A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

existed (and it might), it would be a more accurate characterization to identify that
underlying core meaning or function which then might account for mii’s various surface
functions. For mii, I have not been able to reconcile its various surface functions as
emanating from a single underlying function. I suggest a few possible reasons for this.
First, my descriptions might be inadequate, either because of a scarcity of data (which
might not show the full picture of mii’s distribution), or I just inaccurately described the
data. Inadequate descriptions could mask the underlying core function. Second, there
might be more than one mii, in which case, we are dealing with homophones - a situation
which might result from two (or more) words which sound alike synchronically, but have
different origins historically. This could also undermine an accurate description. Third,
mii might have different surface functions which are not reconcilable with one single
underlying function per se, but whose various surface functions might be typical for
deictic particles like mii. In other words, our current linguistic knowledge of deictic
particles might not be at a level sufficient enough to be able account for what seem to be
unrelated functions. Future discourse marker research would need to try to reconcile
seemingly unrelated functions that a single discourse marker might have, either by more
accurate description based upon more language data, or by accounting for them with new
available research.
There are still a great many elements in Ojibwe which I consider to be discourse
markers that I did not describe in this thesis. Among these are the interjective type words
which I am only beginning to grasp. These include: aapidekamig ‘what in the world’,
wayaa hay ‘oh my’, and poh or poowaj ‘gotcha’, chaninge’e ‘yuck, ew’ (a female’s
terms), oy yooy ‘there there (said to or about babies crying)’, etc. While I have supplied
229