Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Matter borrowing, pattern borrowing and typological rarities in the Gran Chaco of South America

  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present paper explores the intersection between typological rarities, matter borrowing and pattern borrowing in the Gran Chaco of South America. In this region the only two living Zamucoan languages are spoken: Ayoreo and Chamacoco. Zamucoan has been for a long time in contact with the other languages of the area, in particular with the Guaycuruan and Mataguayan families. I analyze some rare features of Zamucoan, which developed through language contact or spread to neighboring languages. The reconstruction of Proto-Zamucoan permits us to understand better what has happened in terms of contact, or to figure out the development of rare characteristics involved in language contact: an example is Chamacoco clusivity, introduced via pattern borrowing. The formation of the Chamacoco first person plural exclusive is unusual; in addition, the pronominal system has acquired a split between a plural and a ‘greater plural’, a pattern borrowing from Nivaĉle (Mataguayan). Some features spread from Chamacoco to Kadiwéu (Guaycuruan), two languages with a well-documented story of contact. These are: (i) The affix order in the third person plural of Chamacoco verbs, where number prefix precedes person prefix; (ii) The marking of gender and number of possessive classifiers, found in the Kadiwéu classifier for domestic animals. Other unusual features discussed here are voiceless nasals, para-hypotaxis and traces of egophoricity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Map 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The classification of Chiquitano is uncertain: it was traditionally considered an isolate, although a genetic affiliation with Macro-Jê has been proposed (?Ade2008; , ?Nik2020).

  2. For brevity, I will often refer to both families as ‘Guaycuruan/Mataguayan’, without implying any genetic relationship between the two families.

  3. In the prefixation of Zamucoan verbs and nouns, one distinguishes prefix, thematic vowel (V) and root; see ?Ciu2016 for more details.

  4. Note that Enlhet-Enenlhet verbs also display a realis vs. irrealis distinction (see Kalisch 2009/2010 and Van Gysel 2017).

  5. In order to make phonetic resemblances clear, one has to point out that:

    (i) Zamucoan has nasal harmony. In general, Proto-Zamucoan *d- and *da- could nasalize into *n- and *na-.

    (ii) The phonological inventory of Proto-Zamucoan did not include any lateral consonant: Guaycuruan and Mataguayan laterals systematically correspond to Proto-Zamucoan /d/ (or /n/ under nasal harmony).

  6. In Wichi, subject prefixes in non-negative contexts do not distinguish between realis and irrealis. In negative contexts, there is a contrast between realis and irrealis negation, which is typically expressed by both a prefix and a suffix. The irrealis negative marker jointly conveys the categories of negation and person (?Ner2014:315–323). One might thus consider this a partial implementation of the category mood. Interestingly, in Chamacoco the irrealis mood is obligatory precisely under the scope of negation.

  7. For Wichi, ? (?Ter2009:120) analyses ta- as a 3rd person prefix for monovalent verbs. According to ?Ner2014 and ?NerVid2014 the 3rd person prefix is zero, while t(a)- marks the class of intransitive verbs, rather than person. For a hypothesis on the development of t(a)-, see ?VidNerfor.

  8. For a different point of view, see Nikulin and Carvalho (2018), who propose a distant genetic relationship between Carib, Cariri, Chiquitano, Guaycuruan, Macro-Jê, Mataguayan, Tupí and Zamucoan languages.

  9. The relationship between Zamucoan and Guaycuruan/Mataguayan reminds of that between Murrinh-patha and Ngan.gi-tjemerri, in the Daly linguistic area of northern Australia. These languages have a low percentage of shared lexicon and limited grammatical similarities, mostly restricted to the paradigms of inflecting simple verbs (Dixon 2002:675).

  10. For a merely synchronic perspective, one could also say that in Old Zamuco the prefix vowel a- for 2.irr no longer belongs to the slot of the prefix, so that this person became prefixless (Ciucci and Bertinetto 2015:25). For the purposes of the present study, suffice it to point out the presence of the 2.irr prefix a-, at least from a diachronic perspective.

  11. This is confirmed by the analysis of the data in Chomé’s (1958 [before 1745]) grammar.

  12. For a different opinion, see Harbour (2016), Pertsova (2017) and Moskal (2018). In this work, both for simplicity reasons and because there is no universal consensus on the nature of the inclusive person, I talk about 1pl.incl, which should be distinguished from the greater plural of the same person. Since in (3) each segmentable morpheme is analyzed separately, the glosses for the greater plural forms slightly differ from those of the tables, but this is only due to the glossing conventions.

  13. In free pronouns things may be different (see Sect. 6.1).

  14. In Table 9, pronouns in square brackets are also used as determiners. Chamacoco free pronouns can also be analyzed distinguishing between singular and group morphemes (Cysouw 2003:85–90): also in this case, the asymmetry caused by the greater plural of the 2nd person remains.

  15. On this recent development of Chamacoco, see Ciucci and Bertinetto (2015:80–81). Concerning the fact that the nominal plural was re-employed in the verb for the plural of the 2nd person, this is a pattern found, with different suffixes, also in the other Zamucoan languages (Ciucci and Bertinetto 2015:72–75).

  16. It is difficult to say whether contact with other languages maintaining the lateral consonant of this suffix has played a role in the change /d/ > /l/ in the suffix -lo.

  17. The data reported here come from Viegas Barros (2013a:308–309; 2013b:316) for Guaycuruan and Mataguayan, from Comrie et al. (2010:99) for Vilela, from Campbell and Grondona (2012:645) for Lule. For Wichi (Mataguayan), I also have drawn from data in Nercesian (2014:190).

  18. One also has to note a phonological similarity with the prefixes l-∼el- that in Enlhet (Enlhet-Enenlhet) verbs mark the so-called ‘distributive’ (Kalisch 2009/2010). The distributive is not a plural, but some of its semantic features correspond to those of a plural; the distributive “indifferently indicates the spatial distribution of a state of affairs, the temporal distribution of the same, or its distribution in relation to the different participants” (Kalisch 2009/2010:127, footnote 20; my translation). Similar considerations apply to the distributive prefix (e)- of Sanapaná verbs (Van Gysel 2017:33).

  19. For reasons of simplicity, I did not report the Old Zamuco irrealis: it is understood that the use of ore to disambiguate the subject is possible with both moods. The Chamacoco irrealis cannot be properly translated without its context of use.

  20. Owing to the person hierarchy of Kadiwéu, transitive verbs only mark the 3rd person subject when the direct object is also a 3rd person (Sandalo 1995:47).

  21. The only possible, but not certain, exception could be Mbayá, documented by the Jesuit Father Sanchez Labrador in the 18th century. Kadiwéu is the evolution of a northern dialect of this language, although it does not stem directly from the variety documented by the Jesuits (Sandalo 1995:5). Mbayá has a prefix o-, expressing reciprocity in the 3pl (Sanchez Labrador 1970 [1760]:134); the pluralizer and the reciprocity marker are both homophonous and associated with the 3pl, but have different functions, so that it is not clear whether they are the same prefix diachronically. If they were cognates, this would indicate that the prefix o- must have spread to Mbayá/Kadiwéu before the 18th century.

  22. Despite the fact that õrjok is identical to õr + jok, one cannot exclude that the second element of the pronoun was ejok, with deletion of /e/. One also has to consider that diachronically both jok and ejok are variants of the same 1pl pronoun (Ciucci and Bertinetto 2015:48). Initially, jok was reinterpreted as 1sg in opposition to ejok, which turned into the 1pl.incl pronoun when õrjok originated.

  23. Outside South America, Nepali (Indo-European, Indic) has a general numeral classifier which exhibits gender marking (Tang and Kilarski 2020).

  24. Gender distinctions are neutralized in the plural. Indeed, when the plural suffix -di is attached to the masculine singular form, root-final -di dissimilates into -te (Griffiths and Griffiths 1976:120), so that the masculine plural coincides with the feminine plural. Here and in the rest of this section, I use a hyphen before classifiers to indicate that they are preceded by a personal prefix.

  25. Outside the Chaco, a number of Amazonian languages have possessive classifiers, and Tupí-Guaraní languages often have a classifier for pets (Aikhenvald 2012a:290–291).

  26. In Old Zamuco the form gaʨide, identical to Ayoreo, is epicene, but this is an innovation with respect to Ayoreo. One could also note that in Kadiwéu the masculine form ends in /i/, a vowel associated with the masculine gender in Zamucoan, as well as in Kadiwéu (Griffiths and Griffiths 1976:111; Sandalo 1995:59, 61).

Abbreviations

1, 2, 3:

first, second, third person

A:

transitive subject

af :

argument form

coord :

coordinator

det :

determiner

gp :

greater plural

excl :

exclusive

exist :

existential

f :

feminine

incl :

inclusive

int :

interrogative

irr :

irrealis

m :

masculine

mat :

matter

neg :

negation

O:

object

pl :

plural

pat :

pattern

pclf :

possessive classifier

pf :

predicative form

refl :

reflexive

real :

realis

S:

intransitive subject

Sa:

‘active’ intransitive subject

sg :

singular

sub :

subordinator

SVC:

serial verb constructions

References

  • Adelaar, W. F. H. (2008). Relações externas do Macro-Jê: o caso do Chiquitano. In S. Telles & A. Santos de Paula (Eds.), Topicalizando Macro-Jê (pp. 9–27). Recife: Nectar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2002). Language contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2011). The wonders of the Gran Chaco: Setting the scene. Indiana, 28, 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012a). The languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012b). ‘Invisible’ loans: How to borrow a bound form. In Johanson & Robbeets (pp. 167–186).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2015). The art of grammar: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2018a). ‘Me, ‘us’ and ‘others’. Expressing the self in Arawak languages of South America with a focus on Tariana. In M. Huang & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Expressing the self (pp. 13–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2018b). Serial verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto, P. M. (2014). [2009]. Ayoreo. In M. Crevels & P. C. Muysken (Eds.), Lenguas de Bolivia, Tomo 3: Oriente (pp. 369–413). La Paz: Plural Editores. [Ayoreo (Zamuco), A grammatical sketch, 2009] in Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 8 n.s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto, P. M., & Ciucci, L. (2015). On rare typological features of the Zamucoan languages, in the framework of the Chaco linguistic area. Paper presented at the conference Diversity linguistics: Retrospect and prospect, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, 1–3 May 2015. / Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 14 n.s.

  • Bertinetto, P. M., & Ciucci, L. (2019). Reconstructing Proto-Zamucoan: Evidence (mostly) from verb inflection. In P. Cotticelli Kurras & S. Ziegler (Eds.), Tra semantica e sintassi: il ruolo della linguistica storica—Zwischen Semantik und Syntax: die Rolle der historischen Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 1–20). Roma: Il Calamo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto, P. M., Ciucci, L., & Farina, M. (2019). Two types of morphologically expressed non-verbal predication. Studies in Language, 43(1), 120–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, B., & Nichols, J. (2005). Inclusive-exclusive as person vs. number categories worldwide. In Filimonova 2005 (pp. 49–72).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, B., & Nichols, J. (2007). Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 169–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggiani, G. (1894). I Ciamacoco. Roma: Società Romana per l’Antropologia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggiani, G. (1895). I Caduvei (Mbayá o Guaycurú). Viaggi d’un artista nell’America meridionale. Roma: Ermanno Loescher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L. (2017). Why is it so hard to define a linguistic area? In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics (pp. 19–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L., & Grondona, V. (2012). Languages of the Chaco and Southern Cone. In L. Campbell & V. Grondona (Eds.), The indigenous languages of South America: A comprehensive guide (pp. 625–668). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpio, M. B., & Mendoza, M. (2018). Tobas occidentales del Chaco Boreal (Sudamérica): evidencia de contactos etnohistóricos y lingüísticos. Indiana, 35(1), 165–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomé, I. (1958). [before 1745]. Arte de la lengua Zamuca. Présentation de Suzanne Lussagnet. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, 47, 121–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carol, J. (2014). Lengua chorote (mataguayo): estudio fonológico y morfosintáctico. München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci, L. (2014). Tracce di contatto tra la famiglia zamuco (ayoreo, chamacoco) e altre lingue del Chaco: prime prospezioni. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 13 n.s.

  • Ciucci, L. (2016) [2013]. Inflectional morphology in the Zamucoan languages. Asunción, Paraguay: Centro de Estudios Antropológicos de la Universidad Católica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci, L. (ed.) (forthcoming). Ignace Chomé. Vocabulario de la lengua zamuca: edición crítica y comentario lingüístico. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana Verfuert Verlag.

  • Ciucci, L., & Bertinetto, P. M. (2015). A diachronic view of the Zamucoan verb inflection. Folia Linguistica Historica, 36(1), 19–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci, L., & Bertinetto, P. M. (2017a). Possessive inflection in Proto-Zamucoan: A reconstruction. Diachronica, 34(3), 283–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci, L., & Bertinetto, P. M. (2017b). Nominal suffixes in Zamucoan. Paper presented at Italo-Americana VII convegno, Scuola Normale Superiore, Cortona, Italy, 26–27 September 2017

  • Ciucci, L., & Bertinetto, P. M. (2019). Possessive classifiers in Zamucoan. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & E. Mihas (Eds.), Genders and classifiers: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 144–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combès, I. (2009). Zamucos. Cochabamba: Instituto de Misionerología.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B., Golluscio, L. A., González, H. A., & Vidal, A. (2010). El Chaco como área lingüística. In Z. Estrada Fernández & R. Arzápalo Marín (Eds.), Estudios de lenguas amerindias 2: contribuciones al estudio de las lenguas originarias de América (pp. 85–131). Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico: Editorial Unison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creissels, D. (2008). Remarks on so-called “conjunct/disjunct” systems. Paper presented at Syntax of the world’s languages III, Berlin, 25–28 September 2008.

  • Crevels, M., & Muysken, P. C. (2005). Inclusive-exclusive distinctions in the languages of central-western South America. In Filimonova 2005 (pp. 313–339).

    Google Scholar 

  • Curnow, T. J. (2002). Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics, 40(3), 611–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cysouw, M. (2003). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cysouw, M. (2005). Syncretism involving clusivity. In Filimonova 2005 (pp. 73–111).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, M. (2005). Understanding inclusives. In Filimonova 2005 (pp. 3–48).

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLancey, S. (2018). Evidentiality in Tibetic. In A. Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality (pp. 580–594). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. (1986). El idioma chiriguano: gramática, textos, vocabulario. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. (2002). Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. M. W. (2012). Basic linguistic theory (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epps, P. (2020). Amazonian linguistic diversity and its sociocultural correlates. In M. Crevels & P. C. Muysken (Eds.), Language dispersal, diversification, and contact: A global perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Epps, P., & Michael, L. (2017). The areal linguistics of Amazonia. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics (pp. 878–933). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre, A. (2007). Morfosintaxis de los clasificadores posesivos en las lenguas del Gran Chaco (Argentina, Bolivia y Paraguay). UniverSOS, 4, 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre, A. (2016). Gramática de la lengua nivacle (familia mataguayo: chaco paraguayo). München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre, A. (2017). Morphosyntax of the Nivacle verb and some comparisons with other languages of the Gran Chaco region and elsewhere. Manuscript.

  • Filimonova, E. (Ed.) (2005). Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeote Tormo, J. (1996). Manityana auki besro: gramática moderna de la lengua chiquitana y vocabulario básico. Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Pastoral y Cultura Chiquitana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F. (2012). Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In Johanson & Robbeets 2012 (pp. 71–97)

  • Gardani, F. (2020a). Morphology and contact-induced language change. In A. Grant (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language contact (pp. 96–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardani, F. (2020b). Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology: An overview. Morphology.

  • Gerzenstein, A. (1978). Lengua chorote. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Lingüística.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerzenstein, A. (1994). Lengua maká: estudio descriptivo. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Lingüística.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golluscio, L. A., & Vidal, A. (2009/2010). Recorrido sobre las lenguas del Chaco y los aportes a la investigación lingüística. Amerindia, 33/34, 3–40.

  • González, H. A. (2005). A grammar of Tapiete (Tupi-Guarani). PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.

  • González, H. A. (2015). El Chaco como área lingüística: una evaluación de los rasgos fonológicos. In B. Comrie & L. Golluscio (Eds.), Language contact and documentation (pp. 165–204). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G., & Griffiths, C. (1976). Aspectos da língua Kadiwéu, Brasília: SIL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G. (2002). Dicionário da língua kadiwéu: Kadiwéu–Português/Português–Kadiwéu. Cuiabá, MT: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grondona, V. (1998). A grammar of Mocoví. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.

  • Gualdieri, C. B. (1998). Mocovi (Guaicuru). Fonologia e morfossintaxe. PhD thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

  • Hale, A. (1980). Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In R. Trail (Ed.), Papers in South-East Asian linguistics (Vol. 7, pp. 95–116). Canberra: Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbour, D. (2016). Impossible persons. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. (1980). Inclusive-exclusive: A diffused pronominal category in native western North America. In J. Kreiman & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora (pp. 204–227). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C. (1999). Tupí-Guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), The Amazonian languages (pp. 125–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, L. & Robbeets, M. (Eds.) (2012). Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juárez, C., & Álvarez González, A. (2017). The antipassive marking in Mocoví: Forms and functions. In A. Álvarez González & Í. Navarro (Eds.), Verb valency changes: Theoretical and typological perspectives (pp. 227–254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalisch, H. (2009/2010). Los constituyentes de la cláusula enlhet (enlhet-enenlhet): esbozo de una cláusula omnipredicativa. Amerindia 33/34, 109–150.

  • Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, T. (2009). On the asymmetry of person and number marking. Paper presented at the workshop on asymmetries and universals in honour of Frans Plank, Schloss Freudental, 24 May 2009.

  • Messineo, C. (2011). Aproximación tipológica a las lenguas indígenas del Gran Chaco: rasgos compartidos entre toba (familia guaycurú) y maká (familia mataco-mataguayo). Indiana, 28, 183–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messineo, C., & Gerzenstein, A. (2007). La posesión en dos lenguas indígenas del Gran Chaco: toba (guaycurú) y maká (mataguayo). LIAMES, 7, 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (2020). Replicated inflection? Plot twists behind apparent borrowed plurals. Morphology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09351-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, B. (2018). Excluding exclusively in the exclusive: Suppletion patterns in clusivity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nercesian, V. (2014). Wichi lhomtes: estudio de la gramática y la interacción fonología–morfología–sintaxis–semántica. München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nercesian, V., & Vidal, A. (2014). Operaciones de aumento de valencia y clases verbales en wichí (mataguaya). In F. Queixalós, S. Telles, & A. C. Bruno (Eds.), Incremento de valencia en las lenguas amazónicas (pp. 327–353). Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, A., & Sandalo, F. (2010). Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology, 21, 351–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikulin, A. (2020). Proto-Macro-Jê: um estudo reconstrutivo. PhD thesis, Universidade de Brasília.

  • Nikulin, A., & Carvalho, F. O. de (2018). Prehistoria de las lenguas y familias lingüísticas del Gran Chaco, de la meseta brasileña y cercanías: propuesta de base de datos léxicos y resultados preliminares. In A. Regúnaga, S. Spinelli, & M. E. Orden (Eds.), IV Encuentro de Lenguas Indígenas Americanas (ELIA). Libro de actas (pp. 545–560). Santa Rosa, Argentina: EdUNLPam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberg, K. (1949). The Terena and the Caduveo of southern Mato Grosso, Brazil. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertsova, K. (2017). Reexamining the status of inclusive pronouns: A typological study. Paper presented at BCGL 10: The morphology and semantics of person and number, Brussels, 4–5 December 2017.

  • Post, M. W. (2013). Person-sensitive TAME marking in Galo. In T. Thornes, E. Andvik, G. Hyslop, & J. Jansen (Eds.), Functional–historical approaches to explanation. In honor of Scott DeLancey (pp. 107–130). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe, & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity (pp. 1–78). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez Labrador, J. F. (1970) [1760]. Gramática de la lengua Eyiguayegi, nación de indios reducidos en el Paraguay por los misioneros de la Compañía de Jesús. Notas preliminares por Branislava Sušnik. Asunción: Museo Etnográfico Andrés Barbero.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandalo, F. (1995). A grammar of Kadiwéu. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.

  • Sans, P. (2013). Elementos de la gramática del Bésro. Fonología–Morfología–Textos. Con la colaboración de Lucas Chorez Quiviquivi. San Antonio de Lomerío, Bolivia: Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifart, F. (2011). Bora loans in Resígaro: Massive morphological and little lexical borrowing in a moribund Arawakan language. Cadernos de Etnolingüística. Série de Monografias, 2.

  • Seifart, F. (2012). The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact. Diachronica, 29(4), 471–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith Stark, T. C. (1974). The plurality split. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 10, pp. 657–671).

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza, L. M. A. de (2012). Descrição da fala masculina e da fala feminina na língua Kadiwéu. MA thesis, Três Lagoas: Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul.

  • Stell, N. N. (1989). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Niwaklé (Chulupí). PhD thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

  • Tang, M., & Kilarski, M. (2020). Functions of gender and numeral classifiers in Nepali. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 56(1), 113–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terraza, J. (2009). Grammaire du Wichi: phonologie et morphosyntaxe. PhD thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.

  • Tournadre, N. (2008). Arguments against the concept od ‘conjunct’/‘disjunct’ in Tibetan. In B. Huber, M. Volkart, & P. Widmer (Eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend and Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Vol. 1, pp. 281–308). Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trommer, J. (2003). The interaction of morphology and affix order. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, p. 283–324.

  • Van Gysel, J. (2017). Temporal predicative particles in Sanapaná and the Enlhet-Enenlhet language family (Paraguay): A descriptive and comparative study. MA thesis, Leiden University.

  • Velupillai, V. (2012). An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, A. (2001). Pilagá grammar (Guaykuruan family, Argentina). PhD thesis, University of Oregon.

  • Vidal, A., & Braunstein, J. (2020). The southern plains and the continental tip. In T. Güldemann, P. McConvell, & R. Rhodes (Eds.), The language of hunter-gatherers (pp. 641–669). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, A., & Nercesian, V. (forthcoming). Body-parts and possessive constructions in Mataguayan languages. In R. D. Zariquiey & P. Valenzuela (Eds.), The grammar of body-part expressions: A view from the Americas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Viegas Barros, J. P. (2013a). Proto-Guaicurú: una reconstrucción fonológica, lexica y morfológica. München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viegas Barros, J. P. (2013b). La hipótesis de parentesco Guaicurú-Mataguayo: estado actual de la cuestión. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica, 5(2), 293–333.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the following scholars for their help and suggestions: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Junwei Bai, Pier Marco Bertinetto, Balthasar Bickel, R. M. W. Dixon, Alain Fabre, Brigitta Flick, Lauren Gawne, Hannes Kalisch, Marcin Kilarski, Elena Mihas, Verónica Nercesian, Jolene Overall, Alejandra Vidal, Raoul Zamponi and two anonymous reviewers. Special thanks to Francesco Gardani for his meticulous comments. I alone am responsible for all errors this work may contain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Language and Culture Research Centre (LCRC), The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD, 4870, Australia

    Luca Ciucci

Authors
  1. Luca Ciucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Ciucci.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciucci, L. Matter borrowing, pattern borrowing and typological rarities in the Gran Chaco of South America. Morphology 30, 283–310 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09359-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09359-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation