This thesis consists of a phonological description of the Yamalero language, based on primary data. Yamalero is a Guahiban language spoken by some 300 people in the Colombian Eastern Plains. Some...Show moreThis thesis consists of a phonological description of the Yamalero language, based on primary data. Yamalero is a Guahiban language spoken by some 300 people in the Colombian Eastern Plains. Some of these speakers are ethnic Yaruro, who had been reported to speak Yaruro (Pumé), but this thesis shows that none of them is able to use this language any more. Yamalero is a virtually undocumented language, since the only materials available before the publication of this phonological description were a 31 terms wordlist. This enabled the classification of Yamalero within the Cuiba-Sikuani language continuum. This thesis shows some features of the Yamalero phonology that are closer to Sikuani, such as the process of lenition of aspirated plosives, and others that are closer to Cuiba, such as the presence of consonantic codas. When appropriate, it also shows its resemblances to other genetically unrelated languages in the area, such as Saliba, Piapoco, Achagua or Puinave. This phonological description contributes to the study of Guahiban languages, on which very little research has been published in the last 20 years, as well as to the study of the languages between the Amazonia and the Andean foothills.Show less
This master’s thesis focuses on comparing and contrasting Property Concept Words (PCWs) in six Amazonian languages. PCWs are usually referred as ‘adjectives’ in Indo-European languages, words that...Show moreThis master’s thesis focuses on comparing and contrasting Property Concept Words (PCWs) in six Amazonian languages. PCWs are usually referred as ‘adjectives’ in Indo-European languages, words that have a semantic denotation of properties or features. However, they vary in different languages regarding whether they belong to a morphosyntactically distinct word class or not. In other words, whether these PCWs should all be included in an adjectival class (if exist) or some may be categorized in subclasses of nouns or verbs. In my sample of six Amazonian languages: Panare, Hup, Karajá, Jarawara, Kwaza and Cavineña, PCWs are found behaving differently in each language. When discussing whether adjectives should be classified as a separate syntactic class or not, semantics is quite often involved. Moreover, the introduction of copula clauses complicates this discussion. Payne & Payne (2013) argues for a separate word class of AD-forms instead of adjectives in Panare to represent words that are usually characterized as either ‘adjectives’ or ‘adverbs’ in Indo-European languages. However, AD-forms are quite similar to nouns in Panare. Epps (2008) agrees on a closed set of adjectives in Hup that is quite similar to verbs regarding their TAM-marking, and similar to bound nouns when occurring postnominally. According to Ribeiro (2012), Karajá lacks an independent part of speech for ‘adjectives’ where PCWs are considered a subclass of nouns without much difference from other types of nouns. Dixon’s (2004) grammar distinguishes a small closed class of adjectives from other word classes in Jarawara and at the same time argues that PCWs can also be expressed through possessed nouns and stative verbs. In Kwaza, Van der Voort (2004) claims that it is unnecessary to exhibit a distinct class of adjectives whereas PCWs behave quite similar to verbs. Lastly, Guillaume (2008) introduces two distinct subclasses of adjectives, predicative and attributive adjectives in Cavineña, where the former function as copula complements and the latter are postnominal modifiers. The six languages vary in whether adjectives should be identified as a distinct word class or not. Even though these analysis may be of different approaches, PCWs show certain similarities across languages: they can both modify nouns and function in predicative constructions; they usually can take TAM-markers; the noun-modifier construction most likely parallels possessive construction. In a nutshell, these Amazonian languages are different from prototypical Indo-European languages regarding the syntactic distribution of PCWs. However, within Amazonian languages, syntactic variability of PCWs is large but possibly limited.Show less
