A Comparative Study of the Andean Languages
Fieldwork Locations
Contents
Which Andean Languages Do We Cover? Why These?
Information on Fieldwork Locations and Informants
and links to photo-pages on selected locations
A Working Classification of the Varieties Covered
The Traditional Quechua ‘Family Tree’
Further Varieties to be Included
Data Sources:
Fieldwork and Dictionaries
Which Andean Languages Do We Cover? Why These?
For Quechua we have so far
covered fifteen varieties, from
• Coverage of all the main varieties within all the main branches of the ‘family tree’ of the language – or rather, family of closely related languages – that is Quechua. For more details, see the map and ‘family tree’ structure table below, and a brief note on how different the varieties are from each other.
• Coverage of all the various degrees of difference between varieties within the Quechua family, to give us a perspective on all relative degrees of difference we find in our database: accents, dialects, closely related languages. At the ‘less different’ end of this scale, this involved including focusing, for on a number of highly similar varieties spoken over the just one very large area, that of Southern or Cuzco-Collao Quechua, which also allows us to test the discriminatory power of our method.
• More intensive coverage of the areas considered most significant for a better understanding of the history, origins and development of the Quechua family (and its early contact with Aymara), that is in particular the areas whose varieties of Quechua are in some senses ‘intermediate’ between the two principal branches of the family: Northern Peruvian Quechua, Laraos, etc. Here there remain other varieties of particular interest in order to complete our coverage, not least Pacaraos and Yaru Quechua.
Applying the same principles to Aymara, the study will cover:
• three forms of southern (or ‘Altiplano’) Aymara, one for each of its principal varieties;
• for central (or ‘Tupino’) Aymara: both varieties, namely Jaqaru, and Kawki.
For more information on Jaqaru and Kawki, particularly an in-depth look at the question of their endangerment and, for Jaqaru, the chances of long-term survival (Kawki is sadly already doomed), click to read the following article, in Spanish, by Dante Oliva León: Jacaru y Cauqui, al Borde del Silencio.
We have also been generously granted data, from other researchers’ fieldwork, on the Bolivian Andean language Uru‑Chipaya, unrelated to either Quechua or Aymara.
Map of Fieldwork Locations
Showing (in the boxes) each of the varieties covered in the study.
This map was put together
mostly on the basis of book Lingüística Quechua, Cerrón-Palomino
(1987) – see the inset.
for more details on the
sources for it see the dialect variation page
Information on Fieldwork Locations and Informants
The table below gives a summary presentation of the Andean language varieties for which data are already collected and which are covered in this study. For more information, and a selection of photographs of my informants, other speakers, and their home towns and villages, click on any language name link in the second column in this table to see their entry page on our Sounds of the Andean Languages website.
• The first column indicates whether the source for my data was my own fieldwork (fw, in 19 cases), and/or from dictionaries (dct, in three cases).
• The fieldwork locations are arranged geographically north to south.
• Varieties in black are from the Quechua language family, those in brown are from the Aymara family (also known as Jaqi or Aru), while Chipaya (a separate family) is in green.
SOURCE: Field- work / Dictionary? |
My Name for this language variety |
|
Language Branch |
Altitude |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Country |
Departa- |
Provincia |
Distrito |
Parroquia / Comunidad Campesina |
Comunidad |
FW |
NQ |
|
3189 m |
01° 50.143' S |
78° 43.583' W |
|
‑‑ |
Chimborazo |
(cantón)
Colta |
Columbe |
El Troje (‘Troje Grande’) |
|
FW |
NQ |
|
563 m |
01° 05.576' S |
77° 55.756' W |
|
‑‑ |
Napo |
Tena? |
Talag? |
Serena |
|
FW |
NPQ |
Inkawasi-Cañaris |
3030 m |
06° 14.144' S |
79° 19.008' W |
|
Lambayeque |
Ferreñafe |
Inkawasi |
|
|
|
FW |
Cañaris |
NPQ |
Inkawasi-Cañaris |
1300 m |
06° 01' S |
79° 12' W |
|
Lambayeque |
Ferreñafe |
Cañaris |
|
(caserío) Chilasque |
FW |
NPQ |
Cajamarca |
2811 m |
07° 08.815' S |
78° 40.364' W |
|
Cajamarca |
|
Chetilla |
|
|
|
FW |
CQ |
Corongo |
2867 m |
08° 37.125' S |
77° 51.867' W |
|
Ancash |
Corongo |
Yánac |
|
|
|
FW |
CQ |
Huari |
3638 m |
09° 34.597' S |
77° 12.849' W |
|
Ancash |
Huari |
Chavín
de Huantar |
Huancapampa |
Chacpar |
|
FW |
IQ |
Laraos |
3513 m |
12° 20.830' S |
75° 47.173' W |
|
|
Yauyos |
Laraos |
|
Laraos |
|
FW |
SQ |
Huancavelica |
4092 m |
12° 45.629' S |
74° 54.230' W |
|
Huancavelica |
Huancavelica |
Yauli |
|
Atalla, anexo Tunsukuchu |
|
FW |
CA |
Kawki |
1283 m |
12° 46.797' S |
75° 55.106' W |
|
|
Yauyos |
|
|
Cachuy & Canchán |
|
FW |
CA |
Jaqaru |
3150 m |
12° 50' S |
75° 45' W |
|
|
Yauyos |
Tupe |
|
Tupe & Aisa |
|
FW |
SQ |
N.Bolivia |
3753 m |
15° 07.804' S |
68° 59.992' W |
|
|
Bautista
Saavedra |
municipio:
Curva |
sección
segunda |
Tilinwaya ('Lagunillas') |
|
FW |
SQ |
Titicaca |
3900 m |
15° 50' S |
69° 43' W |
|
Puno |
Puno |
Amantaní |
|
Isla Taquile |
|
FW |
SA |
|
3820 m |
15° 15' S |
69° 43' W |
|
Puno |
Huancané |
Vilque Chico |
Kulachata |
|
|
FW |
SQ |
Puno |
3820 m |
15° 55' S |
70° 03' W |
|
Puno |
Puno |
ciudad
de Puno |
|
barrio Ricardo |
|
FW |
SA |
N.La Paz |
3850 m |
16° 40' S |
68° 40' W |
|
|
Ingavi |
region: Jesus de Machaca |
|
Sullkatiti Titiri |
|
FW |
SQ |
S.Bolivia |
3000 m |
17° 35' S |
65° 30' W |
|
|
Carrasco |
municipio:
Pocona |
sección
tercera |
|
|
FW |
SA |
S.Oruro |
3850 m |
19° 30' S |
67° 50' W |
|
|
Ladislao Cabrera |
|
cerca de: |
Puqui |
|
FW |
SQ |
S.Bolivia |
2700 m |
19° 05' S |
65° 50' W |
|
Chuquisaca |
Oropesa |
cantón:
Maragua |
sección
octava |
|
|
*DCT |
CQ |
|
c1900 m |
09° 55' S |
71° 14' W |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FW / |
SQ |
|
3400 m |
13° 31' S |
71° 59' W |
|
|
Cuzco |
|
|
|
|
*DCT |
Chipaya |
UCh |
Uru-Chipaya |
3850 m |
19° 05' S |
68° 02' W |
|
|
|
|
|
Santa Ana de Chipaya |
A Working Classification of the Varieties Covered
The very brief descriptions of ‘language branch’ in the second column of the table above are merely my own shorthand, following essentially geographical criteria, and to some extent the existing widely used (if not necessary universally accepted) classifications. They follow fairly closely those in Landerman (1991) for example. They do not imply any particular judgement on the actual classification of varieties; my position on that will be explained rather on the basis of the full results and their interpretation in my articles.
My abbreviations in the tables on this page mean:
NQ Northern Quechua
NPQ North Peruvian Quechua
CQ Central (Peruvian) Quechua
IQ Intermediate Quechua (classification
relative to Northern and Southern Quechua disputed or unclear)
SQ Southern Quechua
CA Central Aymara (i.e. Jaqaru and Kawki)
SA Southern Aymara (i.e.
the Altiplano in
The Traditional Quechua ‘Family Tree’
The map and the ‘family tree’ below currently present only the details of the Quechua family. The Aymara family is much smaller, at least in terms of the surviving varieties for which we have evidence, and the survivors form a much simpler two-way branching structure between Southern and Central Aymara – though within each branch more remains to be done in researching the finer dialect classification.
Colours of the varieties correspond to those on the map above, to help identify the regions where they are spoken.
Those varieties so far included in our lexical and phonetic comparisons are shown underlined. Where more than one sub-variety is to be covered, this is indicated by the number in parentheses, e.g. [3].
Those varieties for which reliable descriptive grammars exist are shown in italics. These are the ones we would propose to cover for comparisons in morphosyntax.
The tree below is based on the one in the book Lingüística Quechua, alias Cerrón-Palomino (2003), which was in turn based on the first two main works on the Quechua family tree, namely Torero (1964) and Parker (1963). Both these linguists came to very similar conclusions, though apparently arrived at independently at around the same time.
This is not the only view of the relationships between Quechua dialects, however. The Ethnologue classification, for instance, puts Pacaraos Quechua in the QII branch, not QI. Indeed, in his doctoral thesis, Landerman (1991) fairly convincingly calls into question even the fundamental distinction between the two main branches of the family tree, QI and QII. He suggests particularly that there is no sound basis for assigning Northern Peruvian Quechua to varieties such as Cañaris, Incahuasi and Cajamarca to either the QI or QII branch. This is one issue in which the results from our comparative study can contribute significantly to the debate: indeed our results suggest the tree is not accurate!
|
|
PROTO-QUECHUA |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
/ |
|
|
|
|
|
\ |
|
|
|
|
HUAIHUASH (QI) |
|
HUAMPUY (QII) |
||||||||||||
|
|
/ |
|
|
|
\ |
|
|
|
/ |
|
\ |
|
|
CENTRAL |
|
PACARAOS |
|
QIIA (‘YUNGAY’) |
|
QIIB-C (‘CHINCHAY’) |
||||||||
/ |
|
| |
|
\ |
|
| |
|
/ |
|
\ |
|
/ |
|
\ |
Huailay |
|
AP-AM-AH |
|
Huancay |
|
| |
|
Central |
|
Northern |
|
Northern |
|
Southern |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Huailas |
|
Alto Pativilca |
|
Yaru |
|
Pacaraos |
|
Laraos |
|
Cañaris & Incahuasi |
|
Amazonas |
|
Ayacucho |
Conchucos |
|
Alto Marañón |
|
Jauja & Huanca |
|
|
|
Lincha |
|
Cajamarca |
|
San Martín |
|
|
|
|
Alto |
|
Huangáscar & Topará |
|
|
|
Apurí |
|
|
|
Loreto |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chocos |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madeán |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further Varieties to be Included
The practicalities of reaching many fieldwork locations within the time constraints for this research project, and in some cases difficulty in locating surviving speakers able to be my informants (in the case of very endangered varieties like Pacaraos Quechua), have necessarily limited the number of varieties I have been able to cover thus far. The most important and valuable remaining candidates to be added to make this study more comprehensive are, in my judgement:
• a denser coverage of Central Quechua as a whole, in particular Junín and Huancayo Quechua
• more ‘Intermediate’ Quechua varieties: such as Lincha and others in the Yauyos area, Yaru, and Pacaraos (see below))
•
more varieties
intermediate between Huancavelica and
•
Lamas
Quechua (in the Peruvian Amazon)
• Argentinean Quechua
• a broader and denser coverage of Southern Aymara varieties.
All these lacunae are ones I hope to be able to fill if I can obtain funding for a further period of research and fieldwork.
Partial data only have already been collected for the following two varieties, so these will therefore unfortunately not be included in the first set of results published. However, I aim to return to these fieldwork sites as soon as possible to complete collection of the data and include them.
FW |
Quivilla |
CQ |
Alto |
2930 m |
09° 36' S |
76° 44' W |
|
Huánuco |
Dos de Mayo |
Quivilla |
|
Quivilla |
FW |
Pacaraos |
IQ |
Pacaraos |
2800 m |
11° 15' S |
77° 15' W |
|
|
Huaral |
Pacaraos |
|
|
Data Sources: Fieldwork and Dictionaries
For two varieties, Huánuco Quechua and Chipaya, data were not collected by me in fieldwork, but taken from written sources. For full bibliographical details and my mini-reviews of the dictionaries cited here, click on the links. Any errors in interpretation of those sources are of course mine.
• The Chipaya data were collected in fieldwork by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Enrique Ballón Aguirre, to whom many thanks for making them available to me before their forthcoming publication.
• The Huánuco Quechua data were drawn from Weber et al. (1998) Rimaycuna – Quechua de Huánuco, which is in many ways one of the most professionally produced dictionaries available for any Quechua dialect (though unhelpfully in my view, it adopts a curious and very non-standard orthography. For full details click here).
In the case of Cuzco Quechua, the data were taken my own knowledge and work over a long period with local informants, as well as from a number of dictionary sources, particularly:
• Cusihuamán (2001) Diccionario Quechua: Cuzco-Collao,
•
Cerrón-Palomino (1994) Quechua sureño:
diccionario unificado
(this is not specifically Cuzco
Quechua, but does give
• Cuzco Quechua Academy’s (1995) Diccionario Quechua-Español-Quechua / Qheswa-Español-Qheswa Simi Taqe
The reconstructions of proto-forms that I follow for Quechua and Aymara words, which will also be made available on this website with the full data, are not my own but generally taken from those provided in:
•
Cerrón-Palomino (1994) Quechua sureño:
diccionario unificado
•
Weber et al. (1998) Rimaycuna – Quechua de Huánuco
• Cerrón‑Palomino (2000) Lingüística Aimara
Colour Coding Key
The names of the language varieties follow colour coding scheme in the tables and map:
• black for varieties of the Quechua language family
• brown for the Aymara family (also known as Jaqi or Aru)
• green for Chipaya (the last surviving language of the Uru-Chipaya family, unrelated to either Quechua or Aymara.
Language Names and Spellings
Names for the Andean Languages and
Language Families
There is considerable inconsistency in how many of the languages
of the
Cerrón-Palomino,
Rodolfo (1993) Quechuística y aimarística: una propuesta terminológica
Alma Mater, 5, 41-55 (publication of the Universidad San Marcos,
Cerrón‑Palomino argues for a particular set of terms in Spanish, and here we use the most directly corresponding English terms. So we speak of the language families as a whole as Quechua and Aymara, and for any particular dialects or languages within them we always specify which, thus: Cuzco Quechua, southern Quechua, southern Aymara, central Aymara (i.e. Jaqaru/Kawki), etc..
That is, we do not use the terms some writers in English have used, adding an –n to give an adjective form also to be used for referring to the whole family: Quechuan, Aymaran, and the putative Quechumaran. So some writers have sought to use this –n to distinguish between the Aymaran family, of which the Aymara language is just one of the surviving languages (albeit by far the most biggest), alongside the little known and endangered Jaqaru/Kawki language(s). In practice we have found this distinction solely by means of one letter –n at the end of a word potentially confusing and unhelpful, indeed even writers who use it do so rather inconsistently. Moreover, there is certainly no need for a new term such as Quechuan, for the word Quechua itself has always referred to the language family and not to any one language within it.
We agree with Cerrón‑Palomino that it is much clearer always to specify geographically which language variety is meant: indeed there are enough differences within even the southern Aymara language for specifications like Puno Aymara and Oruro Aymara to be frequently necessary. Above all, this technique of always specifying the variety concerned has always been followed for the Quechua language family, with no problems whatever. There is no single language called Quechua, it is only the term for the language family, and it seems simplest to take the term Aymara in the same sense.
Names for the Aymara
Family (also known as the Aru or Jaqi family)
Terminology is notoriously inconsistent for the Aymara language family particularly.
Our use of Aymara to refer to
the whole family is broader than that followed by other linguists who have used
Aymara specifically only for the main
surviving language, spoken in the far south of
Alongside Aymaran in English, other forms coined by linguists for to refer specifically to the family as a whole are Aru proposed by Alfredo Torero, and Jaqi proposed by Martha Hardman. We have no particular problem with these terms as such, though we do not agree with Hardman’s ‘anthropological’ justifications for her Jaqi is most suitable, for there are plenty of arguments in the other direction in favour of making explicit the ‘pedigree’ of Jaqaru/Kawki as relatives of the better-known southern Aymara.
What do the Andean
Languages’ Names Mean? Where do
They Come From?
Please refer to the full explanations and histories of the all the names given to the Andean languages provided by Cerrón‑Palomino in the introductions to his main books on each language family:
• For the origins of the term Quechua, and its many variants such as Quichua, and other spellings like Kichwa, and other terms with other roots such as runasimi (literally people’s language, or specifically Indians’ language), see Cerrón‑Palomino (2003).
• For the origins of the term Aymara, the alternatives Aru and Jaqi, and the names Jaqaru and Kawki, see Cerrón‑Palomino (2000).
Spellings for Language Names
As for spellings, the principle is followed that each language is
written in the form most appropriate to the orthography of the language of the
text in which they are being talked about.
That is, on the Spanish version of this page the spellings used are quechua, aimara, jacaru and
cauqui, even
though in those respective languages the spelling proper to that language gives: qhichwa, aymara, jaqaru, kawki.
The somewhat anarchic orthography of English, of course, generally
accepts spellings as in the original language, unless an accepted form already
exists, hence the spellings we used are indeed the same as in each language
itself: Quechua,
Aymara, Jaqaru, Kawki.
Spellings for Fieldwork Placenames
Certainly, there are some arguments in favour of adopting native spellings for placenames in Andean languages, and indeed these have been applied in occasional cases in the Andean countries themselves, such as the spelling Inkawasi alongside Incahuasi. While we might hope that eventually this would become generalised, for now for practical reasons we have generally kept to the most usual spelling in Spanish, to facilitate identifying our fieldwork locations on maps, which so far always use the Spanish spellings.