Article published in:
Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 341–366

Chapter 13. Insubordination in interaction

The Cha’palaa counter-assertive

| Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen
In the Cha’palaa language of Ecuador the main-clause use of the otherwise non-finite morpheme -ba can be accounted for by a specific interactive practice: the ‘counter-assertion’ of statement or implicature of a previous conversational turn. Attention to the ways in which different constructions are deployed in such recurrent conversational contexts reveals a plausible account for how this type of dependent clause has come to be one of the options for finite clauses. After giving some background on Cha’palaa and placing ba clauses within a larger ecology of insubordination constructions in the language, this chapter uses examples from a video corpus of informal conversation to illustrate how interactive data provides answers that may otherwise be elusive for understanding how the different grammatical options for Cha’palaa finite verb constructions have been structured by insubordination.
Published online: 18 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.13flo
References
Adelaar, Willem F.H. with Muysken, Pieter C
2004 The Barbacoan languages. In The Languages of the Andes, Willem F.H. Adelaar & Pieter C. Muysken, 141–151. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2007 Languages of the Pacific Coast of South America. In The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific, Osahito Miyaoka, Osamu Sakiyama & Michael E. Krauss (eds), 183–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles
1994 Explaining and Arguing. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles & Leudar, Ivan
1992 Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model. European Journal of Social Psychology 22(2): 181–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles & Wetherell, Margaret
1999 Show concessions. Discourse Studies 1: 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Buttny, Richard
1993 Social Accountability in Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci & Drew, Paul
2008 Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2): 129–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. & Liddicoat, Anthony J
1998 The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40(3): 384–408.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter
1982 Imbabura Quechua [Lingua Descriptive Studies 5]. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1983 Switch-reference in two Quechuan languages. In Switch-reference and Universal Grammar [Typological Studies in Language 2], John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Connie
2002 Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
1993 Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In The Role of Theory in Linguistic Description, William A. Foley (ed.), 243–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Grammaticizing the knower: Towards a partial typology of person effects on predicates. Plenary, Third Australian Linguistics Institute , The Australian National University.
2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irinia Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon
2014 Four types of reduplication in the Cha’palaa language of Ecuador. In Reduplication in South American Indian Languages, Hein van der Voort & Gale Goodwin Gómez (eds), 77–114. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon & Bruil, Martine
2011 Interactional functions as part of the grammar: The suffix -ba in Cha’palaa. In Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory 3, Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, David Nathan & Lutz Marten (eds), 91–100. London: SOAS. http://​www​.hrelp​.org​/publications​/ldlt3​/papers​/ldlt3​_10​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles C
1927 The expression of the future. Language 3(2): 87–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1990: He-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness & Goodwin, Charles
1987 Children’s arguing. In Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective, Susan Philips, Susan Steele & Christine Tanz (eds), 200–248. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Austin
1980 Person markers: finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics No. 7, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Heritage, John
2002 The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C
2012 Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), 11–32. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1985a On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985b Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives. In Historical Semantics: Historical Word Formation, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 263–282. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 Concessive connectives and concessive sentences. Crosslinguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed.), 145–166. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 81(1): 69–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2008 Varieties of instrumental. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 593–601. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Ito, Shinyo
2007 Reconstructing semantic maps. The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4): 273–292.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva & Zinken, Jörg
2011 How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3): 263–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 Pursuing a response. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 152–164. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A
1999 Pragmatics of Conditional Marking: Implicature, Scalarity, and Exclusivity. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Rossano, Federico
2010 Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
1996 Some instruments are really good companions: On syncretism and the typology of instrumentals and comitatives. Theoretical Linguistics 23(1-2): 113–200.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina
2006 On Comitatives and Related Categories: A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 33]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008 Varieties of comitative. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 601–609. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vittadello, P. Alberto
1988 Cha’palaa: El idioma cayapa. Esmeraldas: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador.Google Scholar