Marleen Haboud

U. of Oregon / PUCE

CONTENT PAGE

Abbreviations

O. Antecedents 1

1. Theoretical approaches to language change 2

1.1. Contact-induceB language change:

an analytic framework 3

1.2. Summary 9

2. HS in Ecuador 10

2.1. The Socio-historical Setting of

Highland Spanish in Ecuador 10

3. The data base 15

4. Ecuadorian Highland Spanish 17

4.1. Word order 17

4.1.1. Highland Spanish: A verb-final language? 20

4.2. Imperatives in HS 23

4.2.1. Imperative 1: The use of "nomás" 23

4.2.1.1 The source of 'nomás' 24

4.2.2. Imperative 2: Future as Imperative 26

4.2.2.1. The source of Future/Imperative in HS 28

4.2.3. Imperative 3: Give+V Gerund 31

4.2.3.1. The source of Give+V Gerund 35

4.3. Degree of imperativeness 39

5. Recapitulation 41

Endnotes

Bibliographic References

Charts

1 Source of HS Future/Imperative

Diagrams

1 Degree of Imperativeness

2 Imperativeness

3 Sociolinguistic Strata

Maps

1 Ecuador: the sites of the study

2 Ethnic dietribution before the Inca conqueet

3 Ethnic population in Ecuador (1992)

4 The Inca Empire (The Tahuantinsuyo)

1/2/3 S 1/2/3 Person Singular

1/2/3 P 1/2/3 Person Plural

ACC Accusative

BEN Benefactive / Beneficiary

DAT Dative

DATa Dative of affection

DATi Dative of interest

DET Determiner

DO Direct Object

EMPH Emphatic

EV Evidential

FUT Future

GER Gerund

HS Highland Spanish

IWP Imperative

INF Infinitive

IO Indirect Object

Mod Modifier

NEG Negation /Negative

Pr Present

P Past

PERF Perfective

PREP Prepostion

PP Postposition

REFL Reflexive

SS Standard Spanish

SUB Subjunctive

TOP TOP

! command

?! polite command/petition

??! polite command/suggestion

"..the history of a language is a function of the history of its speakers, and not an independent phenomenon that can be thoroughly studied without reference to the social context in which it is embedded" (Thomason and Kaufman 1991:4)

O. Antecedents

This paper is an initial presentation of a larger study related to the ruralization process of the Spanish language spoken in the urban centers of the Ecuadorian Highlands. Ecuador is a country whose history is one of a long-standing situation of languages in contact, especially between the main Indian language, Quichua, and the official language, Spanish.

From the point of view of foreign Spanish speakers and Linguistics, the varieties of Spanish spoken in the Highlands of Ecuador and referred to as Highland Spanish (HS), differ markedly from Standard Spanish (SS). While some of the characteristics found in the Ecuadorian HS are shared by the regional Spanish of other Andean countries such as Peru and Bolivia (cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1978; Escobar 1978; López a988), some others seem to be particular to the Ecuadorian Highlands only.

This paper discusses various instances of encoding imperativeness in HS. To my knowledge such characteristics have not been attested in other Andean countries; however they are generalized in both, oral and informal written Ecuadorian Highland Spanish. This analysis focuses the central region of the Ecuadorian Highlands.

Previous studies of Ecuadorian Spanish have described some of these features mainly as deviations from the Standard or as a characteristic of bilingual speakers in rural areas (Muysken 1988) In contrast, this study analyzes the speech of urban monolingual Spanish speakers who have not had direct contact with Quichua. It is not then the case of a mixed language in transition where bilinguals are in the process of acquiring a second language (i.e. target language/TL), but a variety which has maintained certain stability for at least a century (cf. Paris 1961; Toscano 1953)

This paper is organized as follows. First I present the theoretical framework to be followed in this study. I focus my attention on the role of the socio-historical context in the development of language change. The second part is a short description of the socio- historical setting of Highland Spanish in Ecuador, which will facilitate understanding the impact of non-linguistic factors on linguistic change. The next section (fourth) is devoted to describing and analyzing the data and arguing for the influence of the native language, Quichua.

1. Theoretical approaches to language change

We can distinguish two main perspectives related to the analysis of language change. One postulates that changes in language are due to universal constraints and are, consequently, quite isolated from social facts. The other considers that changes in language are due to extralinguistic factors. Such perspectives have also been identified as "a-social", and "social" respectively. Many of the previous studies regarding language-contact situations (Büttner 1983; Kany 1969; Labov 1965; Malmberg 1972; Martinet 1965; Muysken 1988; Sala 1984; Traugott 1977 among others), have been identified with one of these two tendencies. Within a more integrated perspective, the starting point for this study is that languages are not only as structures but also social facts. As Escobar (1978:70) states, in language-contact situations it is important to analyze linguistic phenomena not as independent variables, but with regard to the language's own ecology. This is to say, its particular socio-cultural history.

In light of the above observation, the analysis of HS will be carried out under the assumption that the linguistic variations found in this language-contact situation are due to external as well as internal factors. A description of the approach to be taken in this study is detailed in this section.

1.1. Contact-induced language change an analytic framework

Based on earlier discussions about the general importance of social factors in linguistic interference (cf. Kiparsky 1938; Coteanu 1957; Bright 1976), an extensive literature review, and on a long standing familiarity with language contact situations, Thomason and Kaufman (1991) propose that the analysis of linguistic changes within language contact situations be carried out under the assumption that

"...the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, and not the structure of their language... is the primary determinant of the linguistic outcome of language contact" (Thomason & Kaufman 1991:35)

This leads us to consider language change as the result of multi-causation due to the coalescence of linguistic and sociolinguistic factors.

The important processes of borrowing and interference have been analyzed under this conception. Borrowing has been defined as the:

"...incorporation of foreign features [mainly lexical] into a group's native language by speakers of that language: the native language is maintained but is changed by the addition of the incorporated features" (Thomason & Kaufman 1991:39)

Such incorporation is a process where the addition of linguistic elements to a system is very much due to the possibility one language has of accessing another (i.e. donor)

Interference has been traditionally defined as:

"deviations from the norms of either language that occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language" (Lehiste 1988:2)

Thomason and Kaufman (1991) do not refer to deviations from the norm but rather to the "influence of one language on another with more structural variations" as a phenomenon of substratum interference. This type of interference is the result of imperfect group learning during a process of language shift. According to Thomason and Kaufman, in this kind of interference a group of speakers shifting to a target language (TL) fails to learn it perfectly. The error (i.e. imperfect learning) made by members of the shifting group in speaking the TL then spread to the TL as a whole when they are imitated by original speakers of that language. Borrowing and substratum interference differ in that the second is rather an unconscious process which does not begin with vocabulary but rather with sounds and syntax and sometimes includes morphology as well. The interference features are structurally transparent (Thomason & Kaufman 1991:39)

Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that we are not examining a phenomenon in transition, consequently this description is not a study based on either imperfect learning, or on deviations or learning errors, but on the long standing influence of Quichua on Spanish. From this perspective, the concept of transfer seems to better describe the phenomenon we are about to describe.

Transfer, defined as the "incorporation of language features from one language into another, with consequent restructuring of the subsystems involved" (cf. Weinreich 1974), accounts for borrowing and substratum interference as well (cf. Silva-Corvalán 1994)

There are different types of transfer:

1. Direct transfer mainly refers to two types of phenomena:

a) replacement of a form in a language (SS) from another (Q)

(i.e.. vocabulary from Quichua into SS: guagua 'child');

b) incorporation of the meaning of a form (X) from one language (Q), into an already existing structurally similar form (i.e. use of synthetic future with a sense of polite imperative. See section 4.2.)

2. Indirect transfer has to do with the higher frequency of use of a form in one language (SS). Such a phenomenon is determined on the basis of a comparison with more conservative internal community norms in contexts where a partially corresponding form in language (Q) is used either categorically of preferentially (i.e.. OV word order, future as imperative. See sections 4.1. and 4.2.) (cf. Silva-Corvalán 1994)

Other processes that need to be taken into account in language- contact situations are convergence, simplification, regularization, and analysis.

Transfer leads to convergence, defined as the achievement of greater structural similarity in a given aspect of the grammar of two or more languages, assumed to be different at the onset of contact (Gumperz and Wilson 1977)

Moderate indirect transfer (substratum interference), generally leads to morphosyntactic simplification since it involves a decrease in the use of another competing form. Simplification involves the higher frequency of use of a form X (HS) in context Y (generalization) at the expense of a form Z (SS) usually in competition with, and semantically closely related to X, where both X and Z existed in the language prior to the initiation of simplification. Thus X is an expanding form, while Z is a shrinking or contracting form. If simplification reaches completion, its final outcome is reduction or loss of forms and elimination of alternatives, i.e. a simplified system with fewer forms and possibly, though not necessarily, loss of meanings (cf. Silva-Corvalán 1994)

The concept of simplification is related to the notion of overgeneralization, defined as the more extensive use of a form than expected in ordinary practice. Overgeneralization may affect contexts where no corresponding competing form exists (cf. Silva- Corvalán 1994)

Another important concept related to the process of language change is regularization, which refers to those cases where the forms extended or overgeneralized are those with a wider structural distribution in the language in question.

Having clarified important concepts to be used throughout this paper, it is important to remember that no grammatical system is impermeable to direct transfer of elements which do not correspond to its internal structure or tendencies of development (cf. Niño- Murcia 1995; Silva-Corvalán 1994) To sum up, we are considering that linguistic and social factors determine the degree of influence of one language on another. As for the social factors, it is long-term bilingualism as well as the intensity of the contact between languages, which could best account for the constraints in contact-induced changes (Thomason and Kaufman 1992:47). For instance, substantial structural borrowing (direct transfer) is a probability in cases of extensive bilingualism especially if it persists over a long period of time. Intensive language contact is a powerful external promoter of language change. If few speakers of the borrowing language are bilingual in the potential source language, then normally only words will be transferred. However if there is extensive bilingualism on the part of borrowing speakers, and if this bilingualism persists over a long period of time, then substantial structural transfer is a probability. Extensive bilingualism does not however imply that virtually every borrowing-language speaker is bilingual (Thomason & Kaufman 1991:47-48; Lewis 1994)

The sociolinguistic history of the speakers is one of the most important determinants of the language direction and degree of diffusion of the innovations, as well as of the more distant or remote linguistic outcome of language contact; while the structure of the languages in contact governs the introduction and diffusion of innovative elements in the linguistic systems.

Direct as well as indirect transfer in both directions are found. Throughout this paper I will only focus on the influence of Quichua on Spanish.

1.2. Summary

In part 1 I have briefly described the main theoretical orientations to the study of language change. I have highlighted the importance of analyzing language change from an eclectic perspective which considers both external and internal factors.

I claim in fact that a more accurate analysis of Highland Spanish can be obtained by taking into consideration both approaches, since language is not isolated from a wider socio-historical context.

I agree with Thomason and Kaufman that the social context is a very important factor in determining the direction and degree of interference, I also consider the importance of taking into account that language changes do not occur in a structural vacuum, and that the "permeability of a grammar to foreign influence depends on the existence of superficially parallel structures in the languages in contact" (Silva-Corvalán 1993:20)

The next sections are devoted to particulars of the Highland Spanish case. I first describe the socio-historical setting of Highland Spanish. Then I describe the HS phenomena with regard to its word order and imperative constructions.

2. HS in Ecuador

2.1. The Socio-historical Setting of Highland Spanish in Ecuador

This study is based on the Spanish spoken by urban monolingual native speakers of Spanish in the Ecuadorian Highlands, a region that has historically been characterized by the presence of various languages. Prior to any documented conquest (14th century), the Ecuadorian territory was inhabited by different Indian groups who were well organized confederations (i.e., Señoríos Etnicos) (cf. map 2), that bravely resisted the Incas' conquest in 1490. Salomon (1980) extensively describes the social, economic and political organization of these 'Señoríos Etnicos' in the region of our study; unfortunately the linguistic information is very scarce. Nevertheless, as evidence of cultural and ethnic diversity, today we find in the Ecuadorian territory at least eight ethnic groups, each with a different language and culture (cf. map 3)

With the Incas' conquest, Quechua became the general language in the conquered territories; it was used as a means of controlling the Inca empire (The Tawantinsuyo), which extended between Southern Colombia and Northern Argentina (cf. map 4)

According to Cerrón-Palomino (1987), the Incas succeeded in their conquest by unifying the peoples' political, economic and linguistic systems.

In spite of such a massive Quechua expansion, when the Spaniards arrived (1530), they found that many of the Indian groups in the central Highlands were still speaking their own languages (Benitez/Garcés 1990: 127), and saw the need of using Quechua as a general language among the Indigenous population settled in the Highlands. Cordero (1989) and Guerra (1989) consider that while the Spaniards destroyed most of the previous social and economic structures in the Andes, linguistically there was a continuous process of reinforcing the use of Quechua: at first some Spanish speakers learned the native language; then there was an extensive process of Indian Quechuization; this was followed by another of Spanishization, which is still developing.

Quechua was imposed on local populations and was spread as the lingua franca by conquistadors and missionaries of the area. The spread of the native language was especially encouraged by the efforts of the Church to spread Catholicism (Niño-Murcia 1995)

Today, the Quechua language family is spoken in most of the Andean highlands, from Colombia in the north, to Chile and Argentina in the south, as well as in the jungle lowlands to the East of the Andes. The total number of speakers is unknown, but Parker (1969) gives seven million as an estimated figure. The Quechua family has two main branches: the languages spoken in central Peru (known as Quechua I or Quechua B) (cf. Parker 1960; Torero 1964), and those spoken elsewhere (Quechua II or Quechua A). Ecuadorian Quechua, which will be referred to as Quichua, falls within the northern variety of Quechua II. Southern Quechua II includes the dialects of Cuzco (the general Inca language), and those of southern Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina.

With the Spanish conquest (1530), Spanish became the official language along with the restructuring of the socio-political and socio-economic systems . Yet, Quichua continued to be the main means of communication among the native population; and the conquerors continued learning it not only to facilitate their activities, but also for christianization and educational purposes. The missionaries who were in charge of the Indian reductions and christianization learned the native language of the indigenous population and produced the first written documents in Quichua.

As for the variety of Spanish developed in the Ecuadorian region, it was probably influenced by different languages and different forms of the same language. According to Lope Blanch (1972), the basis of Andean Spanish was the language brought by soldiers and sailors. These were Castilian and Andalusian Spanish.

With the independence from Spain three centuries later, Spanish continued to be praised; while the Indian peoples and their language were further degraded. The Indians who had been working for the Spanish landlords and the church, turned out to be part of the farms which were the economic and political support of the country. They worked not only on the land but also in the landlords' houses in the cities and found themselves taking care of the farmers' offspring, many of whom became bilingual (cf. CEDECO 1989; Hurtado 1978). This may be one of the reasons for the spreading of this " ruralized Spanish" among the middle class mestizo population in the Highlands.

Linguistically, Spanish has maintained its condition as the only official language of Ecuador. Still, according to the ethnic census carried out by the National Indian Confederation in 1988, at least 30% of the Ecuadorian population (ten million) belong to Indigenous groups, and about two million people in the Highlands have Quichua as their native language (cf. CONAIE 1989; Büttner 1993; Haboud 1991).

In spite of the lower social position maintained by Quichua as a discriminated Indian language, the permanent contact of Indians and Spanish people generated not only a mestizo culture, but also a sort of mestizo language which combines features from the regional Standard and the Native language, each with its specific peculiarities proper to the Ecuadorian socio-historical development (cf. Büttner 1993; Haboud 1991; Sánchez Parga 1992; Toscano Matheus 1953)

Traditionally the main interest in linguistic studies (i.e.. sociolinguistics) throughout the Andes has been on the influence of the dominant language upon the dominated, and on the accelerated loss of Quichua. Several studies of Spanish variants have focused on the description of certain features displayed by Amerindian Spanish vis-a-vis Peninsular Spanish (cf. Cerron-Palomino 1976; Parker 1976; Pozzi-Escott 1988 (Peru); Lope-Blanch 1972 (Mexico), Moya 1992, Toscano 1965 (Ecuador) among others.) Others have analyzed the historical causes of some of the characteristics of Amerindian Spanish. Zamora and Guitart (1982) emphasize the fact that the Spanish varieties in America are due to all the different Spanish dialects that were brought with the conquest, and to the Spaniards' need to borrow Quichua words to define animals and plants which were unknown in Europe (i.e.. pampa, papa, puma etc.)

In general, these studies have focused on the differences between these varieties of Spanish and the Peninsular norm. Often, they have overlooked the semantic differences and the historical context, which are crucial for a better understanding of the way characteristics of one language are placed/adapted into another. In contrast, this study is based on a different type of analysis. On one hand, it does not have the Peninsular norm as the standard parameter; on the other, it analyses the HS variety taking into account internal and external factors as well.

3. The data base

This study is based on data obtained from different sources:

a) The initial data for this study come from a large data base gathered during the development of a national sociolinguistic survey which was conducted in the Ecuadorian Highlands between May 1992 and March 1993. The main purpose of such a survey was to determine the use and distribution of Quichua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Highlands, as well as the context of use of both languages, the speakers' attitudes and perspectives toward the languages, and their ethnic identity. This research included a large sample of 2.841 bilingual (Quichua-Spanish) and monolingual (Quichua or Spanish) speakers, fifty community leaders and fifty two teachers of rural schools. The data include informal interviews, open conversations , specific topic discussions and personal histories.

The data presented in this paper is a limited portion of the information gathered during the sociolinguistic research which is to be analyzed in coming papers.

b) Having delineated the specific topic of this study, additional interviews and direct elicitation were conducted in the summer of 1993, in order to validate the data under analysis, this time with the specific goal of analyzing the Spanish language of monolingual speakers located in the urban areas of the Highlands, in the cities of Quito, Ambato and Latacunga (see map 1). Most of these data were recorded during informal conversations on the campus of the Catholic University of Ecuador in Quite, social and familiar events, bus trips and taxi rides.

c) During the same period of time (summer 1993) similar research was developed in the rural areas through informal interviews with bilingual (Quichua- Spanish) and monolingual (Spanish) community leaders, members of the community and classroom observations in the provinces of Imbabura, Pichincha, Tungurahua, Cotopaxi and Chimborazo (see map 1). Direct elicitation was also used, mainly as a source of comparison.

d) During 1994 another source of data has been used: interviews with monolingual Ecuadorian Spanish speakers, professionals who are currently living in the US (California, Washington DC, and Oregon) They have provided me with free recordings and direct elicitation. Finally, e-mail elicitation has also been possible with Ecuadorian Spanish speakers in Ecuador and the United States as well. This was very important for understanding the permanent character of the phenomenon under analysis.

e) Written sources have also been used for this study. I have collected important illustrations of Highland Spanish from personal testimonies, novels, current Ecuadorian newspapers, and personal letters.

f) Finally, it is important to point out that I am myself a native speaker of this variety, which very much gives me the proper input for continuous research and investigation. I should also say that I was not directly exposed to any Indian language and used a different foreign language (Arabic) within the family context.

In the next section (fourth), I describe and analyze the HS phenomena. Throughout the analysis the HS data are continuously compared to Standard Spanish and Quichua.

4. Ecuadorian Highland Spanish

4.1. word order

In spite of the flexibility displayed by Spanish (SS), its most frequent word order pattern is that of a VO language. HS mostly behaves as SS. However with the gerund construction and non-verbal predicates, HS tends to behave as an OV language (1 and 2). A description of the word order in SS and HS follows.

In transitive clauses, the object follows the verb:

S V O

(1) María come papas

Maria eat3SP potatoes'

'Maria eats potatoes'

SS and HS have prepositions:

PREP

(2) María come en la casa

Maria eat3SP PREP DET house

'Maria eats at home'

In SS gerundival constructions, the GER follows the finite V in progressive (3b), and in complex constructions (4b) as well. HS usually shares this pattern; however the OV order is common in the speech of monolingual Andean Spanish speakers. I illustrate:

HS SS

[How is X doing?]

AUX AUX

(3)a. Muriéndose está b. Se está muriendo

dieGER be3P EMP3S be3P dieGER

'He is dyingl ' He is dying'

V2 V1 V1 V2

(4)a. pensando viene b. viene pensando

thinking come3SP come3SP thinking

'He comes thinking' 'He comes thinking'

'Having thought he comes'

With non-verbal predicates we find that in HS the non-verbal predicate may precede the copula when not omitted. In SS the copula precedes the non-verbal predicate:

[Who is it?]

Nom Pred COP Nom Pred

(S)a. Yo Rosa b. Soy Rosa

1S Rosa be1SPr Rosa

'I Rosa' 'I'm Rosa'

HS SS

[What does your husband do?3

Nom Pred COP COP Nom Pred

(G)a. Profesor es/está b. Es profesor

teacher be3Pr be3Pr teacher

'Teacher is' 'He's a teacher'

[How is Santi doing?]

Adjectival COP COP Adj ectival

(7)a. Grande está b. Está grande

big be3SPr be3SPr big

'Big is' 'He's big'

Now let's analyze the word order patterns in Quichua to look for a possible correlation with the HS tendency. Quichua, in spite of its flexibility, is mainly an OV language. As such, in simple transitive sentences the object precedes the verb:

S O V

(8) Maria-ca papa-ta miku-n

Maria-TOP potato-ACC eat -3SP

'Maria eats potatoes'

Typical of a verb final language, Quichua has postpositions:

N PP

(9) Maria-ca wasi-pi miku-n

Maria-TOP house-PP eat -3S

'Maria eats at home

With non-verbal predicates, the predicate precedes the copula, which is optional:

[Who is it? At the door/]

Nom. Pred COP

(10) Ñuka Ruza-mi (kan-i)

I Rosa-EV (be+lSPr)

'I am Rosa'

[What does he do]

Nom.Pred COP

(11) Maiustru-ka ka-n

teacher-TOP be-3SPr

'Teacher is'

[How is Santi doing?]

Adjectival Cop

(12) hatun-mi (ka-n)

big -EV (be-3SPr)

'Big is'

In constructions referring to a state with a progressive form, the auxiliary is in final position:

[How is x doing?]

AUX

(13) Wañu-shpa kan

die -suff be-3Pr

'He is dying'

In complex construction with a gerund, the nominalized gerundival clause precedes the finite clause:

V2 V1

(14) yuyay-shpa shamu-n

think-suff come-1SPr

'Having thought he comes'

'He comes thinking'

4.1.1. Highland Spanish: A verb-final language?

If we compare Q and HS word order we find that non-verbal predicates and complex gerund constructions exhibit the same pattern in both linguistic varieties:

HS Q

[Who is it? At the door/3

(15)a.Yo, Rosa (estoy) b.Ñuka Ruza-mi

I , Rosa (belSPr) I Rosa-EV

'I Rosa'

[What does he do?]

(1G)a.Profesor está b.Maiustru-ka ka-n

teacher be3SPr teacher-TOP be-3SPr

'Teacher is'

[How is Santi doing?3

(17)a.Grande está b.satun-mi (ka-n)

big be3SPr big -EV (be-3SPr)

'Big is'

[How is X doing?3

(18)a.Muriéndose está b.Wañu-shpa kan

die-GER be3SPr die -suff be-3Pr

'Dying is'

(19)a.Pensando viene b.Yuyay-shpa shamu-n

think-GER come3SP think-suff come-1SPr

'Having thought he comes'

'He comes thinking'

Illustrations (15) to (19) show that:

1. The word order variation displayed by HS with non-verbal predicates and complex gerundival constructions resembles Quichua word order.

2. In nominal predicates, HS tends to simplify the copula due to a calque from Quichua, which has an invariant copula kan. As in Q, in HS the copula is optional with certain nominal predicates (15) In HS there is an extension of the copula estar 'to be', (Q kan) to contexts previously limited to ser, 'to be' (Q kan), (15 and 16)

Previous studies of word order variation for Spanish-Quichua speakers describe a similar phenomenon especially for rural areas (cf. Toscano (1953)

In a later extensive study in the Central Ecuadorian Highlands, Muysken (1984) illustrates XV order as a characteristic of lower- class Spanish speakers, where "X is a variable ranging over objects, predicates, sentential complements and prepositional phrases. Nevertheless, Muysken does not consider that such word order variation is due to a Quichua transfer but rather to stylistic reasons among bilinguals. This remains unclear. Muysken's analysis did not specifically focus on stylistic variations in the language of bilinguals.

From a different perspective, Kany (1969) points out that archaic Spanish frequently had similar verb final constructions. From this he postulates that the verb final word order of present day HS is rather a "Spanish heritage reinforced by the influence of the substratum in the Andean countries" (1969:265 In: Sala 1988:121)

Within the perspective of contact-language situations, Thomason and Kaufman (1992) argue that word order is the easiest syntactic feature to be borrowed and/or acquired via language shift. Nevertheless, it is impossible to assign HS characteristics to one source (SS) or the other (Q), given that both linguistic varieties have flexible word order. Recall also that HS speakers can choose between SS or HS word order, probably led by communicative needs and sociocultural constraints.

The following section (4.2.) presents several instances of Imperatives in HS. The main purpose is to show both, different types of Q transfer and the way the semantic reanalysis of the SS has proceeded.

4.2. Imperatives in HS

4.2.1. Imperative 1: The use of "nomás"

A common way to soften a command in HS is using the imperative form of the standard followed by the expression nomás 'only', 'just' (Lit. 'no more') as in:

(20) Come nomás!

eat2SIMP just

'Eat!'(Go ahead and eat!)

which in SS will be encoded with an adverbial phrase:

(21) Come tránquilamente!

eat2SIMP freely

'Eat (freely)

4.2.1.1. The source of 'nomás'

The HS construction Come nomás 'Eat no more' (20) described above as a familiar invitation, seems to find its correspondence in Quichua:

(22) miku - y - lla

eat - IMP- just

'Eat!'(Go ahead and eat!)

The suffix -lla is a 'limitative' translated as 'just', 'only' HS has incorporated the literal translation nomás 'no more.' This phenomenon is common along the Andes as illustrated by Quesada in regard to Quechua from Cajamarca (1976:147), or Cerrón-Palomino (1990) in Junín-Huanca Quechua (Peru):

(23) takshja-lla

little -just

'chiquito nomás'

with regard to Ecuadorian Quichua, Cole (1982:31) states that -lla is used to soften the brusqueness of imperatives. This is in fact the function of the expression "nomás" in HS as shown in (24a):

HS SS

(24)a.Entra nomás (Estoy ocupada) b. Entra!

come-IMP - just (I am busy) come2SIMP

'(Feel free) to come in' (I am busy) 'Come in!'

The difference between a and b. resides in that a. is a familiar invitation, while b. is an order.

HS speakers who are able to use the Standard as well as HS find a lot of difficulties when trying to encode the corresponding semantic reading of HS in SS. Some of the speakers' attempts to give an accurate interpretation of (24a) are shown below:

(25) a. Está bien si vienes!

'It is fine if you come!' (RV.12.94)

b. Ven, no hay problema!

'Come in, there is no problem!' (GP.1.7.94)

c. Ven, pasa adelante!

'Come in, go ahead!' (IH.12.6.93)

Finally, if (24a) is analyzed on the basis of SS, the speaker may incorrectly understand that he is required to enter and then to stop ('Come in (and) no more'). That is because the expression 'no más' is mainly used in SS with the sense of 'no more' or 'stop', as in the following short dialog:

(25) a. ¿Puedo comer más cholocate?

'Can I eat more chocolate?'

b. Creo que no más

'I believe no more' [Lit.'I believe that no more']

4.2.2. Imperative 2: Future as Imperative

In HS the morphological future is frequently used as an Imperative, as seen in (26) and (27):

Hs ss

(26)a.Vendrás! b. Ven!

comeFUT2S comeIMPLS

'Come (please)' 'Come!'

(27)a.No vendrás muy temprano! b. No vengas muy temprano

NEG comeFUTaS too early NEG comeIMP2S too early

'Please not come too early' 'Don't come too early!

This 'future/imperative' ncan be used with intransitive (26), (27), or transitive lexical verbs (28). As a true imperative, it is not only used with the 2S ( tú - informal ) but also with 2S and PL (Usted/es -formal) as a way of transforming the command into an indirect petition (would you please?, remember), or a suggestion (29)

Hs ss

(L8)a.Entregarás(me) el libro b. Entrégame el libro!

give backFUT2S(me) the book give backIMP2S1DAT the book

'Would you/give me back the book?' 'Give me back the book'

(29)a.Pagarán los cinco de la compu b. Paguen los cinco dólares de la compu!

payFUT2PL the five for the compu payIMP2PL the five for the computer

'(Remember) to pay the five for the 'Pay the five (dollars) for the

computer' computer'

The comparison of HS (26a-29a) and SS (26b-29b) shows that (26a), (27a) and (28a) are reminders, petitions, suggestions while the SS are orders. This pragmatic sense is also reinforced by the intonational contour which corresponds to a petition not to a command. (29a) also displays other elements of informality: the use of incomplete words (i.e. compu for computer), and the omission of the word 'dollars' in spite of the fact that collecting the money is the core purpose of the softened command. At the discourse level, (29a) responds to cultural constraints on discussing financial issues publicly.

The future operates as a true imperative. While with a real future the clitics precede the verb, (Le Ilamaré a Juan 'I will call him, John), the Future/Imperative follows the clitic pronoun rules for the imperative (Kay 1994:15): clitics are postposed to the verb in the affirmative (30), (31); and preposed in the negative (32)

Future/Imperative+ clitic Imperative + clitic

(30)a. Llamarás -le a Juan b.Llá-ma -le a Juan

callFUT2-Pro to Juan callIMPL-Pro to Juan

'(Remember) Call Juan, please?!' 'Call Juan!!

(31)a. Entregarás -me el libro b.Entréga -me el libro

give backIMP-Pro the book give backFUT2-Pro the book

'Give me back the book?!' 'Give me back the book,

(32)a. No le Ilamarás b.No le Llames

Neg Pro callFut2 NEG Pro callIMP2

'(Try not) Don't call him? 'Don't call him!!'

This imperative form has become so common that it can also be used in informal written language:

(33) escribirás no seas malita

writeFUT2S NEG beIMP bad+DIM (mean)

'(Would you please) Write (me), don't be mean!' [Personal e-mail Nov.16.93]

4.2.2.1. The source of Future/Imperative in HS

The synthetic future has been used as a command in Old Spanish as well as in Quichua. Therefore, it is plausible to think that HS future/imperatives find their origin in either one of these two languages.

With regard to SS, the Real Academy of the Spanish language (1973) states that the future was (and is still) used to reinforce a command and to make explicit that the order will be accomplished.

Such function obviously differs from the semantic function displayed by the future/imperative in HS which is rather to soften the command and to give the participants a sort of flexibility in executing the order.

As for Quichua, the Ecuadorian variety of this language also employs the future as an imperative. A century ago, Paris (1892/1966), already mentioned the frequent use of future to encode commands in Quichua.

Furthermore, recent analyses of Ecuadorian Quichua (Cole 1983; Yánez Cossío & Jara 1983) also attest that even though Quichua has a system of imperatives, it frequently prefers to use the Future to encode Imperativeness as a way of softening the commands. Contrasting illustrations of Quichua imperative (34a) and future/ imperative constructions (34b) follow:

Imperative Future/Imperative

(34) a. sham-y! b. Shamu-ngui!

come-IMP2S come- FUT(IMP)2S

'Come!' '(Try to) come?!'

The Quichua imperative -y encodes a strong command, while -ngui (the future) carries the sense of a petition which does not require the participant's immediate response.

The comparison of HS and Q puts into evidence the semantic influence of the native indigenous language into the HS variety.

HS a

(35)a. Vendrás b.Shamu-ngui

comeFUT2S come- FUT(IMP)2S

(Try to) 'Come!'

(36)a. No vendrás b.Ama shamu-ngui-chu

NEG comeFUT2S NEG come-FUT2S-NEG

(Try not to)'Don't come!'

Previous analyses of imperative constructions have in a way taken into account the perspectives presented above. Yépez Lasso (1984) in her study of the imperative forms in Quite states that Old Spanish is the source of HS constructions. With a more eclectic perspective, Niño-Murcia (1986), considered that imperatives in the northern Ecuadorian Highlands have resulted from the interaction between Quechua and Spanish. The data analysis presented in this study basically supports Niño-Murcia's perspective.

In sum,

1. The future marker has increased in productivity displacing, under certain communicative conditions, the standard imperative form.

2. The HS future/ imperative shows a case of inter-relation of elements from SS and Q (Chart 2). While the structure is shared by both languages, the semantic sense carried by HS is a transfer of the Quichua's way of expressing politeness, flexibility and less control.

3. If we place the imperative constructions described above into a scale of imperativeness, we notice that SS denotes a stronger command and encodes a higher degree of imperativeness, immediateness and control, while HS shows a decrease on the degree of imperativeness and control, and the increase of informality, and flexibility. This is tentatively shown in diagram 1.

Chart 2

ss Hs Q

IMP Command	Command	Command
FUT Authoritarian command in old Spanish)	Suggestion -Manipulative	Suggestion -Manipulative

Diagram 1

SS+ -------------------------------------------------------------- HS

Ven Ven no más Vendrás

'Come!' 'Come no more!' 'Would you please come!?'

4.2.3. Imperative 3: Give+V Gerund

In HS it is quite common to use the verbal periphrasis Dar+gerundio ('Give+gerund') as an imperative:

(37) Da -me haciendo el pan mientras yo lavo

giveIMP-me doing the bread while I washlSPr

'Could you please bake the bread for me while I wash?

(38) Da -me viendo los libros mientras voy a la clase

giveIMP-me watching the books while golSPr to class

'Could you watch the (my) books for me, while I go to class'

The meanings in (37) and (38) are encoded in SS with the following constructions:

(39) Hat-me el pan mientras yo lavo

make-me the bread while I washlSPr

'Make me the bread while I wash'

(40) Cuída -me los libros mientras voy a la clase

Watch -me the books while golSPr to class

'Watch my books while I go to class'

Previous studies (Toscano 1953; Niño-Murcia 1988) emphasize that this construction is mainly used in the imperative form. Even though the imperative seems to be the most frequent form, the data for this study show that this construction is currently used in non-imperative forms, as seen in (41) to (44) where no tense/aspect restrictions apply.

HS 55

(4l)a.Me dio cocinando (a mi) b.Cocinó por mi

1SIO give3SP cooking to me cook3SP for me

'He cooked for/instead of me' 'He cooked for me'

(42)a.Me va a dar cocinando (a mi) b.Va a cocinar por mi

1SIO go3SP to give cooking to me go3SPr to cook for me

'He is going to cook for/instead of me' 'He's going to cook for me'

(43)a.Me dará cocinando b.Cocinará por mi

1SIO give3SFUT cooking cook3SFUT for me

'He will cook for/instead of me 'He will cook for me'

(44)a.Me daría cocinando si supiera b. Cocinaría por mi si supiera

1SIO give3SCOND cooking if know3SSUB cook3SCONDfor me if know3SSUB

'He'd cook for/instead of me if he knew' 'He'd cook for me if he knew'

The illustrations above show that HS displays complex clause structures in which the verb give carries all the tense/aspect morphology and the main semantic meaning is carried by the gerund, while the single verb of the SS simple constructions carries not only the verbal morphology but also the main semantic meaning. The meaning encoded by give+clitic in HS is expressed in SS by prepositional phrases: por mí 'for me,' en lugar mío, 'instead of me,' 'in my benefit.'

Give+GER is restricted to co-occurring with transitive (45) and ditransitive lexical verbs (46), (47):

Transitive:

(45) Dame haciendo el pan mientras yo lavo

GiveIMP1SBen doing the bread while I washlSPr

'Could you please make the bread for me (and instead of me)

while I wash?!'

Ditransitive

(46) Dame vendiendo el libro a la María

giveIMP1SBen selling the book to Maria

'Would you sell the book to Maria instead of me?!'

(47) Dame comprando el libro para la María

giveIMP1SBen buying the book for Maria

'Would you buy the book for Maria instead of me?!'

Intransitive verbs can be used in these periphrastic constructions when they encode the idea of doing something for the benefit of somebody else in the sense of 'substituting' or 'replacing' X. (48) is ungrammatical in its literal sense, when the verb 'leave' is used as a real intransitive verb meaning 'going out.' Nevertheless, (49) and (50) are fine in HS because the context makes it clear that the verbs 'leave' and 'cry,' although inherently intransitive, in the dar constructions encode the idea of acting in behalf of another:

(48) *Dame saliendo

giveIMP1SIO leaving

*'Leave for me'

(49) No entiendo este juego, dame saliendo

NEG understandlSPr DEM game giveIMP1SBen leaving

'I don't understand this game, would you play instead of me

(and let me be out) [XS.10.94]

(50) No tengo más lagrimas. Dame Llorando

NEG havelSPr more tears giveIMP1SBen crying

'I don't have more tears. Would you cry instead of

me?'[XS.10.94]

Intransitive verbs are not frequently used in this periphrastic construction; however it is with this type of verb that the sense of benefiting somebody else becomes evident. Thus compare (51a) and (51b):

(51)

a. Te he de dar Llorando cuando no puedas más

2SBen havelSPr of giveINF crying when NEG can2SSUB more

'I will cry instead of you, when you can't (cry) anymore'

b. Te he de Llorar cuando mueras

2SIO havelSPr of cryINF when die2SSUB

'I will cry for you when you die'

From the above, it is clear that the dar 'give' construction requires the presence of an extra argument which becomes a beneficiary by 'substitution' (instead of). Such argument can be overtly marked (52),(53) or not (54), (55) In the case of corefentiality, the same participant receives a double benefit (X does something for Y (me) instead of Y (me) (53):

The beneficiary may be omitted in the cases of coreferentiality, either because the speaker presupposes it will be understood by the context, or because he intentionally wants to impersonalize his petition:

(52) El me dio dando el cuchillo a la María

he 1SBen givelSP giving the knife to the Maria

'He gave the knife to Maria' ('instead of me')

(53) El me da haciendo el pan mientras yo lavo

he 1SBen give3SPr doing the bread while I washlSPr

'He bakes the bread for me/instead of me while I wash'

(54) "Podría alguien dar(nos) Llamando a Marcela in Quito?"

could somebody give(us) calling to Marcela in Quito

'Could somebody call Marcela in Quite (for/instead of us)?'

(55) "Podría alguien dar(nos) averiguando que pasa con la guerra?"

could somebody give(us) finding out what happens with the war

'Could somebody find out what is going on with the war (for/instead of us)?'

4.2.3.1. The source of Give+OGR

The linguistic literature offers numerous illustrations of phenomena apparently similar to the give+GER construction, especially in languages that have serial verb constructions (i.e., African languages), where the verb 'give' has reanalyzed into a case marker (cf. Lord 1993, Traugott and Heine 1991)

Never the less, the analysis of the literature on Spanish in the Andean region, and Latin America in general, demonstrates that this construction is a particularity of the Ecuadorian Highlands only. Once again we need to turn to Quichua in search of an appropriate explanation.

We have already discussed some of the strategies used by Ecuadorian Quichua to form polite requests. Another strategy used in the same sense is by attaching the first person (singular or plural) indirect object suffix -wa- to the verb 'give' (cuna), as in:

(56) Punchu-ta apamu-shpa cu -wa y

poncho-DO bring-GER give-1SIO-IMP

'Would you please bring me the poncho' [Lit:'the poncho bringing give me]

If we compare Q (57) to HS (58), the HS construction looks like a calque from Quichua.

(57) Dame trayendo el poncho

givelSPr+lIO bringing the poncho

'Would you please bring me the poncho' [Lit.:'give me bringing the poncho]

At first glance this would be the simplest explanation to the phenomenon under analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that a construction like (56) is usually the result of direct elicitation with bilingual Quichua-Spanish speakers. Free recordings with speakers who have a lower command of Spanish prefer to express polite commands with simple constructions where the suffix -pa is postponed to the verb:

(58) shamu- pa y

come - suffix- IMP

'Come, please'

In the Quechua family, -pa- /-paq-, -pu-, -E-/ is a benefactive, which has had "a curious development in Ecuadorian Quichua." Cerrón -Palomino (1984) accounts for this derivational suffix as an innovation in Ecuadorian Quichua, where -pa has become an honorific which seems to have resulted from the coalescence of two morphemes: the benefactive -pu and the first person object (singular and plural) -wa.

In the same vein, Taylor (1982) also states that Ecuadorian Quichua has developed a particle -~a which encodes politeness and respect and is widely used in imperative constructions (1982:55). This particle has coalesced from two different morphemes:

-pa (-pu, -p), old benefactive

-wa(-ma -mu) first person object (singular and plural)

These suffixes also convey a sense of "directionality": -~a/-pu indicates 'far from the speaker', and -wa, 'towards the speaker ("centrifugal" and "centripetal" directions in Taylor's terms)

Taylor (1982:55) describes the morpheme -pa, as:

" indice de beneficiaire [...] transformateur en marque de

beneficiaire du pronom-objet qui s'y associe..."

In an attempt to give an accurate translation for this morpheme Taylor presents different possibilities: "would you please", " I'm sorry but I would like you..," "would you please do it for me?" He illustrates as follows:

(59) miku-pa-y

eat-HON-IMP

'Eat, please'

(60) apa -mu ga - Y

bring-DIR - HON/BEN-IMP

'Would you bring it to me (for me), please'

Another piece of evidence with regard to -pa is given by Coombs (1975:132) from the variety of Quechua in Cajarmaca, Peru:

(61) apa-mu pa -Y

bring-DIR -HON/Ben IMP

'Bring it to me (for me), please'

Additionally, he states that -pa- has several meanings (a), and (b):

a. -pa encodes purpose as in:

(62) suwa - ni miku-na-yni -pa

steal- 1S eat-INF-poss-for

'Robo para comer'

'I steal in order to eat'

b. -pa encodes substitution as in:

(63) pay-ka rima -nka amigu- n pa

3S -TOP speak-3STOP friend <SP>GEN- instead of

'El hablará de los miembros de la clase en vez de su amigo'

'He will speak to the members of the class instead of his friend'

If we compare illustrations (59 to 63) to the HS data we find that semantically, there are a number of similarities. Both encode a sense of politeness ('please'), substitution ('instead of me'), directionality ('away from the speaker'), and indirect benefit towards a participant that is not always directly involved in the event (Ben).

The functions encoded morphologically in Quichua (-pa + -wa) are replaced by syntactic structures in Spanish, taking advantage of periphrastic gerundival constructions. The correspondence between Q and HS is shown below:

(64) apa-mu María - pa Y

bring María - BEN+1IO+DIR - IMP

traer a María dame

'Dame trayendo eso para/a María (en lugar mío, por favor)

'Bring it to María (instead of me) (please)

The elements calqued from Quichua into Spanish have been relocated by HS in order to preserve the well formedeness of the Spanish constructions:

It is important to recall that HS speakers are able to choose between the Standard constructions and HS constructions depending on the communicative needs. This is to say that HS has created "new means of expressing functional categories already present in the receiving languages" (Thomason & Kaufman 1991:66)

Similarly, the above illustrations are coherent with other principles expected in contact-induced language change:

1. In contact-induced language changes, the functional congruence very often links a morphological feature with a syntactic one, so that the changes are not confined to one or the other subsystem (Thomason and Kaufman 1991)

2. The source language (Quichua) need not to be identical to the characteristics exhibited in the recipient language (Spanish)

4.3. Degree of imperativeness

We have already shown how imperative structures in HS have different degrees of imperativeness, manipulation and control. Within this continuum, the Dar+GER constructions can be placed on the lower portion of the scale (Diagram 2). Furthermore, it is possible to combine all the imperative constructions previously analyzed in a way that imperativeness acquires different shades.

The degree of power, manipulation and control is higher with the SS construction and lower with all the different HS constructions. The more possible combinations of HS, the less imperativeness.

Diagram 2

C +

O cocina!!

N cocina no más

T cocinarás no más

R darás cocinando no más

O

L -

From a sociolinguistic view point, these structures represent the coalescence, not only of two languages but of two cultures. It seems plausible to hypothesize that the actual use of these imperative forms correspond to the way the Ecuadorian society is socio-economically comprised today. If we draw a parallel between the imaginary continuum of imperativeness presented above and the highly stratified Ecuadorian society mentioned in section 2, there seems to be a direct correlation between the degree of imperativeness and the degree of social power displayed by specific portions of the society (i.e. ethnic component), as illustrated in diagram 3:

Diagram 3

ss HS Q

Ven!

Hazme el pan! Vendrás?!

Harásme el pan?!

Dame haciendo el pan?.

Darásme haciendo el pan?

(+)----------------------------------------------------(-)

E G

T R

H O Spanish/white Mestizo Indian

N U

I P

C S

I am aware that the above diagram carries a complex net of dynamic personal inter-relationship and communicative contexts which will need specific research beyond the scope of this study. Such an analysis could provide a very concrete way of understanding through language the development of the Ecuadorian society as a whole.

5. Recapitulation

The main purpose of this final section is to provide a summary of the linguistic changes which have been examined in this paper and to place such changes within the framework of contact-induced language change.

In section 1, I briefly discussed the main theoretical approaches with regard to language change with the purpose of providing a background to this study of language change in the urban Ecuadorian Highlands. Several grammatical changes of the regional variety of Spanish (HS: Highland Spanish) were described and analyzed within the general hypothesis that in language-contact situations, internal and external factors are two elements that constrain linguistic change. At the same time, I argued that the phenomena presented throughout this paper have to do not only with language transformation, but with a whole system of social relations.

Socially, the HS speakers have developed strategies to better express their perception of the social relationships that hold between the different strata of society between Spanish descendants, Mestizos and Indians.

The linguistic phenomena examined in this paper illustrate several types of convergence of Q and SS where new semantic and pragmatic uses evolve over the base of existing structures.

First I referred to HS word order whose preference for verb final order in gerund constructions seems to be based on iconicity and cognitive parameters.

I also presented three different cases of imperatives which have been influenced by the Quichua language. The permeability of the Spanish language shows a sort of degree differentiation which starts with the semantic reanalysis of terms such nomás 'no more,'

to the reanalysis of morphological forms into syntactic structures of the receiving language (dar+GER). The reanalysis of the lexical verb dar 'give' into a benefactive (beneficiary) which encodes politeness, substitution and directionality.

Finally, I will (a) place the HS data within the contact-induced language change framework, and (b) account for the relationship between internal and external factors.

a) With regard to the previous question discussed in section 1: "Where to place HS in regard to a contact-induced language change framework?", the analysis of the data demonstrates that HS displays characteristics of direct and indirect transfer at the same time.

The Quichua substratum has taken advantage of the permeability of Standard Spanish constructions which have gone into a process of semantic reanalysis. In Hopper's terms, HS demonstrates that:

"Grammatical forms are negotiable in face to face interaction in ways that reflect the individual speakers' past experiences of these forms, and their assessment of the present context (Hopper 1987:142)."

b) As for the relationship of internal and external factors, we have fully demonstrated that HS is the product of long intensive contact between two languages which are typologically different (Spanish and Quichua). Such contact has triggered linguistic and cultural specificities which can be better explained when analyzed as interrelated processes.

How has this happened considering not only the low prestige of Quichua but also its historical condition of marginalized language? Can we postulate that HS is the result of generalized bilingualism whose speakers went into imperfect learning of the official

language (target language)? I propose, following Thomason and Kaufman (1992), that the characteristics displayed by HS are due to the specific circumstances which surrounded the long standing contact between the native language Quichua and Spanish, and to the permeability of existing structures in Spanish.

While we are unable to supply specific facts about the bilingual situation in the past, it is possible to account for a more general contact situation where we find that the Quichua influence on Spanish has been subtle but consistent. This is noticeable at the cultural level as well. The linguistic characteristics found in HS can be a very useful means to understand the historical process of the Ecuadorian society.

The social and linguistic stratification shown within the scale of imperativeness can be enlarged to HS as a whole. HS represents some kind of a middle point between Spanish (SS) and Quichua (Q), as mestizo people represent a middle point between the Spanish and the Indian societies.

To conclude, I suggest that the HS variety shows not only the convergence of linguistic elements from two languages which are typologically different, but also of two different cultures. As a first step for further analysis I intent to draw a parallel between the linguistic structures of the language and the social formation of the Ecuadorian society nowadays. The analysis of HS from an integrated view point, clearly opens new ways of understanding the linguistic characteristics of HS as well as the history of its speakers.

Abram, Matthias Lenqua, Cultura e Identidad. El Proyecto EBI

1992 (1985-1990). Quite: Abya-Yala

Benitez Lilyan and A. Garcés.

1990 Culturas Ecuatorians. A~er y Hoy. Quite:

Abya -Yala

Bonfante, G. "The Neolinguistic position" Language XXIII

1947 (344-351)

Büttner, Thomas. Las Lenguas de los Andes Centrales. Estudios

1983 sobre la clasificación genética, areal y

tipológica. Madrid: E. Cultura Hispánica del

Instituo de Cooperación Iberoamericana.

Campos, Héctor De la Oración Simple a la Oración Compuesta

1993 Washington D.C.: Georgetown U. Press

CEDHU. Los Derechos Humanos: El Caso Ecuatoriano.

1985 Quito: Ed. El Conejo

CEDECO el Mundo Andino. CEDECO: Quito

1989

Cerrón-Palomino,RodoIfo

1978 "Enseñanza del Castellano". En: Escobar,

Alberto (ed. ) El Reto del Muvltilinsüismo en

el Perú. Perú Probema 9. Lima:IEP

1987 Lingüistica Quechua. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios

Rurales Andinos "Bartolomé de Las Casas"

Cole, Peter Imbabura Quichua. Lingua Descriptive Studies

1982 Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.

Vo.5.

Coombs, David Gramática Quechua: San Martín. Lima:IEP

1976

Escobar, Alberto

1978 Variaciones Sociolincsüísticas del Castellano

en el Perú. Perú problema 18. Lima:

Institute de Estudios Peruanos.

Fierro, Gustavo El Español de Quito. Encuentros Lingüísticos

1987 Quito: PUCE (ms)

Grimm, Juan M. La Lenqua Quichua

1896 (1989) Quito: MEC-GTZ

Haboud, Marleen Uso TJ Conocimiento del Quichua v el

1991 Castellano en el Ecuador (Documento de Trabaj o) Quito:EBI

1995 On grammatical Change and Lanaua~es in Contact in the Ecuadorian Highlands. University of Oregon (ms)

Heine Bernd, U. Claudi adn F. Hünnemeyer

1991 Grammaticalization. Chicago: The Universityu of Chicago Press

Hurtado, Osvaldo El Poder Político en el Ecuador. Quito:PUCE

1978

Kany, Charles. Sintaxis Hispanoamericana. (tr. Martin Bianco

1969 [1963] Alvarez). Madrid: Gredos

Labov, William On the mechanism of linguistic change.

1965 Language and Linguistics, Monograph 18. Washington: Georgetown Univesity

Lehiste, Ilse Lectures on Language Contact.

1988 Cambridge: The MIT Press

Lope-Blanch, Juan Estudios sobre el Español de México.

1972 México:UNAM

Lopez, Luis Enrique (ed.)

1988 Pesquisas en Lingüística Andina. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Teconología. Universidad Nacional del Altiplano. Puno:GTZ

Malmberg, Bertil Readings in Modern Linguistics: an anthology

1972 Stockholm: Laromedelsforlagen

Martinet, André La Linguistique Synchronique, etudes et

1965 recherches. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Moreno Yánez, Segundo.

1989 "Una nación de nacionalidades." In: CEDECO. Ecuador Multinacional. Conciencia v Cultura. Quito: Abya-Yala, CEDECO (13-32)

Moya, Ruth. El Bilinsüismo del maestro v del niño en la

1992 escuela Ouichua-Castellano. Ponenecia presentada al Seminario Bilingüismo y Educacion: tema 3. Perspectivas Pedagógicas y bilingüismo. Academia de Educación Indígena, Universidad Pedagogica Nacional, Mexico.

Muysken, Peter Mixed Categories. Nominalizations in Ouechua.

1988 Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Niño-Murcia, Mercedes

1988 Construcciones verba les del Español Andino : Interacción Quechua-Española en la frontera Colombo-Ecuatoriana. Ph.D. dissertation. Romance Languages and Literatures: Romance Linguistics in the U. of Michigan.

1995 (in press) "Gerundianismo en el español ecuatoriano" (?) In: Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (ed.) Studies in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Biulingualism. Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics.

Parker, Gary J. Clasificación aenética de los dialectos

1963 quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional, 32 (pp 241-252)

1969 Avacucho Quechua Grammar and Dictionary Paris: Mouton the Hague.

1972 "Falacias y verdades acerca del Quechua." In: Escobar, A (ed) El reto del multilingüismo en el Perú. Lima:IEP.

Paris, Julio R.P. Gramática de la Lenqua Quichua actualmente

1961 en uso entre 1os Indígenas del Ecuador. Quito: Ed. Santo Domingo (3ra.edición)

Pozzi-Escott "La incomunicación verbal en el Perú." In:

1988 Lopez, Luis Enrique (ed. ) Pessuisas en Lingüistica Andina. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Teconología. Universidad Nacional del Altiplano. Puno:GTZ.

Quesada, Felix Gramática Ouechua: Cajamarca-Cañaris

1976 Lima-IEP.

Sala, Marius El Problema de las Lenguas en Contacto.

1988 Mexico: UNAM.

Salomon, Frank Los señores étnicos de Quito en la época de

1980 los Incas. Pendoneros 10. Institute Otavaleño de Antropología. Otavalo: Gallocapitán.

Silva-Corvalán, Carmen

1994 Lancluaqe Contact and Chancre. Spanish in Los Anqeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1995 (in press) Studies in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Biulingualism. Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics.

Stark, Louise & Peter Muysken.

1977 Diccionario Español-Quichua, Ouichua-Español. Quito: Publicaciones del Museo del Banco Central.

Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman.

1992 Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linsuistics . Los Angeles: U. of California Press.

Torero, Alfredo. Los dialectos quechuas. Lima: Anales

1967 científicos de la Universidad Agraria, 2

(pp 446-478)

Toscano, Humberto. Hablemos del Lenquaje. Quito: Dep. Editorial

1960-1 de Educación.

Traugott, Elizabeth.

1977 "Pidginization, Creolization and Language Change." In: John Reinecke (ed) Pidqin and Creole Linsuistics. Indiana: Indiana U. Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth and B. Heine (ed's)

1991 Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume II Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Taylor, Gerald. "Le morpheme de respect /-pa-/ dans les

1982 parlers quechuas de la sierra équatorienne." Amerindia Paris: Centre de Recherche de l'université de Paris VIII (7: 55-61)

Yánez C., Consuelo. Educación Indigena en el área Andina.

1989 Quito: Abya-Yala.

Yánez C., Consuelo & F. Jara.

1984 Ñucanchic llactapac shimi. Quito:CIEI.

Yépez L., Mariana. Empleo del future de indicativo como

1984 imperativo en el español de Quite. (Ts) Quito: PUCE.

Zamora, J. & J. Guitart

1982 Dialectoloqía Hispanoamericana. Colección Lingüística. Salamanca: Ed. Almar, S.A.

Moya, Ruth. El Bilinqüismo del maestro y del niño en la

1992 escuela Quichua-Castellano. Ponenecia presentada al Seminario Bilingüismo y Educacion:tema 3. Perspectivas Pedagógicas y bilingüismo. Academia de Educación Indígena, Universidad Pedagogica Nacional, Mexico.

CEDHU Los Derechos Humanos: El Caso Ecuatoriano.

1985 Quito: Ed. El Conejo

Fierro, Gustavo. El Español de Quito. Encuentros Lingüísticos.

1987 Quito: PUCE (ms)

Perez-Torres, Raúl. En la Noche y en la Niebla.

1988 Quito: Ed. Universitaria

Stolen, Kristi A. A media voz: Ser mujer campesina en la

1987 Sierra Ecuatoriana. Quite: CEPLAES.