Affiliation:
1. Universität Potsdam , Potsdam , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
For most Quechuan languages, the discourse enclitic =mi has been described as a (contrastive) focus marker and/or as a marker of direct evidentiality. In this paper, I argue that these claims do not seem to apply to Conchucos Quechua (Ancash, Peru). To challenge the association between =mi and focus, I offer a quantitative analysis that strongly suggests that this connection is not categorical in nature. To contest the association between =mi and direct evidentiality, I offer a qualitative analysis based on a question-under-discussion (QUD) model of discourse structure, using naturalistic data. I will argue that this enclitic is better characterised as an assertion operator, whose function is to bring closure to the current QUD (be it explicit or implicit). In this sense, the use of =mi is reminiscent of what has been called verum in the literature, and I thus explore how this characterisation fits within this discussion.
Reference48 articles.
1. Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua. Grammar, texts, dictionary. Amsterdam: The Peter de Ridder Press.
2. Aikhenvald, Alexsandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, Anne H., Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Chaterine Sotillo & Henry S. Thompson. 1991. The Hcrc map task corpus. Language and Speech 34(4). 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099103400404.
4. Behrens, Leila. 2012. Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles: Some reflections on metadiscourse and typology. In Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice: A lingustic perspective, 185–244. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. Bendezú-Araujo, Raúl. 2021. Identificación y aserción en la marcación de foco del quechua de Conchucos (Áncash, Perú). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin Dissertation.