A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The purpose of this thesis is not to explain how discourse markers work, but to describe their behavior within a sociolinguistic model of discourse developed by Schiffrin. While her initial characterization lacked the benefit of cross-linguistic data, it provides the most comprehensive view of discourse markers, and provides a framework in which to embed the exposition of Ojibwe discourse markers. 2.3 Cross-linguistic data Because Schiffrin did not have the benefit of extensive cross-linguistic scholarship to inform her theoretical definition for discourse markers, she was forced to qualify her initial characterization as “tentative.” Though her initial characterization has often been quoted, even in recent literature, it is perhaps time for a definitional “tightening up” to include observations about the behavior of discourse markers cross-linguistically. Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of cross-linguistic literature on the subject of discourse markers, including Chinese (Biq 1990; Kwong 1989; Or 1997), Danish (Davidsen-Nielsen 1993), Finnish (Hakulinen and Seppanen 1992; Hakulinen 1998), French (Cadiot et al. 1985; Hansen 1998; Vincent 1993), German (W. Abraham 1991), Italian (Bazzanella 1990, Bruti 1999), Portuguese (Silva 1992), Hungarian (Vasko 2000), Indonesian (Wouk 1998), Japanese (Cook 1990, 1992; Fuji 2000; Matsumoto 1988; Onodera 1994, 1995), Spanish (Koike 1996; Schwenter 1996), Latin (Kroon 1998), Korean (Park 1999), Andean Spanish (Zavala 2001), Bulgarian (Tchizmarova 2005), Hebrew (Ariel 1998, Maschler 1997, 1998; Ziv 1998, Shemesh 2006), Maya and Nahuatl (Torres 2006), Niuean (Massam et al. 2006), Yagua (Payne et al. 1990), etc. (see Schiffrin 2003:54 where she notes many of these works also). The cross-linguistic 38
inventory is replete with an array of discourse functions, including: attention getters and explanatory connectives (Finnish), sequential connectors (Portuguese, Tojolab'al Mayan), textual cohesion (Tojolab'al), emotional intensifiers (Spanish), phatic connectives (Italian), agreement markers (Italian), discourse coordination (Japanese, English), equivocation markers (Finnish), softeners (Spanish), evidentials (Spanish), hedges (Hebrew, Spanish, Bulgarian), explanations (Portuguese), clarification and confirmation devices (Andean Spanish), common understanding markers (Cantonese, Indonesian), reaction markers (Danish), affirmative markers (Niuean), and requests for feedback (Portuguese), just to name a few. While this body of work shows a large number of discourse markers, all of which are in line with Schiffrin’s analysis for discourse markers, the cross-linguistic data also show that discourse markers may differ in their positional distributions, in what types of expressions are used as discourse markers, or for marking discourse in general. Section 2.3.1 below discusses the positional distribution of discourse markers across languages, Section 2.3.2 discusses the use of clitics and affixes as discourse markers, and Section 2.3.3 discusses the use of TAM forms, or inflectional systems, as a way that some languages mark discourse. 2.3.1 Position While a significant amount of the cross-linguistic literature shows discourse markers occurring primarily in the sentence-initial (or utterance-initial) position, some show them occurring sentence-finally, e.g. Bulgarian, Hebrew, Quechua, Chinese, Maya and Nahuatl, Niuean, Spanish, et al. Others show them occurring in both initial and final 39
Page 1 and 2: OJIBWE DISCOURSE MARKERS A DISSERTA
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements I am indebted to t
Page 5 and 6: For the elders at Mille Lacs and fo
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 9 and 10: 1.0 Introduction and background In
Page 11 and 12: influenced by this already existing
Page 13 and 14: While many speakers from other Minn
Page 15 and 16: discussed within the body of this t
Page 17 and 18: use as they occurred in real time w
Page 19 and 20: ‘someone’s fingernail’ (see N
Page 21 and 22: In some cases, however, where a nar
Page 23 and 24: adherence to the rule suggested her
Page 25 and 26: To further compound an already comp
Page 27 and 28: conjunction and (in sentence level
Page 29 and 30: DMs function in relation to aspects
Page 31 and 32: d) But, I went into the army (p. 15
Page 33 and 34: (7) Marker because (Schiffrin 1987:
Page 35 and 36: In (9a), because connects two actio
Page 37 and 38: their referential and/or grammatica
Page 39 and 40: communicator presents just enough e
Page 41 and 42: “[i]nferential comprehension invo
Page 43 and 44: Elements which do not relate some s
Page 45: 1990:391). Since most researchers a
Page 49 and 50: (12) Sentence-final 21 a) Korean (P
Page 51 and 52: 2.3.2 Clitics and affixes As it tur
Page 53 and 54: lead to the man’s death. Relevant
Page 55 and 56: internal evaluation, denoting main
Page 57 and 58: interpersonal discourse markers can
Page 59 and 60: (18) Spanish ya (Koike 1996:275-276
Page 61 and 62: occur in a variety of non-initial p
Page 63 and 64: (Bazzanella 1990:633 for insomma),
Page 65 and 66: via the processes of tense, aspect,
Page 67 and 68: which is the core defining feature
Page 69 and 70: so that the discourse happens in on
Page 71 and 72: 3.1 Discourse connectives 3.1.1 Ini
Page 73 and 74: c) Nashke! AT ‘Look!, See!, Liste
Page 75 and 76: speaker to set that information off
Page 77 and 78: ) Shke, wa’aw nookomisiban mii-ko
Page 79 and 80: ) Nashke azhigwa eni-apiitiziyaan,
Page 81 and 82: predicted event. In (29b), the spea
Page 83 and 84: two subordinate verb phrases (subor
Page 85 and 86: a) ‘“Nobody will live there on
Page 87 and 88: (34) English discourse marker and a
Page 89 and 90: (36) miinawaa (Kegg 1991:152-153) a
Page 91 and 92: 1987:128). A quick scan of the Ojib
Page 93 and 94: Minnesota dialect) appears not to h
Page 95 and 96: 3.1.1.4 dibishkoo In the dictionary
Page 97 and 98:
The use of dibishkoo in both exampl
Page 99 and 100:
ge-miinigooyang. that we’ll be gi
Page 101 and 102:
c) Giwiisin. d) Mii wiisiniyan. (in
Page 103 and 104:
(47) Discourse sequencer (Benjamin
Page 105 and 106:
the sentence level within the disco
Page 107 and 108:
Note that in (49a,c) where the exam
Page 109 and 110:
selecting a contrastive relationshi
Page 111 and 112:
eak from further elaboration within
Page 113 and 114:
In the stories examined for this th
Page 115 and 116:
3.1.2.1.1 Digressions There is furt
Page 117 and 118:
f) “Mii imaa iniw ozidan, bakaan
Page 119 and 120:
preceding clause sang spiritual son
Page 121 and 122:
(59) idash (Clark 1998:8, audio) a)
Page 123 and 124:
make use of the coordinator miinawa
Page 125 and 126:
(62) Relative roots invoke initial
Page 127 and 128:
advance a narrative to the next eve
Page 129 and 130:
knowledge of their use, but because
Page 131 and 132:
some time and effort trying to figu
Page 133 and 134:
spots on your fingernails’, giga-
Page 135 and 136:
c) Mii-gegaa gii-pi-niboyaan. so-al
Page 137 and 138:
outside the imperative construction
Page 139 and 140:
(71) Justifying function of aaniish
Page 141 and 142:
(72) Extra-topical background infor
Page 143 and 144:
speaker was given a new horse, and
Page 145 and 146:
3.2.2.1.1 isa as a marker of closin
Page 147 and 148:
3.2.2.1.2 isa as a marker of relinq
Page 149 and 150:
descriptions, however, are not impo
Page 151 and 152:
3.2.2.1.4 isa as a marker of result
Page 153 and 154:
The initial event in (81a-b) is the
Page 155 and 156:
Another example of this usage appea
Page 157 and 158:
(84) isa (Jones 1917:4-5) a) O’ow
Page 159 and 160:
speaker to exert and validate the I
Page 161 and 162:
the speaker, once a topic or event
Page 163 and 164:
Though the English translation does
Page 165 and 166:
accompanies the expression and prov
Page 167 and 168:
Not captured in (92a) is Speaker A
Page 169 and 170:
In (93d), Speaker C, not yet knowin
Page 171 and 172:
Here, sha reveals the unreasonablen
Page 173 and 174:
(97) gosha (Kegg 1991:104-105) a) M
Page 175 and 176:
an interjection (i.e. a discourse r
Page 177 and 178:
a) ‘A girl and her grandmother we
Page 179 and 180:
) Wegonen da? INTER CP ‘What now?
Page 181 and 182:
) Ojibwemon bina naa! speak Ojibwe
Page 183 and 184:
(106) bina within jussive construct
Page 185 and 186:
(108) bina (text communication) a)
Page 187 and 188:
eference to time (although time is
Page 189 and 190:
speakers to speak about topics with
Page 191 and 192:
c) Baanimaa igo naa wenji-gizhibaab
Page 193 and 194:
The little girl in this story was t
Page 195 and 196:
wants to express the equivalent of
Page 197 and 198:
naa has the force of the English lo
Page 199 and 200:
The first token of naa in (120a) ap
Page 201 and 202:
weight of the English damn it, they
Page 203 and 204:
going to eat, as independent order
Page 205 and 206:
Here, the individual uses of both d
Page 207 and 208:
The uncle’s initial utterance to
Page 209 and 210:
4.0 Conjunct order as a discourse m
Page 211 and 212:
The verbs in bold type in (131a) an
Page 213 and 214:
conjoin larger discourse units abov
Page 215 and 216:
The subordinate nature of the conju
Page 217 and 218:
conjunct gii-pabanaazomag is not ac
Page 219 and 220:
4.1.3 Situational immediacy There i
Page 221 and 222:
mark these events as being more sal
Page 223 and 224:
d) Chi-ayizhinoo’oyangid iw. very
Page 225 and 226:
c) Haaw niinawind imbaapi’idimin
Page 227 and 228:
without izhi remain as plain conjun
Page 229 and 230:
jiigikana imbaapi’idimin niinawin
Page 231 and 232:
verb. If carrying eventline informa
Page 233 and 234:
d) They got around in boats. e) The
Page 235 and 236:
describe these elements (which in i
Page 237 and 238:
existed (and it might), it would be
Page 239 and 240:
REFERENCES Abraham, Werner. 1991. D
Page 241 and 242:
Clark, James. 1998. Oshkaabewis Nat
Page 243 and 244:
Jucker, Andreas H. and Sara W. Smit
Page 245 and 246:
Rhodes, Richard 1979. Some aspects
Page 247:
Wilson, Deirdre. 1994. Discourse ma
show all

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?