Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.13flo
References (39)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles & Wetherell, Margaret. 1999. Show concessions. Discourse Studies 1: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Fries, Charles C. 1927. The expression of the future. Language 3(2): 87–95. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1985a. On the history of concessive connectives in English. Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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