A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the Unversity of Minnesota By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OJIBWE DISCOURSE MARKERS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Brendan George Fairbanks IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Jeanette Gundel, John D. Nichols August, 2009 Brendan George Fairbanks 2009 Acknowledgements I am indebted to the elders of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe without whom this work would not have been possible, and thankful for their patience as I bombarded them with my endless questions. Miigwech gidinininim: Biidaabanookwe (Marge Anderson), Okaadaak (Elfreda Sam), Naawigiizis (Jim Clark), Zhaawanigiizhigookwe (Millie Benjamin), Bebaamaashiikwe (Susan Shingobe), Biidwewidamookwe (Maggie Kegg), Mashkawigaabawiikwe (Virginia Davis), Gimiwan (Raining Boyd), Asinigaabawiikwe (Carol Nickoboine), Amikogaabaw (Larry Smallwood), Obizaan (Lee Staples), and Naawigiizis (Frank Mason). All these elders allowed me free access to their brains and their intuitions about the language data contained in this thesis. I would especially like to thank Marge Anderson for letting me text and call her anytime I wanted to ask her a million questions and to pick her brain! This was invaluable. I would also like to thank Lillian Rice (Ogimaakwe) also in helping me to understand many of the nuances existing with many of the discourse markers examined for this thesis. I would also like to thank the members of my committee who provided me with much need feedback and support. Their counsel and mentoring has allowed me to be a much better researcher. I would also like to acknowledge my father for his speeches growing up about the importance of getting an education, for my mom who always said I was smart, and for my grandma who has always inspired me by her love of education and hatred of alcohol, a liquid that has done so much destruction among my own people (the Kickapoos and Ojibwes) and among other tribes. To this day, I have never had a drink because of her. i I also want to thank my friends and colleagues who have constantly encouraged my research in the Ojibwe language. I want to thank Laura Pederson, Tony Drews, Marisa Carr, Amber Ruel, Karen McCall, Loanna Lynn Stainbrook, and Patricia Shepard, who have all been my traveling partners to Mille Lacs over the years. They have all kept me company on our long trips up to Mille Lacs. I also want to acknowledge monetary support for this thesis from the following institutions and organizations: The Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Wicoie Nandagikendan Urban Immersion Project, the Bush Foundation, Massachusetts Indian Association, The American Indian Graduate Center, Association on American Indian Affairs, and the Minnesota Indian Scholarship. I especially want to thank Margaret Boyer and Betty Jane Schaaf of the Wicoie Nandagikendan Urban Immersion Project where I have been employed as an Ojibwe immersion teacher for allowing me to come in a little later than I should have as a result of late night dissertation writing. Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife Chelsea who endured lonely weekends and more than her share of the housework during the writing of this thesis. ii For the elders at Mille Lacs and for my son Mekethia. iii 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 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv 1.0 Introduction and background .........................................................................................1 1.1 The language ..........................................................................................................3 1.2 Why study Ojibwe discourse markers ....................................................................5 1.3 Methodology ..........................................................................................................8 1.4 Orthography ..........................................................................................................10 2.0 What is a discourse marker? ........................................................................................16 2.1 Schiffrin’s definition of discourse markers ..........................................................18 2.2 Relevance theorists’ view of discourse markers ...................................................30 2.3 Cross-linguistic data .............................................................................................38 2.3.1 Position ......................................................................................................39 2.3.2 Clitics and affixes ......................................................................................43 2.3.3 TAM (tense-aspect-mode) systems .............................................................46 2.3.4 Simultaneous textual and interpersonal functions of discourse markers ...48 2.4 Defining discourse markers ..................................................................................52 3.0 Ojibwe Discourse Markers ..........................................................................................62 3.1 Discourse connectives ..........................................................................................63 3.1.1 Initial position .............................................................................................63 3.1.1.1 inashke ..............................................................................................64 3.1.1.2 miinawaa ..........................................................................................73 3.1.1.3 onzaam .............................................................................................83 3.1.1.4 dibishkoo ..........................................................................................87 3.1.1.5 mii dash ............................................................................................90 3.1.2 Second position ..........................................................................................97 3.1.2.1 idash as a contrastive marker ...........................................................98 3.1.2.1.1 Digressions ...........................................................................107 3.1.2.1.2 Backgrounding and foregrounding ......................................111 3.1.2.1.3 idash in adjacency pairs .......................................................114 3.1.3 Preverbs .............................................................................................115 3.1.3.1 Relative preverb izhi ...............................................................115 3.2 Mystery particles ............................................................................................... 120 3.2.1 Initial position ..........................................................................................121 3.2.1.1 mii as a veridical marker ................................................................121 3.2.1.2 mii as a command softener ............................................................128 3.2.1.3 awenh, inenh ..................................................................................129 3.2.1.4 aaniish ...........................................................................................130 3.2.2 Second position mystery particles ............................................................135 v 3.2.2.1 isa