Cover not available
Part of
Nonverbal Predication in Amazonian Languages
Edited by Simon E. Overall, Rosa Vallejos and Spike Gildea
[Typological Studies in Language 122] 2018
► pp. 163–192

Chapter 6
To hi or not to hi?

Nonverbal predication with and without the copula in Kotiria and Wa’ikhana (East Tukano)

| Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
This chapter describes nonverbal predication in the Kotiria-Wa’ikhana sub-branch of the East Tukano family of northwestern Amazonia. It begins with a general overview of use of the copulas hi/ihi in sentences coding the main functional categories of nonverbal predication. Copular sentences with predicate nominals express notions of ‘identity’ and ‘existence’; those with predicate locatives indicate temporary or permanent locational association. ‘Adjectival’ notions – nominalizations derived from stative verb roots or from nouns by means of the attributive suffix -ti – are also expressed in copular sentences. This general profile also highlights the inflectional properties of copular verbs and their productive use as the head roots in derivations of nominals of various types. The second section presents the predicative alternatives to copular constructions, including productively used ‘nonexistence’, possessive, and positional-locative predicates. The final section discusses a second copular form, ni, a clear cognate to the general copula (a)ni found in many other East Tukano languages, synchronically used as an auxiliary in the Kotiria/Wa’ikhana progressive constructions. It briefly explores two hypotheses regarding the retention of ni and origin of the innovative hi/ihi copulas in Kotiria and Wa’ikhana.
Keywords: East Tukano, copular verbs, nonexistence predication, adjectival predication, innovation of copulas
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.The copulas hi/ihi
    • 1.1To hi : Copular sentences with nominal predicates
    • 1.2To hi : Copular sentences with locative predicates
    • 1.3And still to hi : Nominalized ‘adjectival’ predicates in copular clauses
    • 1.4Morphology with the copula
    • 1.5Derivations from the copula
  • 2.Or not to hi : Copula alternatives
    • 2.1Positional-locative predicates
    • 2.2Negation of the copula and predicates of ‘non-existence’
    • 2.3Predicate possession verbs
  • 3.To hi, not to hi, or to ni! – the East Tukano copula as an auxiliary
  • 4.Summary and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.122.06ste
References (41)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2003. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. The Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Janet. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(3): 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Tucano. In The Amazonian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 207–226. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Tucanoan languages. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 130–142. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruil, Martine. 2014. Clause-typing and Evidentiality in Ecuadorian Siona. PhD dissertation, LOT publications 350. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Chacon, Thiago. 2012. The Phonology and Morphology of Kubeo: The Documentation, Theory, and Description of an Amazonian Language. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
. 2014. A revised proposal of Proto-Tukanoan consonants and Tukanoan family classification. International Journal of American Linguistics 80(3): 275–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Criswell, Linda & Brandrup, Beverly. 2000. Un bosquejo fonológico y gramatical del Siriano. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, una visión descriptiva, González de Pérez & Rodríguez de Montes (eds), 395–415. Santafé de Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–75. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup [Mouton Grammar Library 43]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience & Stenzel, Kristine. 2013. Upper Rio Negro. Cultural and Linguistic Interaction in Northwestern Amazonia. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, Museu do Índio-FUNAI. <[URL]>
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa. 2011. La famille tukano. In Dictionnaire des langues, Emilio Bonvini, Joëlle Busuttil & Alain Peyraube (eds), 1454–60. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa & Stenzel, Kristine. To appear. Tukanoan Languages. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Lev Michaels & Patience Epps (eds). de Gruyter Mouton.
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa & Hugh-Jones, Stephen. 2000. Introducción al estudio de las lenguas del Piraparaná (Vaupés). In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, una visión descriptiva, González de Pérez & Rodríguez de Montes (eds), 321–356. Santafé de Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
González de Pérez, Maria Stella. 2000. Bases para el estudio de la lengua Pisamira. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, una visión descriptiva, González de Pérez & Rodríguez de Montes (eds), 373–391. Santafé de Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinch, Pamela G. & Kinch, Rodney A. 2000. El Yurutí. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, una visión descriptiva, González de Pérez & Rodríguez de Montes (eds), 469–487. Santafé de Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Martins, Valteir. 1994. Análise prosódica da língua Dâw (Makú-Kamã) numa perspectiva nãolinear (Prosodic analysis of the Dâw language (Makú-Kamã) in non-linear perspective). MA thesis, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.Google Scholar
Miller, Marion. 1999. Desano Grammar. Arlington TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas. E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ospina Bozzi, Ana María. 2002. Les structures élémentaires du yuhup makú, langue de l’amazonie colombienne: Morphologie et syntaxe. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas. Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, Henri. 1997. A Fala Tukano dos Ye’pâ-Masa, Tomo I: Gramática. Manaus: CEDEM.Google Scholar
Silva, Wilson de Lima. 2012. A Descriptive Grammar of Desano. PhD dissertation. University of Utah.Google Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine. 2005. Multilingualism in the northwest Amazon, revisited. In Annals of the II Congress on Indigenous Languages of Latin America, CILLA, Austin TX.Google Scholar
. 2008. Kotiria “Differential Object Marking” in cross-linguistic perspective. Amerindia 32:153–81.Google Scholar
. 2013a. A Reference Grammar of Kotiria (Wanano). Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Butterflies ‘leaning’ on the doorframe: Expressions of location and position in Kotiria and Wa’ikhana. In Expresión de nociones espaciales en lenguas amazónicas, Ana María Ospina Bozzi (ed.), 85–107. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
. 2015. Considerações sobre ordem de palavras, tópico e o ‘efeito foco’ em Kotiria. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem REVEL, special volume 10: 223–246.Google Scholar
. 2016. More on Switch-reference in Kotiria (Wanano, East Tukano). In Switch-Reference 2.0, Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), 425–452. [Typological Studies in Language 114]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Kotiria. In On this and other worlds: Voices from Amazonia. Kristine Stenzel & Bruna Franchetto (eds.), 189–275. Berlin: Studies in Diversity Linguistics, Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine & Gomez-Imbert, Elsa. 2009. Contato lingüístico e mudança lingüística no noroeste amazônico: O caso do Kotiria (Wanano). Revista da ABRALIN 8: 71–100.Google Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine & Khoo, Velda. 2016. Linguistic hybridity: a case study in the Kotiria community. Language Ideologies and Multilingualism, special volume of Critical Multilingualism Studies 4.2: 75–110.Google Scholar
Strom, Clay. 1992. Retuarã Syntax [Studies in the Languages of Colombia 3]. Dallas TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Waltz, Nathan E. 2002. Innovations in Wanano (Eastern Tucanoan) when compared to Piratapuyo. International Journal of American Linguistics 68(2):157–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Nathan E. & Wheeler, Alva. 1972. Proto Tucanoan. In Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages [Janua Linguarum Series Practica 127], Esther Matteson (ed.), 119–149. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weir, E. M. Helen. 1990. Incorporation in Nadëb. In Amazonian Linguistics, Doris L. Payne (ed.), 321–363. Austin TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Welch, Betty & West, Birdie. 2000. El Tucano. In Lenguas indígenas de Colombia, una visión descriptiva, González de Pérez & Rodríguez de Montes (eds), 419–436. Santafé de Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar