PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
The following full text is a publisher's version.
For additional information about this publication click this link.
http://hdl.handle.net/2066/14630
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2017-06-14 and may be subject to
change.
C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of L i n g u i s t i c s / R e v u e c a n a d i e n n e d e L i n g u i s t i q u e 3 3 ( 4 ) : 4 0 9 - 4 2 2 D e c . / d é c . 1988
Media Lengua and Linguistic Theory
P I E T E R M U Y SK E N
U niversiieit vaji A m s te r d a m
In this p a p e r I address the question w h a t M edia L eng ua can tell us
a b o u t the distinction between stem s a n d affixes, the n a t u r e of lexical en­
tries, and the relation between the lexicon, sy n tax , and phonology. It is p a r t
of a m uch larger a t t e m p t , coming from a variety of subdisciplines to pro­
vide w h a t is so m etim es term ed external evidence for p a rtic u la r a s su m p tio n s
a b o u t the n a t u r e of the h u m a n language faculty.
M edia L e n g u a is a linguistic variety spoken b o th as a native and as a
second lan g u ag e by a c c u ltu r a te d In d ia n peasants, craftsm en, and con struc­
tion workers in C e n tra l E c u a d o r (M uysken 1981b). It is essentially Q u e ch u a
w ith th e vast m a j o r i t y of its stem s replaced by Spanish forms. T h is pro­
cess of rep lacem ent is c o m m o n ly called “relexification” . E x am p les of M edia
L e n g u a u tte ra n c e s are given in (1) th ro u g h (3):
(1)
a. unu fabur- ta pidi- nga- bu bini- xu- ni (M edia Lengua)
one favor AC ask NOM for come P R 1
‘1 come to ask a favor.’
b. shuk fabur-da m ana-nga-bu sham u-xu-ni (Quechua)
c. vengo p a ra pedir un favor (Spanish)
It is clear t h a t ( l a ) has resulted from p u t ti n g the phonological shapes of
the words in ( l c ) into the lexical entries in ( l b ) . Several things should be
noted. First, we get an e m p h a t i c form of the indefinite article in M edia
Lengua, u n u , r a t h e r t h a n S panish u n e m p h a tic un. Second, the Spanish
irregular verb form vengo a p p e a rs in a regularized ste m form bini. T h ir d ,
the Q u e c h u a rule voicing accusative case -ta to -da after fa b u r has not
applied in M ed ia Lengua; Q u e c h u a dialectological evidence suggests t h a t
this is a very recent rule. F o u rth , w h a t is peculiar a b o u t M edia L engua is
n o t so much t h a t it contains Spanish words (m a n y dialects of Q u e ch u a do
as well), b u t t h a t all Q u e c h u a words, including all core vocabulary, have
been replaced. F ifth, the Spanish forms have been a d a p te d phonologically
409
410
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
to Q uechua; mid vowels have been replaced by high vowels. Q uechua word
order and m o rp h o lo g y have been retained.
(2)
a. kuyi-buk yirb a nuwabi
-shka (Media Lengua)
cavia for grass there is not SD
‘T h e re tu rn s out to be no grass for the cavias.’
b. kuyi-buk k ’ivva illa-shka (Quechua)
c. No hay hierba p a ra los cuyes (Spanish)
Note t h a t th e Q u e c h u a word kuyi a p p e a rs in the local Spanish as well.
T h e M ed ia L en gu a verb m a in ta in s the Quechua-specific “sudden discovery
tense” m a r k in g -shka. T h e Q u e c h u a negative existential verb stem ilia- has
been relexified with a newly formed “frozen” stem nuwabi-, derived from
S panish no a n d haber ‘h a v e ’. T h e Spanish verb ‘h a v e ’ has an impersonal
form hay which also has existential m eaning.
(3)
a. yo- ga awa
-bi kay -m u -ni (M edia Lengua)
I
T O w ater LO fall CIS 1
II come after falling into the w a te r .’
b. iiuka-ga yaku -bi urm a-m u -ni (Quechua)
c. vengo despues de caer en el agua (Spanish)
E x a m p les such as (3) show the e x te n t to which M edia L en gu a follows
Q u e c h u a verb sem antics. Cislocative -m u- can be a tta c h e d to n o n -m o v e m e n t
verb stem s in d ic atin g t h a t the s u b je c t comes after some action. T h is pos­
sibility exists in b o th M ed ia L en gu a and Quechua.
W h a t ex am ples (1) to (3) show us is th a t:
(a) M edia Lengua is essentially the p ro d u ct of replacing Q uechua phonological
shapes with Spanish forms, m aintaining the rest, of the Q uechua s tru c tu re
(b) the Spanish forms chosen have undergone regularization and a d a p ta tio n to
Q uechua morphophonology
(c) Media Lengua is conservative in som etim es reflecting earlier stages in Q uechua
pronunciation. It is not m ade up on the spot every time it is spoken
(d) T h e occurrence of Spanish strong alternants, frozen composites, etc. is an
indication t h a t the process of vocabulary replacem ent is not a simple one.
We now tu r n to th e im plicatio n s of the relexification process o p e r a n t
in M edia L engua for our view of the relation between the lexicon an d the
o th e r c o m p o n e n ts of the g r a m m a r . In the first section I look at the word
fo rm a tio n c o m p o n e n t. In section 2 lexical sem antics and s y n ta x are dis­
cussed. Section 3 deals with the issue of w h a t external evidence can be
in theoretical linguistics. T h e im plicatio n s of M edia L eng u a relexification
for our view of the in te ractio n between the lexicon and the phonology lie
beyond th e scope of this article.
P I E T E R MUYSKEN
411
1. Roots versus Affixes, IA versus IP
T h e first issue on which M ed ia L en gu a d a t a m ay be able to throw some
light is the re p resen tatio n of affixes as p a r t of word form ation rules or as
s e p a r a te lexical entries. T h is issue has a long history in s tr u c tu r a l linguistics
(R o c k e tt 1955), where it was discussed in term s of I te m - a n d - A r r a n g e m e n t
(IA) versus Ite m - a n d - P r o c e s s (IP). In the IA view, words are con stru cted
from build ing blocks which all have equal s t a t u s in the theory of the lexicon,
except t h a t some are specified as roots, others as affixes, etc. Consider a
Q u e c h u a form such as (4):
(4)
ri - naku - nga - mi
go R E C - P L 3FU AF
‘T h e y will (certainly) go.’
In th e IA view, th e Q u e c h u a lexicon contains, am o n g others, the entries in
(5):
(5)
ri
naku
nga
mi
STEM
A FFIX
A FFIX
C L IT I C
go
reciprocal or conjoint action
third person future
affirmative
T h e se are th en com bined by “a r r a n g e m e n t ” rules to form com plete words
as in (4). T h u s the a r r a n g e m e n t rules for Q u e c h u a will specify t h a t roots
go to the left, clitics to the right, a n d affixes, in a certain order, in between.
In th e IP view, words are c o n s titu te d m ostly o u t of o th e r words, th ro u g h
word fo rm a tio n processes. In t h a t view, there will be one lexical entry, and
two affixation rules, to derive (4):
(6)
ri
‘go ’
rule 1:
rule 2:
V —►V 4* naku
V —►V + nga
‘conjoint or reciprocal a c tio n ’
‘third person future form of a c tio n ’
(To the s t a t u s of -m i in the IP account we re tu rn below).
W i t h i n generative m orphology, which initially inherited the preoccu­
p a tio n w ith R U L E S from th e Aspects (C h o m sk y 1965) and S o u n d P a ttern s
( C h o m s k y a n d Halle 1968) model, the first e la b o ra te t r e a t m e n t was w ithin
the IP t r a d i t i o n (Aronoff 1976). O nly later do we find a shift tow ards the
IA perspective, in L ie b e r ’s (1981) thesis and, m o st explicitly, in Selkirk
(1982). In th e la tte r, word fo rm a tio n is s ta te d in term s of phrase s tr u c ­
tu re rewrite rules. M c C a r t h y ’s (1981) analysis of Semitic vowel a lte rn a tio n s
a n d M a r a n t z ’s (1982) t r e a t m e n t of reduplication, p n m a facie th e stron gest
cases for an IP m odel, in term s of a b s t r a c t m o rp h e m e s on s e p a ra te p h o n o ­
logical levels then provided the basis for a wholesale shift to the IA model.
T h i s shift was m a d e possible by the m o d u la riz a tio n of the theory to the
e x te n t t h a t the p u t t i n g to g e th e r of m o rp h e m e s (th e realm of m orphology)
412
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
was strictly s e p a ra te d from the way these m o rp h e m e s are then pronounced
to g eth er (th e realm of phonology).
W h a t evidence does Media Lengua have to bear on this issue? Consider
first the way (4) would appear:
(7)
i - naku - nga - mi
go R E C - P L 3FU AF
‘T hey will (certainly) go.’
Notice t h a t only the Q u e c h u a stem ri- has been replaced by i-. T h e Q u e c h u a
affixes rem ain. A brief glance at the exam ples in (1) to (3) will give the
sam e result: only roots are relexified, not affixes. In a theory in which roots
and affixes are b o th lexical entries, differing only in t h a t affixes obligatorily
have a s u b c a te g o riz a tio n feature, this result is not easily explainable. In a
theory, however, in which affixes are introduced by linguistic rules, this is
w h a t we would expect.
C a n we claim, then, t h a t M edia Lengua data, provide external evidence
favoring an IP account of word fo rm a tio n ? I do n o t th in k the evidence is so
s tra ig h tfo rw a rd as t h a t . Several issues need to be considered. (1) Do we not
find any cases of affix relexification? (2) Could it not be for in d ep en d en t,
p e rh a p s sem antic, reasons t h a t affixes are not relexified? (3) W h a t a b o u t
clitics? If they are n ot relexified, w h a t does this m ean for the IA versus IP
controversy? In the following subsections I will take up these issues in tu rn .
1.1 Are no affixes relexified?
I
m en tio n ed above t h a t no affixes were relexified. T h is is not entirely
true. We find the Spanish s u b o r d i n a t i n g gerundial affix -ndu (originally n d o ) in M edia Lengua, in places where in Q u ech ua th e “sam e s u b j e c t ” s u b ­
o r d i n a t e -sha a p p e a rs or the “different s u b je c t ” s u b o r d i n a t o r - k p i . M edia
L engua shows all three forms. In (8) and (9) I illu strate “s a m e s u b je c t ”
s u b o r d in a tio n w ith -ndu and -sha, respectively:
(8)
alia -bi -ga entonces -ga artu terreno propio tini -ndu -ga
there LO T O then
T O much land
own
have SUB T O
riku-ya
-na,
no?
rich become NOM no
‘T h e re one could become rich then, having o n e ’s own land, no?’
(9)
Isi- m unda- ga a sta kolera muri- sha bini- xu- ka- ni
this from
T O even anger die
SUB come PR PA 1
‘From this I was coming even dying from an g er.’
In (10) and (11) different s u b je c t s u b o r d in a tio n s with - ndu and -kpi are
illustrated:
P IETE R MUYSKEN
(10)
413
ahi-da- ga abin,
piru tarde-yandu-ga
there
T O there is but late become SUB T O
gana- u- nga -y
win
P R 3FU E M P
‘It is there, b u t when it becomes late he will be w inning.’
(11)
m a m a -m un abiza-k i -kpi -ga dizi- slika
m o th e r to
tell AG go SUB T O say SD
‘She said it when I went to tell my m o th e r .’
In M uysken (1981b) I showed t h a t cases such as (10) are quite rare, b u t
sentences such as (8) frequent in the samples.
It is not evident t h a t -ndu is a co u n te re x a m p le to the claim t h a t no af­
fixes ar relexified in M edia L en gu a because there is increasing evidence for an
earlier A m e r in d ia n -S p a n is h c o n tact language, spoken th r o u g h o u t Ecuador,
the m o st strik in g feature of which was the use of -ndo or -ndu as a general­
ized verb m a rk e r (M uysken 1984). It m ay well be t h a t M edia L engua was
influenced by this c o n ta c t vernacular and took over the -ndu ending from it
in certain adverbial contexts, r a t h e r t h a n relexifying directly from Q u e ch u a
in these cases.
T h e r e are several o th e r Spanish affixes t h a t occur in M edia Lengua
as well: d im in u tiv e - i i u / - i l a and p ast participle -do. T h e first occurs in
Q u e c h u a as well, a n d can be seen as a borrowing. T h e second occurs only
in S panish adjectives t h a t were p ro b a b ly taken over as a whole. Therefore
we can m a i n ta in the generalization t h a t no affixes were relexified.
1.2 Possible s e m a n tic reasons f o r not relexifying
Even if no affixes are relexified, one m ig h t argue t h a t this is not due to
s tr u c t u r a l p ro p erties of roots and affixes, b u t to th e fact t h a t it would have
been too com plicated to find th e sem an tic equivalents of Q u e c h u a affixes
in Spanish. T h u s , one m ig h t argue, the fact t h a t the Q u e c h u a causative
suffix -chi- occurs in M edia L engua as well is due to the absence of a similar
causative suffix in Spanish.
T h is a r g u m e n t is very plausible at first sight, b u t it has several deficits.
First, n o t all Q u e c h u a affixes are w ith o u t a Spanish equivalent. T h u s,
Q u e c h u a second person singular - nki could have been replaced by S p a n ­
ish -5, Q u e c h u a first person plural -nchi by Spanish -m os. In a dialect of
Q u e c h u a spoken elsewhere the Q u e c h u a agentive suffix -k is often replaced
by S panish-derived -d u r (from -dor), b u t not so in M edia Lengua. We could
extend this list for o th e r suffixes as well. T h e point is t h a t sem a n tic consid­
e ra tio n s m ay have led to the relexification of some affixes, b u t not others.
T h e y c a n n o t acco u n t for the fact t h a t no affixes were relexified.
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
414
Second, relexification of lexical items has also involved very considerable se m a n tic a d j u s t m e n t s som etim es. Take the Q u e c h u a im personal verb
y a r u a - n ‘it. hungers (s o m e o n e ) ’. In Spanish you say yo tengo hambre ‘1
have h u n g e r ’. Now it would a p p e a r to be impossible to relexify here. Still,
there is a M edia L en gu a form: the im personal verb am bri-naya-n lI feel
like h u n g e r ’, co n tain in g the Q u e c h u a suffix -naya- ‘having a physical incli­
n a t i o n ’. Sim ilar cases a b o u n d . T h e y d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t se m a n tic factors did
n ot prevent relexification of lexical items, even in com plicated cases. We
find some Q u e c h u a items in M edia Lengua, b u t they generally refer to spe­
cific c u ltu re items, an d are p e rh a p s best th o u g h t of as loans. An ex a m p le
is Q uechua shutich iy ‘b a p t i s m ’. Here it is n o t sem a n tic com plexity t h a t
has prevented relexification, since there is the perfectly equivalent Spanish
b a u tis m o , the te rm the priest would use anyway.
Sim ilar a r g u m e n ts will be discussed in th e next section, where we dis­
cuss the relexification of g r a m m a ti c a l items or function words. T h e r e is no
general s e m a n tic correspondence between Q u e c h u a and Spanish g r a m m a t i ­
cal items. Still they are all relexified. To be fair, there is one g r a m m a ti c a l
ite m t h a t is n o t relexified, and this m ay well have been p a rtly for sem a n tic
reasons: the Q u e c h u a verb ka- ‘b e ’. In Spanish there are two verbs, ser
and c s t a r , w ith a se m a n tica lly complex d istrib u tio n . T h is m ay have been
one of the reasons t h a t M edia L e n g u a has consistently m a in ta in e d ka-. T h e
possible o th e r reason is m orphological: esiar is s o m e w h a t irregular, and ser
suppletive, like English kb e ’.
On the whole, we can safely conclude, se m a n tic reasons do n ot explain
why Q u e c h u a affixes were not relexified.
1.3 Clitics in Media Lengua
So far I have established t h a t no affixes have been relexifiied an d t h a t
this c a n n o t be for sem an tic reasons. Does this m ean t h a t the relexification
process o p e r a n t in M edia L en g u a c o n s titu te s evidence for an Ite m and P r o ­
cess (IP) view? I th in k not, and the reason is t h a t clitics are not relexified
either. Q u e c h u a has a class of phonologically d e p e n d e n t elements, which do
n ot have affix pro p erties (M uysken 1981a; Lefebvre and M uysken 1988) such
as being sensitive to the category of the word to which they are a tta c h e d
(Aronoff 1976), being m orphological heads (W illia m s 1981a), and being a t ­
ta c h a b le only to lexical categories (Aronoff 1976). T h is class includes th e
elem ents in (12):
(7)
a.
- mi
affirmative
b.
-shi
-cha
-chu
hearsay
d u b ita tiv e
negation, question
P IE T E R MUYSKEN
c.
-pish
-tik
-ri
-m a
-ga
too, indefinite
e m p h a tic
e m p h a tic
e m p h a tic
topic
Even th o u g h these elem ents c a n n o t a p p e a r as in dep en den t words, they have
all th e sy n ta c tic p rop erties of being separately introduced by the phrase
s tr u c t u r e rules.
In M e d ia L en g ua they are not relexified:
(13)
isti sabi- nga- mci-bish
this know 3FU E M P too
‘he will certainly know ’
(14)
kital- mi uyari- xu- n
how A F hear
RE 3
‘how it s o u n d s’
(15)
nustru- ga alia -wa -bi -mi sinta- nchi
we
T O there DIM LO AF live
lpl
‘we live th e r e ’
None of th e m are. It is h ard to establish t h a t this is not for sem antic
reasons, b u t the considerations presented in section 1.2 hold here as well.
In a d d itio n , there is evidence from bilingual rural Spanish t h a t there is an
equivalent for -pish ‘too, indefinite’. In rural S panish we so m etim es find
enclitic -tan (from S panish ta m b ien ‘t o o ’) used in the sam e way as Q u e ch u a
and M ed ia L e n g u a -pish:
(16)
onde -ta n ha ido
where too has gone
‘where then has h e /sh e gone?’
(17)
yo -ta n quiero
I too want
‘I w ant it t o o ’
T h e r e is no reason why this form was not a d o p te d in M edia Lengua.
T h e reason t h a t clitics were not relexified c a n n o t be the fact t h a t they
are p a r t of a word fo rm a tio n rule, since they are not. R a th e r , this suggests
t h a t the lexicon is divided into several parts: a stem lexicon and a clitic
lexicon, only the former of which p a rtic ip a te s in relexification. In t h a t
perspective, however, there is no reason not to assum e the existence of an
affix lexicon as well (Halle 1973; Lieber 1981; Selkirk 1982). T h u s the
evidence from M ed ia L e n g u a for the IP ap p ro a c h tu rn s o u t to be invalid.
416
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
T h e re is evidence, of course, for a principled separation between roots on
the one h a n d and affixes and clitics on the other.
We m ay wonder w h a t the im plications of this grouping are. T h e three
classes of elements m ay be assumed, within the IA perspective, to have the
following properties:
(18)
phonological dependence
roots
—
affixes
+
clitics
-f
subcategorized for a base
—
-f
—
finite list
—
?
?
W hile it is tru e t h a t there is a finite, though extensive, list of affixes in
Q u e ch u a (and the sam e holds for clitics), the list is in no way stru ctu red .
E xcept for certain su b d o m a in s , such as person and case, it rath er ap p ears
a loose collection of elements. It is hard to see this difference between roots
and affixes a n d clitics as principled. T h is leaves us for the m o m e n t with
phonological dependence as the one distinguishing feature t h a t determ ines
w hether relexificat.ion has taken place or not.
In the next section we will see t h a t lexical m eaning is not w h a t sets
roots a p a r t from the rest. A n u m b er of relexified stem s does not have a
lexical m eaning.
2. S e m a n tic and syntactic properties o f lexical entries
In the lexicalist theory developed in the early seventies, increasing a t ­
tention was paid to the internal s tr u c tu r e of lexical entries, and to the types
of in fo rm a tio n t h a t need to be present in such entries. In JackendofT (1975)
entries of th e following type were postulated:
(19)
/biliv/
weak conjugation
+V
[ - f ___ NP]
phonological representation
conjugation class
syntactic features
subcategorization features
N P j BELIEVE N P -2
semantic interpretation
[human]
s e l ect i onal r e s t r i c t i o n s
M uch later work, including W illiam s (1981b), has tried to derive the p ro p e r­
ties of lexical items in (19) as much as possible from in d ep en d en t principles.
In a d d itio n , work of Stowell (1981) and others has been directed at deriv­
ing p rop erties of phrase s tr u c tu r e rules directly from the lexicon. In this
section I will discuss M edia Lengua from the perspective of the s tr u c tu r e
of the lexical entry. In 2.1 I consider lexical versus g ra m m a tic a l m eaning,
in 2.2 the process of lexicalization and sem an tic specialization of derived
forms, a n d in 2.3 the directionality of governm ent.
Before going on, I should stress t h a t the very process of relexification
confirms th e concept! i of he lexical entry as a loosely organized bundle
P I E T E R MUYSKEN
417
of a t least three feature clusters: th e phonological rep resen tatio n , the m o r ­
phological characteristics, and the sy n ta c tic and se m a n tic properties. T h is
should n o t be in te rp re te d , however, as directly confirming th e notion of dual
re p re se n ta tio n s for words t h a t we find in work of S p ro a t (1987) an d others.
M ed ia L en g u a Spanish-derived roots are the base for Q u e c h u a suffixes, and
th e suffixation process is governed by the m o r p h o s y n t a x of Quechua.
‘2.1 Lexical and g ra m m a tica l m eaning
M edia L en g u a relexification takes place on the basis of m e a n in g corre­
spondences. A S p an ish ste m as close as possible in m e a n in g to the Q u e c h u a
original is used to replace it. T h e question now is how closeness in m e a n ­
ing is d e te rm in e d . It tu r n s o u t we have to distinguish here between lexical
m e a n in g and g r a m m a t i c a l m eaning. T h e former can be d e term in e d by ref­
erence to some extralinguist.ic entity, th e former only by reference to the
lan g u ag e sy stem s themselves. It tu rn s o u t t h a t relexification is feasible,
with all th e difficulties m en tio n ed , for lexical items, b u t o p e ra te s in a very
in co m p le te m a n n e r for g r a m m a t i c a l items. In Muysken (1988) I illustrated
this for d e m o n s tra tiv e s . Here I will try to argue th e sam e po in t for question
words. In (20) th e relevant forms are given for Q uechua, Spanish and M edia
Lengua:
Q uechua
Spanish
Media Lengua
pi
im a
m ayxan
m a sh n a
quién
quén
cuál
cuánto
a como
cuándo
qué horas
por qué
kin
ki/inki
kwal
kw antu
a komo
kwandu
ki uras
purki
(purki-m unda)
‘kom o’
undi-bcase
im a uras
im a -m u n d a
im a-shna
m ay+ case
cómo
(d)ónde
‘w h o ’
‘w h a t ’
‘w hich’
‘how m a n y ’
‘for how m u c h ’
‘w h e n ’
‘at w h at t i m e ’
‘w hy’
‘how ’
‘w here’
T h e se e x a m p les show t h a t M ed ia L en gu a forms, with the exception of the
form for ‘w h e r e ’ are m odeled on S panish r a t h e r t h a n Q u e c h u a p a tte r n s . If
it h a d been th e reverse, we would have found forms such as * (in )k i-m u n d a
and * (in )k i-sh n a , which do n o t occur a t all. T h e form p u r k i-m u n d a , which
follows b o th Q u e c h u a an d S panish, occurs only once.
2.2 The process o f lexicalization
O n e of th e differences between Q u e c h u a a n d S panish is t h a t th e la tte r
has m o re s e p a r a te verbal roots, while th e former has fewer roots and tends
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
418
to form new verbs th ro u g h a complex system of verbal derivational suffixes.
T h u s we have:
(21)
Q uechua
Spanish
apaapa-m u-
llevar
tra e r
‘ta k e ’
‘b rin g ’
Here the cislocative suffix -m u - is added to the original root to create a
cislocative verb whose m e a n in g in S panish (and English) is expressed with
a s e p a r a te verb.
S o m e tim e s the derived m e a n in g is simply com positionally d e te rm in e d ,
and often th e ro o t + affix c o m b in a tio n has un d erg o n e se m a n tic specializa­
tion or drift. We m ay hypothesize t h a t the lexicalized forms are replaced
in M edia L en gu a by Spanish sim plex roots, an d the com p ositio nal forms by
forms directly p a t t e r n e d on the complex Q u e c h u a original, or include b o th
a S panish ro o t w ith the complex m e a n in g and the Q u e c h u a derivational
suffix. In M uysken (1981) d a t a are presented which illu strate this p a t t e r n
for the Q u e c h u a verb riku- ‘see’ and derived forms. Here a few ex am ples are
given directly related to the forms in (21). Sentences (22) and (23) illu strate
the use of the S panish-derived forms irayi- and lleba-, respectively:
(22)
intonsi lindu radiyu- da trayi- shka
then
nice radio
AC bring SD
‘T h e n it turned o u t t h e y ’d brought a nice ra d io .’
(23)
avva -da ahi
-m u n d a lleba- nga zin
A m b a tu - mun
w ater AC there from
take 3FU they say A m b a to to
‘From there they will take the water to A m bato, they say.’
In (24) an e x a m p le of a r e d u n d a n t form is given:
(24)
g ra b a d o ra
-d a trayi- mu -ngi
ta p e recorder AC bring CIS 2
‘Bring the ta p e record er.’
T h e in teractio n between relexification and derivational m o rp h o lo g y needs to
be stu d ied in m uch m ore detail, for different groups of verbs. T h e m ain p oin t
here was t h a t relexification can be used to s tu d y the degree of lexicalization
of a p a r tic u la r ro o t -f affix c o m b in a tio n .
2.3 The lexicon and s y n ta x : the directionality issue
As was briefly m e n tio n e d above, research in the early eighties has a t ­
t e m p t e d to drive pro p erties of ph rase s tr u c t u r e such as order specifications
from p ro p erties of the lexicon (Stowell, 1981, and later work by various a u ­
thors). T h is was done in te rm s of d irectionality of governm ent: verbs a n d
P I E T E R MUYSKEN
419
p rep osition s govern rig h tw a rd in English, therefore English has [P NP] and
[V NP] s tru c tu re s.
We will now see w h a t evidence M ed ia L e n g u a adduces on this issue.
It should n ot surprise us t h a t M e d ia L en gu a shows the sam e percentage of
XV (80%) versus VX (20%) sentences as the Q u e c h u a spoken in th e sam e
region. M ed ia L e n g u a verbs are Q u e c h u a vebs, for all practical purposes,
and they are m a rk e d with Q u e ch u a affixes. Q u e c h u a verbs govern leftward.
T h u s we ex pect M ed ia L en g u a verbs to govern leftward as well.
W i t h elem ents of the category P the s itu a tio n is more com plicated.
Q u e c h u a has a few p o stp o sitio n s, such as k ’ipa ‘a f t e r 1, and shina ‘like’.
W h e n these are relexified, we find p o stp o sitio n s in M edia Lengua, as with
the u n derlined c o n s titu e n ts in (25) a n d (26), respectively:
(25)
miza despwesitu kaza-mu i -naku
-ndu-ga, ahi
-bi b o d a
Mass after
home to go R E C - P L SUB T O there LO feast
d a -naku
-n, ahi
-bi bayla -naku
-n
give R E C - P L 3 there LO dance R E C -P L 3
‘Going home after Mass, there they give a feast and d a n c e .’
(26)
asi -11a- di
kumu bos, bos kwenta- 11a- di
gringu
thus DEL E M P like
you you like
DEL E M P gringo
kunusidu
-g u n a tini-n bastanti miu Rosalina
acqu aintan ce PL
have 3 plenty
my Rosalina
‘My R osalina has plenty gringo acquaintances ju s t like you, like you pre­
cisely.’
As k u m u ‘like’ (derived from S panish como) (26) shows, however, we also
find a few p rep o sitio n s in M ed ia Lengua. T h u s we have entre ‘a m o n g ’ and
asta ‘u n t i l ’, in (27) a n d (28), respectively:
(27)
nustru- ga entre seys -mi ga-nchi
we
T O am ong six A F be lpl
‘T h e re are six of u s .’
(28)
solo isti syera
asi, kazi
isti M achachi-m unda
only this Highlands thus alm ost this Machachi from
asta Chimborazo R iobam ba-gam a, b a ra to paga-naku
-n
until C h im b o razo R io b am ab a-u n til cheap pay R E C -P L 3
‘Only here in the Highlands, alm ost from Machachi here to Chim borazo,
to R io b a m b a do they pay low wages like th is .’
T h e Q u e c h u a equivalents of this words are affixes r a th e r t h a n s e p a r a te ele­
m ents.
420
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
I in te rp re t th e co n trast between (25)—(26), on th e one h a n d , and ( 2 7 ) (28), on th e o th er, to s u p p o r t the lexically-based view of directionality.
T h e r e t u r n s o u t to be no general [NP P] or [P NP] order in M ed ia Lengua.
T h e P elem ents t h a t are relexified from Q u e c h u a govern leftward, th e el­
em e n ts newly in tro d u c e d from S panish govern rightw ard. Sim ilar results,
t h a t I will n o t discuss here, can be o b ta in e d from the in tro d u c tio n of Spanish
com plem entizers.
3. Conclusion
T h is concludes my discussion of some of the evidence t h a t can be g a t h ­
ered from M e d ia L engua for our conception the o rg an izatio n of the g r a m ­
m ar. In w h a t sense can it be viewed as extern al evidence? It is not external
in th e sense t h a t it refers to the interaction with a non-linguistic (cogni­
tive) system , which I th in k would be the p ro p er definition of w h a t e x te rn a l
evidence for the o rg a n iz a tio n of th e g r a m m a r is. It is only external t h a t
for the in te r p r e ta tio n of the M edia L engua d a ta , two o th e r linguistic sys­
tems, Q u e c h u a and S panish, are taken into account. B u t inasm uch as all
recent g r a m m a t i c a l research is inherently c o m p a r a tiv e in n a tu r e , this does
n o t m ak e this ty p e of research special.
I
will conclude with raising the (open) question of w h e th e r we can th in k
of M edia L e n g u a as th e result of a kind of word internal code mixing.
S chem atically this possibility is presented in (29), where th e su p erscrip ts
s an d q refer to the S panish, respectively Q u e c h u a language index of roots
a n d affixes, a n d the su b sc rip t V to th e categorial identity of an element:
(29)
ROOTv s
A F F IX v q
T h e affix is the head (W illia m s 1981a) and determ in es th e lang uag e index of
th e whole word. T h e a d v a n ta g e of this view is t h a t it relates th e possibility
for relexification in Q u e c h u a to the highly a g g lu tin a tiv e c h a ra c te r of the
language: since there will always be affixes to m a r k a word as belonging to
th e language, the ro o t can be derived from a different language. T h e d isa d ­
v a n ta g e of this view is t h a t it c a n n o t account for cases such as despwesitu
‘a f t e r ’ in (25). T h i s form behaves as a Q u e c h u a p o stp o sitio n , even th o u g h
it is entirely S panish. We would have to p o s tu l a t e a 0 Q u e c h u a case affix on
it, m a r k in g it as Q uechua. I will leave this issue open for fu rth e r research.
P IE T E R MUYSKEN
421
Appendix:
List of a b b re v ia tio n s used in glosses
1, etc.
AC
AF
AG
CIS
DEL
DIM
EMP
FU
LO
NOM
PA
first person etc. marker
accusative
affirmative
agentive
PL, pl
PR
RE
R E C -P L
SD
SUB
TO
cislocative (m ovem ent towards speaker) marker
delim itative
dim inutive
e m p h a tic m arker
future
locative
nominalizer
past
plural
progresive aspect
reflexive
conjoint action: reciprocal or plural
sudden discovery tense
adverbial su b o rd in a to r
topic m arker
REFERENCES
Aronoff, M ark
1976
Word Form ation in Generative G ram m ar. C am bridge, Mass.: M IT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam
1965
Aspects o f a Theory o f S y n ta x . C am bridge, Mass.: M IT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle
1968
The S o u n d P a tte rn o f English. New York: H arper and Row.
Lefebvre, Claire, and P ieter Muysken
1988
Mixed Categories. N o m in a liza tio n s in Quechua. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Lieber, Rochelle
1981
On the Organization o f the Lexicon. Bloomington: In d ian a Univer­
sity Linguistics Club.
McCarthy, John
1981
A Prosodic T h eo ry of N onconcatenative Morphology. Linguistic I n ­
quiry 12:373-418.
M arantz, Alec
1982
Re R eduplication. Linguistic In q u iry 13:435-482.
C J L / R C L 33(4), 1988
422
Muysken, P ieter
1981a
Q uechua Word S tru ctu re . Pp. 279-328 in B indin g and Filters. F. Heny,
ed. C am bridge, Mass.: M IT Press.
1981b
Halfway Between Q uechua and Spanish: T h e Case for Relexification.
Pp. 52-78 in H istoricity and Variation in Creole Studies. A. Highfield and A. Valdman, eds. Ann Arbor: Karom a.
1984
Sources for th e Study of A m erindian C o n ta c t Vernaculars in Ecuador.
Pp. 66-82 in A m s te r d a m Creole Studies IV. Pieter Muysken, ed.
A m sterd am : University of A m sterd am .
1988
Lexical R estru c tu rin g in Creole Genesis. Pp. 193-210 in A k te n des
IV . E sse n e r Kolloquiums. N. Boretzky et al, ed. Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1982
The S y n ta x o f Words. C am bridge, Mass.: M IT Press.
Sproat, Richard
1985
Dual R epresentations in Morphology. Ph.D . dissertation, M IT.
Stowell, T im o th y
1981
T h e Origins of P hrase S tru cture. Ph.D. dissertation, M IT.
Williams, Edwin
1981a On the Notions “Lexically R elated ” and “Head of a W ord” . L i n ­
guistic In q u iry 12:245-274.
1981b A rg u m e n t S tru c tu re and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1:81—
114.