Skip to main content

Quantification in Imbabura Quichua

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 715 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 97))

Abstract

After presenting some basic genetic, historical and typological information about Quichua, this chapter outlines the quantification patterns it expresses. It illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definite and partitive which are defined in “The Quantifier Questionnaire”. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Determiner type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in Quichua, both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.

We thank the other members of the 2012–2013 UCLA Quichua group: Mike Galant, Vania Kapitonov, Yun Jung Kim, Natasha Korotkova, and especially our consultant, Dr. Emilia Chuquin. We are indebted to those scholars of Quichua who precede us, especially Peter Cole. We also thank Edward Keenan, Peter Landerman, Denis Paperno, Cristina Guardiano, and an anonymous reviewer for additional helpful comments and suggestions. Any errors are ours and ours alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sánchez (2010: 236ff.) for a bibliography of linguistic work on the Quechuan languages.

  2. 2.

    See Gómez-Rendón (2008) for a discussion of linguistic variation among Ecuadorian Quechua languages.

  3. 3.

    Cole’s grammar (1982) contains a number of comparisons between Imbabura and other Quechuan languages, but none of these involve quantifiers.

  4. 4.

    The terms “topic” and “focus” for -mi and -ka go back at least to Cole (1982: 65). -Mi has been claimed to have “validator” or evidential properties (Cole 1982; Korotkova 2013) but these characterizations are not relevant to the present discussion. (-Mi proves to be important for our analysis of quantifiers, as we discuss in Sect. 2.3.2 below.)

  5. 5.

    The first-person singular object marker -wa appears e.g. in (80); non-third-person subject markers appear in many examples, beginning with (7) below.

  6. 6.

    For Cole (1982: 128), the use of -kuna is obligatory on plural nouns, except with numerals (cf. Sect. 3.1.1 below). Incidentally, Spanish words are sometimes borrowed with plural morphology, which can then co-occur with -kuna, as with gallitas-kuna ‘cookies’ in (26) below.

  7. 7.

    For Cole (1982: 92), -naju (which he relates to an earlier Quechua reciprocal suffix -naku) is a single morpheme expressing “joint” action rather than a plural progressive combination, and this suffix may co-occur with progressive -ju “in emphatic contexts” only (1982: 196). Perhaps the suffix has been reanalyzed as bimorphemic in Dr. Chuquin’s dialect: for her, the girls and ‘we’ in (2) must be singing progressively and need not be singing together, although the singing must be simultaneous.

  8. 8.

    As readers who know Spanish will recognize, there are many borrowed words in Quichua; here we identify the sources only for borrowed quantifiers. A special use of borrowed quantifiers is described in Sect. 8.6.

  9. 9.

    This sentence (as well as (7)) was provided in the context of a story our consultant told, detailing how to make corn beer. At this point in the narrative the corn had already been definitely identified.

  10. 10.

    These adverbials can co-occur with objects marked with accusative -ta (67b). Furthermore, such adverbs are distinguishable from attributive adjectives—and D-quantifiers—which do not take case-marking unless the nouns they modify are elided. See also Hastings (2004: 200–201).

  11. 11.

    Kazi is from Spanish casi ‘almost’, ni is from Spanish ni ‘nor’ (especially as used in expressions like ni siquiera ‘not even’), and uras is from Spanish horas ‘hours’. The construction in this phrase is discussed in Sect. 3.4.3.

  12. 12.

    This word appears to be a loan from Spanish viaje ‘trip’.

  13. 13.

    Our consultant Dr. Chuquin pointed out that when a number, such as kinsa ‘three’, is present in examples like (31), shuj seems to behave as a “filler,” contributing no meaning.

  14. 14.

    Shuj may not precede the numeral ‘one’, which remains a puzzle.

    (i)

    *Shuj

    shuj

    gallitas-ta-mi

    miku-rka-ni

     

    one

    one

    cookie-acc-foc

    eat-pst-nfut.1sg

     

    Intended: ‘I ate one cookie.’

  15. 15.

    It is puzzling that shuj may additionally precede only one of Quichua’s universal D-quantifiers, tukuy but not kada or gulpi:

    (ii)

    Shuj

    tukuy-lla

    warmi-kuna

    papa-ta

    miku-rka.

     

    one

    all-lim

    woman-pl

    potato-acc

    eat-pst

     

    ‘All the women ate a potato.’

    (iii)

    *Shuj

    kada

    warmi-mi

    papa-ta

    miku-rka.

    one

    every

    woman-foc

    potato-acc

    eat-pst

    Intended: ‘Every/each woman ate a potato.’

    (iv)

    *Shuj

    gulpi

    warmi-kuna-ka

    shamu-rka.

     

    one

    all2

    woman-pl-top

    come-pst

     

    ‘All the women came’

  16. 16.

    Kinsala may be etymologically related to kinsa ‘three’.

  17. 17.

    Wakin + -pi becomes wakimbi by way of two phonological rules. Stops are voiced following a nasal, and nasals assimilate to the place of articulation of the following consonant.

  18. 18.

    ‘Anything but…’, ‘nothing but…’, and so on are expressed similarly.

  19. 19.

    Gulpi (not discussed by Cole 1982) appears to be a loan from the Spanish noun golpe ‘blow’, but the semantics of this etymology are not clear to us. (Peter Landerman (p.c.) has suggested a possible connection with Spanish de golpe ‘suddenly, all of a sudden’.) We have less data on gulpi than on tukuylla, and the ‘all’/‘every’ comparisons below address only tukuylla. However, gulpi occurs in one very unusual construction, discussed in Sect. 4.2.3 below.

  20. 20.

    A similar construction with the A-quantifier use of chawpi ‘half’ is in (112) below.

  21. 21.

    The related verb chawpina ‘to divide into parts’ does not obligatorily mean to divide in halves:

    (v)

    Tanda-ta-ka

    kinsa

    pidasu-kuna-pi-mi

    chawpi-rka-ni.

     

    bread-acc-top

    three

    part-pl-loc-foc

    divide-pst-nfut.1sg

     

    ‘I divided the bread into three parts.’

  22. 22.

    This sentence was suggested by Cole’s example (283) (1982: 74).

  23. 23.

    (138) confirms explicitly that ‘me’ is the object of yali-na, since it includes the (generally optional, as shown by (136)) first-person singular object suffix -wa.

  24. 24.

    Cole (1982: 61) describes such clauses as “adverbial”.

  25. 25.

    Cole (1982: 66) asserts that Quichua lacks “genuine comparative clauses”, but the Quichua construction is an “exceed” comparative structure (Stassen 1985: 42), which is not uncommon cross-linguistically.

  26. 26.

    Occasionally yali-j is heard as yali-y, with an alternative nominalizer -y.

  27. 27.

    Cole (1982: 66 (225); glosses adapted) cites the following extremely complex construction which also appears to involve semantic D-quantification:

    (vi)

    ñuka-ka

    ashtawan

    yali-j

    aycha-ta

    miku-ni

    [kan

     

    1sg.pron-top

    more

    pass-nmlz

    meat-acc

    eat-nfut.1sg

    2.pron

     

    tanda-ta

    miku-j]-ta

    yali-shpa

       
     

    bread-acc

    eat-nmlz-acc

    pass-rl.ss

       
     

    ‘I eat more meat than you eat bread.’

    (Cole argues that this is literally ‘I eat more meat, surpassing [the amount to which] you eat bread’.) Dr. Chuquin has alternately accepted and rejected this sentence on different occasions, but is unwilling to volunteer similar structures (e.g. ‘I eat more apples than you eat oranges’) or to think of any examples where she would use VERB-j-ta yali-shpa. We will therefore not consider examples of this complexity here.

  28. 28.

    The only incorrect option is to put ashtawan last.

  29. 29.

    -Pura (presumably from Spanish puro ‘purely; only; exactly’; not mentioned in Cole 1982) also occurs on nouns and pronouns.

  30. 30.

    It is grammatical to use puka-lla in (165), but the sentence loses its exclusive meaning. In that case the sentence means that Maria likes ‘somewhat red’ apples. This is the weakening meaning of –lla on adjectives, as mentioned above.

  31. 31.

    In Spanish, clock time is expressed with the feminine articles la or las and a numeral. These are frequently phonologically adapted in Quichua: for example, lawna ‘one o’clock’ in (179a) is from Spanish la una.

Works Cited

  • Bochnak, M. R. (2011). Two sources of scalarity within the verb phrase. In Arsenijević, et al. (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates (pp. 99–123).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. (1987). Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 531–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P. (1982). Imbabura Quichua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faller, M., & Hastings, R. (2008). Cuzco Quechua quantifiers. In L. Matthewson (Ed.), Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 277–317). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Rendón, J. (2008). Typological and social constraints on language contact: Amerindian languages in contact with Spanish. chapter 6 (pp. 169–193). PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, R. E. (2004). The syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification: The case of Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioup, G. (1977). Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(2), 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in straits Salish. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 487–540). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapitonov, I. (2013). I see anything: Indefinite pronouns in Imbabura Quichua. Ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. L. (2012). The quantifier questionnaire. In E. L. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. L., & Paperno, D. (2012). Introduction. In E. L. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. v–viii). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Korotkova, N. (2013). Quichua validators: between evidentials and modals. Ms., UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landerman, P. (2013). A summary overview of the Quechua linguistic family. Handout.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. P., Gary F. S., & Charles D. F. (Eds.). (2015). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Eighteenth edition. Dallas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com

  • Martin, C. (2012). Adjectives, adverbs, topic, and focus in Quichua. Ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. (2013). DP structure and quantification in Quichua. Ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, O. (2010). Same problem, different solution. Ms, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1995). Quantificational structures and compositionality. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 541–601). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P. (1966). On so-called pronouns in English. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, 19, 177–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, L. (2010). The morphology and syntax of topic and focus. Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellings, J. (2014). Only and focus in Imbabura Quichua. In Proceedings of BLS 40, pp. 522–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellings, J. (2015). Expressing identity in Imbabura Quichua. In J. Pasquereau (Ed.) Proceedings of SULA 8, pp. 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, M. D. (1995). The expression of quantificational notions in Asurini do Trocara: Evidence against the universality of determiner quantification. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 701–720). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, D. (1989). A grammar of Huallaga (Huánaco) Quechua. Berkeley: UC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jena Barchas-Lichtenstein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Abbreviations Used in the Glosses

Abbreviations Used in the Glosses

1

1st person

2

2nd person

3

3rd person

acc

accusative

ben

benefactive

caus

causative

coord

coordinator

def

definite

dim

diminutive

dist

distal

foc

focus

fut

future

gen

genitive

hon

honorific

inf

infinitive

imp

imperative

irr

irrealis

lim

limitative

loc

locative

neg

negative

nfut

non-future

nmlz

nominalizer

obj

object

part

participle

pl

plural

pl.subj

plural subject

plur

pluractional

pres

present

prog

progressive

pron

pronoun

prox

proximal

pst

past

Q

Quichua

redup

reduplication

rl

realis

S

Spanish

sg

singular

ss

same-subject

taj

taj suffix

top

topic

whq

wh question

  

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barchas-Lichtenstein, J., Martin, C., Munro, P., Tellings, J. (2017). Quantification in Imbabura Quichua. In: Paperno, D., Keenan, E. (eds) Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44330-0_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44330-0_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44328-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44330-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics