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
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

Cited by 3 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 14 april 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.