A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE ...

Abstract
In this thesis, I describe the functions of a variety of discourse markers in the Ojibwe
language, a language belonging to the Algonquian family of languages of North America.
Discourse markers have been defined by Schiffrin as “sequentially dependent elements
which bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987:31), and as elements which, among other
things, are syntactically detachable from a sentence (i.e. independent of sentential
structure), and commonly used in initial position (Schiffrin 1987:32, 328). This thesis
shows that her initial characterization must be broadened in order to account for
languages such as Ojibwe which show discourse markers occurring in both initial and
second position, and for other languages which show discourse markers occurring in
medial and final positions. Also, since many languages like Ojibwe and the Amazonian
languages examined in this thesis make regular use of clitics and affixes as discourse
markers, I show that not all discourse markers are ‘detachable’ from their containing
sentences. Based upon this and other cross-linguistic evidence, I offer a definition of
discourse markers which essentially refines Schiffrin’s characterization.
This thesis ultimately reveals the exploitive nature of language (and ultimately of its
speakers) in regards to discourse. While languages show that individual words, particles,
lexicalized phrases, clitics, and affixes may be ‘exploited’ for their sentence-level
functions for work at the discourse level, Ojibwe shows that entire inflectional systems
may also be targets for discourse work. For example, Ojibwe exploits the sentence-level
cohesive function of conjunct verbs in order to mark the eventline structure of a narrative.
This accounts for the seemingly contradictive ability of conjunct verbs to serve as
subordinate clauses at the sentence level, but as independent clauses at the discourse
level. Such behavior, termed in this thesis as “discourse marking,” shows that the use of
morphological forms must also be included within a viable definition of discourse
markers.
iv