Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 31:4 (2021) ► pp.533–559

Salience and shift in salience as means of creating discourse coherence

The case of the Chipaya enclitics

ORCID logo | Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich | University of Cologne
The Chipaya language, an endangered isolate of the Bolivian highlands, has a set of three enclitics, =l, =m and =ʐ, which are coreferential with the subject of a clause but are not necessarily attached to it and are not obligatory. In this paper, I investigate the pragmatic function of these forms. The salience-marking enclitics (henceforth SMEs) occur at paratactic and hypotactic discourse transitions, where they indicate a shift in salience, thereby contributing to creating discourse coherence. Discourse transitions without a shift in salience are not accompanied by the enclitics. Those enclitics that occur at paratactic transitions have scope over at least the segment whose beginning and/or end they occur in, whereas SMEs at hypotactic transitions have scope over the clause they appear in. Use of the SMEs is genre-specific.
Keywords: salience, shift in salience, discourse transitions, discourse coherence, enclitics, Chipaya, Bolivia
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Salience, the Chipaya SMEs and further discourse-structuring devices of Chipaya
    • 2.2Discourse coherence and discourse transitions
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Quantitative analysis
  • 5.Case studies
    • 5.1A folk story: The fox and the armadillo (DAT 26–1)
    • 5.2A descriptive text: Animales ‘animals’
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 17 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20010.han
References (31)
References
Adelaar, Willem. 2007. “Threatened Languages in Hispanic South America.” In Language Diversity Endangered, ed. by Matthias Brenzinger, 9–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Willem, and Pieter Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. “Typological Parameters for the Study of Clitics, with Special Reference to Tariana.” In Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon, and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua [Chipaya or the Language of the People of the Water]. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Chipaya.” In Lenguas de Bolivia [Languages of Bolivia]. Volume I1: Ámbito andino [Andean Sphere], ed. by Mily Crevels, and Pieter Muysken, 29–77. La Paz: Plural Editores.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo, and Enrique Ballón Aguirre. 2011. Chipaya: Léxico-etnotaxonomía [Chipaya: Lexical Ethnotaxonomy]. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. “The Deployment of Consciousness in the Production of a Narrative.” In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, ed. by Wallace Chafe, 9–50. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Chiarcos, Christian. 2011. “The Mental Salience Framework: Context-Adequate Generation of Referring Expressions.” In Salience: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Its Function in Discourse, ed. by Michael Grabski, Claus Berry, and Christian Chiarcos, 105–139. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1986. Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen (DobeS) [Documentation of Endangered Languages]. [URL] (8 April 2021).
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2009. Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerlach, Birgit, and Janet Grijzenhout. 2000. “Clitics from Different Perspectives.” In Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, ed. by Birgit Gerlach, and Janet Grijzenhout, 1–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hannß, Katja. 2008. Uchumataqu. The Lost Language of the Urus of Bolivia. A Grammatical Description of the Language as Documented between 1894 and 1952. Leiden: CNWS.Google Scholar
. accepted. “The Expression of Directed Caused Accompanied Motion (CAM) Events in Chipaya.” In Caused Accompanied Motion: Bringing and Taking Events in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Birgit Hellwig, Anna Margetts, and Sonja Riesberg. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 291: 219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard-Malverde, Rosaleen. 1990. “Introduction.” In Liliane Porterie-Gutiérrez (author), “Documentos para el estudio de la lengua chipaya [Documents for the Study of the Chipaya Language].” Amerindia 151: 157–191. [URL] (27 December 2019).
Longacre, Robert E. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse. Second edition. New York/London: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers Scotton, Carol. 1983. “The Negotiation of Identities in Conversation: A Theory of Markedness and Code Choice.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 441: 115–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A Grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Ronald D. 1967. “The Syllable in Chipaya.” International Journal of American Linguistics 331: 300–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porterie-Gutiérrez, Liliane. 1990. “Documentos para el estudio de la lengua chipaya [Documents for the Study of the Chipaya Language].” Amerindia 151: 157–191. [URL] (27 December 2019).
Redeker, Gisela. 2006. “Discourse Markers as Attentional Cues at Discourse Transitions.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 339–358. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela, and Helmut Gruber. 2014. “Introduction: The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, 1–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Language Archive (TLA). [URL] (27 December 2019).
Uhle, Max. 1894. Uro Grammar I and II. Manuscript in the possession of the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin. [URL] (27 December 2019).
Zwicky, Arnold. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington: Ohio State University [Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club]. [URL] (27 December 2019).
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hannss, Katja
2022. The expression of directed caused accompanied motion (CAM) events in Chipaya. In Caused Accompanied Motion [Typological Studies in Language, 134], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.