Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang

Page 1

Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang Dusun
Paul Kroeger, GIAL & SIL Intl. (e-mail: paul_kroeger@gial.edu)
UMS-TUFS seminar, 7 Sept. 2015, Kota Kinabalu(1)

Woynomawo,

okon.ko’ yalo’
ponot
3sg.NOM FOC‘See, it is just as I said, it wasn’t him who stole (it).’PRTCL PRTCL PRTCL PRTCL

ot=minanakaw.
NOM=stole“A PARTICLE is a word that (a) does not belong to one of the main classes of words; (b) isinvariable in form, and (c) typically has grammatical or pragmatic meaning.”[SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms,
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAParticle.htm ]1. Three kinds of meaning(2)

Descriptive meaning (truth-conditional): I have hurt my arm.
Expressive meaning: Ouch!!
“Meta-communication” (use-conditional; Gutzmann 2015):
Unfortunately/frankly/reportedly, we are almost bankrupt.

(3)

Kimaragang Expressive particles
adisaykoy
doywoybai’iipain or regret
surprise, dismay‘ouch!’
impatient surprise?
‘I told you so’‘well now’
showing pity, especiallyfor small children

boobo
nar’m’nn’
nunga’

slightly angry
unexpected situation?
response to stupidity
surprise, doubt
uncertainty/disbelief
amazement (Pitas)

2. Second-position (2P) particles in Kimaragang(4) template for 2P clitic ordering (position classes determined by co-occurrence restrictions
and relative ordering):

GEN pron.

ku ‘1sg’nu ‘2sg’yo ‘3sg’to ‘1du.incl’ya ‘1pl.excl’
duyu ‘2pl’

Obligatory 2P clitics
NOM pron.
focus/aspectoku ‘1sg’ko ‘2sg’kito ‘1du.incl’tokow ‘1pl.incl’okoy ‘1pl.excl’kow ‘2pl’=i’ ‘emph’no ‘compl’
po ‘noncompl’
nogi’ ‘again’
nopo ‘only’

moodga(a)m ‘YNQ’
ma ‘rhet. Q’
pogi’ ‘forceful’to ‘empathetic’person ordering constraint for pronominal clitics: 1 < 2 < 3(5) a. Tulung-ay
oku
help-DV.IMP1sg.NOM‘Help me, all of you, ...’

poyet

dikoo ...
2pl.DAT

Optional 2P clitics
mixed functions
dara ~ dara’ay‘frustrative’
bala’ ~ bala’ay‘mirative’
dati’ ‘likely’
gima ‘after all’
mari’ ‘certainly’katoy ‘contradiction/
disapproval’vocatives
markers ofsolidarity:obo (man-toman)owo (womanto-woman)Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang

b. AmuNEGoku1sg.NOM

poyetdati’probably

Page 2ko-guli
dotsuwab
NVOL.AV-return COMP tomorrowsiti
k<um>araja.
here <AV>work‘Tomorrow I probably cannot return to work here.’c. Garanay
nopogi’ i=tananuowo.
grant-DV.IMPER PRTCL PRTCL NOM=land 2sg.GEN PRTCL‘You must get a grant (i.e. title) for your land, friend.’

3. Semantic functions of the speaker-oriented particles
These particles are common in conversation/dialogue, but rare in narrative (stories). They aredifficult to translate and often have different meanings in different contexts.
(6) Near-minimal contrast:
a. D<um>arun dati’ …

‘It will probably rain (this afternoon)’b. D<in><um>arun katoy!

‘It did too rain (contrary to what you claim).’c. Ki-darun bala’ kosodoy!

‘Oh look, it rained last night (and I didn’t know it)!’d. … ki-darun gima.

‘(I didn’t go to your house because) it was raining,
after all/as you know.’e. … koo-dorun-an mari’.

‘(At this time of year) it generally rains a lot.’f. D<um>arun dara nga’ …

‘It would have rained but (the strong wind blew awaythe clouds)’(for comparison only; the frustrative dara is not included among the speaker-oriented
particles under discussion here)(7) Characteristic examples:a. Wiwidsingo ku it=rangalawnga’ napapasa=i’peel.ATEMP 1sg NOM=rambutan but rotten=EMPH‘I peeled the rambutan but (I discovered) it was rotten.’bala’iri.
thisMIRb. Tantaman ku sompusasawo yaalo’, miobpipinee bala’ay.
think1sg married.couple 3plsiblings
MIR‘I thought they were husband and wife, but it turns out they are brother and sister.
c. Kaanak=i’
dati’ yalo’ dilo’ ong sumambat
able.to.bear.child=EMPH likely 3sg that ifmeet‘She could probably have children if she goes to the doctor.’do=duktur.
ACC=doctord. Isoson nu
gimabanar ino mato nu, sagay aragang no.
rub2sg after.all really that eye2sg reason redCOMPL‘After all, you keep rubbing your eye a lot, that is why it is all red.’e. Ong etom no
ot=kawut,nga’ dumarun noif
black COMPL NOM=cloud then rain
COMPL
‘If the clouds are black, it will certainly/generally rain.

mari’.
PRTCL

f. Yalokatoy
ot=minanakaw, okon.ko’ yokupo.
3sg.NOM CONTR NOM=stolenot1sg.EMPH FOC‘It was him that stole it, not me (contrary to your assertion).’Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang

Page 3g. (for comparison only)
Kinibit dara dialo i=tanakkunga’, rumosi i=tanak
ku.
holdFRUST 3sg
NOM=child 1sg
but afraid NOM=child 1sg‘He/she (tried in vain to) hold my child, but the child was afraid.’
3.1 bala’ ~ bala’ay ‘MIRATIVE’
The MIRATIVE particle bala’ ~ bala’ay generally marks information that is surprising or new
to the speaker, as in (7a-b) and (8). In narrative discourse the particle may reflect theviewpoint of a central character instead (9).
(8) a. Monginum kobala’ do=batolbo.
AV.drink
2sg.NOM MIR
ACC=rice.wine
PRTCL‘Oh, so you drink rice wine (I am surprised to learn).’b. Amu ku
norongow
NEG 1sg.GEN heard

doCOMP

minatay yalo,
died
3sg.NOM

noluwasnobala’ koniab.
COMP funeral.ritualalready MIRyesterday‘I had not heard that he had died, but (I am surprised to learn) they performed the 7th
day funeral ritual for him yesterday.’dot(9)

Om sopulay díiri
and gather thus

di=Landang
GEN=turtle

it
NOM

“pis”
ka,(noise) say

nga’ asoso=i’tonsi, kulit.ko’.kulit bala’ iri.
but not.have.DUP=EMPH flesh only.skinMIRthus‘The turtle gathered up the ones that went “pis”, but there was no flesh, only empty(banana) skins.’
3.2 dati’ ‘possibly; probably’
The particle dati’ indicates that the speaker is not fully committed to the truth of theproposition being expressed; i.e., not entirely sure whether it is true. Like its Malaytranslation equivalent (mungkin), dati’ can mean either ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’.
(10) a. L<um>omu dati’ a=sawo
yodilo’ ong kopirawadyoalo.
<AV>fatmaybe NOM=spouse 3sg.GEN that if
RECIP.separate 3pl.NOM‘His wife might gain some weight if they separate for a while.’b. Monontiyan dati’ yalo’
dilo’ tu’mogilob om tiakan
dot=onsom.
pregnant
maybe 3sg.NOM that because AV.vomit and DESID-eat ACC=sour‘She might/must be pregnant, because she vomits and wants to eat sour things.’
c. Dompiroton no babanar i=longobon, taka’an
secure.OVFOC truly
NOM=doorsteal.DV‘Fasten the door well lest someone steals the rice.’

dati’
maybe

i=paray.
NOM=rice

3.3 mari ‘certainty’mari is often used for information that is common knowledge, e.g. for characteristic
properties of people or things (11), or for gnomic or universal truths, things which follow
from the laws of nature (7e), etc. It is also used for things the speaker has learned byexperience.

Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang(11) a. Maag-alay
mari o=kuda
AV.HABIT-avoid surely NOM=horse‘Horses normally avoid mud.’Page 4

do=butak.
ACC=mudb. Mangabayinsinóono mari dilo’ ong owukan no.
AV.(singing.style) PRTCL surely that ifdrunkPRTCL‘He always sings in the abayinsi style when he is drunk.’
3.4 katoy ‘contradiction, disapproval’Katoy is the least frequent of the speaker-oriented particles. It may be used when the speakeris contradicting something which another person has asserted or seems to believe, as in (12ab). It can also be used to indicate the speaker’s disapproval of the described action, as in (13).
(12) a. Yoku
katoy ot=minangatag
dat=pooniddangan
1sg.EMPH CONTR NOM=AV.PST.build ACC=drying.place

da=kumut
GEN=clothdilo’,thatsera mayalo’po.
when RHET.Q 3sg.NOM FOC‘Actually it was me who built that rack for drying clothes, not him.’b. Ki-sawo
nokatoy yalo’.
EXIST-spouse already CONTR 3sg.NOM‘Actually he is already married.’(katoy suggests that someone has just asserted the opposite)
(13)

Aso’
noweeg, minaan katoy dialo’ bubuako modsu.
neg.EXIST already water AUX.PST CONTR 3sg
waste.OV bathe‘There is no more water, (because) he wasted it when he was bathing.’

3.5 gima ‘known to hearer’
Gima often seems to be translatable with the English phrase ‘after all’, implying that thisinformation is already familiar to the hearer. Gima is also used when scolding someone, as
seen in (14d). Because gima marks information that is already known or available toaddressee, it cannot occur within a clause that answers a question. Either (15b) or (15c) areacceptable answers to the question in (15a), but gima cannot occur within the answer.
(14) a. Kukuro yoalo’misasawo,
miobpipinee
gima.
how
3pl.NOM RECIP.DUP.spouse RECIP.DUP.sibling after.all‘How can they marry each other, after all, they are siblings.’
b. Imboluan
yalo’
dilo’ tu’boboliyan gima.
toll.gong.DV 3sg.NOM that because priestess after.all‘They will toll the funeral gong for her, because she was a priestess after all.’c. Sagay gima onsom noiti
rinapa, s<in>ukaan
reason PRTCL sour
FOC
thisviandadd.vinegar‘No wonder the food tastes sour, you put vinegar in it.’nu.
2sg.GEN

d. Kaabir-abir gima
ino ponumpos
nu;scatter-REDUP after.all that IV.plant.seed 2sg.GEN
poonongo
no sid luwang to.
CAUSE.hit.OV.IMPER FOC in hole
PRTCL
‘The rice seed you are dropping is falling all over the place; make it go into the hole!’Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang(15)

Nunu ot=tonomon
daalo ad gopu
what NOM=plant.OV 3pl
in garden‘What will they plant in their garden plot?’

Page 5yodilo’?
3GEN thatb. Togilay dati’/*gima ot=tonomon
daalo.
maize
PRTCL
NOM=plant.OV 3pl‘They will probably plant corn/maize.’c. Togilay mari’/*gima ot=totonomon
daalo.
maize
PRTCL
NOM=HABIT.plant.OV 3pl‘They always plant corn/maize.’

4. Speaker-oriented particles as “meta-communication markers”
Potts (2007, 2013) identifies the following properties of “conventional implicatures”, a broadclass of meanings that I will refer to as “meta-communication”:
a.
b.

CONVENTIONAL (must be learned, rather than calculated from context)
SECONDARY: not part of the “at-issue” content (e.g., not part of the proposition that is

asserted in a statement; do not contribute to the truth conditions)
INDEPENDENT: logically independent of the central at-issue content
PROJECTIVE (these aspects of meaning take widest scope, e.g. their interpretation is
not restricted to the particular clause in which they occur)e. NOT PRESUPPOSED (need not be assumed to be part of common ground)c.
d.

The following evidence supports the claim that the speaker-oriented particles are not part ofthe propositional content of the sentence, and are best analyzed as “meta-communicationmarkers” (conventional implicature triggers).
4.1 Speaker-oriented particles cannot be questioned or negatedSpeaker-oriented particles may occur in another clause of a sentence that contains a question,
but not in an interrogative clause:(16) a. Siongo matkisakot ilo’ togilay yo dot
pigamasan
yo gima.
where RHET.Q grassy that corn
3sg COMP clear.repeatedly 3sg PRTCL‘How could there be grass growing in his corn field, when (as you know) he always
clears/cuts the grass there?’b. ?*Siongo mat kisakot ilo’ togilay yo gima dot pigamasan yo.
4.2 Speaker-oriented particles always take scope over negation(17) a. Amu po bala’ nokosuwu nu
i=linomumut di=tanakbo.
notyet MIR
IV.feed2sg.GEN NOM=porridge ACC=child PRTCL‘I’m surprised to discover that you haven’t fed the child its rice porridge yet.’(cannot mean: ‘I’m not yet surprised to discover that you fed the child its riceporridge.’)b. Amu gimanotongkuban nu ino kuuy, ino bala’ ot=kororogis dino.
not after.all covered
2sg that cake that MIR NOM=sanded that
‘You failed to cover the cakes, as you well know, and that is why they got all sandy.’(cannot mean: ‘It is not known to you that you covered the cakes…’)

Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang

Page 6c. Amu modop mari’ a=tanakdilo’ ong kabaak o=lampu.
not sleep
PRTCL NOM=child that ifshine
NOM=lamp‘The child will certainly not go to sleep if the light is shining.’(cannot mean: ‘It is not certain that the child will go to sleep if the light is shining.’)
4.3 Speaker-oriented particles are not “challengeable”(18)

A: Yokoy diti, musikin okoy, aso tarata ya.
‘As for us, we are poor, we have no wealth.’
B: Momudut katoy, amu babanar; akaya yalo’ dilo’.
‘He is lying, that is not true; he is rich.’(19)

A: Monginum ko bala’ do batol bo.
‘So you drink rice wine (I am surprised to discover)!’
B: #Momudut katoy, amu babanar; nela’an nu maantad!
‘You are lying, that is not true; you already knew that.’(grammatical, but not an acceptable/appropriate response in this context)(20)

A: Piilango yoalo’ tu’ sompusasawo gima.
‘Have them eat together, because they are husband and wife after all.’
B: #Momudut katoy, amu babanar; aku nela’an! (odd)‘You are lying, that is not true; I did not know that.’(grammatical, but not an acceptable/appropriate response in this context)
B’: Ay? Aku nela’an!
‘Oh? I did not know that.’ (appropriate response)

4.4 Speaker-oriented particles “project” their meaning out of adverbial clauses(21) a. Amu noKina
paganti
ong oboli
nomari ot=barang.
not COMPL Chinese exchange ifbought COMPL surely NOM=thing‘Chinese (shopkeepers) will certainly not exchange something if you have alreadypaid for it.’b. Amu no mari o Kina paganti ong oboli no ot barang. (same meaning)(22) a. Sagay
reasonminomoli nobought
COMPL

bala’MIRyalo
3sg.NOM

do=wakaw,
ACC=rotan

pinomolit yo
di=bubu.
IV.PST.bind 3sg.GEN
ACC=fish.trap‘So that is why he bought the rotan, he used it to bind his fish trap (as I now
discover).’b. Sagay minomoli no yalo do wakaw, pinomolit yo bala’ di bubu. (same meaning)
In a coordinate sentence, however, a speaker-oriented particle takes scope only over theconjunct that it belongs to.
(23) a. “Woy obo,[[nakaabir at=takanon], [osongow kogimamonook]]!”spilledNOM=ricerough2sg.NOM after.all dish.out‘Now look, the rice has spilled, you are (after all) dishing it out so roughly/fast.’
PRTCL PRTCL

b. *Woy obo, [[nakaabir gima at takanon], [osongow ko monook]]!

Speaker-oriented particles in Kimaragang

Page 7References
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. “Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information”. Linguistic
Typology 1:33-52.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. “The mirative and evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics 33:369-382.
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford
Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johansson, James. (electronic database). Kimaragang Trilingual Dictionary. available via
PARADESIC at: http://paradisec.org.au/catalog/
Kroeger, Paul. 2005. “Kimaragang.” In Sander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann, eds., The
Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London & New York: Routledge, pp.
397–428.
Potts, Christopher. 2007. Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass 4(2):665679. available at: http://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/papers/potts-conventional-implicaturecompass.pdf
Potts, Christopher. 2013. Presupposition and implicature. To appear in Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox,eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
available at: http://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/manuscripts/potts-blackwellsemantics.pdf