1887
Volume 44, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0731-3500
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5907
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper describes a set of five focus enclitics in Bodo, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Assam, India. The focus enclitics are phonologically bound morphemes which are attached to a phrase-level constituent of a sentence, such as the verb, its arguments, or its adjuncts. They all trigger existential presuppositions and express various kinds of semantic and pragmatic relations between the asserted proposition and presuppositions, such as inclusion, exclusion, contrast, concession, and correction. The description of these relations as well as other more context and construction specific functions encoded by the focus enclitics constitutes the core of this paper. This paper also examines the distribution of the focus enclitics and discusses their associated scope and interpretations. Finally, this paper investigates co-occurrence, co-occurrence restrictions, and interpretations of sequences of the enclitics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.19005.bor
2021-05-11
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bajaj, Vandana
    2014hii at the semantic-pragmatic interface. Retrieved fromciteseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.657.1352&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Last accessed onFebruary 28, 2019).
  2. Basumatary, Prafulla
    2017Verbal semantics in a Tibeto-Burman language: The Bodo verb. Oxford: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b11643
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b11643 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhattacharya, Pramod Ch
    1977A descriptive analysis of the Boro language. Guwahati: Guwahati University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell, David M.
    1998 Cancellative discourse markers: a core/periphery approach. Pragmatics8(4).515–542. 10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.8.4.03bel [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics42.1912–1927. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  6. Breugel, Seino van
    2008 A grammar of Atong. Melbourne: Research Center for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Büring, Daniel
    1999 Topic. In P. Rosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016 (Contrastive) Topic. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Burling, Robbins & U. V. Joseph
    2009 Boro tones. In Stephen D. Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 2, 45–58. Foundation Books. doi:  10.1017/UPO9788175968554.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9788175968554.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Das, Kalyan & Shakuntala Mahanta
    2018 Distribution of lexical tones in Boro. Himalayan Linguistics17(2).52–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dik, Simon , Maria E. Hoffmann , Jan R. de Jong , Sie Ing Djiang , Harry Stroomer & Lourens de Vries
    1981 On the typology of focus phenomena. In T. Hoekstra , H. Van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on functional grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Endle, Sidney
    1884Outline grammar of the Kachari (Boro) language as spoken in the district of Darrang, Assam. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Forker, Diana
    2016 Towards a typology for additive markers. Lingua180.69–100. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fraser, Bruce
    1990 An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14.383–395. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  15. 1999 What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31.931–952. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera
    2011 Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language87(1).2–54. 10.1353/lan.2011.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goswami, G. C. & Jyotiprakash Tamuli
    2003 Asamiya. In D. Jain & G. Cardona (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 391–443. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haspelmath, Martin
    2007 Coordination. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619434.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619434.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hodgson, Brian H.
    1847On the aborigines of India. Essay the first: on the Kocch, Bodo, and Dhimal tribes. Kolkata: J. Thomas, Baptist Mission Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Imai, Takashi
    1981 On enclitic hi: in Hindi. Indian Linguistics42(1/4).48–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Izutsu, Mitsuko N.
    2008 Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics40.646–675. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Karttunen, F. & Lauri Karttunen
    1977Even questions. In J. A. Kegl & A. Zaenen (eds.), North Eastern Linguistic Societyno.7, 115–134. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved fromweb.stanford.edu/~laurik/publications/archive/even.pdf (Last accessed onJanuary, 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters
    1979 Conventional implicature. In Ch. Oh & D. A. Dinnen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kay, Paul
    1990Even. Linguistics and Philosophy13(1).59–111. 10.1007/BF00630517
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630517 [Google Scholar]
  25. Konnerth, Linda
    2014a Additive focus and additional functions of Karbi (Tibeto-Burman) =tā. In K. Carpenter , O. David , F. Lionnet , Ch. Sheil , T. Stark & V. Wauters (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, California, 11–12 February 2012, 206–222. Berkeley: eLanguage (Linguistic Society of America).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014b A grammar of Karbi. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kӧnig, Ekkehard
    1991The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Krifka, Manfred
    1998 Additive particles under stress. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 8, 111–129. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, Chungmin
    2003 Contrastive topic and/or contrastive focus. In B. McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics12, 352–364. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Matic, Dejan
    2015 Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & R. D. van Valin (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from cross-linguistic perspective, 167–190. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110368758‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110368758-009 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ozerov, Pavel , & Henriëtte Daudey
    2017 Copy-verb constructions in Tibeto-Burman and beyond. Linguistic Typology21(1).53–99. 10.1515/lingty‑2017‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Post, Mark W.
    2007 A grammar of Galo. Melbourne: Research Center for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rooth, Mats E.
    1985 Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Unpublished PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1.75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sarmah, Priyankoo
    2004 Some aspects of the tonal phonology of Bodo. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages MPhil dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Skrefsrud, Lars O.
    1889A short grammar of the Mech or Boro language, together with a small vocabulary. Ebenezer: Indian Home Mission’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Verhagen, Arie
    2005Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Watters, John
    1979 Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In L. M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure vol 1, 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.19005.bor
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltba.19005.bor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concession; contrast; correction; exclusion; focus enclitics; inclusion; multiple focus
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error