Keywords

Quechua verbal agreement paradigm, extended Word-and-Paradigm vs. Distributed Morphology, syncretism and morphological irregularity

Abstract

In this paper we first describe the Quechua verbal agreement paradigm using two generative morphological theories and then argue that Anderson’s EWP accounts for the data better than Distributed Morphology (DM). Kerke (1996) has already shown evidence against DM using this paradigm, and we provide additional support for this.

The Quechua verbs conjugate to agree with the subject and the object of the VP in one of three tenses (Table 1). Each cell contains up to five morphemes, from a selection of twelve, which appear consistently in the same order. Though there is some semblance of regularity in the paradigm, there are numerous exceptions. For example, there is a great deal of syncretism with plural subjects or objects, but the distribution of the plural suffixes -ku and -chis are difficult to describe. The past tense forms are almost always identical to the present tense with the addition of -rqa, but there are some unpredictable deviations. The seemingly unexplainable idiosyncrasies raises the question of whether there are indeed rules at all in the grammar or if each cell is simply a separate entry in the lexicon.

Original Publication Citation

Joseph A. Stanley. “An EWP model of Quechua agreement: Further evidence against DM”. The Third Annual Linguistics Conference at the University of Georgia (LCUGA3). Athens, GA. October 7–9, 2016.