several different families that have SR
systems that particularly mark temporal clauses (Urarina excepted).
4.10. Odd-ones-out
37
A few languages in the area that belong to families that, as far as I am aware do not display SR
systems, have nevertheless developed a SR system. They are Tariana (Arawak), Mamaindê
(Nambikwaran), and Tunebo (Chibchan).
Chibchan does not seem to have SR marking among its features23
but Tunebo seems to have
developed some sort of SR system. The Tunebo system (ignoring the unmarked chain suggested by
Headland & Levinsohn 1977 because it does not meet the defining criteria discussed in Section 2)
consists of two markers which are not entirely equivalent semantically. The suffix -r marks same-
subject for sequential clauses, and the suffix yat/yet marks different subjects for (partially) overlapping
events.
(16) Tunebo [CHIBCHAN], Headland 1994: 42-43
a. carretera cú-ro-ri. cu-r carro cuit bi-ro-ri.
road arrive-DCL-CONTR arrive-SEQ.IDENT car INS go-DCL-CONTR
‘I arrived at the road. Having arrived, I went in a car.’
b. cuat biht-in yar-yat esi cu-ca-ro.
but adult-GRP die-WHEN.NONID five blow-PRES-DCL
‘But when an adult dies, they blow for five nights.’
There is a third marker, yiror, which encodes sequential events where the subject of the first clause
leaves the scene, while the scene remains the same.
(17) Tunebo [CHIBCHAN], Headland 1994: 43
as bi yiror canorí tani ya-wi.
I go after work well do-IMP
‘After I leave, do the work well.’
Headland & Levinsohn (1977) discuss an unmarked chain which has apparent commonalities with the
system in Tucanoan Guanano as described by Longacre (1983) - though see Stenzel this volume for a
critique of Longacre’s study - suggesting the Tucanoan languages as a possible source for the SR
constuctions in Tunebo, though the marked constructions discussed here do not show an affinity with
Tucanoan structures.
Mamaindê is a Nambikwaran language spoken in Rondônia, Brazil. For a few of its interclausal
relations, it makes a difference between same-subject and different-subject constructions, as is shown
in Table 32 (after Eberhard 2009):
23
Quesada (2007) does discuss a system that comes relatively close. In Boruca, the topic continuity marker ang
(a former focus marker) can sometimes be affixed to the verb (p. 214), and in some contexts it can be opposed to
the marker ki (which is not suffixed to verbs) which marks new (focal) subjects. Ang is also used as a relativizer
of subjects (versus ki the relativizer of objects).
38
Table 32: The SR markers of Mamaindê
identity non-identity
Sequential kʰatoʔ hĩʔ
sĩʔ
Purposive teʔ
teʔn(a)taʔ
siʔ
sihta(ku)ʔ
If this is a contact-induced system, the most likely source from a geographical proximity perspective,
is Kwazá. The most conspicuous observation from the comparison between Kwazá and Mamaindê is
the existence of similar non-identity forms: Kwazá -si versus Mamaindê -sĩʔ and - sihtaʔ as well as
elements related to the form [ta] in both languages.24
Like Kwazá, Mamaindê has clause chains, and
although Kwazá is more implicit about the interclausal semantics than Mamaindê, SR chains in Kwazá
include temporal and purpose relations as well. Contact-induced change seems to be at least a possible
explanation.
SR is not a feature of Arawakan languages. Nevertheless, the Arawakan language Tariana has
developed a switch-reference system, under the influence of intense contact with speakers of
Tucanoan languages. Tariana is spoken in the Vaupés area around the Brazilian-Colombian border is a
well-studied linguistic area where speakers of different languages, especially Arawakan and Tucanoan
are in contact with each other (Aikhenvald 2002). Tariana and a number of Eastern Tucanoan societies
(Desano, Wanano, Piratapuya, Tucano, and Bará)25
practice institutionalized exogamy, and a very
strong sense of identity, of which their respective languages (acquired through patrilineal descent) are
important manifestations. There is a general prohibition to borrow words from the other languages,
though there is widespread bilingualism. Tucano acquired a special status during the time of the
Catholic missions, for which it became the lingua franca, which changed the status of the Tucano, and
gave the unilateral linguistic diffusion from Tucano to Tariana an important impetus. Strict
segregation of languages was also relaxed more recently.
Aikhenvald (2002: 158-161) discusses diffusion of clause-linking strategies from Tucano to
Tariana, including a SR system. Tucano, as most Eastern Tucanoan languages, marks identity clauses
with a paradigm of nominalizations that also convey information on person, gender (both in the
singular only), and number. The animate oppositions of Tucano for simultaneity/reason relations are
given in Table 33 (from Ramírez 1997, and Aikhenvald 2002)
Table 33: Tucano SR markers
24
The element -taʔ in the Mamaindê system seems to mark purpose rather than SR per se. Nevertheless, the
same element is found on same-subject simultaneity clauses (which have no DS counterpart, and are therefore
not shown in Table 32). 25 Not all combinations are possible. Tha Tariana, for instance cannot marry Desano (Aikhenvald 2002: 22).
39
identity non-identity
singular non-feminine -gɨ
-kã singular feminine -go
plural -rã
Tariana uses a number of enclitics for identity and non-identity clauses (Aikhenvald 2003: 516), with a
basic opposition between sequential/causal and simultaneous clauses, given in Table 34.26
Table 34: Tariana SR markers
-hyume ‘after, because’ -kayami ‘after’
-kapua ‘because’
-kakari ‘while’
-nikhe ‘while’
-kariku ‘while’
-nisawa ‘while’
The Tariana enclitics do not have any gender or number information on them, but person marking is
obligatory on these SR-marked predicates. Some of these markers have nominalizing qualities to the
extent that they allow for case markers. In terms of semantic relation types there is also overlap
between the two systems. Aikhenvald furthermore mentions that Tariana has an implicit-chain-like
structure where there is no dependency marking on the verbs, and implied combinations of
sequentiality/simultaneity and same or different subject. Finally, Tariana has adopted other kinds of
structures to do with complex clauses from Tucano like nominalizations as subordination strategies for
forming complement clauses and relative clauses, as well as other parallel structures.
In the case of Tariana, then, the SR system adopted differs in a number of ways from the one found
in Tucano, and would not necessarily strike one as the result of diffusion through contact, were it not
for the many other parallels with Tucano structures and the ethnological evidence of the contact
relations between the speakers of Tucano and Tariana. Moreover, Tariana differs from its sister
languages in that it has SR. This may serve as a warning against discarding contact-induced accounts
of superficially similar phenomena too soon.
5. Discussion
On the basis of the variables discussed in section 2 I have created a questionnaire on the basis of
which distances between the languages can be calculated. These distances are visualized in the
Neighbor-Net network (Bryant & Moulton 2003) in Figure 8, which will serve as a basis for
discussion in the remainder of this section.
26 The oppositions are not entirely equivalent, there is a meaning difference between -kariku (overlapping) and -nisawa
(simultaneous). -kakari and nikhe differ in that only the former allows for case marking. There are furthermore other, non-
productive markers that are or were SR sensitive.
40
Figure 8: Neighbor-net of distances between languages of the sample.
Comparing the languages of western South America in broad terms, there are a number of clear
similarities between the SR systems. In terms of SR markers there is a very clear preference for
suffixes that attach to the dependent verb, noth for identity and for non-identity relations. Deviations
from this pattern seem to be genealogically determined. Some of the Tacanan languages have enclitic
markers that attach to the clause (Cavineña) or to the verb+auxiliary group (Araona)27
and Araona also
has phonologically independent SR markers. Non-linear morphology to mark SR is found in the
Jivaroan languages. Zero markers for identity relations are found in Siona, and possibly also in Páez.
Although languages differ in terms of the interclausal semantics of SR clauses, there is a very clear
and almost implicational preference for marking SR in temporal clauses. Many languages also make a
distinction between simultaneity and succession clauses. Other common interclausal semantics are
reason, condition, purpose, and concession.
27
Vuillermet (2013) also analyzes the SR markers of Ese Ejja as enclitics because they behave differently from
affixes in phonological terms, though not in terms of selection restrictions, which was the criterion I followed.
Quechuan Tucanoan
Barbacoan
Jivaroan
Panoan
Tacanan
41
Some more differences are found with respect to the orthogonal categories that are marked by the
SR markers. A number of languages have SR markers that simultaneously mark referential features of
the subject, like the identity markers of te Eastern Tucanoan languages and the SR markers of Jivaroan
languages and the non-identity markers of the full Aymaran paradigm. Interactions with mood are
found in Chipaya, Yurakaré, and Imbabura Quechua, and simultaneous expression of SR and
interclausal semantics are found in Tacanan (except Cavineña), Panoan28
, Jivaroan languages, as well
as some individual languages like Cubeo, Páez, and Chipaya.
Most languages have SR systems that function on the basis of a subject (S/A) pivot, although clear
exceptions are the Panoan languages, Tacanan Ese Ejja, and - to a lesser extent - Jivaroan languages
Aguaruna and Shuar. For a number of languages, although the S/A category forms the basis for the SR
system, other factors interfere, like topicality-related ones such as referentiality in Imbabura Quechua,
person (SAP versus non-SAP) in Kwazá, Guanano and to some extent in Jivaroan languages, animacy
in Cubeo. Whether or not the participant has been identified is of importance for some of the identity
markers in Amawaka. Other types of pragmatic co-determination of the SR system include inter-event
cohesion in Tsafiki, Ancash Quechua, and possibly Cuzco Quechua, as discussed above, and temporal
coherence for some of the succession markers in Shipibo-Konibo and Matsés. Issues relating to
indirect participantion are found in Yurakaré, Imbabura Quechua and Kashibo-Kakataibo.
Although there were no clear patterns in the data on the additional factors playing a role in SR
systems in South America, it is likely that a closer study of “exceptions” to the referential (non-
)identity patterns in the different languages will yield more data, and will perhaps reveal some
interesting areal and/or genealogical patterns. At present it seems premature to draw any conclusions
about this aspect of SR in South American languages.
For most families, an family-internal pattern can clearly be discerned. This is true for Quechuan,
Tucanoan, Panoan, and Jivaroan, which show up as relatively clear clusters in Figure 8, as well as for
Aymaran and Uru-Chipaya (which cannot be seen in Figure 8 because they are not represented in it,
except for Chipaya) and it seems to be true to a somewhat lesser extent for Barbacoan and Tacanan
families. This suggest pre-dispersion presence of SR in the area.
In addition to the commonalities, some family-internal differences are also clear. The northern
Quechuan languages are markedly different from the central and southern ones, in the sense that they
have developed SR for purpose clauses and in the sense that they have lost all person marking in SR
clauses. In Figure 8 it can be seen that the Ecuadorian varieties Imbabura and Chimborazo are clearly
separated from the Quechuan group, although they do not end up close to Barbacoan Awa Pit and
Tsafiki, presumably because those systems have undergone some developments not shared by these
northern Quechua varieties. There are also evident differences between the different Panoan systems
in terms of how elaborate they are, though their commonalities are more impressive, resulting in the
Panoan cluster in Figure 8. Compared to Chipaya, Uchumataqu has a much poorer system, which is
28
Alternatively the Panoan system can be analyzed as interacting with (relative) tense.
42
also true for Cavineña and Araona in comparison to their Tacanan sister Ese Ejja, although
commonalities between Araona and Ese Ejja are still observable, so that they end up relatively close
together in Figure 8 (though Ese Ejja is in fact closer to Shipibo-Konibo than to Araona). Cavineña is
positioned relatively close to the Quechuan languages, which may have influenced the SR system of
the Tacanan language. As mentioned, most Aymaran systems have eroded considerably or even
disappeared. The Barbacoan languages, only represented by Awa Pit and Tsafiki in Figure 8, suggest a
common underlying system, but also important differences between the languages. There seems to be
a small northern group in Figure 8 close to the Quechuan languages, consisting of Barbacoan Awa Pit
and Tsafiki, Cofán, Tunebo, and Urarina.
Contact-induced language change is the most likely cause of these family internal differences. The
most likely scenario for the rise of SR constructions for purpose clauses in Ecuadorian Quechua
varieties is contact with Barbacoan languages. The presence of Barbacoan languages in Ecuador was
probably more dominant in the past (Bruil 2008) and it is also possible that Barbacoan to Quechuan
language shift took place. In this scenario, the original Barbacoan SR system included SR marking for
temporal and purpose clauses which diffused to the northern Quechuan varieties. The SR marking
system for purpose clauses in Imbabura Quechua seems to be in a process of re-interpretation as a
system of marking subjunctive, expanding to mark complements of verbs of desire and allowing for
exceptions to the same versus different subject pattern under the influence of Spanish (Bruil 2008).
Cerrón-Palomino (2008) shows that the SR structures of Aymaran and Quechuan languages display
isomorphic tendencies, gravitating towards the Quechuan system. For Aymaran this means reduced
complexity of the system, preserving only one of the non-identity forms. This simplification may have
set the stage for loss in a number of Aymaran languages. Likewise, the erosion of the Uchumataqu
system is related to language contact with Quechuan and Aymaran languages, as well as with Spanish
later on, and concomitant language loss starting in the Inca era (and likely also to data availability).
Contact with Quechuan languages may also have been of influence on the Tacanan languages, where
Cavineña, and has acquired a more Quechuan-like SR system, applying to temporal clauses only (to a
lesser extent this is may be true for Araona as well). Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence
suggest Inca presence in the Beni delta (Renard-Casevitz et al. 1988) which may have led to Quechua-
Tacana language contact.
6. Conclusion
The patterns found for SR marking in western south America suggest that SR has been present in the
area for a relatively long time, dating back to before the fissioning of language families like Quechuan,
Panoan, and Tucanoan, based on the recurring patterns found throughout these families. At the same
time, the data suggest a sensitivity to contact-induced diffusion, evidenced not only by the fact that
languages belonging non-SR families have developed SR systems under the influence of neighbouring
43
languages, but also by the fact that some members of SR families have become more like their
neighbours. This is in particular true for Ecuadorian Quechua, Aymaran, and perhaps also Tacanan.
Furthermore, there are some tentative traces of contact in the systems of some of the isolates in the
area.
The latest developments in these areal diachronic processes point at erosion and loss of SR
systems, most notably in Aymaran, Uchumataqu, and perhaps Tacanan languages, and more recently
in Kakataibo (Zariquiey, this volume) and Imbabura Quechua (Bruil 2008), under the influence of
Spanish.
Abbreviations
A transitive subject
AG agent
ABS absolutive
ADV adverbializer
ACC accusative
AUX auxiliary
CAUS causative
CLF classifier
CMPR comparative
COL collective
COM comitative
CONTR contrastive
COP copula
DCL declarative
DEF definite
DUB dubitative
ERG ergative
EVID evidential
F feminine
FM formative
FOC focus
FUT future
GEN gender
GRP group membership
IDENT identity
IMP imperative
INAN inanimate
INCL includive
INS instrument
INTS intensive
LOC locative
M masculine
MAL malefactive
MIR mirative
NAR narrative
NEG negation
NEUT neuter
NMLZ nominalizer
NONID non-identity
NUM number
OBJ object
P transitive object
PST past
PERF perfect
PFV perfective
PL plural
POSS possessive
POT potential
PRES present tense
PRN pronoun
PROG progressive
PROX proximal
PURP purposive
REM remote
REP reportative
RES resultative
S intransitive participant
SAP speech act participant
SEQ sequential
SIT situational
SG singular
SR switch reference
SUBJ subject
TR transitive
44
References
Adelaar, Willem. 1977. Tarma Quechua: grammar, texts, dictionary. Peter de Ridder Press.
Adelaar, Willem. 1987. Morfología del Quechua de Pacaraos. Lima: Universidad Nacional de San
Marcos.
Adelaar, Willem. 2011. Participial clauses in Tarma Quechua. In: R. van Gijn, K. Haude & P.
Muysken (eds.) Subordination in native South American languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, pp. 267-280.
Adelaar, Willem, with Pieter Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Austin, Peter. 1980. Switch-reference in Australian languages. In: Pamela Munro (ed.). Studies of
switch-reference. Los Angeles: University of California, pp. 7-47.
Austin, Peter. 1981. Switch-reference in Australia. Language 57 (2): 309-334.
Barnes, Janet. 1975. Notes on Tuyuca discourse, paragraph and sentence. Lomalinda: Instituto
Lingüístico de Verano and Ministerio de Gobierno.
Barnes, Janet. 1990. Classifiers in Tuyuca. In D. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in
Lowland South American Languages. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 273-292.
Beukema, Ronald William. 1975. A Grammatical Sketch of Chimborazo Quichua. Yale University.
Ann Arbor: UMI.
Bickel, Balthasar 2010a Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: a multivariate analysis.
In: Isabelle Bril (ed.) Clause linking and clause hierarchy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51-
101.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010b. Towards a multivariate typology of reference tracking. Presentation given at
the meeting of the Research Group 742 “Grammar and Processing of Verbal Arguments”, Leipzig,
April 21. Available at: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~va/Dokumente/SR_Bickel.pdf.
Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Argument marking patterns in South American languages. PhD Thesis
Radboud University Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Branks, Thomas. 1980. La cohesion y prominencia en las narrativas del guambiano. Lomalinda,
Colombia: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Briggs, Lucy. 1993. El idioma Aymara: variantes regionales y sociales. La Paz: Instituto de Lengue y
Cultura Aymara.
Bruil, Martine. 2008. Innovations in the Ecuadorian Converb Systems: grammatical change in
language contact situations. MA thesis Leiden University.
45
Bruil, Martine. 2014. Clause-typing and evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona. PhD Thesis Universiteit
Leiden. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Bryant, David & Vincent Moulton : Neighbor-net, an agglomerative method for the construction of
phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(2): 255-265,
Büttner, Thomas Th. 1983. Las lenguas de los Andes centrales: estudios sobre la clasificación
genetica, areal y tipológica. Madrid: Instituto de cooperación iberoamericana.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2000. Lingüística aimara. Cusco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El Chipaya o Lengua de los Hombres del Agua. Lima: Fondo
Editorial.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2008. Quechumara: estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y
aymara. La Paz: Plural.
Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Cole, Peter 1983. Switch-reference in two Quechua languages. In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro
(eds.) Switch reference and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.
1-16.
Corbett, Greville. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In: Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges
& David S. Rood (eds) Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. Amsterdam : John Benjamins,
25-49.
Crevels, Mily and Hein van der Voort. 2008. The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area. In
Pieter Muysken (ed.) From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, 151-179. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Curnow, Timothy. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquier): An indigenous language of south-
western Colombia. PhD Thesis Australian National University, Canbera.
Curnow, Timothy and Anthony Liddicoat. 1998. The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador.
Anthropological Linguistics 40, 3, pp. 384–408.
Dahl, Östen. 2008. . An Exercise in a posteriori Language Sampling. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 61 (3): 208–220.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1986. Introduction. In: Desmond C. Derbyshire &
Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Volume 1, 1-28. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Dickinson, Connie. 2002. Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD dissertation University of Oregon,
Portland.
Dixon, R.M.W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 1999. Introduction. In: R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald (eds.) The Amazonian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dobson, Rose M. 2005. Aspectos da língua Kayabi. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística
[Série Lingüística, 12].
46
Eberhard, David M. 2009. Mamaindê Grammar: A Northern Nambikwara language and its cultural
context. PhD dissertation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Ebina, Daisuke. 2011. Cusco Quechua. In Yamakoshi, Yasuhiro (ed.), Grammatical Sketches from the
Field, 1-39. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA),
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Emkow, Carola. 2006. A grammar of Araona. Unpublished PhD Thesis LaTrobe University.
Ferreira, Rogério. 2005. Língua Matis (Pano): Uma Descrição Grammatical. Universidade Estadual de
Campinas.
Fischer, Rafael. 2007. Clause linkage in Cofán (A'ingae). In: L. Wetzels (ed.): Language
Endangerment and Endangered Languages: Linguistic and Anhropological Studies with Special
Emphasis on the Languages and Cultures of the Andean-Amazonian Border Area. Leiden:
Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), pp. 381-399.
Fischer, Rafael & Eva van Lier. 2011. Cofán subordinate clauses in a typology of subordination. In: R.
van Gijn, K. Haude and P. Muysken (eds.) Subordination in native South American languages.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 221-250.
Fleck, David William. 2003. A grammar of Matsés. University of Houston. Ann Arbor: UMI.
Floyd, Simeon. 2010. Discourse Forms and Social Categorization in Cha'palaa. PhD dissertation The
University of Texas at Austin.
Foley, William & Robert van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Galeano, Luis & Janet Barnes. 1977. Relaciones entre las proposiciones en la lengua tuyuca. In
Heinze, Carol (ed.), Estudios tucanos 2. Bogota: Ministerio de Gobierno, pp. 99-127.
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2001. The morphosyntax of Mekens (Tupí). PhD thesis University of Chicago.
Gijn, Rik van. 2006. A grammar of Yurakaré. PhD dissertation Radboud University Nijmegen.
Gijn, Rik van. 2011. Grammatical and semantic integration in Yurakaré subordination. In: R. van Gijn,
K. Haude and P. Muysken (eds.) Subordination in native South American languages.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169-192.
Gijn, Rik van. 2012 Switch attention (aka switch reference) in South American temporal clauses:
facilitating oral transmission. Linguistic Discovery 10 (1): 112-127.
Gijn, Rik van. 2014a. The Andean foothills and the adjacent Amazonian fringe. To appear in: L.
O'Connor and P. Muysken (eds.) The native languages of South America: origins, development,
typology. Cambridge University Press.
Gijn, Rik van. 2014b. Repeated dependent clauses in Yurakaré. In: R. van Gijn, D. Matic, J.
Hammond, S. van Putten and A. Galucio (eds.) Information structure and reference tracking in
complex sentences. John Benjamins, pp. 291-308.
47
Gijn, Rik van & Fernando Zúñiga. 2014. Word and the Americanist perspective. Morphology 24(3)
[Special issue ed. by Rik van Gijn and Fernando Zúñiga: Wordhood: Theory and typology from an
Americanist perspective].
Gijn, Rik van, Fernanda Nogueira & Ana Vilacy Galucio. 2015. Subordination strategies in Tupi
languages. Comparative Tupi and Tupi-Guarani linguistics: Genetic and Typological Aspects
[Special issue of the Boletim do MPEG, Belém, edited by Wolf Dietrich and Sebastian Drude].
Gijn, Rik van & Harald Hammarström. A construction‐based approach to measuring distances
between languages: subordination strategies in South America.
Gnerre, Maurizio. 1999. Perfil Descriptivo e historico-comparativo de una lengua Amazonica: El
Shuar (Jíbaro). Nápoles: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2012. Maropa (Reyesano). In: M. Crevels & P. Muysken (eds.) Las lenguas de
Bolivia, vol II: Amazonía. La Paz: Plural, pp. 191-229.
Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin & Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2014.
Glottolog 2.3. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
(Available online at http://glottolog.org)
Hannss, Katja. 2008. Uchumataqu: The lost language of the Urus of Bolivia. A grammatical
description of the language as documented between 1894 and 1952. Leiden: Research School of
Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).
Hannss, Katja. 2011. Complex sentences in Uchumataqu in a comparative perspective with Chipaya.
In: R. van Gijn, K. Haude and P. Muysken (eds.) Subordination in native South American
languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.281-306
Haiman, John & Pamela Munro. 1983. Introduction. In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.). 1983.
Switch-reference and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelpha: John Benjamins, ix-xv.
Hartmann, Roswith, ed. 1987. Rimaykullayki. Unterrichtsmaterialien zum Quechua Ayacuchano -
Peru. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Headland, Edna. 1994. Diccionario bilingüe Tunebo-Español, Español-Tunebo con una breve
gramática Tuneba. University of Texas at Arlington. Ann Arbor: UMI.
Headland, Paul & Stephen Levinsohn. 1977. Prominence and cohesion in Tunebo discourse. In: R.
Longacre & F. Woods (eds.): Discourse grammar Studies in the languages of Colombia, Panama,
and Ecuador, volume 2. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics, pp. 133-157.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Howkins, Angela Margaret. 1977. Syntactic relations in San Martin Quechua. PhD thesis University
of St. Andrews.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48
Jacobsen, William H. 1983. Typological and genetic notes on switch-reference systems in North
American Indian languages. In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.) Switch reference and
Universal Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 151-184.
Jensen, Cheryl. 1999. Tupí-Guaraní. Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds.), 125-164.
Jung, Ingrid. 2008. Gramática del páez o nasa yuwe: descripción de una lengua indígena de
Colombia. München: Lincom Europe.
Kerke, Simon van de. 1996. Affix order and interpretation in Bolivian Quechua. PhD Thesis
University of Amsterdam.
Key, Mary Ritchie. 1968. Comparative Tacanan Phonology. The Hague, Paris: Mouton
Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America. PhD Thesis Radboud
University Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Lastra, Yolanda. 1968. Cochabamba Quechua Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Lefebvre, Claire & Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories: nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. Switch-reference systems in two distinct linguistic areas: Wojokeso (Papua
New Guinea) and Guanano (Northern South America). In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.)
Switch reference and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 185-
208.
Matic, Dejan, Rik van Gijn & Robert van Valin. 2014. Information structure and reference tracking in
complex sentences: an overview. In: Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matic, Saskia van
Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds.) Information structure and reference tracking in complex
sentences. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-42.
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language
convergence. Studies in Language 31 (4): 829-865.
Maxwell, Michael & Nancy Morse. 1999. Gramática del Cubeo. Bogotá: Editorial Alberto Lleras
Camargo.
McKenzie, Andrew. in prep. A survey of switch-reference in North America. Manuscript.
Miller, Marion. 1999. Desano grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of
Texas at Arlington.
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A Grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Overall, Simon. 2007. A Grammar of Aguaruna. PhD dissertation LaTrobe University.
Payne, Doris. 1990. Morphological characteristics of lowland South American Languages. In: Doris L.
Payne (ed.) Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 213-242.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Payne, Thomas E. 1980. Who’s kissing who: the fourth person in Yup’ik Eskimo. In: Pamela Munro
(ed.). Studies of switch-reference. Los Angeles: University of California, pp. 65-88.
49
Pitman, Donald. 1980. Bosquejo de la gramática araona. (Notas Lingüísticas, 9.) Riberalta, Bolivia:
Instituto Lingüística del Verano.
Quesada, Juan Diego. 2007. The Chibchan languages. Cartago: Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica.
Ramirez, Henri. 1997. A Fala Tukano dos Ye'pâ-Masa. Manaus: Inspetoria Salesiana Missionária da
Amazônia, CEDEM.
Renard-Casevitz, F., T. Saignes & A. Taylor. 1988. Al este de los Andes: Relaciones entre las
sociedades amazónicas entre los siglos XV y XVII. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Roberts, John R. 1997. ‘Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey.’ In A. Pawley,
ed.: Papers in Papuan linguistics, No. 3, 101–241.Pacific Linguistics, A-87.
Rodrigues, Aryon. 1999a. Macro-Jê. Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds.), 165-206.
Saad, George. 2014. A grammar sketch of Shuar. MA thesis Radboud University Nijmegen.
Sparing-Chávez, Margarethe W. 2007. Aspects of Grammar: Amahuaca: An Endangered Language of
the Amazon Basin. Lima: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stenzel, Kristine. 2013. A Reference Grammar of Kotiria (Wanano). University of Nebraska Press.
Taylor. A. 1999. The western margins of Amazonia from the early sixteenth to the early nineteenth
century. In: F. Salomon & S. Schwartz (eds): The Cambridge history of the native peoples of the
Americas, volume 3: South America, pp. 188-256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torero, Alfredo. 1984. El comercio lejano y la difusión del quechua: el caso del Ecuador. Revista
Andina 2 (2): 367–402.
Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes: lingüística e historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de
Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte.
Valenzuela, Pilar. 2003. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar: a typologically oriented study.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
Viera-Cândido, Gláucia. 2004. Descrição morfossintática da língua Shanenawa (Pano). PhD
dissertation UNICAMP Campinas.
Vittadello, Alberto. 1988. Cha'palaachi = El idioma cayapa. Esmeraldas, Ecuador: Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador.
Voort, Hein van der. 2004. A grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vries, Lourens de. 2005. “Towards a typology of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages”. Studies in
Language 29.2:363-384.
Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A Grammar of Ese Ejja, a Takanan language of the Bolivian Amazon. PhD
Thesis Université Lumière Lyon.
Vuillermet, Marine. 2014. The multiple co-reference systems in the Ese Ejja subordinate clauses.
In : In: R. van Gijn, D. Matic, J. Hammond, S. van Putten and A. Galucio (eds.) Information
structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. John Benjamins, pp. 341-372.
50
Weber, David. 1975. Apuntes sobre el quechua de Lamud. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Weber, David. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1983. Switch-reference, syntactic organization, and rhetorical structure in
Central Yup’ik Eskimo. In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.) Switch reference and Universal
Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 291-316.