Cover not available
Part of
Finiteness and Nominalization
Edited by Claudine Chamoreau and Zarina Estrada-Fernández
[Typological Studies in Language 113] 2016
► pp. 83–104

Non-finite chain-medial clauses on the continuum of finiteness in Purepecha

| CNRS (CEMCA - SeDyL | CELIA)

On the continuum of finiteness that can characterize clauses, Purepecha is one of the languages in which the predicates of both independent and dependent clauses are usually finite. Some non-finite dependent clauses have been observed. The predicate is converted to a non-finite form by means of the non-finite marker -ni, without independent specification of tense or aspect. The use of non-finite clauses in clause-chaining, especially chain-medial clauses in narratives, is a phenomenon that appears to be frequent. Its primary function is to maintain event coherence. Reference tracking is almost always possible, but in specific contexts a new reference may be introduced in non-finite chain-medial clauses (participant discontinuity). Temporal continuity is generally attested, although some exceptions have been found with utterance predicates. Non-finite chain-medial clauses seem to display more finiteness features than the other non-finite clauses. In this paper, I describe and discuss in detail the uses of non-finite chain-medial clauses and the position of these non-finite clauses on the continuum of finiteness in Purepecha.

Keywords: chain-medial clauses, continuum of finiteness, non-finite marker, referential continuity, temporal continuity
Published online: 23 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.113.05cha
References (22)
Bisang, Walter
2001 Finite vs. non finite languages. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1400-1413. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007 Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 115-137. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence & Smith-Stark, Thomas
1986 Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62(3): 530-570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capistrán, Alejandra
2002 Variaciones de orden de constituyentes en p’orhépecha. Topicalización y focalización. In Del Cora al Maya Yucateco. Estudios lingüísticos sobre algunas lenguas indígenas mexicanas, Paulette Levy (ed.), 349-402. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert
1992 A Grammar of Supyire. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine
2007 Grammatical borrowing in Purepecha. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds), 465-480. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009 Hablemos purepecha, Wanté juchari anapu. Morelia: Universidad Intercultural Indígenas de Michoacán / IIH-UMSNH / IRD / CCC-IFAL / Grupo Kw’anískuyarhani de Estudiosos del Pueblo Purépecha.Google Scholar
2012 Dialectology, typology, diachrony and contact linguistics. A multi-layered perspective in Purepecha. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF - Language Typology and Universals) 65(1): 6-25.Google Scholar
2014 Types of enclitic in Purepecha. In Patterns in Meso-American Morphology, Jean-Léo Léonard & Alain Kihm (eds), 119-143. Paris: Michel Houdiard Editeur.Google Scholar
In press. Purepecha. In Handbook of Polysynthesis, Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans (eds) Oxford OUP
Forthcoming. Grammaticalization of the linking devices with ka in Purepecha. In Diverse Scenarios of Syntactic Complexity: Inter and intra Typological Diversity, Zarina Estrada-Fernández, Claudine Chamoreau & Albert Álvarez González (eds)
Friedrich, Paul
1984 From meaning to sound. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 2, Mundro S. Edmondson (ed.), 56-82. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T
1983 Topic continuity in discourse. The functional domain of switch reference. In Switch Reference and Universal Grammar [Typological Studies in Language 2], John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds), 51-82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2002 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert
2007 Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 52-150. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron
1998 Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36(2): 281-331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The borrowability of structural categories. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds), 31-73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Medina Plaza, Juan
1998[1575] Diálogo sobre la naturaleza. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán/Fideicomiso Teixodor.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina
(ed.) 2007 Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, John
1987 Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas
1994 Mesoamerican calques. In Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica, Carolyn Mackay & Verónica Vázquez (eds), 15-50. Mexico: IIF-UNAM.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by 3 other publications

Bellamy, Kate & Martha Mendoza
2024. The expression of texture in P’urhepecha. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 24 ► pp. e024005 ff. DOI logo
Groff, Cynthia & Kate Bellamy
2020. Biliteracy development in Mexican primary education: analysing written expression in P’urhepecha and Spanish. The Language Learning Journal 48:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans
2017. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 june 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.