Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:2 (2016) ► pp.414–456

Contrastive focus-marking and nominalization in Northern Kampa (Arawak) of Peru

This study examines the interaction of contrastive focus-marking with nominalization in bisected contrastive focus constructions of Alto Perené, a Kampa Arawak language of Peru. It also investigates morphosyntactic means of contrastive focus-marking in two neighboring Kampa languages, Ashéninka Pichis and Ashaninka Tambo. The languages are shown to employ various focus-marking strategies. The Alto Perené polar (truth value) focus construction shows a preference for nominalizing a lexical verb. In Ashaninka Tambo, the expression of polar and modal operator focus (the latter attested in negated clauses) does not require nominalization of the lexical verb, but in clefted content and polar questions and affirmative declarative clauses, nominalization is mandatory for the purpose of argument focusing. In Ashéninka Pichis, the argument focus-marking strategies include the syntactic movement of the focus constituent to the preverbal focus position and either an elision of the subject index on the verb, or inflecting the verb for stative aspect.
Keywords: Alto Perené, Kampa, Arawak, argument focus, polar focus, contrastive focus
Published online: 1 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.05mih
References (67)
Adelaar, Willem & Pieter Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes. (Cambridge Language Surveys.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 65–106. (Cambridge Language Surveys.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Ronald J. 1985. Cuentos folklóricos de los Asheninca, vol.11 (Comunidades y Culturas Peruanas 18). Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
. 1986a. Cuentos folklóricos de los Asheninca, vol.21 (Comunidades y Culturas Peruanas 19). Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
. 1986b. Cuentos folklóricos de los Asheninca, vol.31 (Comunidades y Culturas Peruanas 20). Yarinacocha:Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Argument marking patterns in South American languages. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Baltasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 271–296. Katmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bodley, John H. 2003. The Power of scale. A global history approach. New York/London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 21, 334–381 (Language Typology & Syntactic Description). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danielsen, Swintha. 2011. The person paradigms in Bare and other Southern Arawak languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4). 495–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. (Linguistic Series 37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C., Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Jong, Sie I. Djiang, Harry Stroomer, & Lourens de Vries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on functional grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part I, The structure of the clause (Functional Grammar Series 9). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Complex and derived constructions (Functional Grammar Series 21). Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Grammatical topics, vol. 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius. 2008. Nominalization in Bantawa. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 67- 95.Google Scholar
Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Grammatica del idioma yanesha’ (amuesha). Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identification focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines. 2012. Predicate-centered focus in Gbe. In Matthias Brenzinger & Ann-Maria Fehn (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on African Languages, Cologne August 17-21, 20091, 385–398. Köln: Verlag.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines & Anne Schwarz (eds.). 2010. The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa (Typological Studies in Language 91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Nevari dialect (Monumenta Serindica 24). Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Gijn, Rik van. 2014. Subordination strategies in South America: nominalization. In Loretta O’Connor and Pieter Muysken (eds.), The native languages of South America: Origins, development, typology, 274–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gijn, Rik van, Katharina Haude & Pieter Muysken. 2011. Subordination in South America: An overview. In Rik van Gijn, Katharina Haude & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Subordination in Native South American languages, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grunow-Hårsta, Karen. 2009. Plurifunctionality in the Magar nominalization system. Nepalese Linguistics 241. 37–48.Google Scholar
. 2011. Adjectives and adjectivals in Magar. Himalayan Linguistics 10(1). 101- 126.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatic theory, 174–196 (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu. Studies in Language 271. 323–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Tonjes Veenstra. 2013. Introduction. In Katharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: a conceptual framework. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 209‒226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony (Functional Grammar Series 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage John. 2013. Epistemics in conversation. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of conversation analysis, 370–394. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel & Malte Zimmermann. 2013. Cleft partitionings in Japanese, Burmese and Chinese. In Katharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, 285–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iirineane Tasorentsi. Oquenquetsatacotaqueri avincatsarite Jesoquirishito [El Nuevo Testamento en el idioma Asháninca]. 1972. Lima: Editorial Sagradas Escrituras Para Todos.Google Scholar
Kindberg, Lee. 1961. Independent and dependent sentence types in Campa. In Benjamin F. Elson & Juan Comas (eds.), A William Cameron Townsend en el vigésimoquinto aniversario del Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, 505–518. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2006. Nominalization. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, vol. 81, 652–59. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit dissertation.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3). 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Aimee. 2013. Inflectional verbal morphology in Matsiguenga. Austin: University of Texas MA thesis.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrei. 2004. Nominalization/verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcategorial operations. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrei. 2006. Constraining nominalization: Function/form competition. Linguistics 44(5). 973–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihas, Elena. 2014. Upper Perené Arawak narratives of history, landscape and ritual. Lincoln: Nebraska University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge and social action in an Amazonian society. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type; Dedicated to T. Givón, 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, David. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In Desmond Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 31, 355–499. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Payne, David & Judith Payne. 2005. The pragmatics of split intransitivity in Asheninka. Revista Latinoamericana de Estidios Ethnolingüísticos 101. 37–56.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Santos-Granero, Fernando. 2002. Saint Christopher in the Amazon: child sorcery, colonialism, and violence among the Southern Arawak. Ethnohistory 49(3). 507–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaler, Dattie. 1971. Identification of clause types and participant roles in Pajonal Campa. ms.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of relativization. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 163–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. What can Japanese dialects tell us about the function and development of the nominalization particle ‘no’. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 201. 421–444.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2012. Mobilising response in interaction: a compositional view of questions. In Jan de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 58–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1992. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages. Diacronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Stephen Matthews. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, 309–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Stephen Matthews & Kaoru Horie. 2004. From pronominalizer to pragmatic marker: Implication for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline–The nature of grammaticalization, 137–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vargas, Lita & Aída Candiotti. 2004. Historias Ashaninkas para estar despiertos. Lima: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2008. Nominalization in Kiranti and Central Himalayish languages of Nepal. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 1–43.Google Scholar
Watters, John R. 1979. Focus in Aghem: a study of its formal correlates and typology. In Larry Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 137–197. (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
. 2010. Focus and the Ejagham verb system. In Ines Fielder & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of diversity across Africa, 349–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wise, Mary Ruth. 1986. Grammatical characteristics of Preandine Arawakan languages of Peru. In Desmond Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, 567–642. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Ocantacota Nonampi. Sobre mi pueblo. (Libro de Lectura 6, ashaninca.) Yarinacocha: Ministerio de Educación y Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. [URL].Google Scholar
1985 Icantacota peeraniniri. Cuentos de los antepasados. (Colección Literaria y Cultural 3, ashaninca.) Yarinacocha:Ministerio de Educación y Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Durand, Tom
2022. Insubordination and Finitization in Arawakan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 88:4 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Mihas, Elena
2018. Nominalization patterns in Alto Perené, a Kampa Arawak language of Peru. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 71:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Conversational structures of Alto Perené (Arawak) of Peru [Studies in Language Companion Series, 181], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.