A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

(locally), since it contextualizes upcoming discourse in (59c). In this sense, the content
in (59b) is dependent upon the content in (59c), since (59c) is the important piece of
information for understanding the rest of the story, not (59b).
3.1.2.1.3 idash in adjacency pairs
In the interactive plane of discourse, the contrastive feature of idash can also be seen
within adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs (following Schiffrin 1987) are situations where
there is a query and a response, such as in the following exchange.
(60) idash within an adjacency pair
Q: Aaniin ezhi-ayaayan? ‘How are you?’
how how are you
R: Nimino-ayaa. Giin dash? ‘I’m fine. And you?’
I am good you and
In such situations within English discourse and in translating such situations from Ojibwe
to English, the use of and is a common convention. We have already seen this above
where many examples involving idash were translated using the English coordinator and,
rather than with the English contrastive marker but. As we have seen, however, the use
of the English coordinator and to translate idash is only a translating convention, and not
a true representation of the function of idash. After all, Ojibwe contains a discourse
coordinator as well, i.e. miinawaa, but its use within adjacency pairs such as the one in
(60) would be ungrammatical. Also, the discussion above showed that Ojibwe does not
114