Ebook: Mochica: grammatical topics and external relations

A precise linguistic panorama and a proper classification of the languages of
South America, prior to the Spanish invasion, may remain incomplete, the
languages having exited long before they were recorded. The arrival of the
Europeans is what lead to the written recording of these languages; however,
European presence also ultimately caused a large number of them to lose
ground in the face of the dominant European languages (Spanish in Hispanic
America and Portuguese in Luso-America). During the pre-Columbian era,
several languages coexisted along the northern Peruvian coast. The available
information dating back to the time when these languages were still spoken is
limited to short lists of words as in the cases of Sechura, Culli, Colán and
Catacaos (cf. Martínez Compañón 1783b: EIV). Fortunately, amongst the
north coastal Peruvian languages, Mochica, the language I focus on in this
dissertation, received special attention.
Mochica is the best documented northern Peruvian coastal language. This was
probably due to the fact that it was considered a lengua general ‘general
language’ (Oré 1607, Carrera 1644). In times of the Spanish colonial
administration, the term lengua general was used to refer to a language that
was considered important because of its convenience of use for evangelization
and its geographical extension. According to colonial accounts, several
missionaries prepared Mochica grammatical descriptions and vocabularies.
Nevertheless, the only available colonial grammatical description to date is
Carrera (1644). In addition to Carrera, some Christian prayers and a few
religious texts included in the earliest testimony of this language registered in
press (Oré 1607: 403-408) constitute the other Mochica colonial sources of
498 MOCHICA: GRAMMATICAL TOPICS AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS
study at hand. These colonial records are thus the only evidence of use of this
language whilst it was still extant.
The republican study sources gathered mainly by German travellers,
anthropologists and researchers display a Mochica language that was already
in the process of obsolescence. In addition, the variety of Mochica recorded
during this latter period corresponds to the last bastion of this language before
it became dormant (Eten, in the province of Chiclayo, Lambayeque). As such,
it is relevant to remark that if the lost colonial sources for the study of Mochica
are never found, we will probably never have a fuller understanding of this
language and its varieties.
Mochica is similar to other South American languages that have vanished,
leaving some unsolved enigmas. The scholar interested in researching the
linguistic past of South America faces challenges when attempting to establish
genealogical relationships between languages with scarce or no records. Due
to insufficient data, such languages are frequently labeled as unclassified or
isolated. In the field of Andean linguistics, Mochica is overwhelmingly
considered to be an Andean language isolate due to several peculiar
typological and lexical features.
This research has two main purposes: first of all, it serves to contribute to the
understanding of the Mochica language and its typologically distinct features
(Chapters 1-8), and, furthermore, to explore its genealogical position, or
possible external relations (Chapter 9 and Chapter 10). Chapter 11 offers
concluding remarks and future avenues for the study of this language.
There are five parts to this thesis. Part I consists of the introductory chapter,
which provides the context and aims of the dissertation and details the corpus
and methodology of the study. Part II comprises Chapters 2 through 5. Chapter
SUMMARY IN ENGLISH 499
2 provides an inventory of all the available colonial and republican Mochica
study sources. In addition, this chapter introduces a linguistic variety that is
based on Mochica, but which borrows several structures from Spanish. I refer
to it as New Mochica. Newly proposed etymologies of an anthroponym
(Naimlap/Ñaimlap) and a toponym (Lambayeque) are also provided in
Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, I evaluate earlier proposals of the interpretation of
the Mochica phonological system. Since Mochica is no longer spoken, it may
not be possible to make firm conclusions about the phonological system.
However, the available evidence concerning the controversial so-called
Mochica sixth vowel <æ>, strongly suggests that it should be interpreted as
the high, central vowel /ɨ/. Chapter 4 focuses on the Mochica nominal system,
while Chapter 5 deals with the Mochica verbal system.
Part III provides a thorough discussion of several grammatical aspects of
Mochica. Chapter 6 focuses on possessives and inalienability. Specifically, I
offer an analysis of the syntax and semantics of the possessive constructions
described in Carrera (1644). As well, I propose an analysis of the Mochica
inalienability split, arguing that it does not constitute a strict bipartite system
(inalienable-alienable). Rather, the Mochica system of nominal possession is
argued to exist on a continuum, with the inalienable construction constituting
one end, and the allomorphs expressing alienable possession, the other.
Inalienable possessive constructions with double marking, characterized by
the suffix <-æng>, exist in the transition area between these two.
Chapter 7 illustrates a study of Mochica lexical and grammatical
nominalization. In terms of the former, I describe and analyze the four
nominalizing suffixes in the language: <-(V)çVc> / <(V)ssVc> ‘event
nominalizer’, <-(V)pVc> ‘agentive nominalizer’, <-tVc> ‘locative
nominalizer’, and <-Vc> ‘locative/instrumental nominalizer’. In this chapter,
500 MOCHICA: GRAMMATICAL TOPICS AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS
I also illustrate evidence of the existence of deadjectival and stative
nominalization. In terms of grammatical nominalization, I illustrate how
nominalizations served several functions: relativization, complementation,
and adverbial.
Mochica numeral classifiers are thoroughly examined in Chapter 8, where it
is suggested that the system does not correspond to a typologically
prototypical numeral classifier system. That is, the peculiar characteristics of
some of the morphemes indicate that they cannot be seen as typical numeral
classifiers. They share some features with those present in the languages
studied by Bender & Beller (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b), but deviate
from them as well. Thus, the numeral system of Mochica is analyzed as neither
a system of numeral classifiers in the strict sense, nor a specific counting
system.
Part IV, of this work, consisting of Chapters 9 and 10, deals with the second
aim of this study. In Chapter 9, I re-evaluate earlier proposals of language
contact across the Andes. I present a detailed analysis of the possible case of
language contact between Mochica and Cholón-Hibito, as well as examining
evidence of the contact relationships between Mochica and Quingnam, and
Mochica and Quechua. This involves thorough inspection of coastal loan
terms in Quechua, which I propose to be of Mochica origin. Distant
relationships between Mochica and other languages are explored in Chapter
10. Most importantly, Stark’s (1968, 1972) proposal on the genealogical
relationship between Mochica and Mayan is re-evaluated in the face of new
evidence from Proto-Mayan. Careful comparison of Proto-Mayan and
Mochica lead me to conclude that Mochica and Mayan are not genealogically
related. In sum, the conclusions from these chapters suggest that Mochica
should be classified as a linguistic isolate.
SUMMARY IN ENGLISH 501
Finally, Part V (Chapter 11) presents a summary of the findings obtained
during the entire process of preparing this thesis. This concluding chapter also
suggests some topics for future consideration concerning the study of the
Mochica language and its place in the linguistic history of pre-Columbian
South America.