Heather Bliss and Martina Wiltschko University of …Bliss & Wiltschko, Blackfoot Demonstratives...

Bliss & Wiltschko, Blackfoot Demonstratives

Workshop on the Discourse Functions of Demonstratives

Universitetet i Oslo, June 14-15 2018

p. 1

Stsíkiistsi ki stsíkiistsi: The ubiquity of Blackfoot demonstratives in discourse*

Heather Bliss1,2 and Martina Wiltschko2

University of Victoria1, University of British Columbia2

1. Introduction

In Blackfoot (Plains Algonquian: Southern Alberta), demonstratives are ubiquitous

o Wide variety of functions

o One of only three word classes in this highly polysynthetic language

o 900 unique and morphosyntactically complex forms

In oral stories, the distribution of demonstratives is particularly broad; many appear with:

o no clear referent or nominal complement

o no semantic contribution to the propositional content of the utterance

“Untranslatable” demonstratives

Objective: Explore the properties of “untranslatable” demonstratives

o Catalogue morphological and syntactic properties

o Track discourse conditions

o Seek correlations as a means to identify discourse functions

Proposal : “Untranslatable” demonstratives function as discourse particles

o Demonstratives are multi-functional

o Discourse particle function is derived in a particular context

o Meaning component(s) of the demonstratives restrict their distribution and interpretation

as discourse particles

o Deictic distinctions (near speaker/addressee/other) “translate” to speaker/

addressee/other epistemic orientations

Outline of the talk:

§2 Sources of Data and Methodology

§3 Background on Blackfoot Demonstratives & Particles

§4 Framework: Diagnosing Discourse Particles

§5 Blackfoot “Untranslatable” Demonstratives as Discourse Particles

§6 Summary and Conclusions

* HB: I am honoured and grateful to be working together with a number of Siksika Blackfoot speakers, who are

generous in sharing their knowledge, stories, and words, including: Donna Axe, Shawn Axe, Edith Breaker, Fred

Breaker, Noreen Breaker, Clifford Crane Bear, Hanks Eagle Head, Rachel Ermineskin, Elsie Maguire, Roslyn Many

Guns, Allan Stevens, Walter Stevens, Mildred Three Suns, and Evelyn Weasel Head. Nitsiko’tahsi’taki. HB & MW:

We are grateful to the late Tootsinam Beatrice Bullshields for many years of patience in teaching us (about) the Kainai

Blackfoot language. Nitsiko’tahsi’takihpinnaan ki kitaakimattsinohpinnaan. This research is supported by a Banting

Fellowship, a SSHRC Insight Grant, the Jacobs Fund, and the Phillips Fund.




p. 2

2. Sources of Data and Methodology

Data sources include fieldwork and stories

Syntactic fieldwork (2003-present)

o Context-dependent elicitation, storyboards, etc.

o Positive and negative data

Oral stories: Three sources

o Glenbow stories (www.glenbow.org/blackfoot/EN/html/traditional_stories.htm)

Collection of eight stories

Blackfoot, French, English – audio and transcript

I have added morphological analysis added for 4 stories

(Auditory survey of other 4)

No information about storyteller or storytelling situation

o Russell & Genee 2014: Ákaitsinikssiistsi Blackfoot Stories of Old

Collection of eight stories

Transcript with English translation

No morphological analysis, no audio recording

o Blackfoot Stories Database: http://stories.blackfoot.atlas-ling.ca/#/stories

Collection of 61 stories (currently 20 are public on the site)

Most recorded by me; some recorded by other researchers1

Various stages of transcription/analysis

Methodology:

o 26 stories fully surveyed with “untranslatable” demonstratives catalogued

o Visual survey of transcribed stories

o Auditory survey of un-transcribed stories (with translation help from Noreen Breaker)

o Demonstratives catalogued according to morphosyntactic and discourse properties

Limitations:

o No conversation data (some recorded, but not analysed)

o Stories from other sources (may) lack crucial information:

Storytelling context (Audience? Other interlocutors?)

Intonation

Possible omissions from transcript (“untranslatables” not transcribed?)

1 Thanks to Joel Dunham, Inge Genee, Meagan Louie, Natalie Weber, Ryan Waldie for sharing these stories.

http://www.glenbow.org/blackfoot/EN/html/traditional_stories.htm

http://stories.blackfoot.atlas-ling.ca/#/stories




p. 3

3. Background: Blackfoot Demonstratives and Particles

3.1. Blackfoot Demonstratives

Demonstratives are one of only three word classes in Blackfoot2 (Bliss 2013)

(1) Nitsikkia’yohkottsitsapopi ami oto’óhtainnisootsi’kao’pi.

nit-ikkia’-ohkott-it-sapopii am-yi ot-o’ohtainnisootsi’kao’p-yi

1-finally-able-LOC-ride.AI DEM-INAN 3-sled-INAN

“I was finally able to ride in her sleigh.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Itáísapssiisskiitso’pa)

3.1.1. Composition of Demonstratives

Morphologically complex

900 possible forms; no combinatoric restrictions

(2) Demonstrative template

Root - diminutive - restrictor - inflection - reinforcer - verbalizer

am

ann

om

-sst

-o

-wa

-yi

-iksi

-istsi

-ma

-ya

-hka

-ka

-o’k(a)

-áyi

Stem Suffixes

Choice of form conditioned by syntactic, semantic, pragmatic factors (Schupbach 2013)

3.1.2. Demonstratives as Determiners

Demonstratives are the only determiner-like elements in Blackfoot

As determiners, they have a classic D-like distribution

Required with arguments:

2 Uncited data are from the first author’s fieldwork with Siksika and Kainai speakers (2003-present). Examples from

stories are listed with the story’s author and title; stories from the Glenbow collection are listed as “Glenbow” in lieu

of author information. Data are represented in orthography developed by Frantz (1978, 2017); acute accent diacritics

are used to mark pitch accent. Abbreviations: 1,2,3=1st, 2nd, 3rd person; ACCOMP(animent); AI=animate intransitive;

CONJ(unct); DEM(onstrative root); DIR(ect); EVID(ential); FUT(ure); IC=initial change; II=inanimate intransitive;

IMP(erative); IMPF=imperfective; INAN(imate); INTERR(ogative); INVIS(ible); LOC(ative); MNR=manner;

MVNG=moving; NEG(ative); NOM(inal); ONAFF(irmative); OBV(iative); OTH.TM=other time; PART(icle); PL(ural);

PRN=pronoun; PROX(imate); RESTR(ictor); SG=singular; STAT(ionary); TA=transitive animate; TI=transitive inanimate;

VBZR=verbalizer.




p. 4

(3) Kikatao’tsiksiiststoo’paatsiks *(omistsi) pisátssaisskiists?

kit-kata’-otsiksiiststoo-’p-wa-atsiks om-istsi pisatssaisski-istsi

2-INTERR-water.TI-1:INAN-PROX-3SG.PRN DEM-PL flower-PL

“Did you water the flowers?”

Ungrammatical with predicate (pseudo-incorporated) nominals:

(4) Nitáíkskimaa (*oma) ponoká.

nit-a-ikskimaa ponoka

1-IMPF-hunt.AI elk

“I am hunting elk.”

3.1.3. Demonstratives as Pronouns

As pronouns, demonstratives may be interpreted as human or non-human, definite or indefinite:

(5) Nimáátowaanihpa ann.

nit-maat-waanii-hpa ann

1-NEG-say.AI-NONAFF DEM

“I am not saying that.”

(6) Annoma ita’páíssiwa.

ann-o-ma it-a’p-a-issi-wa

DEM-RESTR-STAT LOC-around-IMPF-be.AI-PROX

“She’s around here.”

(7) Ísstsiiwoka ámohka awaasáíí’niwahka.

yisstsii-k-wa am-o-hka a-waasaii’ni-wa-hka

listen-IMP.PL-PROX DEM-RESTR-INVIS IMPF-cry.AI-PROX-REP

“Listen to someone crying.” (Lena Russell: Ksíssta’pssiwa)

3.1.4. Demonstratives as Predicates

Demonstratives can function as predicates, (usually) with a ‘verbalizing’ suffix

(8) Óómahko’ka.

oom-wa-hk-o’ka

DEM-PROX-INVIS-VBZR

“It’s way over there.”

(9) Annihkayi ama mákoyisskiim itsipo’toyii ami issitsimaan.

ann-yi-hk-ayi am-wa makoyi-sskiim it-ipo’to-yii-wa am-yi issitsimaan-yi

DEM-OBV-INVIS-VBZR DEM-PROX wolf-? LOC-release.TA-DIR-PROX DEM-OBV baby-OBV

“And that was why the wolf let the baby go.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Left Behind)




p. 5

(10) Annimai akitaahsaopiiyaawa.

ann-yi-ma-ayi yaak-it-aahsa-opii-yi-aawa

DEM-OBV-STAT-VBZR FUT-LOC-always-stay.AI-PL-3PL.PRN

“And that is where they will always stay.” (Glenbow: Miohpokoiksi)

(11) Annayihk nitohkoko’si.

ann-wa-ayi-hk nit-ohk-oko’si

DEM-PROX-VBZR-INVIS 1-MNR-have.child.AI

“It was like having a baby.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Sa’aiwa)

3.1.5. Temporal Demonstratives

Demonstratives are often used with temporal reference

Various syntactic functions: determiner, pronoun, predicate

Often but not always sentence-initial

Often but not always with post-inflectional –ka “other time”

(12) Amoka iisskóóhtsik nitsitsí’nakstssi’pi.

am-o-ka isskoohtsik nit-it-i’nakstssi-hpi

DEM-RESTR-OTH.TM long.ago 1-LOC-be.young.AI-CONJ.NOM

“Long ago when I was young” (Beatrice Bullshields: Itáísapssiisskiitso’pa)

(13) Annííka máátomaitáíhtsiiwa paapó’sini.

ann-yi-ka maat-oma-it-a-ihtsii-wa paapo’sin-yi

DEM-INAN-OTH.TM NEG-yet-LOC-IMPF-AI-PROX electricity-INAN

“At that time there was no electricity yet.” (Lena Russell: Amíí ohkíni ki amááya náíípisstsiitapiima)

(14) Katoyisa anohk iitayo’kayihk omistsi Katoyissiksi. K ann-o-hk ii-it-a-yo’kaa-ihk om-istsi Katoyissiksi

K DEM-RESTR-INVIS IC-LOC-IMPF-sleep.AI-REP DEM-PL Sweet.Pine.Hills

“Katoyisa now sleeps at Sweet Pine Hills.” (Glenbow: Katoyissa)

(15) Annahkao’k Naapiowa omattaipotahsai.

ann-wa-hk-o’ka N-wa ot-matt-a-ipot-a-hs-yi-ayi

DEM-PROX-INVIS-VBZR N-PROX 3-again-beat.TA-DIR-CONJ-OBV-3PRN

‘That was when Naapi was beating it.” (Glenbow: Naapi ki Sííkokíínis)

3.1.6. “Untranslatable” Demonstratives

Beyond their determiner, pronominal, and predicative uses, demonstratives have a broader

distribution in oral stories, without a clear referent or nominal complement, often not translatable

(16) Anna nóóhkohpoksapopiimook anna Tóótsinam!

ann-wa noohk-ohpok-sapopii-m-ok ann-wa T

DEM-PROX please-ACCOMP-ride-TA.ACCOMP-2PL:3.IMP DEM-PROX T

“Please ride with Tootsinam!” (Beatrice Bullshields: Itáísapssiisskiitso’pa)




p. 6

3.2. Blackfoot Particles

Blackfoot discourse particles of the type that are very common in e.g., German are very rare in speech

(monological and dialogical)

o Uninflected particles are rare

o Certain verbal prefixes are common in narratives and take on discourse functions (e.g.,

locative it-, Bliss 2014)

o Code-switching: Canadian English eh is common in dialogue

The Blackfoot Dictionary (Frantz & Russell 1995)3 lists only 31 entries classified as UND “underived

particles” (excluding vocatives)

Some are indeed underived particles, although not necessarily discourse particles

(17) a. saa ‘no’

b. áa ‘yes’

c. oki ‘hello’

d. ki ‘and’ (conjunction)

e. tsimá ‘where?’

f. tsa ‘how?’ (often used in question formation)

g. yáóo ~ yáa ‘oh no!’

h. ha’ ‘pfft! ha!’ (used to express scorn)

Some are concatenations of particles

(18) ha’yaa

ha’-yaa

scorn-oh.no

‘uh-oh!’ (in anticipation of reprimand)

The majority of UND entries in the dictionary involve demonstrative morphology in one of three

ways:

(i) Inflected demonstratives listed as UND

(19) annóhk

ann-o-hk

DEM-RESTR-INVIS

‘right now’

(20) ánniayi

ann-yi-ayi

DEM-INAN-VBZR

‘that’s enough’

3 There is a newer edition of the Dictionary (Frantz & Russell 2017), but we have yet not conducted a search of UND

items in this edition.




p. 7

(ii) Particle + demonstrative concatenations

(21) kiann

ki-ann (compare: ki ‘and’)

CONJ-DEM

‘that’s all’ (often used to conclude a story)

(22) há’annia

ha’-ann-yi-ya (compare: ha’ ‘pfft’)

PART-DEM-INAN-MVNG

‘really, all right’

(iii) Particle with demonstrative suffixes (no demonstrative root)

(23) sááhkáyi

saa-hk-ayi (compare: saa ‘no’)

PART-INVIS-VBZR

‘just kidding’

(24) kíka

ki-ka (compare: ki ‘and’)

PART-OTH.TM

‘wait’

3.3. Summary

Demonstratives are complex, and can encode a wide range of information

Demonstratives are multi-functional; they are used in various different ways

Demonstratives and particles form a natural class

Demonstratives can scope over:

o individuals (determiners or pronouns)

o situations (predicates)

o times (temporal)

Proposal:

Demonstratives can also scope over propositions

Demonstratives can function as discourse particles

4. Framework: Diagnosing Discourse Particles Discourse particles help interlocutors manage the common ground in a conversation by conveying

the interlocutors’ commitments, attitudes, beliefs regarding the propositional content of an utterance

e.g., Miesbech Bavaraian fei, ja, eh (examples from Thoma 2017)




p. 8

(25) a. Da Marinus is fei drei.

b. Da Marinus is ja drei.

c. Da Marinus is eh drei.

Same meaning, but different ‘flavour’ and different contexts of use

4.1. Characteristics of Discourse Particles

Schourup (1999) identifies the following characteristics of discourse markers4

o Connectivity: relate the utterance to other discourse units

o Optionality: omission does not result in ungrammaticality5

o Non-truth conditionality: do not contribute propositional content

o Weak clause association: not integrated into the syntax of the clause6

o Initiality: often (but not always) occur sentence-initially

o Orality: occur in speech contexts (not usually in writing)7

o Multi-categoriality: lexical items associate with other syntactic categories

4.2. Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Particles

4.2.1. Epistemic Orientation The primary contribution of a discourse particle is epistemicity

Discourse particles can be categorized according to which discourse participant’s epistemic stance is

under discussion (Thoma 2017; see also Beyssade & Marandin 2006; Lam 2014; Zimmermann 2011)

o S-oriented: relates utterance content to Speaker’s beliefs

o A-oriented: relates utterance content to Addressee’s beliefs

o O-oriented: relates utterance content to beliefs of contextually determined other

S-orientation vs. A-orientation (examples from Wiltschko 2016, based on Thoma 2017)

(26) CONTEXT: Speaker meets friend on street whom she hasn’t seen for a long while.

Du host leicht an neichn Hund.

“You have a new dog” [I didn’t know that]

4 See Thoma (2017) and references therein for distinguishing between “discourse particles” and “discourse markers.”

For simplicity, we assume that Schourup’s list of characteristics can equally apply to both. 5 Schourup’s definition of optionality does not consider the fact that, although not ungrammatical, omitting a discourse

particle in a particular context may be perceived as infelicitous. 6 See Thoma (2017) for discussion and analysis of German discourse particles, which have proposition-level scope,

but are syntactically integrated into the clause. 7 The relevant point here, in our opinion, is that discourse particles occur in discourse contexts with a Speaker and

Addressee. Written forms such as texting (etc.) that are dialogical in this way permit discourse particles.




p. 9

(27) CONTEXT: Speaker responds to query about her vacation plans (i.e., why she isn’t travelling)

I hob fei oan Hund.

“I have a new dog” [You don’t see to know this]

While epistemic orientation is the primary function of discourse particles, they can express other

pragmatic functions as well, including noteworthiness, emotivity, and emphasis

4.2.2. Noteworthiness

Particles can function to draw interlocutors’ attention to a proposition as being particularly

noteworthy in the context of the discourse

e.g., Jónsson (2017): Icelandic particles en, vá, and æ are required by some speakers with certain

exclamatives to give them their noteworthy ‘flavour’

e.g., Haselow (2012): English even can signal “enrichment of the information value” of a proposition,

expressing a “subjective comment like surprise, enthusiasm, or unexpectedness”

4.2.3. Emotivity

Particles can function to signal interlocutors’ emotive attitude or personal reaction (positive or

negative) towards the content of a proposition

e.g., Response particles (e.g., yes, no), see Wiltschko 2017

e.g., Emotive markers (e.g., alas), see Rett 2017

Emotivity is often modificational, achieved via prosodic features such as lengthening, pitch accent,

etc. (see Benus et al. 2007 on whatever)

4.2.4. Emphasis

Particles can strengthen or emphasize the content (and/or the interlocutors’ commitment to or

certainty about the content) of a proposition (e.g., Thoma 2017)

e.g., sentence-final anyway as an “emphasizer of a specific state of affairs expressed in a proposition”

(Haselow 2012: 195)

Like emotivity, emphasis may be indicated prosodically (e.g., yesssss in response to good news, see

Wiltschko 2016)

5. Blackfoot “Untranslatable” Demonstratives as Discourse Particles

Proposal: Blackfoot demonstratives are multi-functional, and can function as discourse particles

o They exhibit characteristics typical of discourse particles

o They encode pragmatic functions of discourse particles




p. 10

5.1. Blackfoot Demonstratives Exhibit Characteristics of Discourse Particles

Connectivity

Connect propositions to interlocutors’ epistemic stance (see section 5.2)

Also frequently used with the conjunction ki

o Schourup 1999: discourse particles “contribute to inter-utterance coherence”

(28) Kiwa ann otanistssi, maataokitsiihtaawaatsiks.

ki-wa ann ot-waanisttsi-hs-yi maat-a-okitsiihtaa-waatsiksi

CONJ-PROX DEM 3-do.smthg.AI-CONJ-OBV NEG-IMPF-have.bad.intentions.AI-NONAFF

“And yet when he acted, it was not with bad intentions.” (Glenbow: Naapi)

(29) Kimiii tsaommitsskiá’pomaahkááhpinnaan.

ki-am-yi nit-saommit-sski-a’p-omaahkaa-hpinnaan

CONJ-DEM-OBV 1-furtively-back-around-travel.AI-1PL

“We snuck back.” (Clifford Crane Bear: Isttstsáápikimmiksi)

Non-Truth Conditionality & Optionality

Evidenced by the fact that they are “untranslatable”

Omission results in grammatical utterance with same truth conditions

Weak Clause Association / Initiality

“Untranslatables” consistently appear at the left edge of the clause, unless preceded by ki (e.g., (26),

(27)) or by a subject/topic DP

(30) Omi síksinnaki omi omi máátaanistsi’tooyi miksi matapíksi.

om-yi siksinnaki-wa om-yi om-yi maat-waanistsi’to-yii-wa om-iksi matapi-iksi

DEM-PROX policeman-PROX DEM-OBV DEM-OBV NEG-obey.TA-DIR-PROX DEM-PL person-PL

“The policeman didn’t listen to the people.” (Allan Stevens: O’kaan)

o Temporal demonstratives show this same ordering restriction (see section 3.1.5)

Orality

Our corpus of “untranslatable” demonstratives consists entirely of oral stories

Is storytelling discourse? Depends on the storytelling setting and how the storyteller perceives his/her

audience

“Untranslatable” demonstratives are found far more frequently in the Blackfoot Stories Database than

in the Glenbow collection, and none are found in the Russell collection

o Majority of the first collection are recorded in group settings (many storytellers gathered

to share stories and converse with each other)

o (Storytelling context of the other two collections is unknown)

Multi-categoriality

Demonstratives also function as determiners, pronouns, predicates




p. 11

(See, e.g., Thoma 2017; Wiltschko 2016 on the multi-functionality of discourse particles)

5.2. Blackfoot Demonstratives Function as Discourse Particles

A survey of Blackfoot’s “untranslatable” demonstratives reveals correlations between the pragmatic

functions associated with discourse particles and the various “components” of demonstratives

Table 1. Mapping Pragmatic Functions to Demonstrative Components

Pragmatic Function Demonstrative Component

Epistemic Orientation Root Distinctions

Noteworthiness Inflectional Contrasts (Proximate/Obviative)

Emotivity Vowel Lengthening

Emphasis Reduplication

5.2.1. Demonstrative Roots Encode Epistemic Orientation

Demonstrative roots are categorized according to a person-based proximity system

Table 2. Demonstrative Roots

Form Meaning

am Proximity/familiarity to speaker

ann Proximity/familiarity to addressee

om Proximity/familiarity to neither speaker nor addressee

All three roots are attested as “untranslatable” demonstratives8

The am- and ann- forms partition as predicted with respect to epistemic orientation:

o (a)m- = content of proposition (p) is expected, familiar, often repeated

= S-oriented (S believes p)

o (a)nn- = content of proposition (p) is unexpected, new, transitional, contrary

= A-oriented (S believes A does not already know p)

(31) CONTEXT: Grandfather is trying to find someone who can transport his labouring wife to the

hospital. After a few unsuccessful attempts, he returns home to check on his wife, and then:

8 The initial vowel of untranslatable and other demonstratives is frequently dropped, obscuring the distinction between

am- and om- forms. In our corpus of untranslatable demonstratives, there are only three om- forms (with the initial

vowel) and no am- ones. We assume all of the m- forms are underlyingly am- based on their distribution.




p. 12

Miiii náó’tapssapiwa otááksikamotaa’si.

am-yi ná-o’tap-ssapi-wa ot-yáák-ikamotaa-hsi.

DEM-OBV EVID-return-look.AI-PROX 3-FUT-give.birth.AI-CONJ

“He returned to seeking help for her to give birth.” (Clifford Crane Bear: Who’s In Charge?)

(32) CONTEXT (Describing a dream): The speaker hears music and is wandering around and around,

trying to locate its source. Finally:

Kiann nitáíto’too itohkanáópiiyaa itáákopiyaa áíkaahtsiyaa.

ki-ann nit-a-it-o’too it-ohkana-opii-yaawa it-yaak-opii-yaawa a-ikaahtsi-yaawa

CONJ-DEM 1-IMPF-LOC-arrive.AI LOC-all-sit-3PL LOC-FUT-sit-3PL IMPF-gamble-3PL

“I arrived there, and these people were all sitting; they would just sit there, gambling.”

(Mildred Three Suns: Aipapaainihkssin)

The om- forms do not obviously form a natural class wrt epistemic orientation

o … but only three examples

o … Thoma (2017) argues that O-orientation is “chameleon”-like, shifting according to

perspectival factors, with O sometimes coinciding with S or A in alternate times, places,

or situations

o This is consistent with one example of om-, which is used in the context of the speaker

describing a vision he experienced (i.e., out-of-body / O-not-S situation):

(33) Omi omi máátaana’sitoyiwa omiksi matapíksi.

om-yi om-yi máát-waana’sitoyiwa om-iksi matapí-iksi.

DEM-OBV DEM-OBV NEG-light.up.AI-PROX DEM-PL person-PL

“The people weren’t illuminated.” (Allan Stevens: Itáípisatssa’piio’pa)

5.2.2. Demonstrative Inflection Encodes Noteworthiness

Demonstratives take the same inflection as nouns

Table 3. Nominal Inflection

Animate Inanimate

Singular Proximate -wa

-yi Obviative -yi

Plural -iksi -istsi

Only singular inflection is attested with “untranslatable” demonstratives

Both -wa and -yi are attested, but –yi forms are far more frequent

–wa forms are used with salient or key information in the context of the plotline of the story




p. 13

o propositions that the audience should regard as important or noteworthy in the development

of the story

o not necessarily the climax, but points of note that impact the climax, resolution, or moral

of the story

(34) CONTEXT: A child is trying to protect some unhatched duck eggs, but the family dog repeatedly

finds the nest and eats the eggs. This is the third and final time the dog does this, before the child

makes a drastic move to protect the one remaining egg:

Kimaa ki ama nitómitaaminnaan

ki-am-wa ki am-wa nit-omitaa-m-innaan

CONJ-DEM-PROX CONJ DEM-PROX 1-dog-POSS-1PL

mattsistáó’hkoonima omi oyííyiskaassini.

mattsista’-ohkooni-m-wa om-yi oyiiyis-kaa-ssin-yi

again-find.TI-3:INAN-PROX DEM-INAN nest-?-NOM-INAN

“And then our dog found the nest again.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Sa’aiwa)

Familiar/expected information (S-oriented), but salient moment in the plotline of the

story

Compare with –yi forms, which are used elsewhere (without the same sense of noteworthiness)

(35) CONTEXT: Grandfather is being questioned by the police (this is the main focus of the story), and

as an aside, the storyteller notes that he had to wait for a long time for his grandfather to return:

Kiannika isáma’piiwa.

ki-ann-yi-ka isam-a’pii-wa

CONJ-DEM-OBV-OTH.TM long.time-be.II-PROX

“It was a long time.” (Clifford Crane Bear: Isttstsáápikimmiksi)

The contrast observed here between –wa and –yi forms parallels the proximate/obviative contrast

observed on nouns (Bliss 2017, and references therein)

o Proximate –wa has a foregrounding function, signalling which character is most salient

o Obviative –yi is used as a ‘default’ for all subsidiary characters

5.2.3. Demonstrative Vowel Lengthening Encodes Emotivity

Vowel lengthening is common with demonstratives

When demonstratives function as deictic pronouns or demonstratives, vowel lengthening is iconic

The longer the vowel, the further away the referent is from the speaker

(36) a. Na Carmelle íínoyiiwa omi ksísskstakii.

ann-wa C ii-in-o-yii-wa om-yi ksisskstaki-yi

DEM-PROX C IC-see-TA-DIR-PROX DEM-OBV beaver-OBV




p. 14

“Carmelle saw that beaver.”

b. Na Carmelle íínoyiiwa oomi ksísskstakii.

“Carmelle saw that beaver (way over there).”

c. Na Carmelle íínoyiiwa ooomi ksísskstakii.

“Carmelle saw that beaver (waaayyy over there).”

When demonstratives function as discourse particles, vowel lengthening can be used in contexts in

which the speaker has an emotional connection (positive or negative) to the content of the utterance

(37) CONTEXT: A child wants to go sledding with her sisters, but they won’t share their sleds. She

finds a wash basin and gleefully slides down the snowy hill in it.

Kimiii nitóhtsitsinnohpii nitsínnoo’takohpi.

ki-am-yi nit-oht-it-inn-ohpi’yi nit-inn-o’tak-ohpi’yi

CONJ-DEM-OBV 1-MEANS-LOC-down-fall.AI 1-down-in.circle-fall.AI

“And with it, I went down, spinning in circles.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Itáísapssiisskiitso’pa)

(38) CONTEXT: A child wants to accompany her grandparents to a Medicine Pipe Dance, but they tell

her she is too young and leave without her.

Kimii niisto nisstónnatsotamasapaasai’ni.

ki-am-yi n-iisto nit-sstonnat-sotam-sap-waasai’ni.

CONJ-DEM-OBV 1-PRN 1-extremely-genuinely-?-cry.AI

“I kept crying and crying after them.” (Beatrice Bullshields: Itohkanao’tsisiyo’p)

Vowel lengthening is also used in other contexts, seemingly to build suspense

o Evoking emotional response from addressee (?)

(39) CONTEXT: A young man is helping his grandfather with a task that the police later take notice of;

he is confused about why they are doing what they are doing.

Kimiiiii nitáítopokská’sspiinaan.

ki-am-yi nit-a-itap-okska’si-hpinnaan

CONJ-DEM-OBV IMPF-toward-run-1PL

“And we ran towards (something).” (Clifford Crane Bear: Isttstsáápikimmiksi)

Vowel is extra-long (= 0.877 s)

Compare with the vowel of ki (= 0.073 s)

5.2.4. Demonstrative Reduplication Encodes Emphasis

Demonstrative reduplication is frequently used by one storyteller in particular, and less frequently

with one other storyteller

A clear correlation between reduplication and discourse context is difficult to ascertain, but we

hypothesize that reduplication is used for emphatic purposes




p. 15

(40) CONTEXT: At a Sundance ceremony, a police officer violated protocol by crossing in front of the

dancers, and later that day fatalistically broke his leg.

Síksinnaki omi omi máátaanistsi’tooyi miksi matapíksi.

siksinnaki-wa om-yi om-yi maat-waanistsi’to-yii-wa om-iksi matapi-iksi

policeman-PROX DEM-OBV DEM-OBV NEG-obey.TA-DIR-PROX DEM-PL person-PL

“The policeman didn’t listen to the people.” (Allan Stevens: O’kaan)

6. Summary and Conclusions

Blackfoot demonstratives are multi-functional, and can scope over individuals, situations, times,

and propositions

Proposition-level demonstratives function as discourse particles

Their various meaning components allow them to take on pragmatic functions associated with

discourse particles

Table 1. Mapping Pragmatic Functions to Demonstrative Components

Pragmatic Function Demonstrative Component

Epistemic Orientation Root Distinctions

Noteworthiness Inflectional Contrasts (Proximate/Obviative)

Emotivity Vowel Lengthening

Emphasis Reduplication

The particle/demonstrative connection is not unique to Blackfoot

o Dene demonstratives grammaticalized as discourse particles (Thompson et al. 2011)

o German particles derived from proto-Indo-European demonstratives (e.g., Thoma 2017)

o Hebrew and German demonstratives can evoke emotive reactions (negative appraisal),

similarly to particles (e.g., Sichel & Wiltschko 2018)

Future research:

o Expand corpus

o Extend catalogue to predicative and temporal demonstratives

o Develop formal analysis: what can ‘untranslatables’ tell us about the integration of

demonstratives in the syntax of the clause?




p. 16

References Benus, S., A. Gravano, and J. Hirschberg. 2007. Prosody, emotions, and … ‘whatever.’ Paper presented at Interspeech

(8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association). Antwerp, Belgium: August

27-31, 2007.

Beyssade, C., and J.-M. Marandin. 2006. The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s

commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In O. Bonami, and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds). Empirical issues

in syntax and semantics 6: 37-68.

Bliss, H. 2013. The Blackfoot configurationality conspiracy: Parallels and differences in clausal and nominal

structures. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Bliss, H. 2014. Marking the Boundaries: Blackfoot Preverbs in Narratives and Elicitation. In Littell, P., A. Gutiérrez,

R. Girard, and N. Weber (eds). Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of

Languages of the Americas. UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 36: 1-14.

Bliss, H. 2017. Dependencies in syntax and discourse: Obviation in Blackfoot and beyond. Working Papers of the

Linguistics Circle 27(1): 1-26.

Frantz, D.G. 1978. Abstractness of phonology and Blackfoot orthography design. In McCormack, W., and S. Wurm

(eds). World Anthropology: Approaches to Language. The Hague: Mouton, 307-25.

Frantz, D.G. 2017. Blackfoot Grammar, 3rd ed. University of Toronto Press.

Frantz, D.G., and N.-J. Russell. 1995. Blackfoot dictionary, 2nd edition. University of Toronto Press.

Frantz, D.G., and N.-J. Russell. 2017. Blackfoot dictionary, 3rd edition. University of Toronto Press.

Haselow, A. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final

particles in English. Language & Communication 32: 182-204.

Jónsson, J.G. 2017. Discourse particles and hvað exclamatives. In J. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds). Discourse

Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics. De Gruyter, 100-114.

Lam, Z. W.-M. 2014. A complex ForceP for speaker- and addressee-oriented discourse particles in Cantonese. Studies

in Chinese Linguistics 35(2): 61-80.

Rett, J. 2017. The semantics of emotive markers and other illocutionary content. Unpublished ms, UCLA.

Russell, L., and I. Genee. 2014. Ákaitsinikssiistsi Blackfoot Stories of Old. Regina: University of Regina Press (First

Nations Language Readers Memoir 3).

Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227-265.

Schupbach, S. 2013. The Blackfoot demonstrative system. MA thesis, University of Montana.

Sichel, I., and M. Wiltschko. 2018. Demonstrative Pronouns and the Linguistic Encoding of Appraisal. In W. Bennett,

L. Hracs, and D.R. Storoshenko (eds). Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 365-373.

Thoma, S. 2017. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse evidence: Evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. PhD

dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Thompson, C., C. Cox, and S. Rice. The grammaticalization of Dene demonstratives. Paper presented at the Dene

Languages Conference. Whitehorse, Yukon: June 28, 2011.

Wiltschko, M. 2016. What particle syntax can teach us about the particularities of syntax. Paper presented at the

Workshop on Linguistic Variation in the Interaction between Internal and External Syntax. Utrecht University:

February 8-9, 2016.

Wiltschko, M. 2017 Response particles beyond answering. In: Bailey, L. and M. Sheehan (eds.) Word Order and

Syntactic Structure. Language Science Press, 241-280.

Zimmermann, M. 2011. Discourse particles. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, and K. von Heusinger (eds). Handbook of

Semantics / Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012-

2038.

Heather Bliss

[email protected]

Martina Wiltschko

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Heather Bliss and Martina Wiltschko University of …Bliss & Wiltschko, Blackfoot Demonstratives...

Documents

Transcript of Heather Bliss and Martina Wiltschko University of …Bliss & Wiltschko, Blackfoot Demonstratives...