Cover not available
Part of
Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Sylvie Hancil
[Studies in Language Companion Series 219] 2021
► pp. 313–352

Chapter 12
The rise of cause/reason adverbial markers in Yaqui (Uto-Aztecan)

| University of Sonora
This paper deals with three different connectives (betchi’ibo, bwe’ituk, po(r)ke) in Yaqui, which are used to introduce a clause that provides the cause/reason for which the situation denoted in the associated clause is carried out. The goal of this paper is to describe the morphosyntactic diversity present in Yaqui cause/reason adverbial clauses and to explain this diversity considering the evolutionary paths that have originated the three different cause/reason markers in Yaqui. These three markers are associated with three different sources: betchi’ibo originates from a postpositional marker that extended its use from noun phrases to clausal constituents; bwe’ituk comes from discourse via the recruitment of a discourse marker of discontinuity (the discourse marker bwe); and po(r)ke arises from language contact with Spanish.
Keywords: cause/reason adverbial clauses, discourse marker, postposition, switch-reference system, syntactic calque
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Yaqui language
  • 3.Cause/reason adverbial clauses in Modern Yaqui
    • 3.1 betchi’ibo
    • 3.2 bwe’ituk
    • 3.3 po(r)ke
  • 4.Cause/reason adverbial clauses in Old Cahita
    • 4.1Cause/reason adverbial clauses in Old Cahita
    • 4.2The multifunctionality of teca in Old Cahita
  • 5.The origin of cause/reason adverbial markers in Yaqui
    • 5.1The origin of po(r)ke
    • 5.2The origin and evolution of betchi’ibo in Yaqui
      • 5.2.1Other uses of betchi’ibo in Yaqui
        • 5.2.1.1Benefactive/malefactive postposition
        • 5.2.1.2Causal postposition
        • 5.2.1.3Purposive postposition
        • 5.2.1.4Purposive adverbial marker
      • 5.2.2Postpositional and spatial origins of betchi’ibo
      • 5.2.3The uses of betchi’ibo in Old Cahita
      • 5.2.4The rise to causal adverbial marker
    • 5.3The origin of bwe’ituk in Yaqui
      • 5.3.1The bwe’ituk formation
      • 5.3.2The discourse marker bwe
        • 5.3.2.1The origin of bwe
        • 5.3.2.2The discursive functions of the particle bwe
      • 5.3.3The functional motivations of the bwe recruitment
      • 5.3.4Discursive uses of bwe’ituk in Yaqui
  • 6.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.219.12alv
References (65)
References
Almada Leyva, Francisco. 1999. Diccionario yoreme-español, español-yoreme. Hermosillo: Dirección de Educación Indígena.Google Scholar
Álvarez González, Albert. 2018. Apuntes sobre el Manual para administrar a los indios del idioma cahita los Santos Sacramentos. In Las lenguas de México: Diálogos historiográficos, Bárbara Cifuentes & Rodrigo Mártinez Baracs (eds), 211–232. Mexico: IIB UNAM/Somehil.Google Scholar
. 2009. Origen y desarrollo de marcadores de cláusulas adverbiales en yaqui. Paper presented during the Seminario de Complejidad Sintáctica, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, México, 12–13 November.
. 2015. Sincretismo entre beneficiario, causa y propósito. Evolución de las funciones de betchi’ibo en yaqui. Amerindia Revue d’Ethnolinguistique Amérindienne 37(2): 69–96.Google Scholar
. 2019. From discourse to syntax : The use of the discourse marker bwe in the creation of interclausal connectives in Yaqui. In Diverse Scenarios of Syntactic Complexity [Typological Studies in Language 126], Albert Álvarez González, Zarina Estrada-Fernández & Claudine Chamoreau (eds), 217–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity – Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds), 34–49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Grammaticalization in languages with a high degree of hidden complexity: Two types of maturation and two types of hidden complexity. Paper presented during the Seminario de Complejidad Sintáctica, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, México, 11–12 November.
. 2014. Overt and hidden complexity – Two types of complexity and their implications. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50(2): 127–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1995. Pragmatic markers in a diachronic perspective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17–20, 1995, General Session and Parasession on Historical Issues in Sociolinguistics / Social Issues in Historical Linguistics, Jocelyn Ahlers, Leela Bilmes, Joshua S. Guenter, Barbara A. Kaiser & Ju Namkung (eds), 377–388. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brody, Mary Jill. 1987. Particles borrowed from Spanish as discourse markers in Mayan language. Anthropological Linguistics 29: 507–521.Google Scholar
. 1995. Lending the “unborrowable”: Spanish discourse markers in indigenous American languages. In Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism, Carmen Silva-Corvalán (ed.), 132–147. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Buelna, Eustaquio (ed.). 1890. Arte de la lengua Cahita. México: Imprenta del Gobierno Federal.Google Scholar
Buitimea Valenzuela, Crescencio. 2007. Peesio betana nottiwame. Regreso de Hermosillo. Hermosillo: Unison.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri. 1984. ’Well’ in Dialogue Games: A Discourse Analysis of the Interjection ‘well’ in Idealized Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond V: 5] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1853–1867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corominas, Joan. 1954. Diccionario Crítico Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dedrick, John & Casad, Eugene H. 1999. Sonora Yaqui Language Structure. Tucson AZ: The University of Arizona Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dedrick, John. 1985. Las cartas en Yaqui de Juan Bandera. Tlalocan X: 119–187.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1996. Processing factors of pre- and postposed adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22: 71–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses. Language 77(2): 433–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Buitimea Valenzuela, Crescensio, Gurrola Camacho, Adriana E., Castillo Celaya, María Elena & Carlón Flores, Anabel. 2004. Diccionario yaqui-español y textos: obra de preservación lingüística. México: Plaza y Valdés.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., & Thompson, Sandra A. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In On Conditionals, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice G. B. ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 353–373. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Discourse-structure constraints on the grammaticalization of clausal conjunctions. Paper presented during the Seminario de Complejidad Sintáctica, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, México, 12–13 November.
Guerrero, Lilián. 2019. Adverbial subordinators in Yaqui. In Diverse Scenarios of Syntactic Complexity, Albert Álvarez González, Zarina Estrada-Fernández, Claudine Chamoreau (eds), 109–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds), 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Jean. 1962. El idioma yaqui. México: INAH.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1(1): 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehart, & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: The conventionalizing of conversational implicature. In Understanding the Lexicon: Meaning, Sense and World Knowledge in Lexical Semantics, Werner Hüllen & Rainer Schulze (eds), 110–124. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Adverbial conjunctions. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 842–854. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Questionable answers and answerable questions. In Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Saporta (eds), 453–467. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. The syntax of postpositions in Uto-Aztecan. IJAL 43: 11–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24: 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. 1973. Yaqui Syntax. Berkeley CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lionnet, Andrés. 1977. Los elementos de la lengua cahita. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1989. Cause and instrument expressions in Classical Greek. Mnemosyne VLII, Fasc. 3–4: 294–307.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54: 35–51.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Paths of semantic extension: From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Historical Linguistics 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257], Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 141–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Prepositions in Cause expressions. In Proceedings of the XII International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics [Papers on Grammar 12/2], Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 609–619. Bologna: CLUEB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1958 [1921]. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2006. Influence of literacy on language development. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 661–665. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Wick R. 1984. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In Clause combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 331–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code-switching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 614–624. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pfaff, Carol. 1982. Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. In Spanish in the United States, Jon Amastae & Lucía Elías-Olivares (eds), 264–297. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ramat, Ana Giacalone & Mauri, Caterina. 2011. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 656–667. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva Encinas, Carlos, Álvarez Romero, Pablo & Buitimea Valenzuela, Crescencio (eds). 1998. Jiak nikpoe’tejoim, pláticas en Yaqui. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar: An Essay in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1980. Well in conversation. In Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds), 167–177. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 171–234. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Torres, Lourdes. 2002. Bilingual discourse markers in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language in Society 31: 65–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 406–416. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Susan Wright & Dieter Stein (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vester, Elseline. 1983. Instrument and manner expressions in Latin. Assen: Van Cormun.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar