(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Constructional Polysemy and Mental Spaces in Potawatomi Discourse"

Constructional Polysemy and Mental Spaces 
in Potawatomi Discourse 

by 

Laura Ann Buszard 



B.A. (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) 1991 
M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1994 



A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the 

requirements for the degree of 

Doctor of Philosophy 

in 

Linguistics 

in the 

GRADUATE DIVISION 

of the 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 

Committee in charge: 

Professor Richard A. Rhodes, Chair 

Professor Eve Sweetser 

Professor William Hanks 

Professor Leanne Hinton 

Fall, 2003 



The dissertation of Laura Ann Buszard is approved: 



Chair Date 



Date 



Date 



Date 



University of California, Berkeley 
Fall, 2003 



Constructional Polysemy and Mental Spaces in Potawatomi Discourse 

©2003 

by 

Laura Ann Buszard 



For James 



Abstract 
Constructional Polysemy and Mental Spaces in Potawatomi Discourse 

by 

Laura Ann Buszard 

Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics 

University of California, Berkeley 

Professor Richard A. Rhodes, Chair 

This dissertation examines several grammatical features of Potawatomi, a Central 
Algonquian language, whose syntactic distributions in traditional narrative are different 
from those found in everyday discourse. These grammatical features include the verbal 
paradigmatic orders known as the independent and conjunct, a verbal prefix e-, and 
obviation. In everyday discourse, independents are main clause forms, and conjuncts are 
generally subordinate clause forms. The verbal prefix e- is a marker of factivity within a 
subordinate clause. In narrative, however, most main clause verbs take the conjunct 
prefixed with e-. The function of obviation in everyday discourse is largely syntactic, 
with several several obligatory contexts of application. In narrative, however, it is 
optionally used to foreground and background characters, and to represent shifts in 
viewpoint. 

These distributions raise the issue of the relationship between between syntactic 
structure and discourse structure, and present the challenge to linguistic theory of 
accounting for syntax that is dependent on discourse context. I argue that the discourse- 
dependent distributions of these grammatical phenomena can be explained in a cognitive 

1 



linguistic framework, which assumes that syntax is not autonomous, but part of a 
continuum of form / meaning pairings which includes the lexicon and discourse 
structures. Within this framework, I propose that the aspects of Potawatomi grammar 
described above participate in several constructions that map a particular grammatical 
form onto multiple functions in both syntax and discourse. Using Mental Spaces theory, 
I show that these functions are related to each other in the way they structure and index 
aspects of mental spaces networks. 

I also argue for a productive mental space blend in Potawatomi that takes as its 
input spaces syntactic and discourse uses of constructions. In this way, possible contexts 
for the application of a construction in one domain can be associated with established 
contexts in the other. When the cross-space mappings are made, the blend can be 'run' 
and the construction applied to the new domain. This blend demonstrates that a full 
semantic description of these constructions requires explaining their functions within the 
domains of syntax and discourse, as well the relationships between their functions across 
these domains. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This project would not have been possible without the help of a great number of 
people. My first debt of gratitude is to the elders who shared with me their knowledge of 
the Potawatomi language, and my friends in the various Potawatomi communities who 
helped support this research. In particular, I would like to thank Hap McCue, for 
sparking my interest in Neshnabemwen, and introducing me to Richard Rhodes. On 
Walpole Island, Reta Sands and her family, thank you for your guidance and kind 
hospitality during my first summer of research; and Dean Jacobs along with the staff of 
the Nin.da.waab.jig Heritage Center (I think I finally sold all of those T-shirts!). At the 
Pokagon Band, the dear people who taught me my first Potawatomi and who have since 
passed on, Julia and Martin Wesaw. In Hannahville, the elders in language class; 
Noreena Matrious and her family, for opening their home to me; the staff of the Visions 
Center, the staff of the Nah Tah Wahsh Language and Culture program, and Tom Miller. 
Carol Bergquist, for always being supportive of my research, and for encouraging me 
both in words, and by her example. Vicki and Donny Dowd, for their unwavering 
support and hospitality, and to Hannahville' s tribal council, for their dedication and 
support of Potawatomi Language revitalization. In Forest County, the Daniels family, 
particularly Sharlene White, who put me up and put up with me those long winter 
months. The elders of the Prairie Band in Kansas, particularly Jane Puckkee, Sarah 
Patterson, and Walter Cooper; and my friend and traveling companion, Suzanne Battese, 
and her delightful family. Above all, I must thank two elders in particular: Mary 
Daniels, for all of those months we worked together, for putting up with me asking for all 



111 



of those questions (I am still trying to figure out all of your answers!), and for telling 
wonderful, wonderful stories; and Jim Thunder, for his deep knowledge and love of this 
language, and for passing that on to his people, and to me. . . along with the accordion. 
For the elders who have passed on, I dedicate this work to your memory: Jack Sands, 
Julia Wesaw, Martin Wesaw, Bud On-Ja-Wa and Joe Migwanabe — I miss you all very 
much. 

At Berkeley, I would like to thank our Departmental staff; Belen Flores, Paula 
Floro and Esther Weiss, for keeping me from getting lost (or rescuing me when I did) in 
the wild world that is UC Berkeley. Bill Weigel, thank you for our conversations about 
this and other research, and for all you have done for me and for so many other Berkeley 
Linguistics graduate students — I don't think we could function without you! I would also 
like to thank my teachers, particularly my committee: Eve Sweetser, for her faith in my 
research (and for seeing the finished product in my messy drafts) and for introducing me 
to the theory of Mental Spaces; Leanne Hinton, for demonstrating the value of language 
revitalization, and for inspiring me in so many ways; and Bill Hanks, for always 
challenging me with a fresh perspective. Most of all, I must thank Rich Rhodes for 
introducing me to Potawatomi, and guiding me all these years; I always left your office in 
awe of your deep knowledge of language, and of Algonquian languages in particular. 

Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank my family: my mother and 
father for their love, and for inspiring in their children a love of learning; my brother 
Brad and his wife Michelle (I look forward to our future adventures!); my husband's 
parents for their love and selfless support; and most of all for my dear husband, James — 
with your love, all things seem possible. 



IV 



Constructional Polysemy and Mental Spaces 
in Potawatomi Discourse 



Table of Contents 

1 . Introduction 1 

2. Grammatical preliminaries 1 1 

3. Theoretical preliminaries 32 

4. Independents and conjuncts in everyday discourse 53 

5. Verbal paradigms and mental space construction 72 
in everyday discourse 

6. Independents and conjuncts in narrative discourse 85 

7. Mental space construction in narrative 118 

8. Obviation in syntax and discourse 146 

9. The obviation construction 187 

10. Summary: Cross-domain mappings 232 
Bibliography 246 
Appendices 

A. Grammatical codes used in morpheme glosses 253 

B. Glossed examples from Chapters 6 and 7 254 

C. Narrative text: "Crane Boy" 284 



1 Introduction 



1.1 Background and goals 

The present study grew out of a descriptive problem in Potawatomi. The problem 
concerns the behavior of grammatical elements in discourse, and raises issues about the 
relationship between syntactic structure and discourse structure, and presents the 
challenge to linguistic theory of accounting for grammatical constructions whose 
distribution is dependent on discourse context. 

The problem, as I first encountered it, did not concern an unusual aspect of 
Potawatomi grammar, but one that is generally considered to be mundane: the 
distribution of main and subordinate clause verb forms. If one considers only sentences 
as found in everyday discourse, the problem is not apparent. It arises only in the context 
of comparing such sentences to those found in tradional narrative, where the distribution 
is quite different. In narrative, the majority of main clause verbs are marked as 
syntactically subordinate, and main clause verb forms 'proper' are used for special 
purposes: the speech of characters, background information, and the representation of 
narrative-internal viewpoint. 

The problem does not end here, however. There are other aspects of Potawatomi 

grammar whose 'syntactic' behavior does not match what one finds in narrative. One 

that is obvious from even a cursory glance at narrative is the use of a verbal prefix e- 

which is found on nearly every main clause verb form. In everyday discourse, however, 

its syntactic use is as a marker of factivity in a subordinate clause. 

1 



Another aspect of grammar with both syntactic and discourse domains of 
application is obviation. Obviation is a common feature in Algonquian languages that 
signals disjoint reference in third persons. Within phrases and clauses, obviation is 
obligatory: if there are two or more third persons, only one may be proximate; others 
will be obviative. In narrative, however, obviation can be used for stylistic purposes to 
foreground and background characters, and to represent point-of-view. 

These aspects of Potawatomi grammar raise the theoretical problem of accounting 
for grammatical constructions whose distribution is dependent on discourse context. A 
generative syntactic analysis, modular in its approach, would likely take individual 
sentences from everyday discourse as data, and might then state, for example, that 
independents are main clause verbs, and conjuncts are subordinate clause verbs. 
However, this analysis would founder if it were extended to narrative discourse, where 
the distributions of these verbal paradigms are quite different.^ The same is true for the 
preverb e-, which a syntactic analysis might describe as applying only to subordinate 
clause verbs. How then might one explain its proliferation to nearly every narrative main 
clause verb? However, the modular approach to syntax has probably been most 
detrimental to the study of obviation in Algonquian languages, where studies commonly 



^ Interestingly enough, the primary description we have of Potawatomi (Charles Hockett's work from the 
Structuralist era), has the opposite problem of taking narrative discourse as its basis for syntactic 
description (Hockett's data primarily came from traditional narrative texts), thereby missing most of the 
interesting behavior of these grammatical phenomena in everyday conversational discourse. 

2 



discount its discourse use as outside the scope of syntactic study, or even the domain of 
linguistic inquiry.^ 

While the primary goal of a modular approach to syntax is to capture 
generalizations about well-formedness, seen in a less forgiving light, it can only account 
for the well-formedness of a part of the grammatical constructs speakers are capable of 
generating. My assumption in the present study is that we have more to gain from 
studying the function of grammatical phenomena in both syntax and discourse than from 
excluding the data from either domain, a priori, from our analysis. I will argue that the 
behavior of discourse-sensitive morphosyntax in Potawatomi is principled, and moreover 
makes use of mechanisms already needed to explain sentence-level structures. My goal 
is to show that the syntactic behavior of these grammatical phenomena in everyday 
discourse and their textual use in traditional narrative discourse are related to each other, 
and will propose a model that captures these relationships. 

1.2 A cognitive approach 

The theoretical approach taken here is Cognitive, that is, it rests on the 
assumption that language is not a separate, isolable, faculty of the human mind but is 
intimately bound up with general cognitive processes involving perception, processing, 
reasoning and construal. Two theories developed within this overarching framework are 
central to this study: Construction Grammar and Mental Spaces. These theories, along 
with their notational conventions, are presented in Chapter 3 . Construction Grammar, 
which is a unificational theory of syntax, will generally be used for syntactic analyses. I 



■ For an example of this approach, see Aissen (1997). 

3 



will allude to the theory in Chapters 4 and 6 when I present the Conversational 
Construction and Narrative Construction, respectively, but the theory is heavily utilized 
in Chapter 9 for the representation of obviation. The second. Mental Spaces theory, is 
not strictly speaking a theory of discourse (it was developed, in part, to address problems 
of reference) however it has proven to be very useful in the analysis of narrative. Its 
advantage in the present study is it provides a means of distinguishing narrative and 
everyday discourse. The theory of Mental Spaces figures prominently in Chapters 3, 5, 7, 
and 9, and 10. 

1.3 Data 

It is often difficult to obtain data from different discourse genres from published 
sources; a particular problem for those working on endangered languages who often rely 
on philological work to help fill in gaps where there has been grammatical attrition. For 
example, it is clear from Hockett's sketch of Potawatomi that narrative discourse formed 
the basis of his grammatical description. With regard to the uses of paradigmatic orders 
outside of narrative, we learn only that the independent is used "for statements and some 
questions in ordinary conversation" and that the conjunct is used "in certain types of 
dependent clauses" (Hockett, 1948a, p. 9). Given that the distributions of the paradigms 
are very different in these two discourse types, it is surprising that non-narrative 
discourse received no further attention. This omission was likely due to the fact that his 
data consisted primarily of narrative texts. It has been the tradition among Americanists, 
especially where field time is limited, to primarily elicit narratives, and within this type of 
discourse, the even narrower genre of mythological text. 



What is more unfortunate about the lack of conversational data, is the American 
Structuralists were working at a time when many speech communities were still robust, 
and conversational data would have been easier to obtain (although, not necessarily easier 
to record in a notebook) . Charles Hockett conducted his research on Potawatomi about 
the time most speakers shifted to English, and they would raise their children as first 
language English speakers. Today, there are a very few elderly fluent speakers left. 
Most do not use Potawatomi extensively in the home, because their children and 
grandchildren do not speak or understand it. In many cases, speakers do not live very 
close together. As a result of these factors, conversational data is rather difficult to obtain, 
and, admittedly, I collected very little of it myself 

In the process of using Hockett' s materials as a basis for elicitation and 
comparison, however, I noticed that the morphosyntax of the modem elicited data was 
quite different from that recorded in traditional narrative. Upon examination, the primary 
difference turned out to be with respect to narrative clauses — the reported speech of 
characters in narrative matched the elicited data. When I began working with speakers to 
create pedagogical materials, I found that the morphosyntax of their constructed 
conversations matched those of the elicited data. For these reasons, I would not go as far 
as to say that the elicited data I have used is conversational /?er se, but I believe that with 
respect to the linguistic parameters I am examining, it is good representation of the type 
of language used in everyday discourse. 

The data used for this study comes from several sources. The narrative data was 
largely collected by Hockett in the 1940's, which I have been in the process of 
translating. It is currently unpublished except for the two texts included in his UAL 



series on Potawatomi (Hockett, 1948b). The examples cited here come from about ten of 
these narratives, the majority of which were told by Jim Spear, and a few by his wife 
Alice Spear (one of her narratives "Crane Boy" is provided in Appendix C). These are 
cited either as JS (Jim Spear) or AS (Alice Spear). For this subset, I am reasonably 
satisfied with the glosses and free translations. Other examples come from narratives told 
to me during the period of 1994 - 1996 by a conservatively fluent female speaker, cited 
as MD. For data on everyday discourse, I include the elicited examples in my own 
fieldnotes, which are cited as POEX. Those examples annotated JTNB are taken from 
the conversations in a pedagogical workbook developed by fluent speaker Jim Thunder 
with Kim Wensaut (1998). 

1.4 Chapter organization 

The structure of the text is as follows. Chapter 2, 'Descriptive preliminaries' 
provides a background for the grammatical topics to be addressed in later chapters. 
Chapter 3, 'Theoretical preliminaries' presents the Cognitive orientation of the analysis, 
and Construction Grammar and Mental Spaces theory. In this Chapter, I also argue for 
an elaborated representation of ground in the Mental Spaces theory. This representation 
will become important for contrasting various types of information in traditional 
narrative. 

Chapters 4-9 are arranged in pairs, with a descriptive chapter followed by a 

theoretical chapter. My intent in using this type of presentation is twofold; first, to make 

the descriptive information as accessible and theory-free as possible. Since the 

descriptive topics here have not been significantly addressed for Potawatomi, and in 

some cases Algonquian languages in general, I feel it important to give them due 

6 



attention. Secondly, I did not wish to encumber the line of theoretical argumentation 
with excessive descriptive detail. Each of these chapters is summarized in more detail 
below. 

Chapter 4 addresses the use of two types of verbal inflections in Potawatomi, the 
independent and conjunct, along with a preverb e-, as they are used in everyday 
discourse. It is shown that independent verbs are used for main clauses, and conjunct 
verbs are generally used for subordinate clauses. The preverb e- is shown to to be a 
marker of factivity in subordinate clauses. However, there are a few contexts where a 
conjunct can occur in a main clause, particularly when accompanying one of several 
particles indicating speaker evaluation. In addition, conjuncts can occur in main clauses 
without an accompanying particle if this evaluation is available in the context. I argue 
that these evaluations provide a context of subordination, which is satisfied by the use of 
the conjunct. This pattern of main clause independents, subordinate clause conjuncts and 
the preverb e- is introduced as the Conversational Construction (CC), which will be 
contrasted with the pattern of these grammatical elements in narrative.'' 

In Chapter 5, 1 present a Mental Spaces theory analysis of the elements of the 
Conversational Construction. I argue that in their everyday uses, independents structure 
Space R (the space which represents the "Reality" domain), and conjuncts always 
structure a space that is embedded in Space R. The preverb e- is a marker of factivity of 



^ The linguistic entities I am referring to here as constructions are complex, in that they have analyzeable 
pieces which are themselves constructions. When these subconstructions combine, they contribute 
elements of their semantics to the larger 'super' construction. 

7 



an embedded space. These basic uses are contrasted with the function of these 
grammatical elements in narrative in Chapter 7. 

Chapter 6 presents an analysis of independents, conjuncts and the preverb e- in 
traditional narrative discourse. I argue that the use of main clause conjuncts is the basic 
narrative pattern which reflects narrative foreground. I call this basic narrative pattern 
the Narrative Construction (NC). By contrast, the use of main clause independents (that 
is, the Conversational Construction) in narrative reflects background information, either 
settings, explanations, or evaluations. Other uses of the Conversational Construction 
reflect a narrative-internal perspective, or viewpoint, which is used for direct speech, 
vividness, epistemic distance, or semantic opposition. I argue that the several uses of 
narrative-internal viewpoint probably arose out of the use of the Conversational 
Construction for direct speech. 

Chapter 7 presents a Mental Spaces theory analysis of the use of the Narrative and 
Conversational Constructions in traditional narrative discourse. I argue that the use of the 
Narrative Construction reflects that narrative is generally set up as an embedded network 
within a larger non-narrative discourse. The use of the Narrative Construction to mark 
foreground is metonymic for narrative discourse as a whole. When the Conversational 
Construction is used in narrative, it always indexes its basic use in the "Reality" domain 
in some way. With respect to background information, there is a contextual focus on one 
of the discourse participants. The various uses of the Conversational Construction for 
internal viewpoint reflect that viewpoint is inside of the focused narrative domain, 
whereas an external viewpoint (represented by the use of the Narrative Construction) 
reflect that viewpoint is outside of the focused narrative domain. 

8 



Chapter 8, contains a description of the use of obviation in Potawatomi. I 
describe both the marking of obviation on nouns and verbs, as well as the syntactic 
contexts for obviation. I then argue, by analyzing a traditional narrative, that the 
appearance of Potawatomi as a largely syntactic obviation language is due to a separate 
treatment of transitive and intransitive main clause verbs. Intransitive verbs reflect the 
syntactic pattern of obviation, whereas transitive verbs reflect the use of a hierarchical 
ranking of discourse participants. I show that despite this tendency towards syntactic 
obviation, the narrator is clearly working to maintain the main character as proximate, 
and makes use of discourse obviation in some very subtle and interesting ways. I argue 
that a possible path for a discourse obviation language to become a syntactic obviation 
language is grammaticalizing proximates as subjects of main clause intransitive verbs of 
speech, and that Potawatomi shows this change in progress. 

In Chapter 9, 1 analyze the use of obviation in terms of Construction Grammar 
and Mental Spaces theory. I argue that the various uses of obviation in syntax and 
discourse reflect the use of a basic obviation construction that ranks multiple third 
persons, and assigns proximate status to the highest ranked third person. Various 
"instance" constructions that inherit the obviation construction provide the details of 
specific ranking schemes."^ I also show that the use of discourse obviation, in particular 
proximate shifts, can be accomodated by associating particular nominal rankings to 
various viewpoints in the Mental Spaces theory networks. These networks are then 
indexed inside of particular obviation instance constructions. 



'' The term instance construction is from Goldberg (1995), and will be explained m more detail in Chapter 



Chapter 10 concludes with a discussion of Mental Space blends in Potawatomi 
discourse. I argue that independents, conjuncts, the preverb e-, and obviation reflect a 
productive blend in Potawatomi that takes as its input spaces syntactic and discourse uses 
of constructions. In this way, possible contexts for the application of a construction in 
one domain can be associated with established contexts in the other. When the cross- 
space mappings are made, the blend can be 'run' and the construction applied to the new 
domain. I argue that the existence of these blends demonstrates that a full description of 
these constructions requires predication in multiple grammatical domains, syntax and 
discourse. 

There are also three appendices: Appendix A contains a list of the grammatical 
codes used in morpheme glosses. Appendix B provides interlinear glosses of the textual 
examples used in Chapter 6 and 7. Appendix C contains the narrative "Crane Boy", 
which is discussed in Chapters 8 and 9, presented with interlinear glosses and facing 
translation. 



10 



Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the Syntax of Obviation. Language, 73.705-50. 

Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument 

Structure: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 
Hockett, Charles. 1948a. Potawatomi L Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and 

Morphological Survey. International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi IV: Particles and Sample Texts. International Journal of 

American Linguistics, XIV. 213-25. 
Thunder, Jim Sr. and Kim Wensaut. 1998. Bodewadmimwen Nswe Mbok (Bodewadmi 

Language Book Three): Jim Thunder and Kim Wensaut, publishers. 



11 



2 Grammatical Preliminaries 



2.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce those aspects of Potawatomi grammar 
which will be addressed in later chapters, and to provide a background for understanding 
the system of transcription and interlinear annotations. It is therefore not intended as a 
grammatical description, or sketch. For a fuller description of Potawatomi grammar, 
particularly phonology and morphology, the reader is referred to Hockett's series of 
articles on Potawatomi in the InternationalJournal of American Linguistics (1948a; 
1948b; 1948c; 1948d).^ 

2.2 Background on Potawatomi 

Potawatomi is the heritage language of the Potawatomi people, who are indigenous 
to the Great Lakes region of North America.^ In Potawatomi, the language is sometimes 
refered to as Bodewadmimwen ('the language of the Potawatomi s'), or more commonly 
as Neshnabemwen ('the language of the people'). It is an Algonquian language, of the 
Central branch, which includes other languages such as Ottawa, Ojibwe, Cree, Fox, 
Shawnee and Miami. Its closest linguistic relatives are Ojibwe and Ottawa, although this 



^ This series of articles is a revision and distillation of the material in his dissertation on Potawatomi 
(1939). The article series cited above is more readable, and generally easier to obtain, than the dissertation. 
" Today, largely as a result of 19''' century U.S. government relocation policies, Potawatomi people live on 
or near reservations across the Midwestern United States, and in adjacent areas of Ontario, Canada. 

11 



is somewhat obscured by vocabulary and grammatical changes resulting from an 
extended period of contact with Fox speakers.' 

Potawatomi is a polysynthetic language. It is 'pro-drop' in that verbal participants 
are represented by verbal inflections, which may then further specified by NPs. Along 
with being pro-drop, it is also non-configurational in that word order is generally flexible, 
and governed by discourse principles."^ 

Potawatomi grammar is probably best known among linguists for its system of 
inflections in the independent paradigm, particularly on transitive verbs, which has been 
frequently used to demonstrate the robustness of various morphological theories.^ While 
Potawatomi is certainly interesting in this respect, it should be noted that many 
Algonquian languages have similar paradigms, and equally complex systems of verbal 
inflection. 

2.3 Guide to the orthography 



-.6 



The orthography used here is known as the WNALP system, and was developed 
in the 1970's by a team of native speakers and linguists. It is a phonemic system. 



^ More precisely, Sauk speakers. There are differences between Fox and Sauk, however the differences 

are irrelevant for the present discussion. I will generally cite Fox because of the availability of lexical 

materials in that language. 

'' There are some word order restrictions however; such as the placement of second-position particles and 

the negative particle jo which precedes the verb. 

^ For a fairly typical example, see Anderson (1992). 

"^ Wisconsin Native American Languages Program. 

12 



designed for the purposes teaching Potawatomi as a second language. The orthographic 
representation of phonemes is fairly straightforward, and is given in the chart in (1). 



13 



(1) ORTHOGRAPHY CHART 



Consonants 


Vowels 


Orthographic 


Phonemic 


Orthographic 


Phonemic 


b 


/b/ 


a 


/a/ 


P 


/p/ 


e 


/ / 


d 


/d/ 


i 


/i/ 


t 


III 





/o/ 


g 


l%l 


e 


/ / 


k 


/k/ 






5 


/ / 






m 


/m/ 






n 


/n/ 






w 


/w/ 






y 


/y/ 






s 


/s/ 






z 


/z/ 






sh 


/ / 






zh 


/ / 






h 


/h/ 






ch 


/t / 






J 


/d / 







14 



There are, in addition, a few special symbols that are used in the 
morphophonemic representations in interlinear glosses. These are described below in 
Section 4. 

2.4 Morphophonemic processes and representations 

A couple processes important for morphophonemic representations are noted 
here, as well as the set of morphophonemic symbols used in glosses. 

Final devoicing. Voiced consonants are devoiced in word-final position. The 
voicing resurfaces when suffixes are added. The following are a few examples, showing 
the alternation between stem-final consonants in singular and plural forms: 
(2) FINAL DEVOICING 



SINGULAR 


PLURAL 


mtek 'tree' 


mtegok 'trees' 


mskogat 'yam belt, sash' 


mskogadek 'yam belts, sashes' 


nnech 'my hand' 


nnejen 'my hands' 



Weak vowel deletion. All instances of /e/ and some lol vowels are subject to a 
process of deletion. These are known as weak vowels, and are represented by {E} and 
{O}, respectively in morphophonemic forms. '' In a sequence of weak vowels, odd 
vowels delete (counting from the beginning of the sequence). If the sequence is 



^ This rule basically affects Proto-Algonquian (PA) short vowels. Potawatomi merged short PA *i and *a 
to schwa (/e/). There was also a merger of PA short *o and long *o:, with the result that some lol vowels 
delete, and some do not. The term 'weak' vowel is from Hockett (1948a). 

15 



interrupted, the count begins again with the first sequential weak vowel. Final weak 

vowels are not subject to deletion. This process is illustrated below in (3). Weak vowels 

are numbered, and long vowels are represented by "L". Vowels preserved in final 

syllables are shown with parentheses surrounding the number. Note that prefixes can 

contribute short vowels, resulting in different pattern of deleted stem vowels as compared 

to base forms. 

(3) WEAK VOWEL DELETION 

< b E kw ezhEgEn> -^ bkwezhgen 'bread' 

1 L 1 (2) 

< n E - b E kw ezhEgEn-Em> -^ nbekwezhgenem 'my bread' 
1 2 L 1 2 (3) 

Palatalization. The remaining morphophonemic symbols used are for those 

consonants that participate in a process of palatalization, where morpheme final /n/, /d/, 

III and /s/ become /zh/, /j/, /ch/ and /sh/, respectively, before a morpheme initial Id or I'll. 

These consonants are represented by the capitol letters {N}, {D}, {T} and {S}. 

2.5 Parts of speech 

The parts of speech are noun, verb, pronoun, prenoun, preverb, and particle. 
Nouns and verbs are subject to inflection; these are described in more detail in Sections 6 
and 7. The remaining parts of speech are introduced here. 

2.5.1 Pronouns 

Potawatomi has two primary pronoun series, personal pronouns and 
demonstratives. The set of personal pronouns is shown in (4). Because nouns and verbs 

16 



make anaphoric reference in their inflections and do not require the use of pronouns, the 
function of the free pronouns is essentially for emphasis. 
(4) PERSONAL PRONOUNS 



POTAWATOMI 


ENGLISH GLOSS 


nin 


I 


gin 


you 


win 


he, she 


ninan 


we (excluding the addressee) 


ginan 


we (including the addressee) 


ginwa 


you (plural) 


winwa 


they 



The set of demonstrative pronouns has three series; proximal, medial and distal. In 
discourse, the demonstrative in the medial series have a determiner-like function. Each 
series is given below: 
(5) PROXIMAL DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS 





ANIMATE 


INANIMATE 


SINGULAR 


ode 'this' 


PLURAL 


gode 'these' 


node 'this (obviative), these' 



17 



(6) MEDIAL DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS 





ANIMATE 


INANIMATE 


SING. 


ow (frequently reduced to o) 'that' 


iw (frequently reduced to /') 'that' 


PLURAL 


giw (frequently reduced to gi) 'those' 


niw (frequently reduced to ni) 
'that (obviative), those' 



(7) DISTAL DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS 





ANIMATE 


INANIMATE 


SINGULAR 


ago 'that over there' 


e'i 'that over there' 


PLURAL 


egi 'those over there' 


eni 'this (obv.) over there, those over there' 



2.5.2 Prenouns and preverbs 



Prenouns and preverbs are prefixes that attach to nouns and verbs, respectively. 
They attach directly before the stem, so if personal prefixes are used, they will attach to 
the preverb or prenoun (in the case of possession). Initial change (see Section 7) will 
affect the first preverb, if there are any. 

Each is a rather small set, consisting of less than 100 forms. Because prenouns 
and preverbs behave phonologically as separate words, they are written with a following 
hyphen. While most are fairly productive, their use is often specialized (for example, 
msko-bneshi, literally 'red-bird', refers to a Cardinal, and not just any red bird). 

The most important for our discussion are the preverbs, which include the tense 
preverbs (see Section 7), as well as the factive preverb e-. Ordering restrictions among 

18 



preverbs require that e- be first in the preverb sequence, followed by any tense / modal 
preverbs. 

2.5.3 Particles 

The set of particles in Potawatomi is a closed class consisting of approximately 
300-350 lexemes. Commonly used particles are 70 'no, not', ne 'question', and zhe na 
'emphatic'. The category includes numbers, exclamations, words with discourse 
functions and a large set of words with adverbial and adjectival meaning, such Zi^jayek 
'air, megwa 'still, yet', gnebech 'maybe'. Although particles do not inflect, they can be 
morphologically complex. Many take prenouns and preverbs, and have inflectional 
suffixes such as the locative azhodakik 'over the hill' or the dubitative jv^tfeA: 'must be, 
maybe, I wonder'. Particles can also occur as groups or clusters. Where this is the case, 
they are semantically idiomatic, and behave syntactically like a unit. 

2.6 Categories of inflection 

Person. The categories for person are first, second and third. Within first person, 
there is a distinction between inclusive 'we' (that includes the addressee) and exclusive 
'we' (that does not include the addressee). Human gender is not distinguished in third 
person pronouns or inflections. These can be illustrated with the series of personal 
pronouns, shown in (4) above. 

Obviative. Within third person, there is a distinction between proximate and 

obviative: In contexts where there is more than one third person, only one third person 

may be proximate, and any other third person will be obviative. There are both syntactic 

and discourse contexts for obviation. Some syntactic contexts are obligatory. 

19 



Obviatives are marked with inflections, proximates are unmarked. Nouns inflect 
for obviation, and verbs inflect for obviative agreement. Only animate nouns inflect for 
obviation, however inanimate nouns can trigger obviative agreement on verbs. The 
following shows the obviative inflection that is obligatory on animate possessees with 
third person possessors: 
(8) OBVIATION OF POSSESSEE 



ngwes 


'my son' 


ggwes 


'your son' 


wgwesen 


'his / her son (obv.)' 



Number. The numbers are singular and plural. 

Gender (animacy). The grammatical genders are animate and inanimate. The 
animate category includes notional animates; items of cultural / religious importance such 
as sema 'tobacco' and dewe 'gen 'drum'; some objects that move without the apparent 
application of external force such as dabyan 'automobile', gizes 'sun', negos 'star'; and 
other non-notional animates such as kek 'kettle' or mjenkawnek 'mittens'. The inanimate 
category includes everything else. 

Other nominal forms . Most nouns additionally have locative, diminutive and 
pejorative forms. Some kinship terms have vocative forms. Nouns can also take the 
verbal preterite ending -ben to mean 'former' or 'deceased', as in nosben 'my late 
father'. 

Order. There are three orders: independent, conjunct, and imperative. In everyday 
discourse, independents are used in main clauses, and conjunct verbs in subordinate 

20 



clauses. Conjunct verbs are used in main clauses in content questions, and with certain 
'subordinating' particles (these uses are described in more detail in Chapter 4). The 
primary inflectional difference between the two orders, are that the independent has both 
personal prefixes and suffixes, whereas on the conjunct, person markings are strictly 
suffixal. This is shown in (9), with the intransitive verb stem majit 'leave' :^ 
(9) INDEPENDENT AND CONJUNCT ORDERS COMPARED 





INDEPENDENT 


CON.TUNCT 


I 


nmaji 


majiyan 


you sg. 


gmaji 


majiyen 


he 


maji(wak) 


majit 


obviative 


majin 


majinet 


we exclusive 


nmajimen 


majiyak 


we inclusive 


gmajimen 


majiygo 


you pi. 


gmajim 


majiyek 


they 


majik 


majiwat 



Imperatives are used for commands as well as polite requests. The verbal orders 
are illustrated in (10) below using the verb bidget 'enter; come in': 
(10) VERBAL ORDERS COMPARED 



INDEPENDENT 


Bidge. 


'He is coming in.' 


CON.TUNCT 


(gishpen) bidget 


'(if) he comes in' 


IMPERATIVE 


Bidgen! 


'Please, come in.' 



Verbs are cited in the conjunct indicative form for third person subject. 

21 



The conjuct occurs in two forms, plain and changed. Changed conjuncts have 
ablaut of an initial vowel, which is known as initial change. The form of initial change 
is shown in (1 1) below: 
(11) INITIAL CHANGE 



PLAIN 


CHANGED 


{i} 


a 


{E} 


e 


{0} 


wa 


{0} 


we 


{a} 


(no change) 


{e} 


(no change) 



Examples are shown in (12) below, comparing the plain conjunct with participle. The 
morphophonemic form underneath the plain conjunct form shows the presence of weak 
vowels affected by ablaut, which may be deleted in the inflected form. 



22 



(12) EXAMPLES SHOWING INITIAL CHANGE IN PARTICIPLES 



CONJUNCT 


GLOSS 


PARTICIPLE 


GLOSS 


minket 
{minEked} 


'if he picks berries' 


manket 


'the one who picks berries' 


bmoset 
{bEmOsed} 


'if he walks' 


bemset 


'the one who walks' 


bod wet 
{bodEwed} 


'if he builds afire' 


bwadwet 


'the one who builds a fire' 


wdemat 
{OdEme/ad} 


'if he/she smokes' 


wedmat 


'the one who smokes' 


majit 
{majid} 


'if he/she leaves' 


majit 


'the one who leaves' 


deb sat 
{debEsad} 


'if he has enough' 


deb sat 


'the one who has enough' 



Changed conjuncts are generally found in contexts of presupposition (such as the main 
clauses of wh- questions and certain adverbial clauses), whereas plain conjuncts are 
found in hypothetical or irrealis contexts. Participles are identical in inflection to the 
changed conjunct, except for third person obviative and third person plural forms. 

Examples of conjunct forms are shown below in (13), using the verb bidget 'come 
in; enter' : 



23 



(13) VERBAL ORDERS AND INITIAL CHANGE 



CONJUNCT, PLAIN 


(gishpen) bidget 


'(if) he comes in' 


CONJUNCT, CHANGED 


ga-bidget 


'after he came in' 


CONJUNCT, PARTICIPLE 


badget 


'the one who comes in' 



Mode. The major verbal modes are the indicative, negative, preterite, dubitative, 
negative preterite, and negative dubitative. These are found as suffixal inflections. The 
independent mode has an indicative, negative, preterite, dubitative, negative preterite and 
negative dubitative mode. Independent negative modes require the use of a preposed 
negative particley'o. The conjunct has an indicative, preterite and dubitative, but does not 
have negative modes. Negation is expressed on conjunct verbs with the use of a preverb 
bwa-. The imperative order has a prohibative mode. 

The function of each mode is illustrated below with the independent form of the 
verb wabmat 'see someone' : 

• Indicative: the basic form of an assertion or yes/no question. Gwabma. 'You 
see him' . Gwabma ne? 'Do you see him?' 

• Negative: requires the negative parti cleyo in addition to negative suffixal 
inflection: Jo nwabmasi. 'I don't see him.' 

• Preterite: expresses something that happened habitually in the past, often 
accompanied by the particle neko 'used to' : Neko nwabma ben . 'I used to see 
him' 



24 



• Dubitative: in the present tense, the dubitative expresses doubt; in the past 
tense, it expresses an inference: Gnebech nwabma dek . 'Maybe I see him.' 
Ngi-nwabmadek. 'I must have seen him.' 
Combinatory modes: these require the use of the negative parti cleyo: 

o Negative preterite: J(i nwabma siben . 'I didn't used to see him.' 
o Negative dubitative: in the present tense, often used with the 

particle gnebech 'maybe' : Jo gnebech nwabmasidek. 'I might not 
see him.' In the past, expresses an inference: Jo ngi-wabma sidek . 
'I must not have seen him.' 
The modes are illustrated below with the intransitive verb majit 'leave' : 
(14) VERBAL MODES 



INDEPENDENT INDICATIVE 


Maji. 


'He is leaving.' 


INDEPENDENT NEGATIVE 


Jo maji si. 


'He is not leaving.' 


INDEPENDENT PRETERITE 


Majiben. 


'He used to leave.' 


INDEPENDENT DUBITATIVE 


Majidek. 


'He supposedly left.' 


INDEPENDENT NEGATIVE PRETERITE 


Jo majisiben. 


'He did not leave.' 


INDEPENDENT NEGATIVE DUBITATIVE 


Jo majisidek. 


'He must not have left.' 



Tense. The tenses are past, present (unmarked) and future. Present tense is 
unmarked; past and future tenses are marked by verbal prefixes. There are two future 
tenses, one of which is volitional: 



25 



(15) TENSE INFLECTION 



PRESENT 


Maji. 


'He is leaving.' 


PAST 


Gi-maji. 


'He left.' 


FUTURE 


Ge-maji. 


'He will leave.' (he is going to) 


FUTURE VOLITIONAL 


Wi-maji. 


'He will leave.' (he wants to, or intends to) 



Transitivity. Potawatomi verbs inflect for the presence or absence of an object. If 
the verb has an object then the verb will further inflect based upon the animacy of the 
object. If the verb does not take an object it will inflect for the animacy of the subject. 
These parameters result in the following division of verbs into four main categories of 
inflection, or paradigms: transitive animate (TA), transitive inanimate (TI), animate 
intransitive (AI), and inanimate intransitive (II). 

2.7 Nominal Inflection 

Noun stems are either animate or inanimate, as described in (Section 5) above. 
Nouns inflect for number and obviation. Possessed nouns inflect for the person and 
number of the possessee. 

Plural inflection. Animate and inanimate nouns have different plural inflections. 
Animates take the plural ending /-k/, and inanimates take the plural ending /-n/, as shown 
by the following (a 'connective' /e/ is added before the plural ending if morphophonemic 
form of the noun stem ends in a consonant, I usually show this connective as part of the 
suffix in morphophonemic representations): 



26 



(16) PLURAL INFLECTION OF ANIMATES AND INANIMATES 



ANIMATE 


PLURAL 


INANIMATE 


PLURAL 


nene 'man' 
{EnEnE} 


nenwek 


dopwen 'table' 
{dopEwEn} 


dopwenen 


mtek 'tree' 
{mEtEg#0} 


mtegok 


mkezen 'shoe' 
{mEkEzEn} 


mkeznen 


mdamen 'corn, kernel of com' 
{mEdamEn} 


mdamnek 


bkwezhgen 'bread' 
{ bEkwezhEgEnEn } 


bkwezhgenen 



Obviative inflection. Obviation is marked only on animate nouns, however verbs 
show agreement with obviative inanimates. Obviative nouns are inflected like inanimate 
plurals, taking the suffix l-nl as shown in the following table: 
(17) INANIMATE PLURAL AND OBVIATIVE INFLECTION COMPARED 





SINGULAR 


PLURAL 


OBVIATIVE 


ANIMATE 


wabozo 'rabbit' 


wabozoyek 


wabozoyen 


dabyan 'car' 


dabyanek 


dabyanen 


INANIMATE 


dopwen 'table' 


dopwenen 


N.A. 


mkezen 'shoe' 


mkeznen 


N.A. 



Possessive inflection. Many nouns show the use of the possessive suffix {Em}. 
In addition, possessed nouns inflect for the person and number of the possessee: 



27 



(18) POSSESSIVE INFLECTION 



MORPHOPHONEMIC FORM 


POTAWATOMI WORD 


ENGLISH GLOSS 


{ nE-bnEakwan-Em } 


nbenakwanem 


'my comb' 


{ gE-bEnakwan-Em } 


gbenakwanem 


'your comb' 


{ wE-bEnakwan-Em } 


wbenakwanem 


'his/her/its comb' 


{ nE-bEnakwan-Em-Enan } 


nbenakwanmenan 


'our (excl.) comb' 


{ gE-bEnakwan-Em -Enan } 


abenakwanmenan 


'my (incl.) comb' 


{ gE-bEnakwan-Em -Ewa } 


gbenakwanmewa 


'your (pi.) comb' 


{wE-bEnakwan-Em-Ewa} 


wbenakwanmewa 


'their comb' 



2.8 Verbal inflection 



Basic information about the inflection of AI, II, TI and TA verbs is provided 
below. For detailed example paradigms, the reader is referred to Hockett (1948c). 

Animate Intransitive. AI verbs inflect for the person, number, and obviation of the 
animate subject. 

Inanimate Intransitive. II verbs inflect for person, number, and obviation of the 
inanimate subject. II's optionally take a suffix {-mEgEd}, which is known as an 
augment. This morpheme directly follows the stem and is then followed by inflections. 

Transitive Inanimate. TI verbs inflect for person, number and obviation of the 
subject, and optionally for number of the primary object 

Transitive Animate. TA verbs inflect for person, number and obviation of the 

subject and primary object. TAs have an inverse system involving first, second and third 

persons. The inverse system indicates whether the personal prefixes are the properties of 

28 



the subject or primary object. The person hierarchy used for this system is second person 
> first person > third person. If the subject is higher on this hierarchy than the primary 
object, a direct theme sign will be used. If the subject is lower than the primary object, 
an inverse theme sign will be used. There are four theme signs, two each for direct and 
inverse, depending on whether a third person is involved (non-local) or is not involved 
(local). The theme sign directly follows the stem and is indicated in interlinear glosses: ^ 
(19) TA THEME SIGNS 





DIRECT 


INVERSE 


Local 


(not marked) 


{En} 


Non-local 


{a} 


{EgO} 



2.9 Interlinear glossing conventions 

Examples in the following chapters are cited in a few different ways. If it is 
necessary to discuss a particular morpheme, examples are given a three-line interlinear 



Hockett describes the direct, local theme sign as morphophonemically zero, but that it causes 
palatalization. Sources for Ottawa such as Rhodes (1976) and Valentine (2001) cite this theme sign as /-i/, 
the Potawatomi equivalent of which would be {E}. Hockett's decision may have been based on 
abstractness, since the {E} is never found in forms — only its effects may be observed. Since 
morphophonemic forms are already abstract, I agree in principle with Rhodes and Valentine, however 
follow Hockett's practice here. The inverse, local marker has two forms: {En} which is used in the 
conjunct paradigm, and {EnE} which is used in the independent. There are inconsistencies m Hockett's 
treatment of the inverse, non-local theme sign. I follow the practice of using {EgO} with final short {O}, 
rather than the more standard {Egw}. 

29 



gloss with a free translation, as shown below in (21). Line 1 contains the Potawatomi 
example, transliterated into the WNALP phonemic writing system. Line 2 divides words 
into their component morphemes, represented in morphophonemic form. This line shows 
a division into stems and inflectional morphemes; but generally does not show stem- 
internal derivational morphology. Line 3 contains morpheme glosses (a key to 
grammatical gloss abbreviations is given in Appendix A), and Line 4 contains the free 
translation. 
(20) FOUR LINE GLOSS 



Line 1 
Line 2 
Line 3 



I me se ngodek neshnabek e-wdodanwat 

iw mE sE nEgOd-Eg EnEshEnabe-g e- wEdodanE -wad 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH one -LOG person -PL FCT-have . a . village\AI-35 . C 



Line 4 : Once there was a village, and someone was destroying their gardens and wells. 

When the focus is not on an individual morpheme or morphemes, three line 
glosses are given, omitting the morphophonemic line. 
(21) THREE LINE GLOSS 

E-nme-gisekwet mdemoze, 

FCT-getting.to.be-finish. cooking\AI=3 . C old .woman 

e-bye-bidgeshkak gche-emkwan. 

FCT- come -enter .with . body\II=0 . C big- spoon 

When the old lady is almost through cooking, in comes a big spoon. (AS: 1:3:51) 
When longer stretches of Potawatomi are given, my convention is to present an 
annotated facing translation, as in (23). Here particular constructions in the Potawatomi 
sentences are annotated with brackets and subscripts (these are described in Chapter 6). 
Underlined verbs on the Potawatomi side roughly correspond to the underlined verbs on 
the English side (where the order of the verbs in the translation does not match the 



30 



Potawatomi, subscript indices are given). Lines from the text are given along the left 
hand side, and the code for the text cited is given below the English translation. 



(22) FACING TRANSLATION 

44 [Iw je e-bme-byat niw beshkmwen 

e-nat]uc [ "Nseze ! Gyetnam nzeges . ] cc 



45 [ Nwebi ' we . ] cc 

46 [Weye zhode nshiwnagze anwe ge gin 
gne s hi wnagwe s nesh je win nwech.]cc 

47 [Ibe gge- zhyamen ; geten nshiwnagze ■ " ] cc 



48 [Beshkmwe e-kedot , ] hc [ " Gzhyamen , 
gge - we - wabmamen . " ] cc 



When he [Rabbit] came across the 
hon he said to him, "Brother, I'm 
very scared . 

I'm running away from someone. 

Someone here is pretty scary ; and 
you're scary , but he's even worse. 

Let's go over there; he sure is 
scary ." 

Lion said, " Lets go and take a 
look at him." 



(JS.4.1) 

If the two line gloss or facing translation is used, the full interlinear gloss is 
available in either Appendix B (sentential examples) or Appendix C ('Crane Boy' 
narrative). 



31 



Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology .vol. 62: Cambridge Studies in 

Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Hockett, Charles. 1939. The Potawatomi Language, Anthropology, Yale University: 

Ph.D. dissertation. 
— . 1948a. Potawatomi L Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and Morphological Survey. 

International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi II: Derivation, Personal Prefixes, and Nouns. International 

Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 63-73. 
— . 1948c. Potawatomi III: The Verb Complex. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV. 139-49. 
— . 1948d. Potawatomi IV: Particles and Sample Texts. International Journal of 

American Linguistics, XIV. 213-25. 
Rhodes, Richard A. 1976. The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, Linguistics, 

University of Michigan: Ph.D. 
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University 

of Toronto Press. 



32 



3 Theoretical Preliminaries 



3.1 Introduction: A cognitive approach 

The analysis which will be presented in this study is fundamentally cognitive. 
That is, I assume that language is not a separate, isolable, faculty of the human mind but 
is intimately bound up with general cognitive processes involving perception, processing, 
reasoning and construal, and that our theories must take these processes into account. 
With respect to grammar, I assume the following^ 

• Grammar is inherently symbolic, involving form-meaning pairings of 
phonological material with semantic structure. 

Syntax, in particular, is not modular or autonomous, but is part of a continuum 
that includes the lexicon, morphology, syntax, and (I would argue) discourse. 
As form-meaning pairings, syntactic constructions, like lexemes, exhibit 
semantic polysemy, where a single grammatical form is associated with 
multiple related senses. And, like lexical polysemy, multiple related senses 
are expected as the norm for constructions. 



^ These principles reflect several sources in the cognitive literature, including Langacker (1991) , Goldberg 
(1995), and Lakoff (1987). 

32 



The cognitive linguistic theory which is most central to the theoretical discussion 
in this study is Mental Spaces. Mental Spaces theory will generally be used for the 
representation of discourse, and figures prominently in Chapters 5, 7, 9, and 10.^ 

Another cognitive theory, Construction Grammar, will generally used for 
syntactic representations. This theory is alluded to in the presentation of two 
constructions in Chapters 4 and 6 (the Conversational Construction and the Narrative 
Construction, respectively), however it figures prominently in the representation of 
obviation in Chapter 9. 

In Section 3.2, 1 present the primary reasons for the use of Construction Grammar 
for syntactic representations. Section 3.3 introduces the basic principles and mechanisms 
of Mental Spaces theory needed to talk about discourse structures, with the illustration of 
an introduction to a Potawatomi narrative. In Section 3.4, 1 argue for an elaborated 
representation of ground in Mental Spaces theory. This is useful for distinguishing basic 
types of illocutionary force such as statements and wh- questions, but becomes important 
for distinguishing various types of information in narrative (discussed in Chapter 7). 



" Recent work in Mental Spaces theory is paving the way for representations of constructions as blends, 
and so it might have been possible, with a little creativity, to construct the argument here using just the 
theory of Mental Spaces (in fact, in Chapter 4, 1 have represented subordinate clauses as embedded spaces). 
However, for detailed syntactic descriptions, such as is required for obviation, I have found it more 
practical to use Construction Grammar representations. The theories are generally compatible, however, 
and relatively easy to integrate. Information about mental space networks can, for example, be indexed in 
the external semantics of constructions, as I have done in Chapter 9. 

33 



3.2 Motivations for using a Construction Grammar framework 

Construction Grammar, as described by Fillmore and Kay (1993; 1999), and 
elaborated by Goldberg (1995), is a unificational theory of syntax that takes grammatical 
constructions (pairings of syntactic form with semantic meaning) as the central 
grammatical phenomenon to be explained. The motivations for using Construction 
Grammar here are outlined below. 

'Non-core' grammar. The first is a theoretical commitment to take into account 
all of the conventional constructions that sanction sentences in a language as well as 
those that are less conventional or less common; not just what we might arbitrarily define 
as 'core' grammar. Well-known examples of 'non-core' grammar that have been 
addressed with this theory include the 'What is X doing Y?' (WXDY) construction 
analyzed by Fillmore and Kay (1999) ('What is this fly doing in my soup?), or the 
caused-motion construction discussed by Goldberg (1995) ('He sneezed the napkin off 
the table.'). While I will not be attempting to account for equivalent types of expressions 
in Potawatomi, I will, in the spirit of this theoretical commitment, try to account for the 
grammar found in discourse genres not traditionally addressed by syntactic theory, such 
as the morphosyntax of narrative discourse. 

The lexicon-syntax continuum. Secondly, Construction Grammar assumes that 
there is no strict separation between syntax and the lexicon. According to Goldberg, 
"Lexical constructions and syntactic constructions differ in internal complexity. . .but 
[they] are essentially the same type of declaratively represented data structure: both pair 
form with meaning." (p. 7) The discussions in Chapters 7 and 10 are a good argument for 



34 



extending this continuum to include discourse, since constructional forms can map onto 
discourse functions. 

Constructional Polysemy. Most lexical items exhibit polysemy, that is, they have 
sets of related meanings, some of which are presumed to be more basic, or central, than 
others. Likewise, studies of particular constructions have shown that they typically occur 
in networks of related senses, generally with a central sense extended to other senses.^ In 
this study, I argue for the existence of several constructions that each has multiple related 
senses in syntax and discourse. Because lexical items and constructions are presumed to 
have the same type of structure — that is, they are form-meaning pairings, this similarity 
in behavior is expected. 

Construction Grammar has a rather large set of representational conventions. The 
details of these conventions are not particularly germane to this discussion. The idea of 
constructions will be introduced in Chapters 4 and 6 in the discussion of the 
Conversational and Narrative Constructions. The theoretical mechanism of 
representation is not needed until Chapter 9, where it is introduced, along with a means of 
abbreviated representation. 

3.3 Introduction to Mental Spaces theory 

The theory of Mental Spaces (Fauconnier, 1985; 1997) was developed to account 
for how we use language to construct and process meaning. According to the theory. 



^ For example, with the caused motion construction, the central sense is successful transfer of a patient 
from an agent to a recipient, as in 'I gave Bill a cake. ' 'I baked Bill a cake' would be an extended sense 
where the agent intends to cause the recipient to receive the patient (Goldberg, 1995, p. 40). 

35 



when we engage in any kind of discourse, we partition information into mental spaces, 
which are "constructs distinct from linguistic structures, but built up in any discourse 
according to guidelines provided by the linguistic expressions" (Fauconnier, 1985, p. 16). 
Grammatical expressions such as adverbial clauses or conditional clauses, as well as 
aspects of grammar such as tense and mood, provide cues which allow speakers to create 
and navigate mental space structures, and signal listeners to do the same. The grammar 
and lexicon of a language are therefore used to establish and populate these mental spaces 
and track relationships between them. 

For example, various expressions such as in 1994..., Joe thinks..., if I win the 
lottery..., once upon a time..., set up spaces in which information is predicated, and 
considered valid. In the sentence 'In 1994, my daughter was two years old. ' The phrase 
in 1994 prompts the creation of a past space, in which the information 'my daughter is 
two years old' is valid (she would of course be much older today). The mental space 
structure for this sentence would look like the diagram in (1): 
(1) 'In 1994, my daughter was two years old. ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 
(2003, my daughter 
is nine years old) 




PAST SPACE 
(1994, my daughter 
is two years old) 



36 



The spaces created during discourse are much more complex than this simple 
example. Many spaces are organized into a hierarchical network, beginning with an 
initial "reality" space, shown in (2) as Space R. New spaces (past spaces, future spaces, 
spaces for a narrative, etc.) are then set up subordinate to this space: 



(2) HIERARCHY OF SPACES IN A NETWORK 



Space R 




I use the term "reality" space with quotes to emphasize that this space does not 
represent a description of the real world, but rather speaker's mental representation 
(cognitive construal) of it. Since discourse context, particularly the roles of speaker and 
hearer, features prominently in this analysis, it is important to establish the "reality" 
space from the outset. This space is not always explicitly given in mental space 
representations. For example, Fauconnier begins space configurations with 'Space M,' 
sometimes defined as speaker reality (1985, p. 24). Cutrer apparently uses 'Space M' 
when de-emphasizing the context of a sentence, as with her illustrations of how BASE, 
V-POINT, FOCUS and EVENT work; later examples begin with 'Space R', speaker 

reality (1994, p. 104). 

37 



Besides the arguments which will be presented here, there is other evidence that 
every space configuration begins with a space which represents the "reality" of the 
speaker. Langacker (1991) has argued that every expression is grounded, although there 
is a cline with respect to the degree to which the ground is onstage and profiled. In 
addition, Liddell (1995), based on his work on ASL, has shown the necessity of setting 
up a 'real' space, a mental construct of the physical environment where people and 
objects physically present can be indexed. This real space is distinguished from 
'surrogate' and 'token' spaces, which house the loci set up to reference people and things 
not present in the physical environment. 

A network of spaces has several features. At any point in a discourse, one of the 
spaces in the network is the BASE, one is the VIEWPOINT (or V-POINT) and one is the 
FOCUS. The feature BASE represents a deictic center of a conceptualizing self, and 
identifies the starting point for the discouse. In the default case, the BASE space is the 
here and now of speaker "reality", but may shift during discourse to represent another 
conceptualizer. The feature V-POINT identifies the space from which other spaces are 
currently being accessed and structured. According to Cutrer (1994), V-POINT stands 
for a bundle of deictic dimensions: In the strongest version, it represents the V-POINT of 
a conceptualizing self, with a full set of deictic dimensions. However V-POINT can also 
be more abstract, with a limited set of dimensions, in which case it corresponds to 
something like Langacker' s notion of 'vantage point' (Langacker, 1991). The third 
feature, FOCUS indicates which space is most active, the one that is currently being 



38 



structured with information.'* To these, Cutrer also adds EVENT, "the temporal space in 
which the event encoded in the verb takes place" (Cutrer, 1994, p. 72).^ 



3.4 Illustration of the theoretical mechanism 

I will illustrate the basic operation of Mental Space in discourse by using the 
illustration of the beginning of a Potawatomi narrative. How Rabbit Got a Short Tail 
(MD102694). The lines of the narrative to be discussed are as follows: 
(3) HOW RABBIT GOT A SHORT TAIL 

1 O, neko ngi-babzedwak neshnabek I used to listen to the people telling 
e-yayajmowat eyayengajmowat . stones ; something they laughed 

about. 

2 [Iw je] ni wabozoyen ngodek e-gi-yajmawat . Once they told abou t Rabbit. 

3 O, bnewi neko o wabozo gi-gnewanwe . Oh, at one time Rabbit had a long 

tail . 

4 Gi-gnewanwedek kedwik . He must have had a long tail , they 

say . 

5 Iw je i wech-shkwanwat ngom ga-zhewebzet . That's why he has a short tail today, 

because of what happened to him . 

6 Jigbyek ibe e-pa-zhyat . He went around there by the water. 

(MD 102694) 

Line 1 of the narrative begins with the narrator describing an activity in the past, 
listening to people telling stories. This sets up the BASE space in the here and now (what 
I will refer to as speaker "Reality"). The particle neko 'used to' plus the past tense gi- on 
ngi-babzedwak 'I listened to them' opens a past space embedded in the BASE space. 



"* FOCUS was incorporated into Mental Spaces theory based on the work of Dinsmore (1991). 
^ The feature EVENT is primarily needed to represent tense. Although I will use it in diagrams, I will not 
discuss it in more detail here, since tense is peripheral to this analysis. 

39 



This subordination of the Past Space to the present BASE space is represented with a 
connecting line between the two spaces. 

When the past space is opened, V-POINT remains with BASE in the "Reality" 
Space, as indicated by the use of past tense. In other words, the information predicated in 
this space is about past events and entities, and not about the speaker's present. FOCUS 
thus shifts to the Past Space, indicating that this is the space currently being structured by 
new information. 
(4) FOCUS SHIFTS TO PAST SPACE 

...neko ngi-babzedwak neshnabek e-yaya jmowat... 

7 used to listen to them telling stories ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 
(the here and now) 



BASE 
V-POINT 




FOCUS 



PAST SPACE 

ngi-babzedwak 

'I used to listen to them' 



In line 2, e-gi-yajmawat 'they told about him' opens a Narrative Space 
subordinate to the past space. The Narrative Space and any spaces subordinate to it are 
separated from the rest of the network in a narrative domain. This domain is then 
subordinate to spaces predicated in the "Reality" domain. FOCUS now shifts to the 
narrative space, however the use of the past tense signals that BASE and V-POINT 
remain in the "Reality" Space. We also learn that this space is populated by an entity 

40 



Wabozo 'Rabbit' (represented by w' in the Narrative Space) This Rabbit is understood to 
be a mythic character; either a role, or possibly a prototypical instance of rabbits whose 
traits are inherited by all modern rabbits. Modem rabbits are represented in the "Reality" 
Space as w. (The line connecting w and w ' is explained below.) 

(5) REFERENT W ESTABLISHED IN THE NARRATIVE DOMAIN 

[ Iw je] ni wabozoyen ngodek e-gi-ya jmawat . 

'Once they told about rabbit ' 



BASE 
V-POINT 



'REALITY' SPACE 

w = wabozo 'rabbit' 
(modem day rabbits) 



PAST SPACE 




Reality " Domain 

Narrative Domain 



NARRATIVE 
SPACE 

w' = rabbits of 
long ago 



FOCUS 
Lines 3 and 4 now structure the narrative space, which is in FOCUS. We learn 

that bnewi neko 'it used to be long ago' gi-gnewanwe 'he (Rabbit) had a short tail', so 

this information is added in the representation to the narrative space (shown in (6)) 



41 



(6) FOCUS SHIFTS TO NARRATIVE SPACE 



O, bnewi neko o wabozo gi-gnewanwe . 



'At one time, rabbit had a long tail. ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 

w = wabozo 'rabbit' 



BASE 
V-POINT 



PAST SPACE 




'Reality " Domain 

Narrative Domain 



NARRATIVE 
SPACE 

have a long tail (w) 



FOCUS 



In line 5, the third person pronominal referent 'he' in the participle 
wech-shkwanwat 'why he has a short tail' sets up a counterpart to Wabozo (w') in the 
"Reality" domain. We represent the pragmatic relationship between the two referents w 
and w' with a connector (line) between their referents in the two different spaces. This 
Rabbit is also a role, but instead of having a long tail, he has a short tail. We add this 
information to the 'reality' space, since this is information about modern rabbits. 

We now come to a classic problem of reference that is easily solved in Mental 
Spaces theory. The problem is the non-contradiction in a sentence like 'In that painting, 

42 



the girl with the blue eyes has green eyes. ' Without the phrase 'in that painting' t\\Q rest 
of the sentence is contradictory. Fauconnier and others have noticed that representations 
(such as paintings, photographs, etc.) set up pragmatic relationships between the 
representation and the model, where the representation and model are counterparts. In 
the following diagram, the phrase 'in that painting ' sets up a representation space 
subordinate to the "reality" space. The blue-eyed girl (a) is set up as an entity in the 
"reality" space and the green-eyed girl (a) is an entity in the representation space. The 
line connecting them indicates that a and a' are counterparts: 
(7) 'In that painting, the girl with the blue eyes has green eyes. ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 
where a = girl 
and a has blue eyes 




REPRESENTATION SPACE 
(the girl has green eyes) 



An entity in one space can then be referred to by its counterpart in another space, 
so that the girl with the blue eyes can refer to the entity in the representation space, 
meanwhile, information predicated about one or the other entity can be true within its 
own context.^ The same has been shown to be the case in a wide variety of contexts 



See Nunberg (1978; 1979), Jackendoff (1975) and Fauconnier (1997). 

43 



including beliefs, as in 'George believes that the girl with blue eyes has green eyes, ' and 
narratives, as in 'In that story, the girl with the blue eyes has green eyes. ' 

Returning to our narrative, we are faced with the potential contradiction in lines 4 
and 5 that rabbits have long tails and rabbits have short tails. What allows us to keep this 
non-contradictory is the establishment of a narrative space where the information 'rabbits 
have long tails' is valid. This narrative space is already available, set up in previous 
sentences. To this pre-existing narrative space, we set up w' for long-tailed rabbits, and 
link this to its counterpart w in the "reality" space which represents short-tailed rabbits, 
as shown in (8). '^ (FOCUS shifts back to the 'reality' space where we add the 
information that rabbits have short tails.) 



^ There is also a counterpart to w in the Past Space. This is not represented in the diagram merely for the 
sake of simplicity of representation. In general, 1 will only note counterparts in diagrams for spaces that are 
currently being discussed. 

44 



(8) COUNTERPART TO W SET UP IN THE REALITY DOMAIN 

Gi-gnewanwedek kedwik. Iw je i wech-shkwanwat ngom ga-zhewebzet . 

'He must have had a long tail, they say. That 's why he has a short tail today, 
because of what happened. ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 



BASE 

V-POINT 

FOCUS 



PAST SPACE 




"Reality " Domain 

Narrative Domain 



NARRATIVE 
SPACE 

gi-gnewanwe (w) 



Line 6 begins the narrative proper. From this point, most of the information 
structures spaces in the Narrative Domain. BASE and V-POINT remain in the Reality 
Domain, and FOCUS shifts to the Narrative Domain, as shown in (9). This is the basic 
arrangement for the activity of 'narration'. In Chapter 6, 1 show how this configuration 
changes to accommodate the representation of a narrative-internal viewpoint, such as the 
representation of a character's perspective. 



45 



(9) THE BASIC NARRATIVE CONFIGURATION 

Jigbyek ibe e-pa-zhyat. 

'He went around there by the water. ' 



'REALITY' SPACE 

w = wabozo 'rabbit' 



BASE 
V-POINT 



PAST SPACE 




'Reality " Domain 

Narrative Domain 



NARRATIVE 
SPACE 

have a long tail (w) 



FOCUS 



3.5 An elaborated representation of ground 

In the this section, I describe in more detail what is meant by the "reality" space, 
and argue for an elaborated representation of ground (that is, the representation of the 
"Reality" Domain) in Mental Spaces theory. This representation will become important 
in the discussion of Potawatomi Narrative in Chapter 7. 

3.5.1 The "reality" space 

The simplest space configuration consists of a single space; the "reality" space of 
the speaker. This space functions as the BASE, and is the locus for V-POINT and 
FOCUS as shown in (10). This default configuration serves as a starting point for any 



46 



discourse; thus every communicative act is ultimately grounded in the deictic center of 
the speaker. 

(10) SIMPLEST SPACE CONFIGURATION 

While discourses commonly build up a large network of spaces, this single-space 
configuration can be approximated by a simple conversation in and about the here and 
now. Consider the following dyadic exchange. The conversation takes place in the 
kitchen belonging to A and B. The jar of mayonnaise has recently been purchased, and A 
wonders whether it has been put on the shelf or refrigerated. 




Space R: 

BASE 

V-POINT 

FOCUS 

(1 1) A: Where is the mayonnaise? 
B: In the fridge. 

If I am speaker A, the configuration for this exchange can be represented by 
Space R, my "reality" space, which is minimally populated by myself (a), a conversation 
partner (b), and the mayonnaise (m) and fridge (f). In this case, (a), (b) , (m) and (f) exist 
in the proximate space. ^ The mayonnaise and fridge, as definite descriptions, are both 



^ That is, (a) and (b) are proximate for the purpose of face-to-face conversation, and (m) is proximate for 
the purpose of (a)'s easily fetching it. Note that this is a cooperative scenario; if the exchange occurred at a 

47 



present in Space R, supplied by the context which includes a frame for the activity, 
'sandwich-making,' and the physical environment of the kitchen (this frame is not 
otherwise represented in the diagram). 

As conceptualizing individuals, (a) and (b) supply a potential V-POINT 
(represented by "@"), each of which is available as a BASE space. By default. Space R 
represents the BASE associated with the role of speaker. The BASE space for (b) is 
represented by a Space H (for "Hearer") subordinate to Space R. 

(a) and (b) are assigned to the roles of either Speaker or Hearer, depending on the 
point in the exchange.^ These roles are supplied by the discourse frame 'dyadic 
conversation.' ^^ 



picnic, (b)'s reply would flout the maxim of relevance, since the refrigerator is not proximate, meaning that 

'we left it at home. ' 

' Dancygier and Sweetser (1996) includes a representation of the discourse context, includmg Speaker and 

Hearer (labeled as individuals, though rather than roles) in their discussion of metalinguistic spaces. This 

is the only other work within the Mental Spaces theory literature (that I am aware of) to make ground 

explicit in a configuration. 

^° As another example, the discourse frame 'lecture' would supply a lecturer, an audience, expectations 

about venues, possible subject matter, etc. Unlike roles supplied by the content of the discourse, such as 

'the president' in the sentence 'the president changes every four years,' discourse roles are non-explicit, 

and backgrounded. 

48 



(12) MODEL FOR DYADIC CONVERSATION 



DOMAIN OF SPEAKER REALITY 



Space R: 




FRAME: dyadic conversation 
ROLES: Speaker (S) 

Hearer (H) 



DOMAIN OF HEARER REALITY 



Space H 



3.5.2 The profiling of discourse participants 

In the model for a prototypical diadic conversation, one participant is always 
profiled. For example, if (b) is the conceptualizer in the conversation in (1 1), when (b) 
makes the statement 'in the fridge', (b) is the speaker and profiled participant, as in (13). 
I represent this profiling by the use of a feature FOCUS CONTEXT (which will be 
explained below). 
(13) SPEAKER IS CONCEPTUALIZER AND PROFILED PARTICIPANT 



49 



DOMAIN OF SPEAKER REALITY 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 

FOCUS CONTENT 
FOCUS CONTEXT 




FRAME: dyadic conversation 
ROLES: Speaker (S) 
Hearer (H) 



DOMAIN OF HEARER REAUTY 
Space H 

(b) is also the profiled participant from (a)'s point of view as hearer. In (a)'s 
mental space network, this is represented by FOCUS CONTEXT moVmg to Space S (for 
the "Speaker"), as in (14). 
(14) HEARER IS CONCEPTUALIZER, SPEAKER IS PROFILED PARTICIPANT 



DOMAIN OF HEARER REAUTY 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTENT 



Space S 




FRAME: dyadic conversation 
ROLES: Speaker (S) 
Hearer (H) 



DOMAIN OF SPEAKER REALITY 



FOCUS CONTEXT 



50 



Certain types of illucutions, such as Wh-questions, foreground the hearer's role as 
a conceptuaUzer. In (a)'s question 'Where is the mayonnaise?', the hearer (b) is profiled 
as a conceptualizer who possesses potentially unique knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs. 
The question word 'where' implies that the hearer has knowledge that the speaker does 
not possess; that their representations of reality are different on this point. This is 
represented in (15) below. 

(15) SPEAKER IS CONCEPTUALIZER, HEARER IS PROFILED PARTICIPANT 



DOMAIN OF SPEAKER REAUTY 



Space R 



BASE 
V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTENT 



Space H 




FRAME: dyadic conversation 
ROLES: Speaker (S) 
Hearer (H) 



DOMAIN OF HEARER REALITY 



FOCUS CONTEXT 

Of the existing theoretical features, the most likely candidate to represent this 
profiling is FOCUS, since focus has to do with foregrounding components of the 
discourse structure. In this respect, it is similar to Langackef s profiling, which gives 
special prominence to a part of a semantic structure, but on the level of discourse rather 
than word or sentence level semantics. 



51 



I therefore propose splitting FOCUS into two dimensions: a content dimension, 
and a context dimension. The content dimension represents what we normally think of as 
FOCUS, that is the space currently being structured. In Dinsm ore's terms the space in 
FOCUS is "[t]he space that a discourse sentence as a whole is intended to say something 
about, that is, the space into which the sentence is contextualized" (1991, p. 122).^^ The 
context dimension, on the other hand, is relevant when a discourse participant, for one 
reason or another, is brought into the foreground and thus commands our attention. 
FOCUS context therefore involves the highlighting of discourse participants. This 
representation of discourse participant profiling will be taken up again in the discussion 
of narrative in Chapter 7. 



^' In the following discussion, where 1 use the tenn FOCUS alone, I am referring to FOCUS CONTENT. 

52 



Cutrer, Michelle. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language, 

University of California: Ph.D. dissertation. 
Dancygier, Barbara; and Eve Sweetser. 1996. Conditionals, Distancing, and Alternative 

Spaces. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg, 

83-99. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 
Dinsmore, J. 1991. Partitioned Representations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
— . 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Fillmore, Charles and Paul Kay. 1993. Construction Grammar, vol. Unpublished ms. 

Berkeley, CA 
— . 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing 

Y? Construction. Language, 75.1-33. 
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument 

Structure: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. On belief contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6. 
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about 

the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
Langacker, R. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. vol. 

1: Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Liddell, Scott. 1995. Real, Surrogate, and Token Space: Grammatical Consequences in 

ASL. Language, Gesture, and Space, ed. by J. Reilly, 19-41. New Jersey: 

Laurence Erlbaum Assoc. 
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana 

University Linguistics Club. 
— . 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and 

Philosophy, 3. 



53 



4 Independents and Conjuncts in Everyday 

Discourse 



4.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the distribution of independent and conjunct verbs within the 
context of everyday discourse. As a general statement, the independent order is found in 
main clauses, and the conjunct in subordinate clauses. While this is statement is 
sufficient to account for the independent order, there are a number of aspects to the use of 
the conjunct which will require some refinement of this statement, including its co- 
occurrence with a factive-like preverb e-, and its use in certain main clause contexts. 
Establishing the basic uses of the independent and conjunct, as well as the preverb e- will 
be important for contrasting their use in narrative discourse (examined in Chapter 6). 

4.2 Main clause independents and subordinate clause conjuncts 

In conversational discourse, the independent is the form for main clause verbs as 
shown in (1) - (3) below. Independent verbs are underlined: 

(1) Mani wi-gishnenan niw dabyanen. 

mani wi- gishEnEn -a -En niw Odabyan -En 
Mary PUT- buy.s.o\TA -DIR -OBV.I that . OBV car -OBV 

Mary will buy the car. (POEX00039) 



(2) Mikjewimget ne? 

itiikEjewi -mEgEd nE 
work\AI -AUG. O.I Q 

Does it work? (POEX00045) 



53 



(3) Mani wgi-gzibyenan mine 

mani wE- gi- gEzibyen -a -En itiinE 
Mary 3- PST- wash.s.t\TI -OBJ -OBJ. I and 

wgi-begwabke ' anen niw nagnen. 

wE- gi- begwabEkE' -a -En -En niw nagEn -En 
3- PST- dry.s.t\TI -OBJ -OBJ -PL. OBJ. I that.OBV dish -PL 

Mary washed and dried the dishes. (POEX00146) 



Conjunct verbs are used in subordinate clauses. Examples are given below of 
complement clauses (4) - (5) and adverbial clauses (6) - (7). Conjunct verbs are 
underlined: 

(4) Ndenendan Mani e-wi-gishnenat 

nEd- Enend -a -En mani e- wi- gishEnEn -a -Ed 

1- think.thus .of .s .t\TI -OBJ -3/0.1 Mary FCT- FUT- buy.s.o\TA -DIR -3.C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 



/ think that Mary will buy the car. (POEX00040) 



(5) Ni pi je e j e-bmosewat? 

ni pi jE CH.EjE- bEmOse -wad 

where in . a . certain . direction- walk\AI -35. C 

Where are they walking? (POEX00266) 



(6) Zagech zhyayen, gizho'on. 

zagEj Ezhya/e -yEn gizho'o -En 

outside go\AI -2.C dress .warmly\AI -2 . IMP 

If you go outside, dress warmly. (POEX00019) 



(7) E-mnadenj eget , mno-ye 

e - mEnadenEjege -Ed mEnO- EyE 

FCT- be . respectful\AI -3.C good- be . in . a . place\AI . I 

Because she is respectful, she lives well. (POEXOOOll) 



54 



4.3 Conjuncts that take the e- preverb 

A verb in the conjunct form is frequently preceded by the preverb e-. It is unclear 
exactly how this morpheme should be translated. Hockett noted in his work on 
Potawatomi in the 1940's that the preverb e- is a mark of the storytelling style, glossing it 
as a 'narrative' preverb: ^ 

"First-position Preverbs. ?e, with conjunct mode only, narrative: ?e ki mpot he died. Translation 
usually cannot show the force of this preverb; it is the mark of a certain style, namely that of story- 
telling and the like, in contrast to statements made about what has happened, in reality, to the 
speaker." (Hockett, 1948b, p. 139) 

There is also a tradition of calling e- an aorist, going back to Bloomfi eld's use of the term 
for Fox (Bloomfi eld, 1927). He seems to have used it to refer to its function in traditional 
narrative where it can be glossed as a past tense: 

"The changed conjunct of stems containing a particle eeh (this is the changed form; the simple 
form does not occur) is common in C[ree]: eeh-takohteet "when he arrived." It occurs 
occasionally in 0|jibwa]; in F[ox] this form serves also for nonsubordinate statements in hearsay 
narrative: eeh-pyaaci "when he came; he came (it is said)." (Bloomfield, 1946, p. 101) 

Goddard (1990) also uses 'aorist' for Fox, however he treats the preverb plus conjunct as 
an unchanged conjunct form. 



^ The historical provenence of the preverb e- is unclear. It is perhaps the changed form of a preverb (short 
vowel) a- which is only attested in the related language Ottawa, of which Bloomfield says "[it] is used 
with conjunct verbs only; it denotes place or person" (1958, p. 62). Two examples can be found in the text, 
both of which are locative m function: a-wOTac/A^J 'where he sat' (1958, p.l78) and a-fem/'-woog^eg- 'train 
station' (1958, p. 62) (literally, "where the train stops" (Rhodes, 1985, p.l)) In younger speakers of 
Ottawa, e- is taking over as an invariant form of initial change (Costa, 1996; Rhodes, 1985), this may be 
happening for some speakers of Potawatomi as well, but for the speakers cited here initial change is still 
maintained. 

55 



However, the prevalence of e- in conversation requires us to conclude that its 
semantics is more complex than being simply an indicator of the narrative discourse 
mode. In embedded sentence complement clauses, e- indicates that the proposition 
expressed by the dependent clause verb is either presupposed to be true as in (8) and (9), 
or that it is probable as in (10): 

(8) Ngi-wabma Mani e-gishnenat 

nE- gi- wabEm -a mani e - gishEnEn -ad 

1- PST- see.s.o\TA -DIR.I Mary FCT- buy.s.o\TA -3/0. C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 

I saw Mary buy the car. (POEX00068) 

(9) Ngekendan Mani e-wi-gishnenat 

nE- gEkend -a -En mani e - wi- gishEnEn -ad 
1- know.s.t\TI -OBJ -1/0. I Mary FCT- FUT- buy.s.o\TA -3/0. C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 

I know that Mary will buy the car. (POEX00086) 

(10) Ndenendan Mani e-wi-gishnenat 

nEd- Enend -a -En mani e- wi- gishEnEn -a -Ed 

1- think.thus .of .s .t\TI -OBJ -3/0.1 Mary FCT- FUT- buy.s.o\TA -DIR -3.C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 

/ think that Mary will buy the car. (POEX00040) 

Possibility as well as obligation are indicated by the use of the sequence of 
preverbs da-je- (11)-(12): 



56 



(11) Ndenendan Mani da- j e-gishnenat 

nEd- Enend -a -En mani da-jE- gishEnEn -a -Ed 

1- thmk.thus .of .s .t\TI -OBJ -1/0. 1 Mary MOD- buy.s.o\TA -DIR -3.C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 

/ think that Mary might buy the car. (POEX00049) 

(12) Mani wgi-mikwendan da- j e-gishnenat 

mani wE- gi- mikwenEd -a -En da-jE- gishEnEn -ad 
Mary 3- PST- remember . s . t\TI -OBJ -OBV. I MOD- buy.s.o\TA -3/0. C 

niw wdabyanen. 
niw Odabyan -En 
that.OBV car -OBV 

Mary remembered that she ought to buy the car. (POEX00050) 



In adverbial clauses, the use of e- is restricted to those that are non-hypothetical. 
Examples of non-hypothetical adverbial clauses are given below in (13) through (18). 
The adverbial clause verb is underlined: 

Reason clause: ^ 

(13) E-mnadenj eget , mno-ye 

e - mEnadenEjege -Ed mEnO- EyE 

FCT- be . respectful\AI -3.C good- be . in . a . place\AI . I 



Because she is respectful, she Uves well. (POEXOOOl 1) 



■ Categories of adverbial clauses are based on the terminology given in Thompson and Longacre (1985). 

57 



Purpose clause:^ 

(14) Odanek nwi-zhya wisnewen e-wi-gishnedoyan . 

odan -Eg nE- wi- Ezhya/e wisEnEwEn e - wi- gishEnEd -o -yan 
town -LOG 1- FUT- go\AI . I food FCT- FUT- buy.s.t\TI -OBJ -l.C 

I am going to town in order to buy food. (POEX00015) 



Durative clause: 

(15} odanek e-gi-bme-yeyan, Wayne 

odan -Eg e- gi- bEmE- EyE -yan Wayne 

town -LOG FCT- PST- during- be . in . a . place\AI -l.C Wayne 

gi-binchege . 

gi- binEchEge 

PST- clean. things\AI . I 

While I was in town, Wayne cleaned. (POEX00036) 



Iterative clause: 

(16) E-gish-wisnet , neko mbe . 

e - gizh- wisEn -Ed nEko nEba/e 
FCT- finish- eat\AI -3.C used. to sleep\AI.I 

Whenever she finished eating she used to sleep. (POEX00015) 
Universal clause: 

(17) E-gmeyak, zhoshkwa. 
e - gEmEya -Eg zhoshEkwa 

FCT- rain\II -O.C be . slipperyMl . I 

Whenever it rains, it is slippery. (POEX00015) 



^ Purpose clauses are in a sense hypothetical, since they always occur in the future with respect to the main 

clause. However, because of their semantic similarity, reason and purpose adverbial clause types are 

formed the same way in many of the world's languages (Thompson and Longacre, 1985, p. 185). 

Linguistic motivation for the use of e- m purpose clauses may thus be in conformance with this observed 

tendency. 

58 



Time-cause clause: 

(18) E-gkenmek ga-nshkadzet , 

e - gEkenEm -EgO CH.gi- nEshkadEzE -Ed 
FCT- know.s.o\TA -1/3. C PST- be . angry\AI -3.C 

ngi-ne-maj i . 

nE- gi- nE- maji 

1- PST- start. to- leave\AI.I 

When I realized he was angry, I left. (POEX00038) 



The preverb e- is not used in hypothetical clauses, as shown in (19) through (21): 
Hypothetical conditional clauses: 

(19) Zagech zhyayen, gizho'on. 

zagEj Ezhya/e -yEn gizho'o -En 

outside go\AI -2.C dress .warmlyXAI -2 . IMP 



If you go outside, dress warmly. (POEX00019) 



(20) Gishpen bonimgek, nwi-we-zhoshk ' o . 

gishpEn boni -mEgEg nE- wi- wE- zhoshEk ' o 

if snow\II -AUG.O.C 1- PUT- go . and- go . sledding\AI . I 



If it's snowing, III go sledding. (POEX00021) 



Counterfactual conditional clause: 

(21) Gishpen bonimgek, nda-zhoshk ' o . 

gishpEn boni -mEgEg nE- da- zhoshEk ' o 

if snowMl -AUG.O.C 1- MOD- go . sledding\AI . I 

If it were snowing, I would be sledding. (POEX00023) 



The use of e- in non-hypothetical adverbial clauses produces a contrast between 
the concessive conditional (22), glossed 'even if and the concessive (23), which 
presupposes 'she is young' glossed with 'although': 



59 



(22) Anwe zhe penojewet, mbwaka. 

anwE EzhE EpEnojew -Ed nEbwaka/e 
although EMPH be . a . child\AI -3.C be .wise\AI . I 



Even if she is young, she is nevertheless wise. (POEX00025) 

(23) Anwe zhe e-penoj ewet , mbwaka. 

anwE EzhE e - EpEnojew -Ed nEbwaka/e 
although EMPH FCT- be . a . child\AI -3.C be.wise\AI.I 



Although she is young, she is nevertheless wise. (POEX00026) 

'Before' clauses take the particle bwamshe 'before' and do not take e- as in (24) 
and (25): 

(24) Odanek bwamshe zhyayan, nge-wjanda. 

odan -Eg bwamEshE Ezhya/e -yan nE- gE- Ojanda 
town -LOG before go\AI -l.C 1- PUT- cook\AI . I 

Before I go to town, I'll cook. (POEX00033) 



(25) Ngi-wjanda bwamshe majiyan. 

nE- gi- Ojanda/e bwamEshE maji -yan 
1 PST cook\AI.I before leave -l.C 

/ cooked before I left. (POEX00229) 



James (1983) for Moose Cree suggests that the absence of e- in 'before' clauses is 
due to the fact that they are always in the future with respect to their main clauses, and 
from that perspective can be considered hypothetical. More generally though, e- is not 
used in any temporal clause that expresses futurity, as shown by (26) as compared with 

(27): 

(26) odanek zhyayan, wisnewen nda-gishnedon. 

odan -Eg Ezhya/e -yan wisEnEwEn nE- da- gishEnEd -o -n 
town -LOG go\AI -l.C food 1- MOD- buy.s.t\TI -OBJ -1/0. I 

When I go to town, lean buy food. (POEX00035) 



60 



(27) Odanek e-gi-zhyayan, wisnewen ngi-gishnedon . 

odan -Eg e- gi- Ezhya/e -yan wisEnEwEn nE- gi- gishEnEd -o -n 
town -LOG FCT-PST- go\AI -l.C food 1- PST- buy.s.t\TI -OBJ -1/0. I 

When I went to town, I bought food. (POEX00274) 



Likewise, 'after' clauses in the future do not take e- as in (28): 

(28) Bama zhe gish-ggwadman node mkeznen 

bama zh E gizh- gOgwad -man nodE mEkEzEn -En 
later EMPH finish- sew.s.t.\TI -1/0. C these. INAN moccasin -PL 

nwi-mba . 

nE- wi- nEba/e 

1- FUT- sleep\AI.I 

After I finish sewing these moccasins, I'll go to bed. (.TTNB3p53n2) 



However, 'after' clauses in the past occur with initial change, which is generally 
found in factive-like contexts where the proposition in the clause is presupposed. In (29) 
it is registered in the preverb ga-, which is the changed form of past tense gi-: 

(29) Ga-mbayan, gi-wep-boni . 

CH . gi - nEba/e -yan gi- web- boni 

PST- sleep\AI -l.C PST- start. to- snowMl.I 

After I slept, it started to snow. (POEX00275) 

4.4 The distribution of conjuncts in main clauses 

Besides the subordinate clause use of the conjunct as described above, there are a 
few contexts where the conjunct can be used in a main clause, often with an 
accompanying particle, as illustrated in (30) with the particle bedo 'wish that' (conjunct 
underlined): 



61 



(30) O, bedo wi na bkenageyan! 

o bedo wi na bEkEnage -yan 
oh wish. that EMPH EMPH win\AI -l.C 

Oh, I wish I would win! (POEX00261) 
Because these contexts pose a problem for a simple distributional statement of the 
conjunct as a subordinate clause verb form, the traditional means of handling them has 
been to define the particles as subordinators."* This solution is more satisfying for the few 
particles which always require the presence of a conjunct. However, for many particles, 
the presence of a conjunct is optional; moreover, the conjunct can also occur in a main 
clause without a particle. Clearly, in order to be able to explain these sentences, an 
explanation that does not rely on an overt subordinating particle is needed. In this 
section, I will show that rather than being simply idiosyncratic, the use of the conjunct in 
these contexts is well-motivated in that the apparently dissimilar main clause contexts 
have a common semantics involving speaker subjectivity. Moreover, this shared 
semantics motivates calling these contexts subordinative, even in the absence of an overt 
subordinator. 

4.4.1 Adverbial particles that can take a main clause conjunct 

Many adverbial particles commonly co-occur with a main clause conjunct, but do 
not require its use. The particles that fall into this 'optional use' category, all have modal 
semantics, encoding the speaker's attitude towards the propositi onal content of the 
utterance. Examples of these particles are given below in (3 1) - (38), taken from 



"* Bloomfield, for Eastern Ojibwa, calls them 'predicative particles' (1958, p. 141). 

62 



elicitations and quoted speech in narrative texts (which behaves like everyday 
conversation with respect to the use of verbal paradigms). 

Anake 'maybe'. The most common use ofanake is as a disjunctive, in which 
case it is used with a main clause independent, as in (3 1). 

(31) Nin anake gin gda-kwabmamen penojeyek. 
nin anake gin gE-da- kEwabEiti -a -EmEn EpEnoje#y -Eg 
I.EMPH or 2.EMPH 2- MOD- watch . over . s . o\TA-DIR-12 . I child -PL 

You or I should watch the kids. (POEX00208) 

However, as a subordinating particle, it is best translated as 'maybe', as in (32). 
In this example, the speaker indicates a mental stance towards the addressee's behavior, 
without specifying exactly what that is. This indirect tactic leaves it to the addressee to 
work out the mild criticism: 

(32) Gwi-gwdemoj ge ne? Anake (zhe) bama gmeyamgek. 

gE- wi- gOdEmojEge nE anake zhE bama gEmEya -mEgEg 
2- FUT- fish\AI.3.I Q maybe EMPH wait rain\II -AUG.O.C 

Are you going fishing [when the weather is fine]? Maybe you should wait until it 
rains. (POEX00258) 

Iw zhe anwe 'okay'. This particle phrase is commonly used on its own, as in 
response to the query, Nije ezh-bmadzeyen? 'How are you doing?' Here it is used to 
give an appraisal of someone's speaking ability: 

(33) Iw zhe anwe e-neshnabemot . 

iw zh E anwE e - EnEshEnabemO -d 
that.INAN EMPH all . right FCT- speak . Indian\AI -3.C 

'He 's getting to talk Indian okay now. ' (POEX00272) 

Wete 'really'. The particle wete is generally used to indicate the speaker's 

attitude. Thus in (34), the Lazy Grasshopper tells the Busy Bee he doesn't care what the 

Bee thinks, and implies something like 'and I shouldn't, either' (compare 'I don 't care 

63 



what you think' with 'I don 't really care what you think'' which shows a similar discourse 
use of English 'really'): 



(34) Ngoji e-nme-se-gwakwaskso ' ot , "Wete 

ngOji e- nEitiE- sE - gwakwaskOsE ' o -d wetE 

somewhere FCT-in . the . process . of - EMPH - hop\AI -3.C really 

wi zhe na nin gbapnenmen, " 

wi zhE na nin gE- bapEnenEiti -En 

EMPH EMPH EMPH I . EMPH 2 -couldn ' t . care . less . f or . s . o . \TA -1/2.1 

e-nat ni amon . 

e- En -ad niw amo -n 

FCT- say.to.s .o. \TA -3/3'. C that . OBV bee -OBV 

He hopped away someplace "I could care less what you think, " he said to the 
bee. (HOBN2t2.010) 



Wika 'finally'. Wika is used to express 'finally' in the sense of 'at long last', 
indicating either hope or expectation on the part of the speaker that an event would occur 
sooner than it did.^ Wika is commonly found with a main clause conjunct as in (35): 

(35) wika se na e-gi-ma j it . 

wika sE na e - gi- maji -d 
finally EMPH EMPH FCT- PST- leave\AI -3.C 

Finally, he left! (POEX00285) 

Negative particles. The conjunct is also found in with certain negative particles, 
such asjo mamda 'it is not possible' (36) - (37) andy'o wi zhe gego 'it doesn't matter' 
(38): 



^ This particle contrasts with another particle gegpi which is also translated as 'finally ' but does not carry 
the same sense of hope or expectation. It is commonly found in narratives when a character turns to a new 
activity, as in Gegpi, e-gi-majit. 'Eventually, he left.' (POEX00286). (The use of the main clause 
conjunct here is a feature of narrative which is discussed m Chapter 6). 

64 



(36) I je o shebzhi neyap e-gi-zhyat 

iw jE ow mEshEbEzhi neyab e - gi- Ezhya/e -d 
and that. AN lion back FCT- PST- go.there\AI -3.C 

e-gi-widmowat niw wshkabewsen, 

e - gi- widEmEw -Ewad niw wEshkabewEs -En 

FCT- PST- tell.s.o\TA -3/3'. C that.OBV helper -OBV 

"Jo mawda e-wi-nsek," e-gi-nat. 

jo mamda e - wi- nEs -Eg e- gi- En -ad 

not possible FCT- FUT- kill.s.o.\TA -1/3. C FCT-PST- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C 

So the lion went back and told the attendants "I couldn 't kill him. " (JS.4. 1.032) 



(37} Jo mamda zhode bidek da- j e-wdemayen . 

jo mamda zhodE bidEg da-jE- OdEma/e -yEn 

not possible here indoors MOD- smoke . tobacco\AI -2.C 



You can 't smoke in here. (JT. 03. 41. 006) 



(38) Jo wi zhe gego j agdewpegwzewat . 

jo wi zh E gego j agEdewpEgOzE -wad 
not EMPH EMPH something taste . burnt \AI -35. C 

It doesn 't matter if they (potatoes) taste burnt (JT.3. 35.01^ 



4.4.2 Particles that require the use of a main clause conjunct 

There are a few particles that require the use of a main clause conjunct. These 
include bedo and begesh'^ 'wish that' and yedek 'it must be that', edgwen 'I wonder' and 
nmed se na 'I don't know' (with allegro forms nmej zhe na and nmej na). Examples are 
given below in (39) -(46): 

(39) Bedo (wi) na gmeyamgek. 

bedo wi na gEmEya -mEgEg 
wish. that EMPH EMPH rain\II -AUG.O.C 

I wish it would rain! (POEX00262) 



^ Different speakers use one or the other particle. Begesh has cognates in Ojibwe and Ottawa. 

65 



(40) "0, begesh na ezhi gameyek 

o begEzh na ezhi gameyEg 
oh would. that EMPH over. there across . the . river 

gshketoyan e-byayan, " 

gEshEkEt -o -yan e - bya/e\AI -yan 

be.able.to.do.s.t\TI -OBJ -l.C FCT- come -l.C 

e-kedot... A, begesh na ibe zhyayan." 

e - EkEdO -d a begEzh na ibE Ezhya/e -yan 

FCT- say\AI -3.C ah would. that EMPH there go.there\AI -l.C 

"Oh, I wish I was able to get across over to there, " he said. . . Ah, I wish I could 
go over there. " (MD102694.007, 010) 



(41) " Iw se zhye yedek e-wi-byawat nmezodanek, " 

iw sE zh yE yedEg e - wi- bya/e -wad nE- mEzodan -Eg 
that.INAN EMPH EMPH must.be FCT- FUT- come\AI -35. C 1- parent -PL 

e-zhede ' at . 

e - EzhEde ' a -d 

FCT- think\AI -3.C 

"So now must be my parents will come, " he thought. (AS. 2. 3. 080) 



(42) "I je bzhe gagyaw yedek e-gi-mot." 

iw jE bzhE gagyaw yedEg e - gi- mEw -Ed 

and EMPH anyhow must.be FCT- PST- eat.s.o.\TA -2/3.C 



Well, must be you ate him anyway. (AS. 2. 1.029) 



(43) "A, iw zhe yedek e-wi-dkemozh ' ewat 

a iw zhE yedEg e- wi- dEkEmozhE' -Ewad 

ah that.INAN EMPH must.be FCT- FUT- take . s . o . across\TA -35/1. C 

gode," zhede ' e o wabozo. 
godE EzhEde ' a/e ow wabozo#y 
these. AN think\AI.3.I that. AN rabbit 

"Ah, must be they will take me across, " thinks the rabbit. (MD 102694.027) 



(44) I je o neshnabe e-nat, " Edgwen se na 

iw jE ow EnEshEnabe e- En -ad edEgwen sE na 

and that. AN person FCT-say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C I. wonder EMPH EMPH 

a- j e-gshke ' nan nsheke." 

a- EjE- gEshkE' -Enan nEshEke 

MOD- towards- be . able . to . do . s . t . to . s . o . \TA -1/2. C alone 

And the man told him, "I don't see how I'll be able to do that alone. "(JS. 4.5. 01 3) 



66 



(45) Nmet zhe na da- j e-bonimgek . 

nEmEd zh E na da-jE- boni -mEgEg 
I. don't. know EMPH EMPH MOD- snow\II -AUG.O.C 

7 don 't know if it will snow. ' (POEX00273) 



(46) Iw je e-gi-majit, nmej na yedek 

iw jE e - gi- maji -d nEmEd sE na yedEk 
and FCT- PST- leave\AI -3.C I . don ' t . know 

ga-zhyagwen . 

CH.gi- Ezhya/e -gwen 

CH.PST- go.there\AI -DUB.3.C 



So he started off somewhere. (Literally: 'he started off, I don 't know where he 
went') (AS.2. 1.008) 



4.4.3 Wh-question particles 

Wh-questions always take a main clause conjunct. Wh-questions are formed by 
the use of an initial question particle or particle cluster, and require the use of a main- 
clause conjunct, which has in addition initial change: 

(47) Ni je ezh-bmadzet ? 

ni jE CH.EzhE- bEmadEzE -Ed 
what thus- live\AI -3.C 

How is she doing? (POEX00047) 



(48) Ni je pi wa-webtawat? 

ni jE Opi CH.wi- webEta\AI -wad 
what when CH.FUT- start -35. C 



When are they going to start? (.TT : 3 : 5 1 : 7) 



(49) "Ni je zhi wej-bkedeyen ?" 

ni jE zhiw CH.wEjE- bEkEde -yEn 

what there reason. why- be.hungry\AI -2.C 



Why are you hungry? (JS.4.2.022) 



67 



Yes-no questions, on the other hand, are similar in form to the corresponding 
statement, taking a main clause independent verb, with a second position question 
particle: 

(50) Gdebsemen ne ewi-piekeygo? 

gE- debEsa/e -mEn nE e - wi- pieke -yEgo 
2- have.enough\AI -15.1 Q FCT- FUT- make.pie\AI -15. C 

Do we have enough (berries) to make a pie? (JT. 03. 037. 008) 
Related languages show variability in the use of the changed conjunct with 
content questions. In Ottawa, for example, Valentine reports that "questions of location 
that do not involve a relative root do not show initial change" (2001, p. 983). In 
Potawatomi, a relative preverb is added, and the verb shows initial change: 

(51) Ni pi je ga-je-toyen? 

ni pi jE CH.gi- EjE- Et -o -yEn 

where CH.PST- where- put.s.t.\TI -OBJ -2.C 

Where did you put it? (JT.03. 13.009) 



(52) Ni pi je eje-tek? 

ni pi jE CH.EjE- te -g 

where in . a . certain . direction- be . in . a . certain . place -O.C 

Where is it? (JT.03. 13.007) 



The use of the changed conjunct in wh-questions likely reflects the fact that 
wh-questions trigger presuppositions, whereas yes-no questions do not. Or more 
precisely, 'why are you hungryV presupposes 'you are hungry', whereas the yes-no 
question, 'are you hungry' carries only the vacuous presupposition 'either you are 
hungry or you are not hungry' (Levinson, 1983). As a context for presupposition, the 
changed conjunct is not unexpected here (as with completed adverbial clauses discussed 



68 



in Section 3.2 with example 29), and is likely grammaticalized in wh-questions for 
precisely this reason. 

4.4.4 Unaccompanied main clause conjunct 

Hockett (1948a) reports that the conjunct can also be used alone to express a 
wish, as in (53): 

(53) Byat! 
bya/e -d 
come\AI -3.C 

If he would only come! 

Rather than using this construction to express a wish, speakers today generally prefer to 
use either of the particles bedo or begesh as in (39) and (40) above. 

There are, however, other uses of a main clause conjunct without a particle. As 
with other main clause conjuncts that co-occur with a particle, these utterances imply that 
the speaker is taking an attitudinal stance with respect to the proposition. For example, 
someone might say (54) if the addressee wasn't gone as long as was expected (the 
addressee might respond with something like, 'well, I didn't get a chance to see the 
doctor'): 

(54) O, e-gi-gish-odankeyen? 

o e - gi- gizh- odanEke -yEn 
oh FCT- PST- finish- go. to. town -2.C 

Oh, you finished everything in town? (POEX00251) 
In (55), the speaker expresses his excitement over a fast car ride by using the conjunct, 
which injects a certian vividness (this sentence was translated by the speaker as 'we were 
going to beat hell!'): 



69 



(55) O, e-yapich-bozyak ! 

o e - yapich- boz ~y=ig 

oh FCT- to . such . an . extent- take . a . ride\AI -15. C 

How fast we were going! (POEX00263) 



In (56), a teasing folk saying, the speaker suggests that the unusual act of the addressee's 
cutting wood caused a weather event: 

(56) E-gi-mneseyen, wi ye i 

e - gi- mEnEse -yEn wi ye iw 
FCT-PST-cut .wood\AI-2C EMPH FRED that . INAN 

wech-gmeyamgek . 

CH.wEjE- gEmEya -mEgEg 

CH.the. reason.why-rain\II-AUG.O.C 

You cut wood; that 's why its raining! (POEX00259) 
When asked, the speaker would also accept an independent verb in the main clause, but 

explained that it didn't have the same force as a conjunct, that somehow the implication 

that the act caused the rain was not as strong. 

(57) Ggi-mnese, wi ye i 
gE- gi- mEnEse wi ye iw 

PST- cut .wood\AI . I EMPH PRED that . INAN 

wech-gmeyamgek . 

CH.wEjE- gEmEya -mEgEg 

CH.the . reason. why- rain\II -AUG.O.C 

You cut wood; that 's why its raining! (POEX00260) 

4.4.5 Summary 

The fact that main clause conjuncts are found (sometimes grammaticalized) with 

particles that express propositional attitude suggests that the conjunct is being used in a 

subordinate context, only that the subordinator is a particle rather than the typical 

propositional attitude predicate. However, this argument cannot be maintained exactly as 

such when presented with examples such as those in the previous section which do not 

have a subordinating verb or particle. These examples suggest that the important aspect 

70 



for the use of the conjunct is the expression of speaker subjectivity, whether or not this is 
overtly expressed by a particle. When this is available contextually, it acts as a functional 
subordinator and the attitude is indirectly registered by the use of the main-clause 
conjunct. 

4.5 The Conversational Construction (CC) 

This chapter has outlined the uses of independents and conjuncts in everyday 
discourse. While independents are always used in a main clause, conjuncts are found in 
both subordinate and main clauses. If we take the subordinate clause use of the conjunct 
to be its basic use, then we can explain its main clause use as signalling functional 
subordination to an implied propositional attitude. 

The preverb e-, which becomes important in the narrative behavior of the 
conjunct, has its basic use in everyday discourse as a marker of factivity. It is found only 
in non-hypothetical subordinate clauses: in complement clauses, it expresses speaker 
confidence — probability versus possibility; in adverbial clauses, it is not used in 
hypothetical clauses including clauses expressing futurity. 

I will call this basic distribution of the independent, conjunct and preverb e- the 
Conversational Construction (CC), to distinguish it from the pattern of independents, 
conjuncts, and the preverb e- which will be found in narrative discourse (discussed in 
Chapter 6). 



71 



Bloomfield, L. 1927. Notes on the Fox Language. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 4.181-219. 
— . 1946. Algonquian. Linguistic Structures of Native America, ed. by H. Hoijer, 85-129. 

New York. 
— . 1958. Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Word List. Ann Arbor: 

University of Michigan Press. 
Costa, D. 1996. Reconstructing Initial Change in Algonquian. Anthropological 

Linguistics, 38.39-72. 
Goddard, Ives. 1990. Aspects of the Topic Structure of Fox Narratives: Proximate Shifts 

and the Use of Overt and Inflectional NPs. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 56.317-40. 
Hockett, C. 1948a. Potawatomi I: Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and Morphological 

Survey. International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi III: The Verb Complex. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV. 139-49. 
James, D. 1983. Simple versus Conjunct Verbs in Moose Cree: Some Whys and 

Wherefores. Actes du Quatorzieme Congres des Algonquinistes, ed. by W. 

Cowan, 345-61. Ottawa: Carleton University. 
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Rhodes, Richard. 1985. Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary. Berlin: Walter de 

Gruyter & Co. 
Thompson, Sandra and Longacre, Robert. 1985. Adverbial clauses.vol. II Complex 

constructions: Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University 

of Toronto Press. 



72 



5 Verbal Paradigms and Mental Space 
Construction in Everyday Discourse 



5.1 Introduction 

This chapter contains a Mental Spaces theory analysis of the syntactic structures 
discussed in Chapter 4, including the use of independents, conjuncts, and the e- preverb 
in everyday discourse. By determining their basic function within mental space networks 
for everyday discourse, we can then compare their use in a more complex network that 
contains an embedded narrative (this is discussed in Chapter 7). 

The structure of the chapter is as follows: Section 5.2 presents the case that 
independent verbs structure Space R, whereas conjunct verbs always structure a space 
embedded within Space R. Section 5.3 shows that main clause conjuncts are not 
problematic for this analysis, as they too occupy an embedded space, even in the absence 
of an overt space opener. Section 5.4 shows the use of the e- preverb is a marker of 
factivity of an embedded space. 

5.2 The basic use of independents and conjuncts 

5.2.1 Independents 

Independent verbs in the present tense structure Space R. Consider the following 
sentence: 



72 



(1) Nde-nna ' ikanen ni wasechgenen. 

nEdE- nEna'ikan -En niw wasechEgEn -En 
1- fix.s.t.\TI -05.1 those. INAN window -PL 

I'm fixing the windows. (In response to the question 'What are you doing? ') 

(.TTB3. 050.0 15) 



This would be represented by a single space R, which houses the BASE, V-POINT, 
FOCUS CONTENT and FOCUS CONTEXT: 
(2) 'Fm fixing the windows.'^ 



Space R: 



a* \ 
w J 


"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person pronoun 
w: windows 
nna 'ikek 'fix' a(w) 




BASE 
V-POINT 

FOCUS CONTENT 
FOCUS CONTEXT 



Sometimes an independent verb will occur in a space subordinate to Space R, 
such as when the verb is marked with a past or future tense. In the following example, 
the space o^Qnerwesnago 'the day before yesterday' opens a past space: 

(3} O, wesnago ge ni gbe-gizhek 

o wEsnago ge nin gEbe- gizhEg 

oh day . before . yesterday also I . EMPH through . all . of- day 

ngi-monshkwe . 

nE- gi- monshkwe 

1- PST- weed\AI.I 

'Oh, the day before yesterday, I weeded [my garden] all day. ' (JTB3.036.009) 



^ Potawatomi verbs in mental space diagrams will be cited in the conjunct form. 

73 



This past Space P is subordinate to Space R. The use of the past tense morpheme gi- on 
the independent verb ngi-monshkwe 'I weeded' signals that focus has shifted to Space P:^ 
(4) 'I weeded all day' 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTEXT 



Space M: 




"REALITY" SPACE 

a: first person pronoun T 



FOCUS CONTENT 

PAST 

FACT 

prior to R 



TIME SPACE 
wesnago 'yesterday' 
monshkwet 'weed' a 



The use of the independent in the example above does not open the new space, rather it is 
the time adverbial that is the space opener. Neither do the independent inflections /'er se 
indicate that the new space is in focus; this is accomplished by the tense marking.^ 



■ Connectors between counterparts are not drawn in the following diagrams m order to simplify the 
representations. The same letters used in different spaces represent counterparts. 

^ Fauconnier notes that "[tjenses and moods do not by themselves explicitly set up spaces, but they give 
important grammatical cues concerning the spaces relevant for the sentence being processed" (1985, p. 33). 

74 



5.2.2 Conjuncts 

Conjunct verbs, unlike independents, are indicative of a subordinate, embedded 
space in the mental space network. I will illustrate this by discussing two kinds of 
subordinate clauses, complements and adverbials. 

Complement Clauses. The space-building properties of certain complement 
taking predicates have been examined in the Mental Spaces theory literature. Fauconnier 
discusses the space opening properties of the predicates believe, hope, claim, (1985) 
want, wish, not believe, and doubt (1997, p. 95). Also, Cutrer (1994) has a detailed 
discussion of utterance predicates such as say. There is good reason to think that 
sentential complement-taking predicates in general are space openers. The propositions 
expressed in complement clauses usually describe an alternate world. This might be an 
unrealized world, as in the case of desideratives (want, wish, desire, hope), or pretense 
predicates {imagine, pretend, fool into thinking). The proposition might also represent 
the mental world of particular experiencer, as with utterance predicates {say, tell, 
promise), propositional attitude predicates {believe, think, assume, doubt), or 'factives' 
{regret, be sorry, discover, know, forget). Some predicates combine the two; in the case 
of predicates of fearing {fear, worry, be afraid that) there is the description of a possible 
state of affairs, and the speaker's mental attitude toward that state."* 

Main clause verbs marked with the independent can be space openers if they are 
complement taking predicates. Example (5) illustrates the use of the complement taking 
predicate, 'see'. The main clause verb ngi-wabma 'I saw him/her' takes the independent. 



'' Categories and examples of sentential complement-taking predicates are from Noonan (1985). 

75 



and the subordinate clause verb e-gishnenat 'that he/she buys it (animate)' is in the 
conjunct: 

(5) Ngi-wabma Mani e-gishnenat niw dabyanen. 
nE-gi- wabEiti -a mani e- gishEnEn -ad niw Odabyan -En 
1- PST- see.s.o\TA -DIR.I Mary FCT-buy . s . o\TA-3/0 . C that . OBV car -OBV 

I saw Mary buy the car. (POEX00068) 
The main clause predicate wabmat 'see' opens a content space (Space N), which is 
occupied by the complement predicate gishnenat 'buy' . The use of the conjunct for the 
complement predicate indicates that the subordinate space is then in FOCUS: 

(6) SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENT-TAKING PREDICATE: 'I saw Mary buy the car' 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTEXT 



Space M 



"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person 'F 



PAST 
FACT 
prior to R 



Space N 




PAST SPACE 
wabmat 'see' a[ ] 



CONTENT SPACE 
m: Mary 
d: dabyan 
gishnenat 'buy' m(d) 



FOCUS CONTENT 



In this example, the paradigmatic inflection of the conjunct is not itself the space 
builde; the new space is opened by the sentential complement-taking predicate 'see'. 
This can be compared with the use independent in (4), which also did not open the 
subordinate space. Paradigmatic inflections are not necessarily themselves space 



76 



builders. Rather, they provide additional cues to the structure of the network at any given 
point in the discourse. 

Adverbial Clauses. Like complement clauses, adverbial clauses typically open 
new spaces. Standard examples include time spaces {in 1929), and domain spaces for 
works of art or literature {in that painting, in War and Peace), and hypothetical spaces (// 
it rains tomorrow). 

Example (7) contains an example of a conditional sentence. The protasis gishpen 
bonimgek 'if it's snowing' contains a conjunct verb: 

(7j Gishpen bonimgek, nwi-we-zhoshk ' o . 

gishpEn boni -mEgEg nE- wi- wE- zhoshEk'o 

if snowMl -AUG.O.C 1- FUT- go. and- go . sledding\AI . I 

If it's snowing, I'll go sledding. (POEX00021) 

The "^diXiicXQ gishpen 'if is a space builder, which opens a hypothetical Space M 
in a new domain subordinate to Space R, and a future prediction space N whose 
information is evaluated from the V-POINT of the hypothetical Space M. Space M 
houses the protasis gishpen bonimgek 'if it is snowing'. The use of the conjunct verb 
form bonimgek signals that the hypothetical Space M is in FOCUS. 



77 



(8) ADVERBIAL CLAUSE: 'If it is snowing. 



'REALITY" SPACE 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTEXT 



V-POINT 

PRESENT 

FACT 

not prior to R 

FOCUS CONTENT 




HYPOTHETICAL SPACE 
bonimgek 'snow' 



FUTURE 

PREDICTION 

SPACE 



Space N 



5.3 Conjunct verbs in main clauses 

The fact that conjunct verbs can occur in main clauses would appear to be an 
exception to the generalization that conjunct verbs are indicative of a relationship of 
subordination. However, as argued in Section 4.3, the subordinate form of main clause 
conjuncts reflects a functional subordination to either an implied propositional attitude, or 
one that is expressed by a particle. 

In Mental Spaces theory terms, this propositional attitude (expressed or implied) 
opens a new space. , which in turn takes a complement space. The complement space 
houses the propositional material being evaluated from the higher propositional attitude 
space. Because information is being evaluated from this space, it is the locus for 



78 



V-POINT. The use of the conjunct signals that the subordinate complement space is in 
FOCUS. 

The function of a particle in opening a prepositional attitude space is illustrated in 
(9) below. The prepositional attitude space is a wish space, opened by the particle bedo 
'wish that' . It takes a complement space, which houses the content of the wish. This is 
expressed by the conjunct verb gmeyamgek '(if) it rains': 



(9) Bedo (wi) na gmeyamgek. 

bedo wi na gEmEya -mEgEg 
wish. that EMPH EMPH rain\II -AUG.O.C 

I wish it would rain! (POEX00262) 



"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person 



Space R: 



BASE 




PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDE SPACE 
bedo 'wish that' a[ ] 



Space M 



V-POINT 



COMPLEMENT SPACE 
paradigm: conjunct 
mood: /active - 
b: third person inanimate 
gmeyamgek 'rain' b 



Space N: 



FOCUS 



In (10) below, the prepositional attitude is not overtly expressed. The only 

indication that the proposition is being evaluated in some way is the use of the conjunct 

verb form byat '(if) he comes', which signals the addressee to look for an evaluation. 

79 



When an evaluation (or the indication of an evaluation) is available in the context of the 
utterance, but is not overtly expressed, it can nevertheless serve to open a propositional 
attitude space. I call this type of contextual cue an implicit space opener (indicated in the 
space diagram by the use of a dashed-line text box). Note this also means that particles, 
as well as grammatical predicates can serve as space openers. 

(10) Byat! 

bya/e -d 
come\AI -3.C 

If he would only come! 



"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person 



Space R: 



BASE 




PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDE SPACE, 
IMPLICIT 
a: first person 
WISH a[] 



Space M 



V-POINT 



COMPLEMENT SPACE 
paradigm: conjunct 
mood: /active - 
b: third person 
byat 'come' b 



Space N: 

FOCTIS 

The mental space structures in (9) and (10) provide a model for sentences like 
(1 1) which contain particles that are not necessarily space openers. The particle anake is 
polysemous; it is commonly used non-evaluatively as the disjunctive 'or', but can be used 
evaluatively, as illustrated in (1 1) — ^the alternatives are construed as what the addressee is 
doing, alongside what the speaker thinks he should do. The evaluation available in the 



80 



context ('I think you should wait until it rains') serves as an implicit space opener. This 
space is then occupied by the particle anake, which is semantically compatible, and then 
becomes associated with the evaluative reading. Such structures likely serve as a means 
of grammaticalization for the use of the conjunct with such particles. 

(11) Gwi-gwdemo j ge ne? Anake (zhe) bama gmeyamgek. 

gE- wi- gOdEmojEge nE anake zhE bama gEmEya -mEgEg 
2- FUT- fish\AI.3.I Q or EMPH wait rain\II -AUG.O.C 

Are you going fishing? Maybe wait until it rains. (POEX00258) 



"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person 



Space R: 



BASE 



IMPLICIT SPACE 
anake 'maybe' a[ ] 




Space M: 



V-POINT 



Space N 



COMPLEMENT SPACE 

second person 
bama 'wait (until)' b[ ] 



COMPLEMENT SPACE 
c: third person inanimate 
gmeyamgek 'rain' c 



5.4 The preverb e- 



Within subordinate clauses, Potawatomi has a mood distinction. Unlike 

languages that mark irrealis (for example, the use of the subjunctive in French), 

Potawatomi marks realis-type clauses by the use of a verbal prefix e-. I have glossed this 

prefix as 'factive' (FCT) as it has many properties of a marker of factivity, although to be 

81 



more accurate, it reflects the relative strength of an assertion. For this reason, the same 
predicate may take a conjunct marked with a factive, or not as the sentences in (12) and 
(13) show. Note that rather than being a property introduced by the space opening verb 
'think', the feature "Factive" is a property of the complement clause (compare the case of 
the subjunctive in French which is required by certain predicates). Thus, if the 
proposition expressed by the subordinate clause is considered to be factual or probable, 
the verb will take the prefix: 

(12) [Ndenendan Mani e-wi-gishnenat 

l-thmk.thus .of .s .t\TI-OBJ-3/0I Mary FCT-FUT-buy . s . o\TA-DIR-3C 

niw wdabyanen . ] cc 

that.OBV car-OBV 

/ think that Mary will buy the car. [POEX00040] 
However, if proposition expressed in the complement clause is considered to be only 
probable, the verb takes the prefixes da-je- instead, glossed here as 'modal' (MOD).^ 

(13) [Ndenendan Mani da- j e-gishnenat 

l-thmk.thus .of .s .t\TI-OBJ-3/0I Mary MOD-MOD-buy . s . o\TA-DIR-3C 

niw wdabyanen .] cc 

that.OBV car-OBV 

/ think that Mary might buy the car. [POEX00049] 

I represent this distinction in mental space diagrams by use of the feature Factive {+/-}, 
as shown by (14) (Factive +) and (15) (Factive -): 



' These are also used for deontic modality, as in 'Mary ought to buy the car. ' 

82 



(14) 'I think that Mary will buy the car. 



REALITY SPACE 
a: first person 



Space R: 



BASE 

FOCUS CONTEXT 



THOUGHT SPACE 
nendek 'think' a[ ] 




Space M 



V-POINT 

PRESENT 

FACT 

not prior to R 



Space N: 



COMPLEMENT 

SPACE 

paradigm: conjunct 

mood: /active + 

m: Mary 

d: dabyan 'car' 

gishnenat 'buy' m(d) 



FOCUS CONTENT 



(15) 'I think that Mary might buy the car.' 



"REALITY" SPACE 
a: first person 



Space R: 



BASE 

FOCUS CONTEXT 



THOUGHT SPACE 
nendek 'think' a[ ] 




Space M: 



V-POINT 

PRESENT 

FACT 

not prior to R 



COMPLEMENT SPACE 

paradigm: conjunct 

mood: f active - 

m: Mary 

d: dabyan 'car' 

gishnenat 'buy' m(d) 



Space N: 



FOCUS CONTENT 



83 



5.5 Summary 

The following, then, are the basic functions of verbal paradigmatic morphology with 
respect to Mental Space networks: In the absence of a space-builder or other linguistic 
cues which might indicate a special context, an independent verb will structure Space R. 
The use of the conjunct signals a shift to an embedded space. This space may be opened 
by a sentential complement-taking predicate, or may be opened by virtue of an adverbial 
clause. The preverb e- indicates the factivity of the embedded space in relationship to its 
parent space. In Chapter 7, these uses in everyday discourse will be compared with the 
structures they help build in narrative. 



84 



Bibliography 



Cutrer, Michelle. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language, 

University of California: Ph.D. dissertation. 
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
— . 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Noonan, Michal. 1985. Complementation. Complex Constructions, ed. by Timothy 

Shopen, 42-140. Avon: The Bath Press. 



85 



6 Independents and Conjuncts in Narrative 

Discourse 



6.1 Introduction 

In this chapter, I examine the use of independents and conjuncts in narrative 
discourse, where they have a very different distribution from their use in everyday discourse. 
Narrative discourse is marked by the high frequency of verbs inflected in the conjunct, which 
occur in main as well as in subordinate clauses. These conjuncts are usually preceded by the 
preverb e- (I will refer to this preverb-verb combination as an "e-conjuncf ). This is 
illustrated by the excerpt given in (1), (verbs are underlined, the use of brackets and the 
notation "CC" and "NC" are explained below): ^ 
(1) 

1 [I me se ngodek neshnabek e-wdodanwat i je Once there was a Village (some 
weye e-nshonaj tagwat wgetkansewan mine people had a village) and someone 
mbish wed'emwat.] was destroying their gardens and 

their wells. 

2 [Iw je nish wshkabewsen e-gi-nokanawat So they had two SCOUts watch out for 
e-wi-kewabmawat wegwendek o ezhcheget.] whomever might be doing that. 

3 [I je bama zhe na geten e-byanet weye.] Later, sure enough, someone came 

along . 



^ Examples contain line numbers to the left of the Potawatomi text, which reference the line numbers in my 
translations. Line numbers are referenced here as (example:line), as in (1:5). Verbs in the Potawatomi text are 
roughly indexed to the English translation with underlines. Where the sequence of verbs does not match, 
numeric indices are given. The code in parentheses after the last line of the English translation indicates the 
source text. Interlinear glosses of examples are given in Appendix B. 

85 



4 [ E-wabmawat kojesen e-bshkobnanet ; jak zhe They saw him pulling out beans and 
na e-zhechgenet.] doing all kinds of things. 

5 Wabozoyen je ni. It was Rabbit. 

(JS.4.1) 

Together, the preverb and conjunct form a construction characteristic of narrative, 
particularly the genre of mythological narrative called yadsokanen .^ Hockett proposed that 
this construction functions to "[set] the style of the text, which is a story, not supposed 
necessarily to be true, at least, not intended as a recounting of anything which once happened 
to the narrator" (Hockett, 1948d, p. 216).'' The use of the e-conjunct is usually established in 
the first sentence of a yadsokan, which, along with the optional but common formula (i me 
se) ngodek 'once', functions to announce the narrative performance, as shown in (2) - (4) 
below: 



" The other main narrative genre, yajmownen, includes autobiographical and historical texts. These narrative 
types, which are not included in the current corpus, need to be considered independently. 
^ Other Central Algonquian languages, such as Ottawa (Nishnaabemwin) and Fox, show a similar use of the 
conjunct in main clauses for narrative discourse. In Ottawa, the parallel construction is the plain (unchanged) 
conjunct. According to Valentine, "[t]he reason. . . is simply that sentences in running narrative sometimes act as 
if they were subordinated to the whole narrative, or form tight units with adjacent sentences" (Valentine, 2001, 
p. 951). In Fox, a similar construction takes a conjunct verb preceded by the cognate preverb e-(h)- (glossed as 
'aorist'). According to Bloomfield, "[t]his is the commonest form of the conjunct; in hearsay narrative it 
replaces the independent mode of ordinary speech." (1927, p. 204) Although Potawatomi is more closely 
related to Ottawa, speakers of Potawatomi and Fox shared a more recent period of close contact which resulted 
in many lexical borrowings from Fox into Potawatomi. In this case, it is Fox construction and not that of 
Ottawa which appears to be the closest to Potawatomi, and may in fact be the source for the Potawatomi 
construction in its modem form. 

86 



(2) 



1 [Ngodek wabgonoshkwe e-gche-mwet jik- 

zibe. ]nc 



(3) 



1 [ode yadsokan espen e-bmebtot . ], 



(4) 



Once a rat was cryiiiR by the edge of 
a river. 

(H0PT2) 



This story is about the Raccoon 
running along . 



(JS.4.4) 



1 [I me se ngodek neshnabek e-wdodanwat . J^c Once there was a Village. (Literally: 

'Some people had a village .') 

(JS.4.5) 
A main clause verb in the e-conjunct, as well as any subordinate clauses forms a 
grammatical pattern which I will call the Narrative Construction (abbreviated NC)."* The 
Narrative Construction contrasts with the Conversational Construction in the form of the 
main clause verb, as shown in (5). 



A reasonable analysis might limit the domain of the construction to the main clause, defining the distribution 
of independents and conjuncts per se. This, in fact, has been the traditional analysis. However, an argument for 
including subordinate clauses in the construction comes from the behavior of main clause verbs of speech, 
where the paradigmatic form of the main clause verb imposes an interpretation on the content of the direct 
speech in the subordinate clause (this is described in §3.1). Also, the construction is limited to a single main 
clause verb and any subordinate clauses: verbs in juxtaposed or conjoined main clauses can belong to different 
construction types, as shown by 24:29 and 24:31. As will be argued below, the CC and NC constructions are 
associated with different discourse functions, and this domain for the construction (main plus subordinate 
clauses) is proposed (at least for Potawatomi) as the minimum unit with which these discourse functions can be 
associated. 

87 



(5) A COMPARISON OF THE NC AND CC 



Construction Type 


Main Clause Verb 


Subordinate Clause Verb(s) 


Narrative Construction (NC) 


e -conjunct 


(e-) conjunct 


Conversational Construction (CC) 


independent 


(e-) conjunct 



This statement of the contrast between the NC and CC requires quaUfication. First, it 
is unclear whether conjuncts in subordinate clauses inflect, taking the preverb e- or not, just 
as they would in conversation. Part of the difficulty in determining this with certainty is the 
rarity of contexts in narrative clauses that would require a conjunct without e-. There are no 
examples of hypothetical clauses outside of direct speech in the corpus, and only three 
instances of 'before' clauses, two of which show contradictory treatments, given in (6) and 
(7). In (6), the narrator uses an e-conjunct in the adverbial 'before' clause, which goes 
against conversational usage (see Chapter 4, examples 24 - 25); and in (7) a different narrator 
uses a conjunct without the preverb, in accord with conversational usage: 



(6) 



50 [ E-hvamsiie -nyetrgongsk e-byawat giw 
neyap i je o nene e-nat niw osen, 
"Nnedwendan debendemak . " ] nc 



Before the four days ended , the 
couple came back , and the man said 
to his father, "I want our belongings.' 

(JS.4.2) 



(7) 



46 [Iw je i ga-nakwneget e - wi - debma t 
pi bwamshe gwabtonet . ] ^c 



The one that planned it would grab 
him before he reached the shore . 

(MD 102694) 



88 



There are many sociolinguistic factors which could potentially account for this difference: 
the speakers are grew up in different communities, belong to different generations, and show 
idiolectal variation in narrative style. There is also the potential factor of using ofbwamshe 
'before' as a preverb in (6), and as a particle in (7).^ At this point, there is simply too little 
data to suggest an analysis. 

The second qualification concerns narrative sentences with main clause conjuncts that 
appear without the preverb e-. There are a few such sentences in the corpus; examples are 
given in (8) and (9), which are both from the same text: 

(8) 

28 [A^ , baJjwichget j igbyek . ] nc Ah, he waited there by the shore. 

(MD 102694) 



(9) 



35 [A, gkanabmat o wabozo.li 



Ah, the Rabbit looked across at him . 
(MD 102694) 



Since both verbs are imperfective, and the sentences appear in different parts of the 
story, it is likely that this is some other construction type, rather than a production or 



There is the additional complexity of (6) and (7) belonging to different narrative discourse types. (6) is a 
narrative sentence, and (7) is an explanatory aside, which, as will be discussed below, have different 
grammatical requirements. 

"^ There is a preverb a- that appears infrequently and in similar contexts as e-. However, the intonation and 
pauses in the recording of this text indicate that the a in (7) and (8) are clearly interjections rather than preverbs. 
(The interjections a and o are frequently found at the beginning of sentences in this text, and as is often the case 
with interjections, their semantic contribution is difficult to pin down). 

89 



transcription error. As with the case of adverbial clause usage, more data will have to be 
analyzed before this can be worked out. 

Abstracting away from these complications, we will say for now that the primary 
difference between the NC and the CC is the form of the main clause verb. This contrast 
becomes important in narrative, since, although the NC is the predominant construction 
found myadsokanen, there are usually several instances of the CC in any given text, 
sometimes occurring in sequences of sentences. 

According to Hockett, independent verbs in narrative (that is, instances of the CC) 
indicate "explanatory material directed to the listener, not integrally part of the story, or else 
direct quotation" (Hockett, 1948d, p. 216). Indeed, throughout the texts, direct speech 
always occurs in the conversational pattern. This is illustrated in (10) by the speech of two 
characters, Rabbit and Lion. 

(Sentences in the NC are indicated by surrounding the clause in brackets followed by 
a subscript "NC" label, and sentences in the CC are indicated by the use of brackets followed 
by a subscript "CC". If there is no finite verb in the main clause, as in the case of verbless 
sentences (see 1:5), or when the main clause verb is a participle (see 14:7), the construction 
type is formally — although not necessarily functionally — indeterminate, in which case, no 
surrounding brackets are used.) 



90 



(10) 

44 [Iw je e-bme-byat niw beshkmwen 

e-nat] Nc [ "Nseze ! Gyetnam nzeges. ]cc 



45 [ Nwebi ' we . ] cc 

46 [Weye zhode nshiwnagze anwe ge gin 
gneshiwnagwes nesh je win nwech.]cc 

47 [ Ibe gge- zhyamen ; geten nshiwnagze ■ " ] cc 

48 [Beshkmwe e-kedot , ] f,c [ " Gzhyamen , 
gge-we-wabmamen . " ] cc 



When he [Rabbit] came across the 
Hon he said to him, "Brother, I'm 
very scared . 

I'm running away from someone. 

Someone here is pretty scary ; and 
you're scary , but he's even worse. 

Let's go over there; he sure is scary ." 

Lion said, " Lets go and take a look at 
him." 

(JS.4.1) 



Hockett provides three examples of 'parenthetical explanation' which come from the 
first of two glossed texts in his sketch. These are given in (1 1) and (12) below (my 
transliteration, Hockett' s translations): 



(11) 



[Neshnabe je o weni'get espen gi -y awe . ] cc 



'When the Indian went trapping, the 
raccoon went along . ' 

(HOPTl) 



(12) 

11 [Gi je yaygenwik je giw; ]cc [jo je mamda e^ 'They were just the same Size, these 

wi-wepodwat ; e-bwa-gkenmat ni wde- two, you see; SO it was impossible for 

espenmen . ] ^c him [the man] to hit him [the other 

coon] ; he couldn't tell which one was 
his own. ' 



12 [Pene je ni wde-espenmen nam-yegwan gi- 

wjeshnon. ] cc 



'His own coon was always 

underneath. ' 

(HOPTl) 



Hockett' s analysis of the use of independents in direct speech need not be disputed, 

since it is uniformly the case. However, the analysis of remaining instances of independent 

verbs as occurring in 'explanatory material' raises several questions. One question lies in 

91 



defining what is meant or encompassed by 'explanatory material.' Is it the case that the CC 
marks background information? And if this is the case, does the NC by contrast mark 
foreground information, or the 'main thread' of the narrative? 

Hockett's analysis also raises questions of descriptive adequacy. Many instances of 
the CC in narrative defy categorization as explanatory material, or even inclusion in the 
wider category of background material. Can these instances themselves be categorized, and 
if so, what relationship do these uses have, if any, to uses already described? 

In the discussion below, I argue that the main distinction between the CC and NC is, 
in fact, their role in grounding (Section 6.2) and that the remaining uses of the CC can be 
explained as instances of narrative-internal perspective (Section 6.3). 

6.2 Grounding 

Linguistic analyses of narrative discourse usually recognize two broad types of clause: 
one type which provides the main events of a narrative, and another which provides 
supportive information such as explanations, evaluations and descriptive commentary. The 
terminology for these two types varies, however, I will refer to the main narrative 
information as 'foreground' and the supportive information as 'background'.^ In the 
following sections, I show that a main function of the CC is to encode background 
information, and in contrast, the use of the NC in narrative encodes foreground information. 



^ The use of these terms is after Hopper (1979a; 1979b) and Hopper and Thompson (1980) who compared this 
discourse phenomenon to a gestalt figure/ground relationship and tied it into a larger discussion of language and 
cognition. Labov (1972) uses the terms 'narrative clause' and 'non-narrative clause'. Grimes uses 'event' and 
'non-event' 

92 



The discussion in this section is based on Grimes's analysis of narrative (1975) which 
recognizes the need to partition narrative information into these two categories. 

6.2.1 Use of the CC for background 

According to Grimes, background information includes settings, explanations, and 
evaluations. Each of these types is discussed in turn below. 

Settings. Settings include information about the time, place, and location of a 
narrative, or give information about the circumstances in which a narrative takes place 
(Grimes, 1975). The excerpt in (12) below contains an example of a setting. After the 
opening sentence, the storyteller switches to the CC. The reason for the shift is to provide 
information that sets up events in the story: 

(13) In the story of Raccoon and Wolf, Raccoon knows where a stash of pork rind is, and 
while out on his forays, has also found a beehive. In the first episode of the story. 
Raccoon tricks Wolf into thinking the beehive is the sack of meat. The following 
information prepares the listener for the setup of the trick: 

1 [Ode yadsokan espen e-bmebtot . ]hc This story IS about the Raccoon 

running along . 

[E-ye-bmebtot o espen wgi-wabman amon While Raccoon was running along , 

2 e-gojnenet . ] cc he saw bees (a hive) hanging (from 

a tree). 

[Ga-zhewebzet je gi-gmegmode gokosh He would go about stealing pork 

3 wzheyen ngo j i . ] CC rind somewhere. 

(JS.4.4) 

Some texts, like that of the example just given, dispense with the setting in a matter of 
one or two sentences. Other texts have several sentences at the beginning which serve as an 
setting. In the following excerpt, the setting begins at line 2, and runs through line 6 (and 

93 



arguably through line 7, although the discourse pattern of line 7 is not discernable). The 
narrative proper begins at line 8, which switches to the NC. The NC continues then as the 
predominant pattern: 
(14) 



[I me se ngodek neshnabek e-wdodanwat . ] i 



[Gi-dbedbowek ; gego zhena gi- 
yajdanawat . ] ^c 

[I je ibe iribesek nawesh [gagita] odan 
gi -y awen ibe . ] cc 

I je ye i ga-wje-dbedbowewat . 



5 [I je ngot nene neshzhena gi-wijewe 
neko . ] cc 

6 [Jo zhena win gego gi-zhe-dbowesi 
neshzhena e-zhyat . ] cc 

7 Ga-wj e-zhyat je e-wi-mnekwet . 

8 [Ngodek e-dokit bama zhena j o 
weye ; ] nc [ j ayek gi-maj iwagben . ] cc 

9 [E-gingenayek nsheke . ] ^c 

10 [Ngodek jigbyek e-gi-we- j a j ibdebet 
gdewanen e-giwadzet i je o mtek e-gi- 
ggenonat . ] ^c 



Once there was a village. [More 
literally, 'some people had a 
village']. 

They were having a council ; talking 
about something. 

And there was a town in the middle 
of a lake. 

That's where they would go for their 
council. 

So there was one man who used to go 
along for no particular reason. 

He did not go for the counc il; he 
went for no particular reason. 

The reason he went was to drink . 

Once this man woke up and nobody 
was there; everyone must have left . 

He was left all alone . 

One time he went by the lake and sat 
by a log, feeling lonely , and the tree 
spoke to him. 

(JS.4.5) 



Explanations. Grimes describes explanations as "not part of the narratives 
themselves, but [information that] stands outside them and clarifies them," and that 
".. .explanations and comments about what happens have a secondary role that may be 



94 



reflected in the use of distinctive grammatical patterns" (Grimes, 1975, p. 55-6). In 
Potawatomi, explanations are marked by the use of the CC, which sets them off from the 
majority of the narrative sentences in the NC. For example, the last clause in (14:8) (which 
occurs after the setting) explains that the man suddenly finds himself alone because his 
friends have abandoned him. It is common to find such sentences in the CC occurring in 
isolation within a narrative. This is probably because explanations generally have a local 
function, serving as asides that comment on or explain events in nearby sentences. Settings, 
in contrast, tend to be longer and generally occur at the beginning of a narrative; their 
location is in keeping with their more global function of providing information which helps 
stage the narrative as a whole. 

Examples like (13:8) which provide additional information about the story -world are 
what I call story-internal explanations. They are fairly common in the corpus, and include 
Hockett's examples of 'parenthetical explanation' in (1 1) and (12). Additional examples are 
given in (15) - (19) below, preceded by a description of the context: 

(15) A village chief has been trying to get Rabbit killed by sending him on all kinds of 

perilous missions. None of these devices work, and in the end, it is Rabbit who kills 
himself by following through on a boast that he can walk through a fireplace without 
harm. Of course, a fireplace isn't very perilous unless there is a fire in it, so the 
narrator takes pains to interrupt the story in order to provide the fire: 



^ Grimes uses the terni 'background' for what I am calhng 'explanations'. I reserve the term 'background' to 
refer to the broader category that includes settings, explanations and evaluations. 

95 



88 [I je iw bodwagen megwa shkode gi^ So there was still a fire in the 

temget . ] cc fireplace. 

(.TS.4.1) 

(16) A man is out hunting with his wife and son. The woman, in gathering bark to make 
cord, meets a bear with whom she initiates a sexual relationship. In Algonquian lore, 
animal-human matings upset the natural balance which can lead to all kinds of 
trouble, providing plenty of fodder for stories.^ In this tale, the man's hunting is 
affected, and he cannot kill anything. The man ends up near starvation, but the 
woman and the boy are well-fed and happy. As an aside, the narrator posits the 
following as the reason for their different situations: 

9 [Ode mko wgi-sheman . ] ec This bear was feeding them. 

(JS.4.6) 

(17) In the French Story, a destitute boy and his grandfather are able to raise their fortune 
as a result of being taught blacksmithing by the French Spirit. In the process of 
acquiring stock, they obtain a pony that turns out to be magical. The narrator 
explains the special function of the pony in lines 18 and 19: 

18 [O negdoshas wgi-nizhokmagwan . ] cc The pony helped them. 

19 [ E-bwamshe-je-yewawat negdoshayen Before they had the pony, the 
wgi-wbesh'eg wan seksiyen wgetganeswa. ] cc deer were rummg their gardens. 

(JS.4.3) 

(18) A boy and his grandfather discover a scheme to spy on them, cooked up by the man's 
son and the son's wife. The couple hide her mother in a box, provisioned with food, 
and leave the box of 'valuables' with the boy and grandfather to guard while they 
leave to go on a trip. The boy and grandfather discover the old lady in the box, which 
they have been using as a dinner table. Line 48 provides the prop which the boy uses 
to suffocate the old lady (line 49) while she is unconscious. 



' This insight is from Richard Rhodes (p.c). 



96 



4 7 [Iw je e-gi-babgemat niw ndemozeyen. ] i 

48 [Jak bkwezhgasen wa-mijet zhiw gi- 
tene. ] cc 

49 [Iw je e-gi-bkwenshkodwat niw 
bkwezhgasen mine iw ziwabo abte e-gi- 
zigwebnek . ] uc 



So he knocked the old lady 

(in the head). 

All the crackers for her to 

eat were there . 

He stuffed the crackers in 

her mouth and poured out half of 

the cider. 

(JS.4.2) 



(19) The last example comes from the story of Raccoon and Wolf. After Raccoon and 
Wolf get to a stash of meat inside a shed, Raccoon selects a piece and drags it back 
out the hole where they crawled in. Wolf, however, gorges himself all night, which 
explains why he was unable to scramble away when the white people come into the 
shed to check on their meat: 



39 [O mwe gi-wzam-debsenyet jo mamda 
e-wi-majnewit e-pich-dbomayek . ] qq 



The wolf was too full ; he couldn't 
move away while they talked over 
(what to do about) him . 

(.TS.4.4) 



Sometimes, a narrator will refer to a cultural practice in order to explain story events. 



10 



which I call story-external explanations. Two examples are given in (20) and (21). 

(20) A listener in hearing the opening of the Rabbit Story (see example 1), might object 
that the villagers, angry at Rabbit for destroying their gardens, would just kill Rabbit 
outright. If they could, of course, we wouldn't have much of a story. To counter this 
potential objection, the narrator interjects a reference to background cultural 
knowledge: community law prevented the villagers from executing the Rabbit, which 
is why they tried to set up his 'accidental' death: 



It is worth noting that the narrator's audience, Hockett, was an outsider to this community, and presumably 
was not familiar with these cultural practices. 

97 



8 [Iw je o wabozo zhiw gi-dbendagze odanek Since the Rabbit belonged to the 
jo je mamda i e-wi-zhe-nsawat mamwech village, they couldn't kill him as 

bshe gego gj iyek bama a-je-nsawat . ] cc they please; they would have to get 

something more on him m order to 
kill him . 

(JS.4.1) 

(21) In the story of the woman who has relations with a bear, the son, who wants to tell his 
father what is happening, is prevented from doing so because his father is out hunting 
during the day, and the boy sleeps with his mother at night. The narrator provides 
cultural information to explain why the husband and wife slept separately. This 
information also reinforces why the husband's hunting was affected by his wife's 
behavior: success in hunting is attributable largely to following certain codes of 
behavior. A man and wife sleeping together during the hunt is enough to affect 
hunting success, let alone the extraordinary situation of one's wife sleeping with a 
bear. 

10 I je iw pi neshnabek e-giwsewat jo And when people went hunting, 

[wgi-widpemasiwan wdekweyomwan babkan ^jjgy ^j^jj^'^ gjggp ^j^j^ tj^gjj- ^ives; 

zhena gi-nbek . ] cc t^ey slept separately. 

(JS.4.6) 

Evaluations. Evaluations are clauses that express the speaker's reaction to events in 
the narrative, or to the narrative as a whole. Evaluative clauses can occur throughout 
narrative (Labov and Waletzky, 1967), and tend to be mobile, that is, they can be extracted 
and placed at other points in the narrative without significantly disrupting the narrative 
continuity (Grimes, 1975). In the Potawatomi narratives I have examined, evaluations tend 
to occur at the beginnings and ends of narratives, often in thematically paired sequences of 
sentences where the sentences in the conclusion recapitualate those of the introduction. This 
seems to be a common phenomenon with stories whose telling serves an explanatory or 



98 



moralistic function: as Grimes notes, "a story with a moral is. . .likely to be an exhortation 
within which there is an embedded narrative" (Grimes, 1975, p. 64). 

The excerpt in (21) is from a modern text that 'explains' why rabbits today have short 
tails. Lines 1-5 contain the initial evaluative material. The narrator returns to this theme in 



line 56 after the conclusion of the main narrative 



11 



(22) 



[O, neko ngi-babzedwak neshnabek 
e-yayajmowat eyayengajmowat . ] cc 



I used to listen to the people telling 
stories ; something they laughed 
about. 



2 

3 

4 
5 



[Iw je] ni wabozoyen ngodek e-gi-yajmawat . Once thev told abou t Rabbit. 



[O, bnewi neko o wabozo gi-gnewanwe . ] cc 



[ Gi - gnewanwedek kedwik . ] ^c 



Oh, at one time Rabbit had a long 
tail. 



He must have had a long tail , they 
say . 
Iw je i wech-shkwanwat ngom ga-zhewebzet . That's why he has a short tail today, 

because of what happened to him . 



Continued... 

56 Iw je iw yedek wech-ngom-shkwanwat o 

wabozo, [ gi -kedwik neko gi gekyajek neko 
e-gi-wnanodogwa e-yangajmowat . ] cc 



That's must be why Rabbit has a 
short tail today, the elders used to 
say , when I heard them telling funny 
stories . 

(MD 102694) 



The French story, given in (23) - (25) and discussed below is a similar example, having 
extensive thematically related evaluative sections. 



Labov (1972, p. 371) notes that narrators sometimes stop in the middle of narration to address the listener and 
tell what the point of the story is. He calls this 'external evaluation', since it is a break from the storytelling 
frame. The example in (22) would fall under Labov's category of 'embedded evaluations', a more 
sophisticated device which does not break the continuity of the story. 

99 



6.2.2 Use of the NC for foreground 

If a primary function of the CC in narrative is to indicate background, then one must 
next address whether the NC is used for foreground. In order to see if this is the case, we will 
now examine the French Story, a short narrative given in its entirety in (23) - (25) below. 

This narrative is an example of a story told as an explanation for a real world 
phenomena. As discussed above, a story which functions as an explanation commonly has 
evaluation sections which bracket an embedded narrative. In this case, the embedded 
narrative tells the story of how the French Spirit helps out a destitute boy and his grandfather. 
The evaluation sections explain that some Potawatomi cultural practices are ultimately 
attributable to the French (via the French Spirit). 

The story begins with an evaluative section (lines 1-13) which is told almost entirely 
in the CC. Most of the verbs are imperfective, and the clauses are not temporally ordered: 
(23) 



1 [Ngom wdopi wemtegozhi yewak naganit.]cc 

2 [Iw je ngom wdopi nnodamen weye e-wepodek 
biwabek wizhgya e-nayek wi zhe ibe Kansas 

memek . ] qq 

3 O je ye o gche-mnedo eng[e]t wemtegozhi. 

4 O ye o gangezot wemtegozhi ekdonegek . 

5 [ I j e ngom bme-yewak zhena nekmek . ] cc 



[Jo win gdemagzesi ginan wi eneshnabewigo 
gdekdomen . ] cc 

[Wemtegozhi mane ton wzaw-zhonya mine 
mkede-biwabek . ] qq 

[Mine ngom e-gkendemgo 
bgoch-negdoshayek mine seksik jak 
zhena e-yemgek . ] uc 

[Ode je nene win wdebenman . ] cc 



Up to today, the French are the 
leaders somewhere. 

Nowadays we hear someone 
blacksmithing , especiaUy there in 
Kansas, they say . 

That's the great spirit of the French. 

That's the lost French, so they say. 

Now he is moving around in different 
places. 

He is not poor ; we who are Indians 
say that. 

The French have lots of gold and 
black iron. 

And today we know wild horses and 
deer and so forth are there . 

This man owns them. 



100 



10 [Ode je wemtegozhi gzhe-mnedon Now God helped the French to be 
wgi-nizhokmagon e-wi-mishgwezet ode je powerful , but our brother the Spanish 
anet gikansenan Spanish e-nayek , ode was Victorious ., they saVi. 
wdekwenzhgewan 2 . ] cc 

11 [I je ngom wdopi ode wemtegozhi nwech zhe Up to today, the French are very 
ninweze zhode kik . ] cc weak m the world. 

12 [Ngodek je ode wemtegozhi wgi -ni zhokmowen At one time, the French helped out 
neshnaten . ] cc the Indians. 

13 [I je i pi ode wemtegozhi wgi-minan At that time the French gave him a 
ngemwen i je ye i ngom gode neshnaJDek song, and that's the one these Indians 
e-yewat i je ode ngom nim'ediwen gode here use m their dancing to this day . 
neshnatek e-gche-yowat . ] cc 

(JS.4.4) 

The switch to the NC in Une 8 is at first surprising, since it seems to be a fi'ee clause 
just Uke the surrounding sentences. ^^ However, it is different in that it takes place in 'real' 
time, as opposed to 'story' time. It is structurally similar to line 2, which also is framed as 
the present with ngom 'now, today'. However, the reference to wild horses is based in reality 
(there were, for example wild horses on certain Potawatomi reservations within people's 
memory) compared to the blacksmith of line 2, which seems to represent a mythical or 
spiritual being. The function of line 8 seems to be an aside, making it an aside within the 
larger evaluative section which is in itself a kind of aside. Since the CC is expected in 
evaluations, perhaps the preferred way to distinguish such 'double asides' is to switch into 
theNC. 

The next section contains the narrative proper. This begins at line 14, where the 
storyteller switches to the NC. The NC is used throughout this section to form the matrix of 
sequential events in the story. The sentences that occur in the conversational pattern 
(indented here from the other text) are background information. Like the clauses in the 



^' The first verb is a conjunct, since it has the e- preverb rather than stem-internal change expected of the 
participle. The mam and subordinate clauses are therefore in the NC. 

101 



opening evaluation, these sentences tend to be non-sequential (lines 19 and 30) and 
frequently contain verbs with imperfective aspect (lines 18, 25, and 29): 



(24) 

14 [I je o wemtegozhi e-gi-nat niw 
gigabeyen] nc [ "Nasena zhechgen 
ezh-widmonan . " ] cc 

15 [I je o wemtegozhi e-wishteyaywat i 
e-gkeno ' mewat2 ni gigateyen. ] nc 

16 [I je o gigaJDe wikapi e-gi-ne-wishteyaywat 
e-gi-gkeno ' mowat niw wmeshomsen . ] nc 

1 7 [Wikapi e-gi-negdoshayensawat m ine 
zhena gego . ] ^c 

18 [O negdoshas wgi-nizhokmagwan. ] cc 



19 



20 



25 



[ E -bwamshe - j e -ye wawa t 
negdoshayen wgi-wbesh ' egwan 
seksiyen wgetganeswa . ] cc 



[Gigate e-ggenonat ni negdoshayen, ] ^c [ "Ni 
je wa-zhechgeyan ? " ] cc 

21 [I je o negdosha e-nat , ] nc ["Wigbish 
mtegok wdenen ge-dkobdon nkwegnak 
gekwedso ' egme-kezhyep ge-giwta ' omgon iw 
ggetganwa . ] qq 

22 [I je gi seksik e-wi-zegzewat . ] cc 

23 [Nesh je gego zhe gwi-zhe-ngok ■ " ] cc 



2A [o seksi e-kedot ] nc [ "Wegni je o 
Wakayaiide bye-zizdeyatek? " ] cc 



[Egme-kezhyep zhena o je wemtegozhi 
ni zhokmo wen i je mine wa-mijwat ^ 
wiyas o gi-wje-wdetnanawa2 . ] cc 



26 [Ga-gish-jagnenet wdenwemagnen wmeshomsen 
ga-gish-ihbonet e-gi -ma j i t . ] ^c 



The French told one boy, "Be careful 
to do things the way I tell you to." 

So that French (Spirit) was teaching s 
the boy how to blacksmith i . 

Finally, the boy started to blacksmith , 
and he taught his grandfather. 

Finally, they had a pony and so forth. 

The pony helped them. 

Before they had the pony, 
the deer were ruining their 
gardens. 

The boy asked the pony, "What 
should I do ?" 

And the pony said , "Get some bark 
from the basswood tree, tie it around 
my neck, jump on , and ride me 
around your garden every morning. 

The deer will be scared . 

Of course, they will say something to 
you." 

The deer said "What does that round- 
tooth have sticking out between his 
legs?"'^ 

Every morning the French 
Spirit helped them, and 
that's how they obtained ^ 
their meat to eat i . 

After his relatives and grandfather 
died, he left. 



^ Native speakers are unsure exactly how this sentence should be translated. It may be a sexual joke, or it may 
refer to the monstrous appearance of a man ridmg horseback. Round-tooth may be an epithet for a human being 
(as used by the deer!). 

102 



21 [I je geyafce wemtegozhi nizhokmowan 

geyabe j e ngom gnizhokmagnan . ] cc 

28 I je ngom pi neshnate wemtegozhi 

mskwe we j -gwgezhkek o wemtegozhi 
e-gi-zhwenmat . 



29 [Ode gigate e-gi-majit e-gi-byat odanek 
neshnaben eyenet;]nc 

[ga-gkendek je ni wemtegozhiyen 
wgi-gkeno 'mowan neshnaben 
wa-zhi ' enet . ] qq 



30 



[Ga-gish-gkeno 'mowat wiznaben 
wa-zhetonet, gego wgi-nan : ] cc ["Gego 
nsedi ' kegon , " ] cc [ wgi-nan. ]cc 



Still the French helped him, 
and is helping us to this day. 

Up to today Indians have 
French blood inside them, 
because the French (Spirit) 
blessed them. 

This boy left and came to where there 
was an Indian village; 

what he learned from the 
French he taught the people 
who were there. 

After he taught his fellow 
people what to do, he told 
them something: "Don't kill 
one another," he said. 



31 [I je o wemtegozhi e-gi-nat niw gigabeyen 
ga-widmowak e-wi-bwa-mje-dodadwat , ] f,c 

[mine i je ngom wdopi neshnabek 
enwek-dbenbwek . ] cc 



And the French told the boy what to 
tell them, that they should not abuse 
each other , 

and so up to this day, the 
Indians are surely civilized. 



(JS.4.3) 
In the conclusion of the story, the narrator returns to the evaluative theme of the 
introduction, reiterating the reason for the story's telling. Once again we have the evaluative 
information coded in the CC. 

(25) 



32 [I je ngom wdopi dewe ' gen-nim' ediwen 
debwetanawa neshnabek i ye i ga-gowat ni 
wemtegozhiyen . ] cc 

33 [Iw je ngom wdopi jak neshnabek 
wdebwe t anawa ode madmowen iw je 
we j -mno-widokwdadwat . ] cc 

34 [Nchiwenmok e-wabdawat ngom wdopi . ] cc 



Up to this day the Indians believe in 
the drum dance; that's the one the 
French told him about. 

And up to today, all the Indians 
believe this way and that's why they 
are good friends. 

They are happy to see each other up 
to today. 



35 Iw je ekwak ode wemtegozhi yajmowen. 



So that's how long this French story 
is. 



103 



6.2.3 The grounding function of the CC and NC 

Based on the data presented above, it seems clear that a primary function of the CC and 
NC in narrative is to distinguish foreground and background information/"* It is no surprise 
that Potawatomi should grammaticalize a grounding contrast. It has been proposed that the 
foreground/background distinction is a functional universal in narrative discourse (Hopper, 
1979b). Nor is it surprising that such a contrast should be achieved by means of 
morphological marking on the verb: languages show considerable variation in the 
grammatical devices which they employ to encode grounding; these range from the use of 
specialized discourse particles to the verbal properties of aspect, voice, and even word order 
(Hopper, 1979a). In some languages, such as English, grounding isn't associated with any 
single grammatical feature, but rather is associated with a set of properties (Hopper and 
Thompson, 1980).*^ 



^'' It might be suggested that the CC and NC are not being used for grounding at all, but are rather the result of a 
process like clause chaining. In languages that use clause chaining in narrative, a series of non-finite clauses is 
terminated by a finite clause. The function of clause chaining appears to be to delimit sentences by topic, since 
each finite clause corresponds roughly to the end of a paragraph (Longacre, 1985, p. 265). Under a clause 
chaining analysis we would therefore expect a more even distribution of independent verbs to reflect thematic 
divisions in the text. However, as we have seen, independent verbs do not have an even distribution; in fact, at 
first glance they appear to have a scattershot distribution except m the introductions and conclusions of texts, 
where they cluster (due to their use for settings and evaluations). 

^^ Foreground clauses are associated with high transitivity, with verbs that tend to be perfective, sequential, 
kinetic events and realis; background clauses are associated with low transitivity, with verbs that tend to be 
imperfective, non-sequential, stative and irrealis (Hopper and Thompson, 1 980). 

104 



6.3 Use of the CC for internal viewpoint 

Once we redefine the primary use of the CC in narrative as encoding background 
information, we take care of many instances of the CC, notably settings and evaluations, 
which cannot be perspicuously defined as 'explanatory material'. However, several puzzling 
instances remain which defy even this wider categorization/^ 

In this section, I argue that these problematic examples show the use of the CC for 
narrative-internal viewpoint, where the narrator represents information as coming from a 
particular character's point of view. This imposition of a unique perspective different from 
the narrator's can have the effect of making the narrative more lively: the audience 'sees' 
through the character's eyes.^'' A primary function of internal viewpoint is therefore for 
vividness. However, because internal viewpoint limits vision to the character, it can also be 
used to restrict the validity of information to that character. Along with the function of 
vividness then, another function of internal viewpoint is to emphasize the epistemic distance 
between the narrator's thoughts and beliefs, and those of a character. 

This analysis finds support in the use of the CC for direct speech, which has also been 
shown to be a kind of internal viewpoint. In a study of news texts, Sanders and Redeker 



^'^ A likely explanation for why Hockett missed these problematic cases was that the texts he collected contain 
relatively few instances of the CC outside of direct speech. Modem texts that were first audiotaped and then 
transcribed indicate a much more frequent use of the CC, and therefore many more instances outside of direct 
speech which require an explanation. 

" I use the term 'internal' perspective in contrast with 'external' perspective, where narrators report the actions 
of characters. This is the classical distinction between mimesis and diegisis (Plato, 1 968). This topic has 
received considerable attention in the field of narratology, where it is also refered to as 'focalization' — see 
Genette (1980) for a discussion. 

105 



(1996) found that internal perspective is an important function of reported speech: with 
indirect speech, the narrator shares responsibility for the content with the subject, however in 
direct speech, the responsibility is presented as remaining entirely with the subject. 
Therefore, treating the examples below as cases of internal perspective subsumes them under 
the broader umbrella of perspective phenomena that includes direct speech, allowing what 
would otherwise be problematic instances of the CC to be easily assimilated into the present 
analysis. 

Section 6.3. 1 contains examples of the CC used for vividness. Section 6.3.2 shows 
the use of the CC for epistemic distance, in a particular context I call 'quote frames'. Section 
6.3.3 shows other cases of epistemic distancing. In Section 6.3.4, 1 argue that the use of the 
CC for epistemic distancing has been extended to a new context, what I call 'semantic 
opposition' . 

6.3.1 Vividness 

Internal viewpoint can be used so that the narrative seems to come from a particular 
character's point of view. This has the effect of making the narrative more lively; the 
narrator 'shows' what happened instead of reporting it. 

In the story of How Rabbit Got a Short Tail, the narrative begins with the Rabbit 
stopped on the shore of a river, wishing to cross it in order to get to the clover on the opposite 
side. In line 12, the Crocodile character is introduced. Line 13 is in the NC. In line 14, the 
narrator switches to the CC, apparently taking the rabbit's perspective, since what is 'sticking 
out' is most apparent to an observer above the water: 



106 



(26) 

12 I je ge wi zhi o gagtanago i yedek. So must be Crocodile was there. 

13 [Beshoch zhe na zhi jigbyek [ge] He was floating m the water near the 
e-gegwijek . ] nc shore . 

i-^ [ z agw j anegwi j en zhi . ] cc His nose was sticking out there. 

(MD 102694) 

In the next example, we again see through the Rabbit's eyes, since the crocodile is 
only in 'last place' if he is located at the opposite shore from Rabbit: 

(27) 

A6 [[win] ibe shkweyak gi-nshkweshen i ga- The Crocodile that planned it lay at 

nakwneget gagtanago .] cc the end , there m last place. 

(MD 102694) 

The use of the CC for vividness seems to be less common among the 1940's texts, 
although the following are two possible examples (the story of Raccoon Running Along), 
where the viewpoint in line 28 is the Raccoon's, and the Wolfs in line 29: 

(28) 

28 [Espen o mtegok gi-gdegosi e-wawabmat niw The Raccoon was high (in a tree) and 
mwen wete zhe e-gi-bdek ■ egaznet . ] cc saw the Wolf get badly stung . 

29 [I je o mwe jo gi-nshkadzesi ; neshnege That Wolf didn't get mad ; he still 
megwa gi-dnendan i wa-zhyawat e-wi-gmodwat thought the meat would be there, and 
goko shen . ] cc wanted to go there and steal that 

pork. 

(JS.4.4) 

What makes it difficult to decide on a vividness analysis for examples like (28) is that 
they could also be explained as instances of explanations. While it is difficult to tease these 
two analyses apart, the fact that most potential 'vividness' examples show this dual 



107 



interpretation could be an added motivation for the development of the CC as a perspective 
device. 

6.3.2 Quote frames and epistemic distancing 

As we have seen, the conversational pattern is always used in narrative to represent 
the speech or thoughts of a character. In (26), an excerpt from the story oi Raccoon and 
Wolf, the discourse of the two characters (lines 6-10) takes place in the CC.^^ In the larger 
sentence which embeds each quote, the verb of speech is in the conjunct, indicating the use 
of the NC which is consistent throughout the larger passage (as shown by the inclusion of 
lines 5 and 11): 



(29) 



5 [Gete zhena e-gi-nkweshkwat mwen.]} 



Sure enough, he (the Raccoon) met 
Wolf. 



6 [ "Nshi , gde-ton ne gego wa-mijyan ? " ] cc "Brother, do you have anything to 
[e^nat espenen.]Nc eat?" he said to the Raccoon. 

7 ["Jo zhe kwech bkeji nde-ton wa-mijyan "Not much, I JUSt have a Uttle toeat 
nawkwek , " ] cc [e-nat espen . ] nc foj- ^y gwn dinner," said the 

Raccoon. 

8 [Mwe e-natewat , ] sc [ "Wegni je etoyen ? " ] cc Wolf asked him, "What do you 

have?" 



^^ The use of the CC for direct speech also extends to multiply -embedded quotes, where characters report the 
speech of other characters. In the following example, both the narrator's and the character's quotations are in 
the CC: 



20 [ Epitajmewat ngot mine e-kedot , ]xc ["Shebzhi 

ngi-nek, [ ' Nin nda-nsa, ' ] cc kedo. " ]cc 



While they were talking , another man 
said , "Lion said to me 'I can kill him' 
[he said]." 

(JS.4.1) 



108 



9 [Espen e-nat , ] ^c [ "Mteno zhe na bkeji 

gokosh-wzhey ndesa, " ] cc [e-nat . ] ^c 



Raccoon said , "I have just a little 
meat-rind," he said. 



10 [Mwe e-nat , ] nc [ "Mo jma shemshen o 
wzhey • " ] cc 

11 [I je o espen msach e-gi-minat . ] nc 



Wolf said , "Please feed me that rind." 
So the Raccoon finally gave it to him. 
(JS.4.2) 

While the use of the NC to frame quotations appears to be the norm; it is not 

universally the case, as shown by the example from the Hard Life story in (30). In lines 64- 

66, it is the CC and not the NC which frames the quotations: 

(30) 



62 [ Ga-gish-ngo ' wawat gigate neyap 

e-wawidmewat niw keweziyen, ] nc [ "Nmesho , 
ngodwak gwkengo ' gazo o ndemoze . " ] cc 



63 [ Nwi -mon ' wa . " ] cc 

64 [Kewezi]cc "Jo, gego" [wdenan. ]cc 

65 [ " Gda-bon-gdemagzemen iw ngodwak, "]cc 
[wdenan. ] cc 

66 [Kewezi]cc "Gego" [ wdenan . ] cc 



In the story of How Rabbit Got a Short Tail, 
used for a quote frame: 
(31) 

27 ["A, iw zhe yedek e-wi-dkemozh ' ewat 
gode , " ] cc [ zhede ' e o wabozo.]cc 



After they buried her , the boy went 
back and excitedly told the old man, 
"Grandfather, one hundred dollars is 
buried with that old lady. 

I'm going to dig her up ." 

But the old man said , "No, don't." 

"We could quit living poorly with 
that hundred," he said to him. 

"Don't," said the old man. 

(JS.4.2) 

we find a similar example of the CC 



"Ah, must be they [the Crocodiles] 
will tak e me across," thinks the 
Rabbit 



19 



(MD 102694) 



In Potawatomi narrative, reported speech, including the inner speech of thought, is typically represented as 
direct speech. Potawatomi has indirect speech, however, outside of narrative. 

109 



However, two sentences earlier in the same text, we have the following minimally distinct 
example, with the Rabbit's thoughts framed in the NC: 

(32) 



25 ["Gego zhe ode gagtanago nwi-nakwnek ,""[00 
[e-zhde ' at o wal30zo.]f,c 



"This Crocodile has something 
planned for me ," thought the Rabbit. 



(MD 102694) 

A few lines later in the same story, we have another example of Rabbit's inner speech framed 
intheNC: 



(33) 

36 "O, wzam ne zhe gete ode? 

37 [Gagtanago nwe j itmagodek ? " ] cc [s- 
zhde ' at . ] ^^ 



"Oh, can this really be? 

Will Crocodile really help me?" he 
thought . 

(MD 102694) 



What both (32) and (33) appear to have in common is Rabbit's suspicion of 
Crocodile's intentions. These stand in contrast with (3 1), where Rabbit thinks Crocodile and 
his cronies will help him out. In the latter cases, Rabbit's suspicion is in accord with the 
beliefs of at least the narrator and probably the audience as well, who likely come to the story 
with expectations about the Crocodile's dubious character. In (3 1), however, we have the 
contrast of Rabbit's naivete; an epistemic state which the narrator represents as distant from 
her own. 

The analysis that the CC is used by narrators for epistemic distancing finds support in 
the otherwise problematic instances of the Crocodile's speech in the How Rabbit Got a Short 
Tail story (lines 15 and 19), where the quotes are framed in the CC: 



110 



(34) 

15 ["A! Nshi ! Ni je ezhwebzeyen ? " ] cc [ wdenan 

ni wabozoyen. ] cc 



(35) 

19 ["O, jo wi zhe na gego abje yawsenon 

i , " ] cc [kedo o gagtanago . ] cc 



"Ah, little brother! What' s the 
matter ?" he said to the Rabbit. 

(MD 102694) 



"Oh, there's nothing much to that," 
said the Crocodile. 



(MD 102694) 

These can also be analyzed as epistemic distancing, since the narrator and audience are 
unlikely to have empathy for the Crocodile character. 

Returning again to the example in (30) (repeated below), the reported speech in lines 
64-66 framed in the CC may also represent internal viewpoint. Here however, there seems to 
be a shift: the contrast is not between the epistemic state of the narrator versus the character, 
but rather between the characters themselves, who hold conflicting points of view. 



(36) 



62 [Ga-gish-ngo ' wawat gigabe neyap 

e-wawidmewat niw keweziyen, ] no [ "Nmesho , 
ngodwak gwkengo ' gazo o ndemoze."]cc 



63 [Nwi-mon ' wa . " ] cc 

64 [Kewezilcc "Jo, gego" [ wdenan . ] cc 

65 [ " Gda-bon-gdemagzemen iw ngodwak ,"] cc 
[wdenan. ] cc 

66 [Kewezi]cc "Gego" [ wdenan . ] cc 



After they buried her , the boy went 
back and excitedly told the old man, 
"Grandfather, one hundred dollars is 
buried vyith that old lady. 

I'm going to dig her up ." 

But the old man said , "No, don't." 

"We could quit living poorly with 
that hundred," he said to him. 

"Don't," said the old man. 

(JS.4.2) 



111 



6.3.3 Other cases of epistemic distancing 

We now turn to examples other than quote frames which show the use of the CC for 
epistemic distancing. 

In the story of How Rabbit Got a Short Tail, as Rabbit is running across the bridge 
created by the crocodiles' backs, we are told (using the CC) that coming from his perspective 
('if someone were to see it'), there appears to be a hole in the water (the narrator later 
described it as the entrance to a burrow). The audience, of course, knows that it isn't a hole 
at all, but Crocodile's gaping jaws, waiting to grab Rabbit: 

(37) 

48 [O, [nme pa zho] megwa e-gche-bmebtot bama Qh, as he was dashing across , he 

zhe gate... [o] bikwa zhe na wangoyane soon [saw something] that looked JUSt 

wiye gego e-wabdek . ] cc ^xk^ ^ hole, [more literally: it was 

just like a hole when somebody saw 
It]. 

(MD 102694) 
Any character can serve as the locus of viewpoint in a story, including the narrator in 
the past. In (38), which comes from the end of the How Rabbit Got a Short Tail story, the 
narrator tells a mini-narrative about when she saw rabbits as a child and believed their tails 
had really been bitten off She begins in the NC (line 59). In line 60, she restricts the 
viewpoint to her thoughts as a little girl, switching to the CC to show the epistemic contrast 
with her current adult knowledge. She evaluates this belief from an adult perspective in line 
61: 



112 



(38) 

59 [Iw je o wabozo neko e-wi-wabmek megwa 
e-penojewyan , iw zhe neko i e - gwdenmewek 
iw wzewangos . ] nc 

60 [O, gete zhe na ode gi -gi shk j egadenek iw 
wzewangos , neko ngi-zhde ' a . ] ^c 

61 Nmet se na yedek wi na ! 



And when I used to see the rabbit, 
when I still was a child , I used to feel 
his little tail. 

Oh, for sure that little tail was bitten 
off , I used to think . 

I don't know about that! 

(MD 102694) 



6.3.4 Semantic opposition 

The last set of examples from the corpus that are subject to an internal perspective 
interpretation are shown in (39) and (40): 
(39) 



28 [I je ode nene e-gi-nme-ninwezet e-wzam- 
bkedet , ] mc [i j® ode kwe mine o gigabe 
pene zhena winwa gi-gimoch-wisnik . ] cc 



(40) 

116 [I je gi wewiwdeyek e-gi-yewat jayek 
debendemwat e-gi-mbomgek e-gi- 
gdemagzewat . ] f,c 

117 [Mine wzhonyamwa e-gi- jagsanek . ] ^c 

118 [O je kewezi mine gigabe gi-mno- 
bmadzik. ] cc 



So this man got to be weak from 
hunger , but the woman and the boy 
were secretly eating . 

(JS.4.6) 



And the couple settled; all that they 
owned [their stock and fowl] died, 
and they were poor . 

Also their money ran out . 

But the old man and the boy lived 
happily . 



(JS.4.2) 

These examples have similar adversative semantics, comparing the opposite 
situations of the protagonist and antagonist. Although the participants whose situation is 
framed in the CC changes (in (39) it is the antagonist's whereas in (40) it is the 
protagonists'), in both cases the second situation mentioned is the one framed in the CC. 



113 



Also, in both cases, the character(s) mentioned in the first part of the comparison are the ones 
that have been the subjects of the immediately preceding discourse. 

It is possible that this adversative-like use of the CC could have developed out of the 
use of internal perspective for epistemic distancing, with the intermediate step of examples 
with quote frames that contrast the mental opposition of two characters within the story. 
From this point, it is but a short leap in use to contrast the opposite situations of those 
characters. These three uses are contrasted in examples (41) - (43) below: 

(41) EPISTEMIC DISTANCE BETWEEN NARRATOR AND CHARACTER (repeated 
from (31)) 



27 ["A, iw zhe yedek e-wi-dJcemozh ' ewat 
gode , " ] CC [ zhede ' e o wabozo . ] cc 



"Ah, must be they [the Crocodiles] 
wiU tak e me across," thinks the 
Rabbit 



20 



(MD 102694) 



(42) EPISTEMIC DISTANCE BETWEEN CHARACTERS (repeated from (30)) 



62 [Ga-gish-ngo ' wawat gigabe neyap 

e-wawidmewat niw keweziyen, ] nc [ "Nmesho , 
ngodwak gwkengo ' gazo o ndemoze . " ] cc 



63 [Nwi -mon ' wa . " ] cc 

64 [Kewezi]cc "Jo, gego" [wdenan. ]cc 

65 [ "Gda-bon-gdemagzemen iw ngodwak , " ] cc 
[ wdenan . Ice 

66 [Kewezilcc "Gego" [ wdenan . ] cc 



After they buried her, the boy went 
back and excitedly told the old man, 
"Grandfather, one hundred dollars is 
buried with that old lady. 

I'm going to dig her up." 

But the old man said , "No, don't." 

"We could quit living poorly with 
that hundred," he said to him. 

"Don't," said the old man. 

(JS.4.2) 



"° In Potawatomi narrative, reported speech, including the inner speech of thought, is typically represented as 

direct speech. Potawatomi has indirect speech, however, outside of narrative. 

114 



(43) OPPOSING SITUATIONS OF CHARACTERS / ADVERSATIVE (repeated from (39) 



28 [I j e ode nene e-g±-nme-ninwezet e-wzam- 
bkedet , ] nc [i js ode kwe mine o gigabe 
pene zhena winwa gi-gimoch-wisnik . ] qq 



So this man got to be weak from 
hunger , but the woman and the boy 
were secretly eating . 

(JS.4.6) 



6.4 Summary 

In the preceding sections, I have identified the uses of the NC and CC in narrative as 
shown in (41). As compared with the single discourse use of the NC for foreground clauses, 
the CC presents a rather large array of functions. The analysis presented above suggests 
grouping these into two main discourse contexts: background and internal viewpoint. 
(44) USES OF THE NC AND CC IN NARRATIVE 



Narrative Construction (NC): 


Conversational Construction (CC): 


1 . Foreground clauses 


1. Background: 




a. Settings 




b. Explanations 




i. Story-internal 




ii. Story -external 




c. Evaluations 




2. Internal viewpoint: 




a. Direct Speech 




b. Outside of direct speech 




i. Vividness 




ii. Epistemic distance between narrator 




and character 




iii. Epistemic distance between characters 




iv. Semantic opposition / adversative 



As a marker of foreground clauses, it is not surprising that the NC is the most 

common construction encountered in narrative. In contrast, it is surprising that the less 

frequent CC should occur in such a wide variety of narrative contexts. A possible series of 

historical developments that could explain these various uses of the CC is outlined below. 

115 



6.5 Possible historical sequence of CC uses in narrative 

It is likely that the first step in the development of the various uses of the CC in 
narrative was its use to represent direct speech. Here the CC is clearly iconic for basic 
conversation; we construe characters' dialog in a story as a kind of conversation, based on 
our understanding of how conversations work in reality. At this point, by virtue of its use to 
represent direct speech, the CC could become associated with internal viewpoint. 

Presumably, the reported conversation of characters in a story is normally used for 
vividness,^^ so it is likely that this was an early use of the CC outside of direct speech. 
However, internal viewpoint naturally extends to the representation of epistemic distance, 
allowing the CC to extend to these contexts as well. 

The primary use of the CC for epistemic distancing appears to be a contrast between 
the narrator and character's point of view. However, we have also seen cases where this is 
extended to represent opposing points of view between characters in a narrative, as in (30). 
Once the construction comes to represent a contrast contained within the bounds of the 
narrative, it is a short step to its use as an adversative, as in examples (39) and (40). 

Thus we have the following hypothetical series of developments: 



"' There is no choice of direct or indirect speech m Potawatomi narrative, at least, one never finds indirect 
speech. However, a narrator can choose to report what characters say or simply describe their actions. 

116 



(45) 



Basic mode 



Direct speech 

(internal viewpoint) Internal viewpoint: 
► • For vividness 



For epistemic distance Epistemic Distance: 



_^ - Between narrator and 

character 
-► • Between Characters 



>1 O fV O ^ Adversative 

^5<^ 1=^ go 



With this analysis, once we estabUsh direct speech as primary among the uses of the 
CC in narrative, the development of the other uses follow in a straightforward fashion. 
Although the beginning and endpoint of the series (direct speech and adversative uses) are 
quite different from each other, the stages in between represent rather small semantic 
changes. 



117 



(Hockett, 1948a) 
(Hockett, 1948b) 
(Hockett, 1948c) 

Bibliography 

Bloomfield, L. 1927. Notes on the Fox Language. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 4.181-219. 
Genette, Gerard. 1980. Narrative Discourse, an Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University 

Press. 
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse.vol. 207: Janua Linguarum Series Minor. 

The Hague: Mouton. 
Hockett, C. 1948a. Potawatomi I: Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and Morphological 

Survey. International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi II: Derivation, Personal Prefixes, and Nouns. International Journal of 

American Linguistics, XIV. 63-73. 
— . 1948c. Potawatomi III: The Verb Complex. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV. 139-49. 
— . 1948d. Potawatomi IV: Particles and Sample Texts. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV.213-25. 
Hopper, Paul. 1979a. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. Discourse and Syntax, ed. by 

Talmy Givon, 213-41. New York: Academic Press. 
— . 1979b. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. 

Studies in Language, 3.37-64. 
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. 

Language, 56.251-99. 
Labov, W. and J. Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis. Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, 

ed. by J. Helm, 12-44. Seattle: Unversity of Washington Press. 
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. 

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 
Longacre, Robert. 1985. Sentences as combinations of clauses. Language typology and 

syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 235-86. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
Plato. 1968. The Republic. New York: Basic Books. 
Sanders, Jose and Gisela Redeker. 1996. Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse. 

Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, ed. by E. Sweetser. Chicago: The University of 

Chicago Press. 
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of 

Toronto Press. 



119 



7 Mental Space Construction in Narrative 



7.1 Introduction 

In this chapter, I present a Mental Spaces analysis of the use of the CC and NC in 
narrative discourse. By using this model, we are able to capture the difference between 
the use of these constructions, as well as similarities across the various uses of the CC in 
narrative. The discussion is based on the work of Cutrer (1994), who analyzes the use of 
tense in written narrative using mental spaces. I show that this analysis is helpful for 
Potawatomi, but requires some modification to accommodate oral narrative. I also argue 
for an elaborated representation of ground in Mental Spaces theory. 

7.2 The domain of narrative 

A narrative event is represented by the creation of a narrative Space N which is set up 
relative to Space R. The embedding of the narrative space within Space R reflects that 
narration takes place within the larger context of speaker "reality".^ 

Any of several grammatical as well as non-verbal cues (attention getting devices, 
special seating arrangments, etc.) can serve to open the narrative space. Potawatomi has 



^ Here, I am referring to a traditional narrative, rather than narratives that are told in a few sentences in 
everyday discourse. Although the latter type of narrative is not explictly addressed here, those I have 
examined take the form of everyday discourse, and use the CC. I assume that traditional narrative is a 
marked form of discourse, both m function and form. If, or to what extent, this is also the case of casual 
narrative in everyday discourse is the subject of further study. 

118 



an explicit narrative space building phrase: / me se ngodek. .. (or a minor variation of this 
phrase) which functions like the English 'once upon a time' . The switch to the NC, 
which often takes place in the first sentence, can also signal the beginning of a narrative. 
Throughout the course of a narrative, multiple spaces will be created subordinate to 
Space N. These spaces might be past spaces, future spaces, hypothetical spaces — the 
same kinds of spaces that are opened in everyday discourse, only they are happening 
within the context of the narrative. These spaces, along with Space N, constitute a 
narrative domain, separate from the spaces set up in the reality domain, which include 
Space R and its other daughters.^ 



" I take 'domain' to mean a partition of spaces, used to group spaces that constitute potentially alternate 
construals of reality. Other examples of domains may be found in Cutrer (1 994), and include hypothetical 
domains set up by the protasis of conditional sentences, as well as the representation of alternate viewpoints 
in direct speech and narrative. 

119 



(1) REPRESENTATION OF THE NARRATIVE DOMAIN 



Space R 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



NARRATIVE 




N4, etc. 



The narrative domain brings with it a V-POINT (represented in (1) with the 
symbol "@"). The V-POINT in the "ReaUty" Domain is that of the speaker; in the 
Narrative Domain, the V-POINT is that of a fictional narrator. 

The concept of fictional narrator is based on Cutrer's analysis of written narrative 
as containing multiple V-POINTs, including a domain for implied author (supplied by the 
frame of novel writing), and another for a fictive narrator/narratee (evidenced by the 



120 



''parcours du recit"^ where the narrator and narratee are observers within the narrative). 
This model is too elaborate for oral narrative, which does not motivate an intervening 
'implied author'. However, when speakers make use of a narrative-internal perspective 
(such as presenting the narrative from the viewpoint of a particular character), I will 
argue that they access the viewpoint of a fictive narrator in the Narrative Domain. 

7.3 Grounding 

As discussed in Section 6.2, Potawatomi grammatically differentiates foreground 
and background sentences by the use of the NC for foreground and CC for background. 
In this section, I argue that the use of these grammatical constructions reflects a 
difference in the mental space configurations for foreground and background. 

7.3.1 Foreground 

I will begin my analysis of foreground information by examining the opening 
sentence of a narrative, given in (2) below. Both main clause verbs evidence the use of 
the NC (main clause e-conjuncts are underlined): 
(2)6:1^ 

1 [I me se ngodek neshnabek e-wdodanwat i Once there was a Village (some 

je weye e-nshonaj tagwat wgetkansewan people had a village ) and someone 

mine mbi sh wed ' emwat . ] ^^^ destroymg their gardens and 

their wells. 

(JS.4.1) 



^ The term is from Fauconnier (1984). 

^ The examples given here are repeated from Chapter 6. These numbers refer to the example number in 
Chapter 6. The glosses for these examples are provided in Appendix B. 

121 



The phrase /me se ngodek, along with the NC serves to open the narrative Space 
N. FOCUS shifts to the embedded Space N, which is structured by the events and 
characters of the story. The basic function of the NC is therefore to signal that the 
Narrative Domain itself (rather than a particular space within the domain) is in FOCUS. 
BASE and V-POINT remain in Space R. This configuration (shown in (3)) represents an 
external, or objective, narrative viewpoint.^ 
(3) REPRESENTATION OF FOREGROUND INFORMATION 



'REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 




NARRA TIVE DOMAIN 



Space N 



FOCUS CONTENT 



This analysis of narrative foreground differs from Cutrer. In her analysis, the 
activity of "narration" takes place from the V-POINT of fictive narrator inside the 
Narrative Domain. Cutrer argues, based on Fauconnier (1984), that this latter domain is 
always available as a potential BASE; "it can be highly elaborated in fiction [as in the 
parcours du recit] ... or used in its more abstract form for everyday story-telling." 



By external viewpoint, I mean diegesis, i.e. the act of 'telling' (as opposed to internal viewpoint, or 
mimesis, i.e. the act of 'showing'). 

122 



Narration, then, for her, involves the relocation of BASE and V-POINT to a space inside 
the narrative domain. 

This type of vantage point seems more natural in written fiction. Since the written 
channel adds an additional layer of separation between the audience and the storyteller, 
the parconrs seems to be a means of heightening the reader's involvement by virtually 
placing the narrator and reader at the 'scene' of narration. I would argue that while the 
BASE of the Active narrator is always available, it is not the location from which oral 
narration canonically takes place. Rather, it seems more likely that this takes place from 
a BASE within the "reality" domain. The BASE and V-POINT of Active narrator will, 
however, be central to the representation of internal viewpoint, discussed below (see 
Section 7.4). 

7.3.2 Background 

When narrators provide background information, they step out of their role as 
narrator to address the listener in the here and now; the activity shifts from narration to 
description, or explanation. 

In this case, my analysis also differs from Cutrer's. Because narration for her 
takes place from within the domain of the fictive narrator/narratee, she is able to analyze 
background information as a BASE shift, or return to Space R.^ This analysis will not 
work here, since I argue that BASE remains in the "reality" domain for both narrative 
foreground and background. It seems that what is at issue is not the BASE, but in fact 



^ For explanatory information, she uses the term 'external evaluation' after Labov (1972) and Fleischman 
(1990). 

123 



FOCUS. Consider the following sentence containing background information (the main 
clause independent verb is underlined): 

(4) 6:20 

8 [iw je o wabozo zhiw gi-dbendagze Since the Rabbit belonged to the 

odanek jo je mamda i e-wi-zhe-nsawat village, they couldn't loll him as 

' '^'^ something more on him m order to 

kill him . 

(JS.4.1) 

This sentence, coded with the CC as background information, is in one sense 
about what is happening in the story; we learn that the Rabbit belongs to a village whose 
citizens have been plotting his demise. On the other hand, the sentence is also about what 
the narrator thinks the listener knows; in this case, about customs regarding village 
membership, namely that a village member cannot be indiscriminately put to death. The 
speaker may have fashioned this explanation anticipating an objection from his audience 
that the villagers would have simply killed the Rabbit outright.^ 

As with narrative foreground, BASE and V-POINT remain in Space R (see (5)). 
The primary difference between the two types of discourse is in the addition of a focused 
discourse participant. FOCUS CONTENT is associated with the narrative domain 
(attached to Space N for the sake of simplicity) because its spaces continue to be 
structured by the new information. However, at this point, the narrator in a sense steps 
outside the narrative to attend to the needs of the hearer, providing information the hearer 



^ This is a likely motive given the narrative context; the primary audience was a linguist from outside the 
community . 

124 



needs in order to understand one of the premises of the narrative. Because there is 
attention on a discourse participant, there is a focus on the "ReaUty" Domain, particularly 
on the mental space that represents the hearer's conceptualization. We represent this by 
associating FOCUS CONTEXT With Space H, in the "Reality" domain. (Note this case is 
analogous to the case of a wh-question (see Chapter 3), although the mental space 
structure to which it applies is more complex.) 

(5) REPRESENTATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION 



Space R: 



BASE 
V-POINT 



Space H: 



FOCUS CONTEXT 



REALITY" DOMAIN 




NARRA TIVE DOMAIN 



Space N: 



FOCUS CONTENT 



7.4 Internal viewpoint 

Besides the use of external viewpoint, where the narrator reports events taking 
place in the story, narrators often use an internal viewpoint; representing information as 
coming from a vantage point within the narrative itself In Potawatomi, internal 



125 



viewpoint is marked by the use of the CC. The uses of the CC in narrative are described 
in Chapter 6, but are briefly summarized here. 

One of the most common forms of internal perspective is the representation of the 
speech of characters in a narrative. Here the distinction must be drawn between indirect 
speech, where the narrator reports what a character says, and direct speech, where the 
narrator takes on the persona of the character and acts out what the character says. In 
Potawatomi narratives, the speech of characters is always portrayed directly.^ 

Sometimes narrators use an internal vantage point in order to make the narrative 
seem more vivid; as if the narrator and narratee were witnessing the events of the 
narrative take place. ^ This vantage point is arguably that of a fictive narrator (as in 
parcours du recit), or may be that of a character. In any case, the viewpoints of fictive 
narrator and character are often closely associated. Because an internal viewpoint can 
restrict the outlook on the narrative world to a character's point of view, narrators may 
also use it to emphasize the epistemic distance between a character's point of view and 
their own. 

In the rest of this section, I will present mental space configurations for several 
types of discourse that can be categorized as having internal perspective. These include 
direct speech, vividness and epistemic distance. As will be shown below, the difference 
between these types of internal perspective can be easily captured using the Mental 



^ Indirect speech is found, however, in everyday conversation. 

' This can also be used to add humor, especially when the character is not human and therefore an 

unexpected perspective. 

126 



Spaces framework. In addition, Mental Spaces theory will allow us to motivate the use 
of the CC across these contexts. 

7.4.1 Direct speech 

Reported speech has recently been addressed in the mental spaces literature as part of a 
larger discussion of perspective phenomena (Cutrer, 1994; Mushin, 1998; Sanders and 
Redeker, 1996). In Cutrer' s model, which has gained general acceptance, a reported 
speech event opens a speech space S, which houses the speech verb itself (if explicit)^*^, 
and a subordinate content space, which I will call Space C (for the character). The 
content space and it daughters are partitioned into a speech domain, which represents the 
"reality" of the speaking character. The content space carries with it a potential 
V-POINT; that of the speaking character (represented as "@"). So in (6), if the speaking 
character is Rabbit, the character domain represents his thoughts, construals and 
viewpoint. 



^° Cutrer argues that this space exists even without an explicit space-opener. Her example is interior 
monologue in fiction, where the inner speech of a characater is reported as direct speech, and no speech or 
thought verbs are used. The absence of the speech or thought verb is merely "one less cue to the BASE 
shift" (1994, p. 406). 

127 



(6) REPRESENTATION OF REPORTED SPEECH 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R 



NARRATIVE DOMAIN 




CHARACTER 

DOMAIN 

(Rabbit) 



Space C 



Consider the Potawatomi sentence given in (7). In Potawatomi narrative, the 
speech and thoughts of characters are typically presented as direct speech, followed by a 
verb of speech or thought: 



(7) 6:32 

25 ["Gego zhe ode gagtanago nwi- 

nakwnek , " ] cc [e-zhde ' at o watozo.ljjc 



"This Crocodile has something 
planned for me ," thought the 
Rabbit. 

(MD 102694) 



I will now build the structure for this sentence as it might be temporally 
constructed, beginning with the quote, as shown in (8). The speech event itself supplies 

128 



the speech space (Space S) and the speech content space (Space C). The speech content 
space houses the V-POINT associated with the character domain, in this case, Rabbit's. 
As names of characters, wabozo 'Rabbit' Siwd gagtanago 'Crocodile' are entities which 
populate the narrative Space N, and counterparts are set up as needed in spaces 
subordinate to Space N. 

The information in the quote structures space C (and its daughter spaces) and sets 
up counterparts for the rabbit and crocodile, which are connected to Space N. Because 
the quote precedes the verb or speech or thought, the speech space (Space S) will be open 
as a placeholder before it is actually structured by the verb of speech or thought. 

With the quote is given, FOCUS shifts to the domain of the character. The space 
it attaches to is a future space (Space Ci) set up to house Rabbit's prediction, 'This 
crocodile has something planned for me.' This future space is set up relative to Space C. 

The use of deictic expressions such as the first person prefix n- indicates that 
BASE has now shifted to Space C. The use of the future tense indicates V-POINT has 
shifted to Space C as well.^^ This V-POINT represents the first person perspective of the 
Rabbit. 



^^ According to Cutrer, "by convention, direct quotation indicates a shift in BASE and creates a strong 
barrier which makes speaker reality inaccessible to deictics" (1994, p. 404). 

129 



(8) REPRESENTATION OF A CHARACTER SPACE 



"Gego zhe ode gagtanago nwi-nakwnek..." 



'This crocodile has something planned for me... ' 



REALITY SPACE 



'REALITY" DOMAIN 



NARRATIVE DOMAIN 



NARRATIVE SPACE 

w: wabozo 'Rabbit' 

g: gagtanago 'Crocodile' 



SPEECH SPACE 




CHARACTER 
DOMAIN 



SPEECH CONTENT SPACE 



FUTURE PREDICTION SPACE 
nakwnat 'plan' g(w) 
Fomi: CC 



Space C 1 : 



FOCUS CONTENT 



130 



Now let us consider the remainer of the sentence outside the quote, e-zhde'at o 
wabozo 'the rabbit thinks (thus)'. Space S, which is already open by virtue of the speech 
event, is now in FOCUS as it is structured by the thought verb e-zhde'at. We are no 
longer in the Character Domain, but are back in the Narrative Domain. The thought verb 
is marked with the NC, which indicates narrative foreground; BASE and V-POINT shift 
back to Space R. 

(9) REPRESENTATION OF A SPEECH / THOUGHT SPACE 

...e-zhde'at o wabozo 

'... thinks the rabbit ' 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R 



NARRA TIVE DOMAIN 




NARRATIVE SPACE 

w: wabozo 'Rabbit' 

g: gagtanago 'Crocodile' 



SPEECH/THOUGHT 

SPACE 

zhede 'at 'think' w [ ] 

Form: NC 



CHARACTER 
DOMAIN 



Space C 



131 



7.4.2 Vividness 

Example (10) below illustrates the use of the CC for vividness. In the first two 
sentences, the narrator describes the Crocodile's position in rough detail. However, in 
the third sentence ('His nose is barely sticking out'.'), we zoom in: the Crocodile is now 
viewed at close proximity from a vantage point above the water, as if we were looking at 
the scene from the rabbit's position on the shore. 



(10) 6:26 



12 I je ge wi zhi o gagtanago i yedek. 

13 [Beshoch zhe na zhi jigbyek [ge] 
e-gegwijek . ]nc 

14 [ Z agw j anegwi j en zhi . ] cc 



So must be Crocodile was there. 

He was floating in the water near 
the shore. 

His nose was sticking out there. 
(MD 102694) 



In mental space terms, vividness is represented by a V-POINT shift from the 
'Reality" Domain to the Narrative Domain: 



132 



(1 1) REPRESENTATION OF VIVIDNESS 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R 



NARRATIVE DOMAIN 




CHARACTER DOMAIN 



Space C 



Besides the use of the CC which sets off such sentences from surrounding 
foreground material, other evidence of a V-POINT shift comes from the use of deictic 
expressions. In (10), the choice of the verb determines the vantage point from above the 
water. In (12), the Crocodile is only in last place with respect to the position of the 
Rabbit: 
(12) 6:27 

46 [[win] ibe shkweyak gi-nshkweshen i ga- The Crocodile that planned it lay at 
nakwneget gagtanago . ] cc the end , there m last place. 

(MD 102694) 

There are two possibilities for V-POINT here; a fictive narrator (the optional 
viewpoint which comes with the Narrative Domain), or a character within the story. 



133 



Much of the time, it is not possible to make a principled choice between the two. In the 
case of (10) and (12) above, the perspective might be the character, or the fictive narrator 
in the same viewing position. However, in a few cases, the observer is clearly 
independent of the character, as in the following example, where the jumping Rabbit is 
described in the third person: 

(13) (see Appendix B for gloss) 

6 [Jigbyek ibe e-pa-zhyat . ] hc He went around there by the water. 

7 ["O, begesh na ezhi gameyek gshketoyan "Oh, I wish I could make it to 

e -by ay an ,"\cc [e-kedot. ] nc cross over and get there ," he said . 

8 [ E-dnednangedok jigbyek.] ^c He was talking to himself along 

the river. 

9 [Gegpi zhe gwagwashkze ' o ■ ] cc Finally, he starts jumpmg up and 

down . 

(MD 102694) 

Some instances of vividness evidence a shift in BASE as well. In (10), the 
independent verb zagwjamgwijen 'have one's nose float' ^^ has no tense morpheme, 
which indicates that it is present tense. In the following example, however, the 
independent verb is marked as past tense, which means it cannot be the BASE: 

(14) 6:28 

28 [Espen o mtegok gi-gdegosi e-wawabmat The Raccoon was high (in a tree) 

niw mwen wete zhe e-gi-bdek ' egaznet . ] cc and saw the Wolf get badly stung . 

(JS.4.4) 

There seems, therefore, to be a cline in the degree to which perspective shifts to a 
narrative internal V-POINT, which is illustrated by the three diagrams in (15). In (15a) 



^' This verb includes the incorporated form for 'nose' -jane-. 

134 



('Finally, he starts jumping up and down'), the viewpoint shifts to the Narrative Domain. 
The use of the present tense indicates a BASE shift as well. According to Cutrer, this use 
of tense is evidence of a cognitive association between the viewpoints of the speaker and 
narrator (in this case the viewpoint of the 'external' narrator in the "Reality" Domain), 
which she represents by a connector linking the two viewpoints (i.e. the temporal V- 
POINT dimension is shared by both narrator and speaker). In (15b) (The Crocodile that 
planned it lay at the end, there in last place'), the BASE does not shift (evidenced by the 
use of past tense), but now the V-POESTT is ambiguous between the internal narrator in 
the Narrative Domain and the character. This ambiguity represents the cognitive 
immersion of the discourse participants in the narrative world. I represent this by a 
connector between the Narrative and Character Domains, since they share the locative 
V-POINT dimension." In (15c) ('His nose is barely sticking out'), BASE and V- 
POINT shift to the Narrative Domain. Now there are two cognitive connections: the 
Narrative Domain shares the temporal dimension with the "Reality" Domain, but the 
locational dimension with the Character Domain. (See following page.) 



^' Alternatively, the V-POINT could be placed in the Character domain with a connector to the Narrative 
domain. There does not seem to be any principled way to distinguish these two alternatives. Rather than 
being a shortcoming of the model, this may help explain the vividness effect as a blurring of the two 
viewpoints. 

135 



(15) TYPES OF PERSPECTIVE SHIFT 



A) BASE AND V-POEVT SHIFT; 
"REALITY" AND NARRATIVE 
DOMAINS LINKED 



'REALITY' 



NARRATIVE 



CHARACTER 



BASE 

V-POINT 

FOCUS CONTENT, 




B) V-POEVT SHIFT; NARRATIVE AND 
CHARACTER DOMAINS LINKED 



"REALITY' 



NARRATIVE 




BASE 



V-POINT 
FOCUS CONTENT 



CHARACTER 



Example 13; Finally, he starts jumping up and Example 12: The crocodile that planned it lay at 
down. the end, there in last place. 



C) BASE AND V-POINT SHIFT; ALL 
DOMAINS LINKED 



'REALITY' 



NARRATIVE 



BASE 
V-POlNT 
FOCUS CONTENT 




CHARACTER 



Example 10: His nose is just barely sticking out. 

So rather than representing vividness as a single mental spaces configuration, it 
seems best to characterize vividness as a set of configurations that minimally shares a 
viewpoint shift from the "Reality" Domain to the Narrative Domain. As will be shown 



136 



below, this characterization will be sufficient to motivate the use of the CC in vividness 
contexts. 

7.4.3 Epistemic distance 

Besides the effect of vividness, narrators sometimes use an internal perspective to 
emphasize the epistemic distance between their perspective and that of a character's. In 
(16), when the rabbit sees what the speaker knows to be the Crocodile's gaping jaws, the 
narrator reports that, from the Rabbit's perspective, it would look like a hole in the water: 

(16) 6:37 



48 [O, [nme pa zho] megwa e-gche-bmebtot Oh. as he was dashing across , he 

bama zhe gate... [o] bikwa zhe na soon [saw something] that looked 

wangoyane wiye gego e-wabdek . ] cc j^g^ ^;^^ ^ ^ole. [more HteraUy : it 

was just hke a hole when 
somebody saw it] . 

(MD 102694) 



The narrator takes pains, however, to introduce an impersonal weye 'somebody' 
who does the seeing. We do not see through the character's eyes, but from the same 
vantage point. Here is another case where the Active narrator V-POINT is closely 
associated with that of a character. 

We represent this in mental space terms similar to the way vividness is 
represented; by shifting V-POINT to the Narrative Domain. This is the viewpoint of the 
'internal' narrator. We capture the effect of epistemic distance by assigning FOCUS 
CONTEXT to Space R, since we are contrasting the conceptualization of the narrator with 
that of the character: 

137 



(17) REPRESENTATION OF EPISTEMIC DISTANCE 



"REALITY' DOMAIN 



Space R 



BASE 

FOCUS CONTEXT 



NARRA TIVE DOMAIN 




CHARACTER DOMAIN 



The V-POINT of the fictive narrator is also utilized for epistemically distancing a 
speaking character. However, because the CC is needed to represent the character's 
speech, it cannot be used for evaluating what is said. Rather, this is marked in the 
narrative domain on the speech/thought verb, in what I call the quote frame. Consider 
the following example: 



138 



(18) 6:31 

27 ["A, iw zhe yedek e-wi-dkemozh ' ewat "Ah, must be they [the Crocodiles] 

gode,"]cc [zhede'e o wabozo.]cc will take me across ," thinks the 

Rabbit/"^ 

(MD 102694) 

The thought verb, zhede'e is in the independent mode (underlined), which 
indicates the use of the CC. The narrator uses the CC here to contrast the epistemic 
stance of the rabbit's naivite with the speaker and hearer's knowledge of the crocodile's 
true intentions — that he plans to gobble up the rabbit (this example can be compared with 
the sentence given in (7) where the rabbit's suspicions are in accord with the narrator's 
and the NC is used). The use of the CC on the main verb has the resulting effect of 
framing the character's speech with the narrator's evaluation of it. 

Epistemic distance in a quote frame is represented by V-POINT and FOCUS 
shifting to the space for the speech/thought verb. Because this space stands in the 
Narrative Domain but contiguous to the Character Domain, it is a convenient place to 
mark evaluative information about the quote. ^^ 



^'' In Potawatomi narrative, reported speech, including the inner speech of thought, is typically 
represented as direct speech. Potawatomi has indirect speech, however, outside of narrative. 
^^Some languages (like Potawatomi) maintain the integrity of the speech content space; others apparently 
do not. In Cayapa, for example, a verbal suffix -n marks events that figure into role reversals for the story 
characters. If an important event is mentioned by a character, the verb will be marked with -«, even though 
the character may have no awareness of the event's significance (Longacre, 1 976). Cayapa presents a 
problematic case for Sanders and Redeker's (1996) analysis, which treats direct speech as having the 
strongest possible character perspective. They discuss four types of perspectivization phenomena: direct 

139 



(19) REPRESENTATION OF A QUOTE FRAME 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R: 



BASE 

FOCUS CONTEXT, 



NARRATIVE SPACE 
w: wabozo 'Rabbit' 



Space M 



NARRA TIVE DOMAIN 




THOUGHT SPACE 
w: wabozo 'Rabbit' 
zhede 'at 'think' w 
Form: CC 



CHARACTER 
DOMAIN 



Space C 



mode, free mdirect ("stream of consciousness"), indirect, and implicit perspectives (where a character's 
perspective is indicated m a more "remote way" through the use of verbs of perception, modal verbs, or the 
use of definite and indefinite descriptions). The strongest perspective is that of the direct mode, where the 
responsibility for content and wording is attributed to the character. The weakest perspective is that of 
indirect speech and implicit perspectives, where the narrator exerts greater influence over the wording of 
the utterance or perceived event. They indicate this by assigning V-POINT to both the character's space 
and the BASE. Their analysis works well for Potawatomi, however, where content spaces are not intruded 
upon by narrators. 

140 



So, although we have seen that in many places the V-POESTT of fictive narrator 
and character are conflated, here is an instance where the separate domain of fictive 
narrator serves nicely as the locus for internal viewpoint. 

7.5 Discussion 

The mental space configurations given in this section are summarized in (20). The 
columns represent types of discourse. The first division is by genre: Everyday discourse 
as opposed to narrative discourse. Within narrative, the information types of foreground 
and background can be classified as 'external perspective', in contrast with the various 
types discourse covered by 'internal perspective': Direct speech, vividness, and 
epistemic distance. 

The rows of the table indicate the location of BASE, V-POINT, and FOCUS 
CONTENT^ which are given with reference to a domain of spaces; either "Reality" (R), 
Narrative (N) or Character (C). FOCUS CONTEXT i^ indicated by presence ("Yes") or 
absence ("No"), and if present, whether the FOCUS is on the Speaker or Hearer. 

The bottom row of the table represents the sentence pattern used for each type of 
discourse, either the Conversational Construction (CC) or Narrative Construction (NC): 



141 



(20) MENTAL SPACE CONFIGURATIONS AND SENTENCE PATTERNS 





DISCOURSE GENRE 


EVERYDAY 
DISCOURSE 


NARRATIVE DISCOURSE 


Foreground 


Background 


Direct 
Speech 


Vividness 


Epistemic 
Distance 


External Perspective 


Internal Perspective 


BASE 


R 


R 


R 


C 


R 


R 


V-POEVT 


R 


R 


R 


C 


N 


N 


FOCUS 

CONTENT 


R 


N 


N 


C 


N 


N 


FOCUS 
CONTEXT 


Yes 

(Speaker or 

Hearer) 


No 


Yes 
(Hearer) 


No 


No 


Yes 
(Speaker) 


Sentence 
Pattern 


CC 


NC 


CC 


CC 


CC 


CC 



In everyday speech BASE, V-POINT and FOCUS are all in the "Reality" Domain 
R. In addition, everyday speech always has a contextual FOCUS on one of the discourse 
participants (see Chapter 3), and this may shift from the Speaker to the Hearer. 

We can now differentiate, in mental spaces terms, external and internal viewpoint. 
With external viewpoint, the V-POINT is outside the FOCUS CONTENT domdan, 
whereas with internal viewpoint, the V-POINT is inside the FOCUS CONTENT domdan. 
By this definition, everyday speech has internal perspective. 

In narrative foreground sentences, BASE and V-POINT remain in R, however 
FOCUS moves to the Narrative Domain N. Background information shares most of its 
configuration with the foreground, but differs in having a contextual FOCUS on one of 
the discourse participants; namely the Hearer. 

The configuration for reported speech is very similar to that of everyday speech, 
in that BASE, V-POINT and FOCUS are all within the same domain. The difference is 



142 



the domain is now shifted to the domain of the character, which becomes a new deictic 
center. 

Vividness is represented by V-POINT shifting to the narrative domain, while 
BASE remains in R. Epistemic distancing shares this configuration, but has a contextual 
FOCUS on one of the discourse participants, in this case, the Speaker. 

We now come to the use of the CC and NC, which can now be stated in terms of 
mental spaces. The only discourse type to use the NC is narrative foreground. If we 
reasonably take narrative foreground to be representative of the narrative genre (or 
metonymic for it), the use of the NC in these sentences efficiently distinguishes narrative 
from everyday speech. A primary function of the conversational and narrative patterns is 
therefore to indicate which Domain, "Reality" or Narrative, respectively, is in FOCUS. 

The types of narrative discourse that are represented by the CC all share aspects 
of their configurations with everyday speech. First, reported speech, vividness and 
epistemic distance all share internal perspective, or V-POINT inside the Domain that 
contains FOCUS CONTENT. As noted above, this is also the case with everyday speech. 

The remaining discourse type to account for is background information, which 
shares with everyday speech the profiling of a discourse participant. Epistemic distance 
also profiles a participant (in this case, the speaker), which provides an additional 
motivation for the use of the CC, besides internal perspective. A primary function of the 
CC inside narrative is therefore to reference ground by indexing the use of the CC in 
everyday speech, the prototypical discourse of the "Reality" Domain. 



143 



7.6 Summary 

This chapter has presented a Mental Spaces theory analysis that motivates the use 
of sentential patterns of the NC and CC in narrative. The primary function of the NC is 
to indicate that the Narrative Domain is in FOCUS, a function enhanced by its use only in 
foregrounded material. The uses of the CC in narrative are each related in someway to 
the canonical use of the CC in everyday speech. The similarites which motivates its use 
in narrative are 1) internal viewpoint, as everyday conversation typically has V-POINT 
inside the focused "Reality" Domain; and 2) a contextual FOCUS on a discourse 
participant. In everyday discourse, one participant is always profiled. Narrative 
generally backgrounds the discourse participants, except in the case of background 
information, which references the Hearer, and epistemic distance, which references the 
Speaker. 

I have also proposed a couple of adaptations to the Mental Spaces theory. First of 
all, the model of perspective shifts given here revises that of Cutrer (1994). Cutrer 
analyzes internal viewpoint (such as the use of the historic present) as a BASE shift to a 
V-POINT within the narrative, either a character, the implied author, or a fictive narrator. 
I have argued that while internal viewpoint may involve a BASE shift (as indicated by 
deictic expressions), this is not necessary. In fact, internal viewpoint seems to be a matter 
of degree, involving minimally a shift in V-POINT, and possibly a BASE shift as well. 
Analyzing internal viewpoint as a V-POINT shift to the domain in focus provides a 
contrast with external perspective, where V-POINT is outside of the focused domain. 

Finally, I have argued that Mental Space structures need to incorporate an 

elaborated representation of ground. The roles of Speakers and Hearers are necessary to 

144 



characterize and distinguish certain types of narrative discourse, such as background 
information and the coding of epistemic distance in internal perspective. In everyday 
conversation, I have shown that an elaborated representation of ground helps to 
characterize the difference between illocutionary acts, such as statements and questions 
(see Chapter 3). Ultimately, if Mental Spaces theory is to handle the complexity of 
discourse, we need to be able to reference the discourse context. 



145 



Bibliography 



Cutrer, Michelle. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language, 

University of California: Ph.D. dissertation. 
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1984. Espaces Mentaux. Paris: Minuit. 
Fleischman, S. 1990. Tense and Narrativity. Austin: University of Texas Press. 
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English 

Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 
Longacre, R. E. 1976. 'Mystery' particles and affixes. Proceedings of the Twelfth 

Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 468-75. 
Mushin, liana. 1998. Viewpoint Shifts in Narrative. Discourse and Cognition, ed. by 

Jean-Pierre Koenig, 323-36. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 
Sanders, Jose and Redeker, Gisela. 1996. Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse. 

Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, ed. by G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser. Chicago: 

The University of Chicago Press. 



146 



8 Obviation in Potawatomi 



8.1 Introduction 

Obviation is an aspect of Potawatomi grammar worth examining in this study, 
since, like the use of independents, conjuncts, and the preverb e-, it has different uses in 
syntax and discourse. In Chapter 10, 1 will argue that these uses are related to each other. 
The goal of this chapter is to describe obviation in Potawatomi in some detail, since this 
is an important topic in Algonquian studies, and its use in Potawatomi has not been given 
much attention in the descriptive literature. Potawatomi also provides an important case 
study, since its use of obviation places it between such languages as Fox, with significant 
discourse obviation, and Ottawa, with predominantly syntactic obviation. Based on a 
detailed study of a traditional narrative, I present a mechanism that would allow a 
language with discourse obviation to become reanalyzed as a syntactic obviation 
language, and argue that Potawatomi is an example of this change in progress. 

8.2 Background 

Obviation is a grammatical phenomenon found in Algonquian languages that 
signals disjoint reference in third persons.^ In a given context, one third person will be 
designated proximate, and others are marked obviative^ The marking of obviative status 



^ Kutenai (a linguistic isolate spoken in British Columbia, Idaho and Montana) also has obviation 
(involviing first and second as well as third persons) and inverse marking (see Dryer, 1992). Some 
Algonquianists speculate that Kutenai was a source of diffusion for obviation in Algonquian. 
' The earliest use of the term 'obviative' is in Cuoq (1866). 



146 



occurs on nouns, and is co-indexed by verbal agreement marking. The obviative is the 
marked category; proximate nominals do not receive special marking on nouns or verbs. 

Obviation has been compared to switch-reference systems (see Jacobsen, 1967), 
and within third person, both indicate disjoint reference.'' As Jacobsen points out, 
though, switch reference relates participants within a narrated event at a local level 
(across clauses, or adjacent sentences) without reference to the speech context."^ 
Obviation, on the other hand, also encodes information about the relative status or 
importance of a referent in a narrative, which indirectly references the speech context, 
that is, the narrator's ranking of participants. 

Rhodes (1985) argues against obviation being a property of person marking in 
part because it is not illocutionary, perhaps in Jesperson's sense of person 'proper' being 
about distinguishing speech act participants from non-speech act participants (Jesperson, 
1924), and also, perhaps, in order to encourage non-Algonquiansts to avoid the use of 
'fourth person.'^ This terminology is indeed misleading and confusing, however rather 



^ Switch reference systems also indicate coreference, often having paired markers for 'same subject' / 

'different subject'. 

"^ In this sense, switch reference is not deictic, although it is cohesive. Switch reference therefore does not 

belong to the grammatical category 'person'. One is also less likely to make this claim than for obviation, 

since the markers of switch reference are generally aspectual suffixes, where as obviation in Algonquian 

languages is bound up with person/number inflections. 

^ The earliest reference to obviation as 'fourth person' seems to have been Uhlenbeck (1909). Algonquian 

researchers in the 1960's and 70 's commonly used the term: Frantz (1966) for Blackfoot (probably after 

Uhlenbeck), Rhodes (1976) for Ojibwa, although Wolfart (1973) avoids it. Although the terminology has 

been abandoned by Algonquianists, it can still be found m general descriptions of obviation, as in Mithun 

(1990). 

147 



than avoid treating it as a person, I will continue the practice of the majority of 
Algonquianists in calling it a distinction within third person.'' In any case, it seems that 
obviation is at least in part illocutionary, in the sense that within discourse it references 
the speech context. 

Several researchers have provided descriptions of obviation in various Central 
Algonquian languages. Contemporary descriptions include Wolfart (1973), and 
Dahlstrom (1988) for Cree, Goddard (1984; 1990) and Dahlstrom (1986) for Fox, and 
Rhodes for Ojibwa, the Ottawa dialect, in particular (1976; 1985; 1990a; 1992; 1993; 
1994). Earlier, more limited descriptions of the basic phenomena include Michelson 
(1921; 1925) for Fox, Bloomfield for Eastern Ojibwa (Bloomfield, 1958), and Hockett 
for Potawatomi (1939a; 1939b; 1948a-d; 1966). 

The basic distribution of obviation is as follows: within sentences, there are two 
contexts for obligatory obviation: third person possessors control obviation of 
possessees, and when third persons are clausemates, one must be proximate, and the 
others obviative. There is some control of obviation across clauses, and at least in some 
languages, across pairs of sentences that have a close semantic relationship. Within 
discourse, in many languages, obviation is used to mark the relative status of nominals: 
the higher ranked nominal (usually the "hero" of the discourse) will be marked as 
proximate, and other third persons will be obviative. 



"^ Arguments against the use of the term 'fourth person' are mostly made on the basis of negative evidence. 
Rhodes (1985) bnngs up the pomt that there is no distinction made within the pronoun system that would 
support a fourth person, and Goddard (1990) notes that "it is either not intended literally or not supported 
by any morphological or syntactic arguments" (p. 317). 

148 



The organization of this chapter is as follows. Section 8.3 contains a description 
of obviative inflection on nouns, demonstratives and verbs. Section 8.4 describes 
syntactic contexts of obviation. Section 8.5 describes uses of obviation in discourse, 
using a glossed text Crane Boy which is provided in Appendix C. 

8.3 Obviative inflection 

Obviation is a property of nominals.'' Nouns in Potawatomi bear obviative 
inflections, and verbs inflect for obviative agreement.^ Both animate and inanimate 
nominals participate in obviation, however, only animate nouns bear obviative inflection. 
Both animates and inanimates trigger obviative agreement marking on verbs. The 
examples below show two sentences with possessed subjects. Possessees with third 
person possessors are obligatorily obviative, so both subjects are obviative. (1) shows a 
possessed animate where the obviative inflections are on both the noun and the verb. In 
(2) the possessed inanimate does not take obviative inflection, but its obviative status is 
registered in the agreement marker on the verb. (In the free translation, "P" stands for 
proximate and "O" for obviative.): 

(1) I je mdadsopon wesme e-byat megwa niw 

iw jE mEdadEsopon EwEsEme e - bya/e -d megwa niw 
and ten. years more FCT- come\AI -3C still that.OBV 



^ Not in the sense of intrinsic properties, such as (logical) animacy, or plurality, but comparible to number, 
that is, a deictic property. 

^ As Potawatomi is a 'pro-drop' language, referents may be expressed by inflections on the verb as well as 
NPs. We follow the practice of Rhodes (1990a) in referring to both inflections and NPs as 'nominals'. 

149 



osen e-yenet. 

OS -En e - EyE -EnE -d 

father -OBV FCT- be . in . a . place\AI -OBV -3.C 

Ten years later, he (P) came back and his (P) father (O) was still there. 



(2) Mskwane i wbiskewagen 
mEskwa -EnE -w iw wE- bisEkEwagEn 
be.red\II -OBV -0 .1 that.INAN 3- clothing 

His(P) jacket (O) is red. (JT3:63:17) 
The next two examples show the use of obviative agreement when the subject is not 
possessed. (3) and (4) show obviative agreement with an AI and II verb, respectively: 

(3) Bama zhe na gete gigabeyen 
bama zhE na gEtE gigabe#y -En 
soon EMPH EMPH for. sure boy -OBV 

e-nemsenet . 

e - EnEmOse -EnE -d 

FCT- walk.off\AI -OBV -3 .C 

Soon the boy had begun to walk off. (AS. 2. 3. 18) 

(4) Jak bkwezhgasen wa-mijet zhiw 
jag bEkwezhEgas -En CH.wi- mij -Ed zhiw 
all cracker -PL CH.FUT- eat.s.t\TI -3.C there 

gi-tene . 

gi- te -EnE -w 

PST- be. in. a. certain. place -OBI/ -O.I 

All the crackers for her to eat were there. (JS.4.2.048) 

8.3.1 Obviative markers on nouns 

Obviation is marked on animate nouns with the suffix {En}i.^ This appears as 
/en/ after consonants as in (5) and /n/ after vowels as in (6). (7) shows its use in marking 
the obviation of a possessee. 



^ This is one of three very similar obviative suffixes, as discussed immediately below. The use of curly 
brackets around a form m the main text mdicates a morphophonemic representation. 

150 



(5) ni gwakwadeyen . 

niw gwakwade#y -En 
that.OBV grasshopper -OBV 



'the grasshopper (obv.) ' 



(6) ni amon 
niw amo -En 
that.OBV bee -OBV 

(7) niw wmezodanen 

niw wE- mEzodan -En 
that.OBV 3- parent -OBV 



'the bee (obv.) ' 



'his parents (obv.) ' 



This suffix is the same as the plural inflection on inanimate nouns 



10 



(8) mzen' egen 
mEzEn' EgEn 
book 

(9) mzen'egnen 
mEzEn' EgEn-En 
book -PL 



'book ' 



'books ' 



In addition, nouns that inflect for obviation are ambiguous with respect to 
number. (10) and (1 1) show the grammatically animate noun dabyan 'car' possessed by 
a first person. In the second example, the possessee is plural, which is indicated on the 
noun by the use of the animate plural suffix {Eg}. In (12) however, the third person 
possessor requires that the possessee be obviative, and here number of the possessee is 
not distinguished: 

(10) ndodabyan 'my car' 

nEd-Odabyan 
1- car 



(11) ndodabyanek 

nEd-Odabyan-Eg 
1- car -PL 



my cars 



This suggests that on the animacy hierarchy, obviative nominals have a lower animacy status than 
proximate nominals, similar to the status of inanimates. 

151 



(12) wdodabyanen 

wEd-Odabyan-En 
3- car -OBV 



'his car, his cars ' 



8.3.2 Obviative agreement markers on demonstrative pronouns 

There is also a series of demonstrative pronouns that agree with their head noun in 
obviative status. There is a proximal, medial, and distal series: 
(13) 





Singular (animate) 


Singular (inanimate) 


Plural 


Obviative 


Proximal 


ode 


gode 


node 


Medial 


o(w) 


i(w) 


gi(w) 


ni(w) 


Distal 


ago 


e'i 


egi 


eni 



The proximal and medial obviative forms are related to the singular inanimate forms by 
the inclusion of {n}, which is transparently similar to the nominal suffix. 

The medial series is commonly used in texts and functions somewhat like a 
definite article: 



(14) 



o kwe 'the woman ' 

gi kwek 'the women ' 

ni kwen 'the women (obv.) ' 



The indefinite pronoun weye 'someone' is unmarked for obviation, i.e. it does not 
take obviative marking. However, some speakers use weye, a cognate form borrowed 
from Fox, which in Potawatomi has an obviative form weyeyen. The obviative form is 
uncommon; it shows up only once in the corpus, in the text discussed later in this chapter. 

8.3.3 Obviative agreement markers on verbs 

There are three different obviative agreement markers on intransitive verbs, 

{En}i, {En}2, and {EnE}. These suffixes were historically three different suffixes *-ali, 

*-ilii, and *-eli- / *-ili-2 (the cognate suffixes occur as three different suffixes, -an -in 

152 



and -ini respectively in the Ottawa dialect of Ojibwa)/^ Because Potawatomi has merged 
short -a and i to schwa, the two are now homonymous, and the difference between 
them and the third is slight. Given two related morphophonemic processes involving 
schwa — insertion between consonants and syncope — the fact that there are three different 
suffixes is easily overlooked. The following briefly outlines the evidence demonstrating 
their synchronic distinctness: 

{-En}i from *-ali: 

Sequences of *wa contract to lol (historically short o, but short and long o have 
merged in Potawatomi). So verbs in {-shEnw} 'stand, lie, fall' end in /-on/ in the 
obviative, as in the independent verb wjeshnon 'he (OBV) lies beneath', which is 
morphophonemically ( Oi EshEn w -En | . 

{-En} 2 from *-ilii 

*i induces palatalization of a preceding consonant. This suffix is found on the 
obviative form of the AI participle, as in majinjen 'he (OBV) who leaves', which is 
morphophonemically {maji -EnE -d -En | 

{-EnE} from *-eli- / *-ili-2: 



^^ The final obviative marker in this hst is either *-eh- or *-ih-. Fox, which would provide the necessary 
evidence for deciding between them, is ambiguous with respect to these two forms. Also note that *-ilii, 
and *-eli- / *-ili2- occupy different positional slots, *-eli- / *-ili2- occurring inside of -ilii. 

153 



The attestation of this suffix is found in Independent II verbs, where the final 
schwa is retained due to a deleted final glide -w as in wangoyane 'it (OBV) is a hole' 
which is morphophonemically {wanEgoya -EnE -w} . 

In many cases, the form of the obviative suffix is ambiguous in surface forms. 
For example, without respect to the historical origins of the suffixes, one might analyze 
the sequence /net/ in e-nemsenet 'he/she walked off as {En}i or {En}2 followed by {d} 
(devoiced) with a connective schwa {E} inserted between them, or even {EnE} followed 
by {d}. As one can see by my morphemic glosses throughout this chapter, I assume a 
somewhat abstract analysis: that the use of the obviative suffixes in Potawatomi are 
consistent with the use of the cognate suffixes in Ottawa, as described by Bloomfield 
(1958) and Rhodes (1976). 

{-En}i besides agreement on nouns, is also used to mark obviation of an animate 
absolutive in the Independent paradigm. Example (15) shows an obviative subject of an 
intranstive (AI) verb, and (16) shows an obviative object of a transitive (TA) verb. In 
both cases, the weak vowel {E} in the suffix is deleted following a strong vowel {i} or 
{a}: 

(15) majin 'he (O) leaves' 

maji -En 
leave -OBV 

(16) wgi-wabman 'he (P) SOW him (O) ' 

wE-gi- wabEm -a -En 

3- PST- see.s.o.\TA -DIR -OBV 

When there are two third persons within a clause, as in this example, one must be 

obviative. When a direct form (here glossed as -DIR) is used, the subject must be 

proximate and the object obviative. In his tabulation of the TA paradigm, Hockett (1948c 

154 



p. 142) lists forms with first and second person subjects and obviative agreement with a 
third person object. These are ungrammatical for modem day speakers, as they are for 
Ottawa speakers as well (Rhodes, 1976 p. 204). Since they do not show up anywhere in 
the corpus, I suspect that they may have been ungrammatical for Potawatomi speakers in 
the 1940'saswell. 

The suffix{En}2 is used to mark obviative agreement on participles. AI 
participles take two markers of obviation, the first one shows agreement as an obviative 
with respect to the participle itself ('internal obviation'), and the second obviative suffix 
indicates obviation with respect to the rest of the sentence ('external obviation'). The first 
marker is {EnE} and the second marker is {En}2, which induces palatalization on the 
preceding consonant: 

(17) ni amon zazbakdokenj en 

niw amo -n CH . zizEbakwEdOke -EnE -d -En 
that.OBV bee -OBV CH .make . sugar\AI -OBV -C -OBV.l 

the bees who were making honey (AS. 2. 2. 032) 

The suffix{-EnE} is the most common obviative suffix; it shows up in both 

independent and conjunct inflections. In transitive verbs, there are obviative inflections 

in the Independent paradigm. These, as noted above, use {En}i: 

(18) wwabman 'he (P) sees him (O) ' 

wE-wabEm -a -En 

3- see.s.o.\TA -DIR -OBV.l 

(19) wwabmegon 'he (O) sees him (P) ' 

wE-wabEm -EgO -En 

3- see.s.o.\TA -INV -OBV.l 

In the Conjunct paradigm, however, obviation is marked on transitive verbs solely by the 
use of theme signs: 



155 



(20) wabmat 'he (P) sees him (O) 

wabEm -a -t 

see.s.o.\TA -DIR -3 . C 

(21) wabmegot 'he (O) sees him (P) 

wabEm -EgO -t 

see.s.o.\TA -INV -3 . C 



8.3.4 Obviative agreement in participles 

Participles agree with their head noun in obviative status, as shown by the 
following examples: 

(22) Ngodek me se gwakwade e-ndo-mdagwayet 

nEgOd -Eg mE sE gw akwade e- nEdo- mEdagwayE -d 
one -LOG EMPH EMPH grasshopper FCT- try- have . f un\AI -3C 

e-yabtenibek, e-bme-nkweshkwat 

e- YabEtEnibEn -g e- bEmE- nEkweshkEw -ad 

FCT- midsummer -O.C FCT- along- meet.s.o.\TA -3/3 '.C bee -OBV 

[amon zazbakdokenj en] 

amo -n CH . zizEbakwEdOke -EnE -En 

CH.make. sugar\AI -3'.P -OBV -OBV.P 

Once a grasshopper was going along, having fun in the middle of 
summer, and he (P) met [bees (O) who were making honey]. (AS:2:2:001) 

(23) wgi-gkeno 'mowan [neshnaben 
wE- gi- gEkEno'EmEw -a -n EnEshEnabe -n 
3- PST- teach. s.o\TA -DIR -OBV person -OBV 

wa-zhi ' enet] . 

CH.wi- Ezhi' -EnE -d 

CH.FUT- be.in.a.certain.place?\AI -OBV -3.C 

... he (P) taught [the people (O) who (O) were there]. (JS.4.3.029) 

(24) wgi-sawan [niw 
wE- gi- sa -wan niw 

3- PST- put . s . o. in. a. certain. place\TA -35/3'. I that. OBV 

gokoshesen ga-gizswawa j en] 

gokosh -es -En CH.gi- gizEswa -wa -d -En 

pig -DIM -OBV CH.PST- cook.s.o.\TA -PL -3C -OBV.P 

...he set (P) out the roast pig (O) (.TS.4.2.40) 

156 



8.3.5 Second Obviative 

Hockett, (1939b; 1966) describes the use of a second obviative in Potawatomi. 
The example he gives is shown in (25) which has a doubly possessed nominal. Both 
nominals are obligatorily obviative, because they are possessed by third persons. The 
first possessee, okmesen 'his grandmother' takes one obviative marker, and the second 
possessee dennimnen 'her husband' takes two in succession: 

(25) nos okmesen dennimnen 

n-#os #okEmEs -En wEdE-EnEnE -Em -En -En 
1- father grandmother -OBV 3- man -POSS -OBV -OBV 

my father's grandmother's husband 

He notes however, that in most contexts, two non-coreferent obviatives receive 
only single obviative marking, as in the following example, where the tree, fellow 
raccoons, and man are all marked as obviative: 



(26) Iw je o esben e-gdegozit 

iw jE ow esEbEn e- EgEdEgOzi -d 
and that. AN raccoon FCT- climb. up\AI -3.C 

neko mtegwen, wich- esbenen 

nEko mEtEgttO -En w#ij- esEbEn -En 

used. to tree -OBV 3. fellow raccoon -OBV 

e-mkewat, e-niswebnemwat 

e - mEkEw -ad e- nisEwebEnEmEw -ad 

FCT- find.s.o.\TA -3/3'. C FCT- throw. down . to . s . o . \TA -3/3'. C 

niw neshnaben, neko e-nsat 

niw EnEshEnabe -n nEko e- nEs -ad 

that. OBV man -OBl^used.to FCT- kill.s.o.\TA -3/3'. C 

o neshnabe. 
ow EnEshEnabe 
that. AN man 

The raccoon (P) would chmb a tree (O), find his (O) fellow raccoons (O), and 
throw them (O) down to the man (O); and the man (P) would kill them (O). 
(HO.005) 



157 



Here is another example where there are three referents, and one of the referents is 
possessed. Neither of the two obviatives, however, is inflected as a second obviative: 

(27) Ni je wgyeywan gi 

ni jE wE- #gye#y -wa -En giw 
and so 3- mother -35.POSS -OBV those. AN 

gigabesek gi-majingon 

gigabe#y -s -Eg gi- majin -EgO -En 

boy -DIM -PL PST- take . s . o . away\TA -INV -OBV.l 

nenwen . 
EnEnE#w -En 
man -OBV 

'And SO a man (O) had taken away the boys' (P) mother (O). ' (JS. 4. 1.002) 
Hockett (1966) remarks that second obviative forms are "rare, and perhaps 
avoided as 'awkward'" (p. 64). He also notes that that there are no instances where a 
possessor is obviative and the possessee second obviative (related dialects such as Ottawa 
have forms for obviative possessees). Second obviative forms and possessee obviatives 
appear to be no longer in use today, at least, there are no instances in the present corpus. ^^ 
Since they were falling out of use in the 1940's when the speech community was still 
quite robust, and since younger speakers of other close dialects like Ottawa (Rhodes, 
1993), modern Potawatomi speakers' use of first obviatives only seems to be the 
completion of this natural change, although attrition as a factor cannot be ruled out. 



^' The expected form for an obviative possessee would be the suffix {EnEw}, based on the Ottawa suffix 
as cited in Bloomfield (1958), so 'his (obv) book' should show up as wde-mzenegne. Hockett's 'second 
obviative' may m fact be a spurious l-nl, reflecting a strategy used in Ojibwe to avoid final vowel deletion. 

158 



8.4 Syntactic obviation 

There are several syntactic domains for the control of obviation. These include 
two obligatory contexts for obviation: within the phrase (obviation of possessees), and 
within the clause. Across clauses, subjects of main clauses often control the obviation of 
subjects in subordinate clauses, however the control here is less strong. One additional 
context is that of 'sentence clusters'. Each of these contexts is discussed below using 
data from Potawatomi. 

8.4.1 Within phrases 

At the level of the phrase, the obviation of a noun possessed by an animate third 
person is obligatory. The example in (28) shows this obligatory obviation when the 
possessor is third person, whereas in (29) and (30), first and second person nominals do 
not trigger the obviation of the possessee. 

(28) wmeshomsen 'his grandfather' 

wE- mEshomEs -En 
3- grandfather -OBV 

(29) nmeshomes 'my grandfather ' 

nE- mEshomEs 

1- grandfather 

(30) gmes homes 'your grandfather' 

gE- mEshomEs 

2- grandfather 

Obviative possessees trigger agreement when they are the subject of intransitive 
verbs. (3 1) shows this with an animate subject and (32) with an inanimate subject 
(marked on the verb, but not the NP): 



159 



(31) Wgwesen me ni gi-ntawen. 

3.son=0BV EMPH that . OBV PST-make . a . kill\AI=OBV. I 

'His son must have made a kill. ' (JT.3.41.12) 

(32) Mskwane i wbiskewagen. 
be. red\II=OEl/. I that.INAN 3. clothing 

'His jacket is red. ' (JT.3.63.17) 

Note that when a possessee is incorporated (in this case, a car), it is not accessible 
to control: 

(33) Wgi-bigwdabaneshka o Lucy. 
3- PST- have. one ' s . car .break. down\AI . I that. AN 

Lucy's car broke down. (.TT. 1.44.9) 

Lastly, conjoined NPs agree in obviative status: 

(34) Iw je zhe zeshpi e-gi-myanenmat 

and EMPH a . while . later FCT-PST-dislike . s . o\TA-3/3 ' . C 



[niw keweziyen mine niw gigabeyen] . 
that. OBV old.m&n-OBV and that. OBV hoy-OBV 

Within a short time, she (P) disliked the old man (O) and the boy (O). (.TS. 4.2. 006) 



8.4.2 Within Clauses 

Within clauses, when there is more than one third person, only one may be 
proximate; others are obviative, as in the following example: 

(35) Iw je zhe zeshpi e-gi-myanenmat 

and EMPH a . while . later FCT-PST-dislike . s . o\TA=3/3 '. C 

niw keweziyen mine niw gigabeyen. 
that.OBl^ old.man=OBl^ and fhat . OBV hoY=OBV 

Within a short time, she (P) disliked the old man (O) and the boy (O). (JS. 4.2. 006) 



160 



Rhodes argues that beyond this statement of distribution, we can say that control 
of obviation follows the relational hierarchy, where subjects > primary objects > 
secondary objects^^ > possessors of obliques. The following sentences demonstrate 
control of obviation in Potawatomi, in accordance with this hierarchy: 
(3 6) Subj ect > Primary obj ect: 

I je kezhyep ogeman e-gi-widmowawat 

and early leader=OBl^ FCT-PST-tell . s . o\TA=35/3 ' . C 

"Wabozo se wi o ezhcheget." 

rabbit EMPH EMPH that. AN CH . do . things . a . certain . way\AI=3 . P 

Early in the morning they (P) told the leader (O), "Rabbit is doing that. " 

(JS.4. 1.006) 

(3 7) Subj ect > Primary obj ect (benefactive) : 

Iw je o nene e-gi-wzhekwat 

and that. AN man FCT-PST-build. f or . s . o\TA=3/3 ' . C 

niw keweziyen mine niw gigabeyen 
that.OBV old.man=OBV and that.OBV boy=OBV 

wa j -danet . 

CH . together-live . in . a . certain . place\AI=Oi?V"=3 . C 

The man (P) built a place for the old man (O) and the boy (O) where they could 
live together. (JS. 4.2.007) 

(38) Subj ect > Primary obj ect (di transitive verb) : 

E-gi-dkobdot wewene 

FCT-PST-tie. s. t. \TI2=OBJ=3/0 . C carefully 

e-gi-majidot e-gi-minat 

FCT-PST-take. s. t. \TI=OBJ=3/0.C FCT-PST-give . to . s . o\TA=3/3 ' .C 



niw ogeman, "Ode," e-nat. 

t]nat. OBV leader=OBV this FCT-say . to . s . o\TA=3/3 ' . C 

He (P) tied it good, took it and gave it to the chief (O) . "Here, " he (P) said to him 
(O). (.TS. 4. 1.017) 



'^ For an analysis of primary and secondary objects in Ojibwe see Rhodes (1990b). 

161 



(39) Primary object > Secondary object (optional for modem-day older speakers): 

Nbegwzemwa niw gigosen. 

1-dry. for. s.o. \TA-DIR. I those . OBV fish-OBV 

I'm drying those fish for him. (POEX00287) 

Li sema(n) wgi-minan Biliyen. 

Lee tobacco=OEl^ 3. PST-give. to. s.o\TA=DIR=OBV. I Billy=OBV 

Lee (P) gave Billy (O) tobacco ((O)). (MD.245) 

(40) Subj ect > Possessor of oblique 

Zhiw wbekwnanek niw 
there back=PL=LOC that. OBI/ 

gagtanagoyen [e-] ne-pepegwzot 

crocodile=OBl/ FCT- start . to-DUP . leap\AI=3 . C 

e-ne-gwagwashkze ' ot . 

FCT- start. to-DUP. jump\AI . 3I=3.C 

So he (P) began to leap and jump there on the backs of the crocodiles (O) . 

(MD. 1.1. 043) 

Within this statement of distribution, however, lies some controversy. The 
disagreement centers on the analysis of inverse verbs. Briefly, Potawatomi (and other 
Algonquian languages) have verbal morphology which indicates whether the inflections 
for person/number agreement on some transitive verbs are the properties of the subject or 
the object. In (41) below, the verbal prefix {nE-} in both (a) and (b) is an agreement 
marker for first person. The direct suffix {-a} in (a) indicates that the prefix agrees with 
the subject, and the inverse suffix {-EgO} in (b) indicates the prefix agrees with the 
object. 

(41) a) Ngi-wabma o Njan. 

nE-gi- wabEm -a ow njan 
1- PST-see\TA -DIR.I that. AN John 

7 saw John. ' 



162 



b) Ngi-wabmek o Njan. 

nE-gi- wabEm -EgO ow njan 
1- PST-see\TA -INV.I that. AN John 

'John saw me. ' 
With respect to obviation, the difficulty lies with examples like (42b), where the 
object appears to control the obviation of the subject (Rhodes, 1993): 

(42) a) Wgi-wabman wgwesen. 

wE-gi- wabEm -a -En w#gwEs-En 
3- PST- see.s.o.\TA -DIR-OBV.I 3-son -OBV 

'Hei (P) saw hisi sorij (O). '^^ 

b) Wwabmegon wgwesen. 

wE-gi- wabEm -EgO -En w#gwEs-En 
3- PST- see.s.o.\TA -INV -OBV. I 3-son -OBV 

'His, sorij (O) saw hinii (P). ' 
Some (Anderson, 1992; Dahlstrom, 1988), maintain that direct verbs and inverse 
verbs have the same syntax, and the difference is a matter of morphology. When it 
comes to obviation, these analyses are limited to a general statement of distribution as 
first given above. Rhodes (1990a; 1994), however, argues that inverse verbs have their 
surface grammatical relations reversed from their 'notional' grammatical relations. One 
of the benefits of this analysis is it allows one to make a broader statement about the 
distribution of proximates and obviatives within clauses, as determined by the relational 
hierarchy, so long as the ranking based on surface grammatical relations. I will return to 
these different treatments of inversion in Chapter 9. 



^'' Rhodes (1 993) argues that these examples illustrate the Possessor Constraint, the goal of which is to 
avoid of conflicts in obviative marking. This constraint rules out as ungrammatical cases those readings m 
which a subject would be possessed by an object, or where a primary object would be possessed by a 
secondary object 

163 



8.4.3 Sentential (cross-clausal) obviation 

In cross-clausal obviation, a third person subject of a main clause controls the 
obviation of a third person subject in a subordinate clause. In general, this holds for 
complement, relative, and adverbial clauses: 

(43) Complement clause, (a) and (b) show 'copying to object' where the verb in the 
main clause inflects for the subject of the subordinate clause. So (a) would more 
literally read 'he-saw-him a squirrel running along'. In (c) there is a logical 
relation of subordination, however the second clause is grammatically an adjunct. 
Note in all three cases, the lower clause verb inflects for agreement with its 
obviative subject: 

(a) Bama zhe na mine e-wabmat (kwekseyen 
later EMPH EMPH again FCT-see . s . o\TA=3/3 ' . C squirrel=OBl^ 

e-bmebtonet] . 

FCT-run . along\AI = OBV"=3 . C 

Later on, he (P) saw a squirrel (O) running along. (AS:2:2:021) 

(b) I je o gigabe e-gi-nsaknek 

and that. AN boy FCT-PST-open . s . t . \TI = 3/0 . C 

e-gi-mkowat [niw ndemozeyen zhiw 

FCT-PST-find\TA=3/3 ' . C t]nat . OBV old. woman=OBl^ there 

e- j ibdebnet] 
FCT-sit\AIO=OBV"=3 . C 

So the boy (P) opened it and found the old lady (O) sitting in there... (JT:4: 2:046) 

(c) Wika zhe e-gi-bige-yekzet o wizhok 
ever EMPH FCT-PST-tired-be . tired\AI=3 . C that. AN whale 

[zhiw pene e-chikaznet niw gigabeyen] . 

there always FCT-play . a . game\AI=0BV=3 . C that.OBV boy=OBV 

The whale (P) got tired of the boy (O) always playing there. (AS:2: 1:020) 



164 



(44) Adverbial locative clauses 

(a) licensed by a relative root, animate subject 

I je wsezeyma e-zhyat 

and 3 . older . brother FCT-go . there\AI=3 . C 

[e j e-nim' edinet] . 
CH . where-dance\AI=0BV=3 . C 

So the older brother (P) would go to dances [where they (O) dance]. (JS.4.2.003) 

(b) adjunct, animate subject 

I je e-byat [ibe angonoyen e j e-odankwenet] 

and FCT-come\AI = 3 . C there ant=OBV CH . where-have . a . town\AI = OBl^=3 . C 

When he (P) got to the ant hill... [where they (O) have a town] ( JS:4:1:013) 

(c) . . . e-gi-ma j inat niw ndemozeyen 

FCT-PST-take. s.o.away\TA=3/3 ' .C that . OBV old. woman=OBV 

[ibe wigwamek ga-je-yenet] . 
there house=LOC CH . PST-where-be . in . a . place\AI=OBV"=3 . C 

...he took the old lady [to the house where she (O) stayed]. (.TS.4.2.068) 

(d) Ode gigabe e-gi-ma jit e-gi-byat 

this boy FCT-PST-leave\AI=3 . C FCT-PST-come\AI=3 . C 

[odanek neshnaben eyenet] . . . 
town=LOC Indian=OBV CH . be . in . a . place\AI = OBV"=3 . C 

This boy left and came [to where there was an Indian village]. More literally: 
he (P) left / he (P) came to a town /Indians (O) were there (.TS:4:3:029) 

(e) adjunct; inanimate subject 

Bama zhe na e-byawat [wigwam 

soon EMPH EMPH FCT-come\AI=35 . C house 

ga-tenek] . . . 

CH. PST-be. in. a. certain . place=OBV=0 . C 

Soon they came to where the house (O) was... (AS:2:3:022) 



165 



(f) adjunct, inanimate subject 

Ibe zhe na ga-wje-byat 

there EMPH EMPH CH . PST-where-come\AI=3 . P 

e-zhe-gche-ma j it e-byat ibe 

FCT-in. a. certain. way-really-leave\AI=3 . C FCT-come\AI=3C there 

jajibdebet e-ne-wabet bzhe ibe 

sit\AI=3.C FCT-start. to-see\AI=3.C EMPH there 

e j e-gdegankodnek . 

CH. there-be. spotted, clouds \ I I=OBV"=0 . P 

He ran to the place where he had come from, and when he arrived, he sat down 
and he (P) began to see spotted clouds (O) there! [AS: 1:3: 101) 

(45) Temporal clause: 

Iw je i ga-nakwneget 

and that.INAN CH . PST-plan . things\AI=3 . P 

e-wi-debmat [pi bwamshe 

FCT-FUT-grab. s.o\TA=3/3 'C then before 

gwabtonet] . 

run . to . shore\AI-0BV-3 . C 

The one (P) that planned it would grab him (O) [before he (O) reached land] . 

(MD: 1:1:046) 



(46) Manner clause: 

"Jo wika weye gkenmasi e-mbot 

not never someone know. s . o\TA=DIR= NEG.I FCT-die\AI=3 . C 

[e-wi- j igwgadenet] ." 
FCT-FUT-lif t . one ' s . leg\AI = OBV"=3 . C 

"No one was ever known to die with his legs sticking up. " (.TS:4: 1 :030) 
In general, cross-clausal control of obviation is much weaker than within the 
phrase or clause. The following examples show cases where clausal obviation fails to 
hold. In general, temporal clauses referring to time of year as in (47) are not obviative. 
These types of clauses always have inanimate subjects. 



166 



(47) Temporal clause: 

I me se ngodek jejakok 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH one-LOC crane-PL 

e-gche-wzhenwiwat e-nme-dgwagek 

FCT-really-get . ready\AI-35 . C FCT-getting . to . be-be . autumn-0 . C 

wech-gzhatek 

CH . towards -be . hot . weather\II-0 . P 

e-we-bbonshewat 

FCT-go . and- spend. the .winter. in. a. certain. place- 35. C 

Once when it was getting close to Autumn, cranes were preparing for spending 
the winter in the south... (AS. 1.3. 001) 

It is also possible for the subjects of complement clauses not to be controlled by 

obviation. This may be more likely to happen if the complement clause subject is highly 

topical in the discourse. In (48), for example, wegwendek 'somebody' turns out to be 

Rabbit, the 'hero' of the narrative. 

(48) Complement clause: 

Iw je nish wshkabewsen e-gi-nokanawat 

and two helper=OBV FCT-PST-have . s . o . do . s . t . \TA-35/3 ' . C 

e-wi-kewabmawat [wegwendek o 

FCT-FUT-watch.out. for. s.o. \TA-35/3 ' .C whomever -DUB that. AN 

ezhcheget] . 

CH . do . things . a . certain . way\AI-3 . P 

So they (P) had two scouts (O) watch out for [whomever (P) might be doing 
that]. (JS:4: 1:002) 

8.4.4 Sentence dusters 

The last type of syntactic context for obviation is what Rhodes (1990a) refers to 
as 'sentence clusters'. In such cases, adjacent sentences "encode a few very specific 
semantic relationships, viz. temporal proximity, immediate cause-effect, paraphrase, and 
a few others" (p. 109). I have found what appear to be analogous constructions in 



167 



Potawatomi, although Hockett punctuates them as single sentences/^ In (49), the clauses 
are linked by temporal proximity. Just as the old woman approaches the lake, the boy 
begins to walk off. The third person pronominal subject of the first clause referring to an 
old woman controls the obviation of the subject of the second clause gigabeyen 'boy 
(OBV)'. 



(49) Ibe e-byat j ik-gchegem; bama zhe 

there FCT-come\AI=3 . C next . to-big . lake soon EMPH 

na gete gigabeyen e-nemsenet. 

EMPH for. sure boy=OBV FCT-walk . of f \AI = OBV"=3 . C 

She (P) came there to the big lake; soon the boy (O) had started to walk off. 

(AS.2.3.018) 



In (50) the first clause provides an example of general behavior, referred to in the second 
clause. The pronominal subject in the main clause controls obviation of the object, and 
also of the subject of the second clause. 

(50) E-wabmawat kojesen e-bshkobnanet; 

FCT-see. s.o\TA=35/3 ' .C bean=OBV FCT-pull . out . s . o . \TA=3/3 ' . C 

jak zhe na e-zhechgenet . 

all EMPH FCT-do. things, a. certain. way\AI=OBV"=3.C 

They (P) saw him (O) pulling out beans (O); he (O) was doing all kinds of 
things. (JS.4. 1.004) 

8.5 Discourse obviation 

Apart from the restrictions on obviation as noted above, particularly as generated 
by obligatory contexts such as possessee and clausemate obviation, there is choice 



^^ Hockett was very particular about his use of punctuation, and in my translations, I have nearly always 
preserved his sentence punctuation, although have added semicolons within sentences where I have felt the 
need to mark a clause boundary. 

168 



involved in designating the obviation status of nominals. That is, whenever a clause has 
more than one third person, there is the choice of which nominal to make proximate, and 
which others will therefore be obviative. For example, given a narrative about two 
characters, a raccoon and a wolf, it would be grammatical to say either of the following: 
(51) a) The raccoon (PROX) saw the wolf (OBV). 

b) The wolf (OBV) saw the raccoon (PROX). 

Which form will be used depends on whether the language makes use of discourse 
obviation. A language with discourse obviation will use it for reference tracking, 
maintenance of a default ranking of characters to highlight the actions of a "hero", and 
for narrative-internal viewpoint (this is done with a temporary reordering of the default 
ranking known as a 'proximate shift') (Dahlstrom, 1988; Goddard, 1984; Goddard, 
1990).'^ So given a language (or dialect) with discourse obviation, the expected 
obviation status of the two nominals would be as in (51a) if the raccoon is the main 
character in the narrative. If the speaker uses (5 lb) where the main character is 
obviative, we would expect to find some kind of focus on the secondary wolf character 
which prompts the status shift. 

While Central Algonquian languages in general have syntactic obviation, not all 
make significant use of obviation for discourse/stylistic purposes. Rhodes (1985) points 
out that while some languages maintain proximates for large stretches of discourse 
(known as "proximate spans"), others have spans approximately equal to a sentence. 
Examples are reproduced below of Fox, which has discourse-level spans, and Plains 



^"^ Internal viewpoint is used to shift focus to a character, or to represent the narrative as coming from a 
particular character's point-of-view. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion.) 

169 



Cree, which has sentence-level spans. In the Fox example all of the proximate references 
refer to a man, and the obviative references refer to his son. In the second sentence, the 
son remains obviative, even though he is there is nothing in this sentence to induce 
syntactic obviation. 

(52) Fox, cited in Dahlstrom (1996): 

i>nina>h=ca>hi='pi e>haskacipwi>ha>ci, mese>='nah=meko peno>ci 
e'h=isihkawe>nici, i>ya>h e>h=oci-pemi-kohkihkawe>nici. 
"i>ya>h=ca>h=ye>hapa ki>si-pye>hapa!" e>h=isite>he>ci. 

So then, it is said, he (P) got tired of waiting for him (O), and he (P) followed his 
(P) son 's (O) trail leading away. His (O) footprints led pretty far away, and over 
there his (O) footprints turned back and continued on. "He must have gotten 
back already! " he (P) thought 

In this Plains Cree example, the proximate referent is reset for each sentence. In 
the third sentence, the proximate referent resets at the clause level. 

(53) Plains Cree, cited in Rhodes (1985) 

Ekwa maci-nikamow. Nimihitowak ekwa sisipak; maka pasakwapiwak. 
Ekwa pasikow Wisahkecahk; ati-nipahew 6hi sisipa, e-ati-tahkamat 
oscikwanisiyihk. Kekac e-mescihat, peyak awa apisisisiw napate piko 
pasakwapiw. Wapamew. (PCT 44:283, 46) 

'So hci (P) began to sing. So the ducksj (P) danced, but theyj (P) had their 
eyes closed. So Wisahkechahk (P) got up, went and killed those ducks (O) 
by stabbing themj (O) in their j (O) little heads. When hcj (P) was almost 
done with themj (O), one little onck (P) opened one eye. Hck (P) saw himt 
(O). 

Dahlstrom (1988) describes narrative uses of obviation in Plains Cree using a 

glossed example text, and argues convincingly for some discourse uses for internal 

viewpoint. However, Plains Cree spans are decidedly short, so by looking through any 

given text, it is easy to find examples where proximate shifts happen relatively quickly. I 

suspect that this is such an example. Rhodes (1985), however, also gives Ottawa as a 

170 



language that has only sentence-level spans, and here it seems to be more clearly the 

case: 

(54) Ottawa, cited in Rhodes (1985) 

Bezhig nini gii-mkadekegban. Aw kiwenzii gii-zhitood wiigwaamens 
waa-dzhi-mkadekenid niw wgwisan. Gaa-giizhtood dash mii gii-webi- 
mkadeked aw shkinwe. Pane biindig gii-yaa, gye go gii-wezhho gkizhe 
wmaanwaang. Niibna dsogon gii-yaa maa wiigwaamensing, gii- 
baabiidood iw gegoo ji-naabndang. Endso-ggizheb dash gii-zhaa maaba 
kiwenzii ko gii-ggwejmaad niw wgwisan nmanj iidig gaa- 
naabndamnigwen. Wgii-gnahmawaan niw wgwisan gaa wii nkwetwaasik 
niw bi-ggwejmigod mandaagninwan iw ji zhwenmigod. (EO 3 1 : 1-6). 

[Long ago] a mani (P) fasted. An old man, (P) having built a little hut 
where hisj (P) soni (O) would fast. After hci (P) got ready, the young mani 
(P) started to fast. Hci (P) went into the hut, and painted hisi (P) cheeks 
with charcoal. Hci (P) spent many days in the hut, waiting to see 
something. Every morning, the old man, (P) came to ask hisj (P) soni (O) 
if hci (O) had seen anything. Hcj (P) warned his (P) soni (O) not to answer 
the well-dressed mank (O) coming to ask himi (O) if hck (O) might bless 
himi (O). 

If Ottawa represents one end of the spectrum, with only sentence-level obviation, 
and Fox the other, with copious use of obviation in discourse, then languages like Plains 
Cree seem to occupy a middle ground. 

As will be shown below, Potawatomi also occupies this middle ground. 
Obviation in Potawatomi is decidedly syntactic, with spans approximately equal to the 
sentence. However some narrators make limited use of discourse obviation, with clear 
efforts made at maintaining proximates, and some legitimate cases of proximate shifts. I 
will demonstrate the difference by first briefly examining a Potawatomi text with 
syntactic obviation. Raccoon and Wolf in Section 8.5.1. In Section 8.5.2, 1 examine in 
detail a text with more complex obviation. Crane Boy (the full glossed text of Crane Boy 
is provided in Appendix C). 



171 



The analysis of Crane Boy shows that while transitive verbs reflect the use of 
discourse obviation, intransitive verbs follow the syntactic discourse pattern, and 
generally have proximate subjects. I argue that a possible bridge between the transitive 
and intransitive uses of obviation are quote frames (see Section 6.3.2), where intransitive 
verbs of speech that bracket the direct speech of characters nearly always have a 
proximate third person subject. Because quote frames in Potawatomi are frequently used 
to register internal viewpoint (see Section 6.3 for a discussion of internal viewpoint), it 
seems they have become grammaticalized proximate shifts. I will argue that such cases 
can provide the means of reanalysis of obviation from discourse-level uses, to obviation 
only at the level of the sentence and below. 

8.5.1 Raccoon and Wolf, a text with syntactic obviation 

Example (55) below comes from a text that has only syntactic obviation. (This 
example is reproduced from Chapter 6, example 29; the glossed version can be found in 
Appendix B.). In each sentence, the proximate nominal shifts so that the subject of the 
transitive verb of speech is always proximate, and the primary object is always obviative: 

(55) 

5 Gete zhena e-gi-nkweshkwat mwen. Sure enough, he (Raccoon, O) met 

Wolf (P). 

6 "Nshi, gde-ton ne gego wa-mijyan ?" "Brother, do you have anything to 
e-nat espenen. eat?" he (P) said to the Raccoon (O). 

7 "Jo zhe kwech bkeji nde-ton wa-mijyan "Not much, I just have a Uttle toeat 
nawkwek , " e-nat espen . for my own dinner," the Raccoon (P). 

said to him (O). 

8 Mwe e-natewat , "Wegni je etoyen ? " Wolf (P) asked him (O), "What do 

you have ?" 



172 



9 Espen e-nat , "Mteno zhe na bkeji Raccoon (P) said to him (O), "I have 
gokosh-wzhey ndesa , " e-nat . just a httle meat-rmd," he (P) said to 

him (O). 

10 Mwe e-nat , "Mojma shemshen o wzhey." Wolf (P) said to him (O), "Please 

feed me that rind." 

11 I je o espen msach e-gi-minat . So the Raccoon (P) finally gave it to 

him (O). 

(AS.4.2) 



This is the pattern found throughout the text. Main clause intransitive verbs have 
proximate subjects, and all main clause transitive verbs are direct, with proximate 
subjects and obviative primary objects.^'' 

8.5.2 Crane Boy, a text with discourse obviation 

The narrative discussed in this section. Crane Boy, was told by the wife of the 
narrator in (55) above (the glossed text is provided in Appendix C). While this narrative 
shares the same syntactic obviation pattern in main clause intransitive verbs as Raccoon 
and Wolf, the treatment of main clause transitive verbs is very different, following the 
principles of discourse obviation. In Section 8.5.2.1, 1 examine the discourse obviation 
features of this text. In Section 8.5.2.2, 1 show that the use of syntactic obviation with 
intransitives, which are numerically preponderant, tend to mask these discourse obviation 
features. 

8.5.2.1 Discourse obviation features 



^' I am specifically referring to mam clauses intransitives here, since subordinate clause intranstives can 
have obviative subjects by virtue of cross-clausal obviation. 

173 



Narrative Summary. A summary of the text is as follows: The story begins with 
cranes preparing for their winter migration. While the adult cranes plan and prepare for 
their journey, some of their boys begin roughhousing. One boy breaks his arm, and so 
his parents must leave him behind, provisioned only with one rabbit, fully expecting that 
he will succumb to the harsh northern winter. After the cranes leave, an old woman hears 
the Crane-Boy crying and takes pity on him, bringing him to her house to live as her 
adopted grandson, and to be taken care of until the boy's parents return. The old woman 
takes care of another boy, but he talks back and misbehaves, abusing her benefaction. 
After an incident, Crane-Boy evicts him. In the next episode of the story, the Crane Boy 
rids the old woman of a pesky big wooden spoon that steals their food. Spring returns, 
and the boy watches for the cranes. Soon they return and Crane-Boy's parents find their 
son and are overjoyed that he is still alive. 

Ranking ofnominals. Several researchers have argued that discourse obviation is 
determined by rankings of participants in a narrative, and suggest rankings for the 
discourses they analyze (Dahlstrom, 1988; Dahlstrom, 1996; Goddard, 1984; Goddard, 
1990; Rhodes, 1985).^^ So, based on the summary given above, I will assume a ranking 
of participants as follows (using a cinematic metaphor of stars, leads, supporting cast, and 

19\ 

extras ): 



^^ Aissen (1997) chooses not to analyze the ranking of referents in discourse, which she says "is a 
psychological or cognitive task, not a linguistic one, though some of our best information about this 
ranking may come from Imguistic evidence" (p. 710). As linguistic evidence for cognitive constructs forms 
the basis of this study, we believe this ranking to be well worth examining from a linguistic perspective. 
^' The fact that I have a ready metaphor to hand demonstrates that participant rankmgs are natural for 
narration, and show up for narratives told using other types of media. 

174 



Starring role: Crane-Boy. Crane-Boy is the "hero" of the story, that is, the 
character with whom we empathize the most. He emerges as a character very 
early in the narrative and remains throughout the rest of the narrative. Much of 
the narrative is told from his point-of-view. 

Lead: Old woman. The old woman is introduced shortly after Crane-Boy, and is a 
character throughout the rest of the narrative. We also strongly empathize with 
the old lady as Crane-Boy's adoped grandmother and benefactress, although she 
is somewhat distant and mysterious as well: she seems to have mystical powers 
(she is something of a culture hero), and for part of the narrative, holds the secret 
of the curse of the Big Spoon. 

Supporting cast: Crane-Boy's parents, the Bad Boy, the Big Spoon. These 
characters occur only in the periphery of the narrative, or else in single episodes. 
The parents are introduced briefly at the beginning of the narrative and do not re- 
appear until the very end. The Bad Boy shows up briefly, for part of an episode. 
The Big Spoon, although certainly a memorable character, also belongs to a single 
episode. All of these characters, are, in one way or another, the 'bad guys', and 
serve mainly to highlight the heroics of Crane Boy. 



175 



Extras: the other cranes, crane children (boys), rabbit (for food). These 
characters show up only briefly, and are usually in the plural (showing their non- 
individuation). They are essentially props. 

This ranking can be summarized as follows: 

(56) 

Crane Boy > Old Woman > Crane Boy's Parents > the other cranes 

Bad Boy crane children 

Big Spoon rabbit 

If this ranking bears out, we should expect that much of the time. Crane Boy will 
be proximate, and that he should rarely be obviative. Characters that are less important, 
or less central, should be proximates less of the time, and occur more frequently as 
obviative. And this is the case. If we look at NPs, we find that the most important 
character, the Crane Boy, gets mentioned as a full NP the most (50 references), and none 
of these are obviative. Out of 34 references to the old woman, nearly half are obviative 
(14, and 13 of these are possessee obviatives — which will be explained below). The 
meager three NP references to Crane Boy's parents are always possessee obviative. 

In main clause transitive verbs, the ranking in (56) generally holds; the highest 
ranked nominal on this scale is assigned proximate status. In order the proximate status 
of highly-ranked nominals, which I will refer to as proximate maintenance strategies. 
These include the use of possessed NPs, passive verb forms, and inverses. Each of these 
is discussed below. 

Possessed NPs. One such device commonly found in this text is the use of 
possessed NPs. For example, the narrator alternates between referring to the old woman 

176 



as mdemoze 'old woman' and okmesen 'his grandmother (OBV)'. Okmesen, like many 
kinship terms and terms for parts of the body, is a dependent noun, which means that is 
obligatorily possessed. Possessed NPs are obligatorily obviative when the possessor is 
third person. Since the possessor of 'grandmother' in this text is always a third person, 
Crane-Boy, okmesen is always obviative. Similarly, Crane-Boy's parents are always 
refered to as wmezodanen 'his parents (OBV)'. 

One virtue of using these possessed NPs in a clause with a more topical NP, is 
they will not interfere with the proximate status of the hero, that is, they do not prompt a 
proximate shift. In addition, these possessed NPs allow for the maintenance of Crane- 
Boy' s as the central character in other respects. Consider, for example, that the narrator 
might have referred to the parent cranes simply as gijejakok 'those cranes' and the 
Crane-Boy as ni wgweswan 'their son (OBV)'. Yet this is not the case; we are told about 
the actions of Crane-Boy's grandmother and his parents; not her grandson, or their son. 

As an interesting comparison, Dahlstrom (1996) finds that for the text she is 
analyzing, the narrator appears to avoid u^mg possessed NPs, as well as various transitive 
forms. However, in this case the narrator is trying to maintain multiple proximates 
(multiple proximates are used when a secondary character shares the status of the main 
character), so using either a possessed NP or a transitive verb would create obligatory 
contexts for obviation, and disrupt the dual-proximate status. This means that narrators 
are not at the mercy of obligatory contexts of obviation, but rather, use obligatory 
contexts selectively in support of their stylistic goals. 

Passive verb forms. Passive verb forms are also used in the maintenance of a 
proximate. Goddard (1990) notes that passives, as well as detransitivized intranstives, 

177 



are a means of suppressing a potential proximate. The most common passive verb in this 
text is a speech verb: e-nayek 'he/she was told' . Crane Boy is maintained as a proximate 
from the end of line 51 to line 56, with three uses of this passive in lines 52, 54 and 56. 
The point of maintaining Crane Boy as a proximate here seems to be so that we will 
experience the old woman's reprimands from his perspective. 

The use of the passive is also noteworthy in line 35, where there is another 
instance of a reprimand, this time, though, the recipient is the Bad Boy. First there is a 
proximate shift from the old woman (who is proximate from lines 3 1-35) to the Bad Boy 
at the end of line 35, where the passive is used. At this point, the grandmother becomes a 
kind of culture hero, cursing the Bad Boy by turning him into a turtle, inventing the 
creature we know today. This shifts our focus to the Bad Boy, whose new role is 
introduced in the next line, in an aside to the listening audience: 'and that's why the 
turtle (P) doesn't know his parents (O).' 

Inverse verb forms. A third device used in the maintenance of a proximate is 
inverse verb forms. According to Dahlstrom (1988), inverses are commonly used "to 
continue tracking the one salient third person throughout an episode". There are three 
types of situations where inverses are used in this narrative: when the subject is a 
possessed NP, when the subject is pronominal, and in sentences with references to the 
Big Spoon. 

In the first type, which is the most common, the subject is a possessed NP, which 
is obligatorily obviated. Since the subject is obviative and the object proximate, an 
inverse verb must be used. As argued above, these instances represent a particular 
viewpoint by virtue of the NP that is used, and because they are obviative, do not 

178 



interfere with maintaining the hero as proximate. The example shown here is uses ni 
okmesen 'his grandmother'. Other examples with possessed NPs as subjects of inverse 
verbs occur in lines 6, 8, 43, 58, 77 and 100. 

(57) Iw se e-yayajmo ' got 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-tell . stories, to. s.o.\TA= 3V3. C 

e-bkonyak ni okmesen. 

FCT-be.night\II=O.C that.OB^ 3 . grandmother=0£y 

So his grandmother told him stories at night. (AS:1:3:24) 

The second type has inverses with pronominal subjects. This is less common; 
there are only three such instances in the text; lines 25, 39 and 42. While it is not 
immediately clear why the narrator chose to use inverses in lines 25 and 39, we will note 
that the obviative character is in both cases the old woman, and the proximate, is the 
expected Crane Boy. Line 42 is discussed in the next section. 

The third type of inverse occurs when the secondary character, the Big Spoon, is 
the subject of the sentence. There are seven references to the Big Spoon in the text, five 
of which have transitive verbs (line 42 with a pronominal reference, and lines 46, 58, 78, 
and 85). All of these are in the inverse. This makes sense as a proximate-maintenance 
strategy, considering that the object in all of these sentences is the Crane-Boy, the hero of 
the story, and the Big Spoon is only a supporting character. The narrators use of 
references to the Big Spoon has a number of subtleties, which will be discussed next. 

Big Spoon references. Line 42 is the first reference to the Big Spoon, and he is 
introduced only as a obviative pronominal, with an inverse verb: 



(58) I me je wi zhe pene 

that.INAN EMPH but EMPH EMPH always 



179 



e-kenongot o gigabe . 

FCT-talk. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3. C that. AN boy 

So it must be that he would always talk to the boy. (AS:1:3:42) 
This type of introduction strikes native speakers of English as odd, as one might 
expect at least an indefinite NP. ^^ However, as we will see, it is part of a larger strategy 
to gradually increase the salience of this mysterious character.^^ In the next reference, 
line 46, the Big Spoon is referred to with an obviative NP as weyeyen 'someone (OBV)'. 
The use of the obviative form of this indefinite pronoun is very unusual, as usually the 
proximate form (or the unmarked form weye — see Section 8.3.2 ) is used, even when the 
agreement infiections on the verb show it to be obviative. Finally in line 51, we find out 
that this mysterious voice belongs to the Big Spoon. Even though this character is, in 
fact, very animate, gche-emkwan 'big spoon' is grammatically inanimate, and so 
obviation is not marked on the NP. The intransitive verb in this clause, however, refiects 
the fact that the NP subject is in fact proximate: 

(59) E-nme-gisekwet mdemoze, 

FCT- get ting .to. be- finish. cooking\AI=3 . C old. woman 

e-bye-bidgeshkak gche-emkwan. 

FCT- come- enter . with . body\II=0 . C big- spoon 

When the old lady is almost through cooking, in comes a big spoon. (AS:1:3:51) 



'° Interestingly enough, I am no longer a good judge of such things in Potawatomi. I didn't realize the 
oddness of this sentence until it was pointed out to me by several English speakers who read the translation. 
^' Another interesting strategy used by this narrator to create suspense is the interleavmg of episodes. 
Events involving encounters with the Big Spoon are interwoven with descriptions of the old woman and 
boy gomg about their routine, and of the boy learning how to anticipate his parents' return. This lasts until 
the climax of the episode in line 99 where Crane -Boy destroys the Big Spoon. 

180 



In line 58, the Big Spoon is again referred to as 'someone', but unlike line 46, this 
time the NP weye is proximate. However, the verbal agreement marker shows it has 
obviative status: 

(60) E-nme-zag'ek 

FCT-in . the . process . of -go . outside\AI2=3 . C 

e-kenongot mine weye, "Wegni 

FCT-talk. to. s ■ o. \TA= 3 V3. C again someone what 

wa-mijyek jejakos?" 

CH. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=25. P crane=DIM 

When he went out, again someone spoke to him, "What are you going to eat, little 

crane?" (AS:l:3:5K) 

A parallel case can be found in line 85. 

Line 78 raises the animacy status of the Big Spoon by referring to it as ni nenwen 
'that man' : 

(61) Gete ga-gish-gwap ' ek i mbish, 

for. sure CH . PST-f inish-scoop . s . t . up\TI=3/0 . C that.INAN water 

e-nnatagot ni nenwen, 

FCT-ask. s.o. \TA=3'/3. C that. OBV man=OBV 

"Wegni wa-mijyek jejakos," 

what CH. FUT-eat. s.t\TI=25. P crane=DIM 

e-nayek gigabe . 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=PASS=3.C boy 

After he dipped into the water, that man asked him "What are you going to eat, 
little crane .? " (AS : 1 : 3 : 7 8) 

In the last reference to the Big Spoon in the narrative (lines 98), the NP iw gche- 
emkwan 'the big spoon' is used. In direct comparison with line 51 (example (59) above), 
however, this time the verbal agreement marker is obviative: 

(62) Bama zhe na e-bye-bidgeshkannek 

soon EMPH EMPH FCT-come-enter . with . body\II=OBV=0C 



181 



iw gche-emkwan. 

that.INAN big-spoon 

That big spoon came reaching in. (AS : 1 : 3 : 98) 



The following table summarizes the references to the Big Spoon: 

Line 42 he (O) 

Line 46 someone (O), marked as (O) in verbal agreement 

Line 5 1 big spoon, marked as (P) in verbal agreement 

Line 58 someone (P), marked as (O) in verbal agreement 

Line 78 that man (O) 

Line 85 someone (P), marked as (O) in verbal agreement 

Line 98 big spoon, maked as (O) in verbal agreement 

Throughout this episode, the narrator gradually increases the salience of the Big 
Spoon character in several ways. First, by the type of reference: first pronominal, then 
indefinite, then full NP. Secondly by choice of NP: in one instance, the Big Spoon is 
referred to as nene 'man' which is grammatically animate, as opposed to gche-emkwan 
'big spoon' which is grammatically inanimate. Lastly, through subtle and clever use of 
obviation. 

The first interesting use of obviation is with indefinite pronouns. In line 46, the 
indefinite pronoun is obviative, as are the ones in lines 58 and 85, although here the 
obviative inflection on the indeflnite NP is suppressed. This has the effect of making the 
indefinite seem slightly more like a proximate. Another use is with definite NPs. As an 
inanimate, gche-emkwan is itself never marked as obviative, its obviative status would 
only be registered in verbal agreement. In nearly parallel syntactic contexts (an 
intransitive verb in a main clause), lines 5 1 and 98 show a contrast in the obviative status 
of the nominal. In line 51, the verb has proximate agreement suffix, but in line 98, the 

182 



agreement suffix is obviative. Although this may seem counterintuitive, I would argue 
that this use of an obviative agreement marker in fact increases the salience of the 
referent: it is 'animate' enough to not only to trigger an obviative agreement on the verb, 
but to do so even in the absence of another clausal third person that might trigger 
obviation. This is a logical place for the spoon to have a relatively high salience, since 
this is the moment when he reaches to steal their food (we clearly view this from the 
perspective of the people inside the house), and Crane-Boy splits him in two. 

Proximate shifts. While the ranking given in (56) generally holds for transitive 
verbs, there are a couple of cases where the Old Woman is proximate, and the Crane Boy 
is obviative. Such instances, where a secondary character is assigned proximate status, 
are known as "proximate shifts". According to Goddard (1984), proximate shifts serve to 
shift our attention or "focus" to a secondary character, or to represent that character's 
point of view. 

There are two proximate shifts in the Crane Boy narrative. The first takes place in 
lines 15-18, when the Old Woman discovers Crane Boy. During this span of sentences, 
the narrative is told from her perspective. She hears someone crying and approaches the 
sound. The use of the proximate shift has the effect of adding cinematic vividness, but 
also represents her epistemic stance as being different from our own (a common effect of 
narrative-internal viewpoint, as discussed in Chapter 6), since we, the audience know this 
is Crane-Boy, but the Old Woman does not. 

The only other example in the text where the default nominal ranking does not 
hold in a main clause transtive is in line 38, where the Old Woman is proximate, and the 
Crane Boy is obviative. Since this instance is very short (only one sentence), it is more 

183 



difficult to say for certain that it has the function of a proximate shift, however there are 
reasons to think this is the case. This sentence introduces the Big Spoon episode by 
pointing out that the Old Woman is behaving oddly, telling the boy every day what she 
will cook for their main meal. Although, at this point, the audience may suspect 
something strange is going on, we don't find out until later that this is an effect of the Big 
Spoon 'curse'. This is therefore a likely instance of epistemic distancing, which is a 
plausible context for the use of a proximate shift. 

8.5.2.2 Syntactic obviation features 

Outside of main clause transitive verbs, this text behaves as if it were only 
governed by syntactic obviation. Main clause intransitives, for instance, are always 
proximate. The result is that proximates tend to shift very frequently; if there is a 
sequence of main clause intransitives with alternating subject referents, proximates will 
shift every sentence. Because main clause intransitives are numerically preponderant, the 
overall effect is to mask the discourse obviation behavior of main clause transitives. 

Most of the rapid proximate shifts that take place accompany the verb of speech 
e-kedot 'he/she said'. Verbs of speech are very common in Potawatomi narrative, and 
tend to accompany, or bracket every instance of direct speech (see the discussion of 
Section 6.3.2). The intranstive verb e-kedot is by far the most common verb of speech 
used for this purpose. 

I suspect that the regular use of a proximate subject with e-kedot is a result of 

grammaticalization of discourse obviation. That proximates would become obligatory in 

this context makes sense, based on the fact that proximate shifts reflect narrative-internal 

perspective, and we have already established evidence that verbs of speech are used in 

184 



Potawatomi to mark narrative-internal perspective (generally the narrator's evaluation of 
the quoted speech — see Section 6.3.2) 

Since Potawatomi narratives are frequently are short on description and lengthy 
on conversation, the rapid shift of proximates in intransitives, particularly intransitive 
verbs of speech, tends to obscure discourse obviation effects. There are many ways that 
the discourse ranking of nominals is maintained, as we have seen above, but because of 
the high frequency of this construction, the opposite may appear to be true. Constructions 
such as these may act as pivots, paving the way for a language with discourse-level 
obviation such as Fox, to become reanalyzed as a Cree/Ottawa-type with short spans. 
Potawatomi seems to be in the process of such a shift. 

8.6 Conclusion 

The goal of this chapter was to describe obviation in Potawatomi, including 
obviative inflection, as well as syntactic and discourse contexts for its use. 

While Potawatomi has relatively short proximate spans, I have provided evidence 
that it has some discourse-level uses of obviation: highly ranked characters tend to be 
referred to with proximate NPs, speakers use a variety of devices to maintain the hero' s 
proximate status, and beyond this show subtle control of obviation to represent viewpoint 
and relative character salience. 

I have argued that these strategies are largely obscured by the fact that there is an 

abundance of reported speech in narrative, and that this is a context where obviation has 

largely grammaticalized to only take proximates. The result is that rapid proximate shifts 

seem to be characteristic of Potawatomi narrative. It may be that such grammaticalized 

contexts provide a means of reanalysis of obviation, providing the missing link between 

185 



languages of the Fox-type, with significant discourse-level uses of obviation, to an 
Ottawa-type, where the domain of obviation is more strictly syntactic. 



186 



Bibliography 



Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the Syntax of Obviation. Language, 73.705-50. 

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology .vol. 62: Cambridge Studies in 

Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1958. Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Word List. 

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 
Cuoq, Jean- Andre. 1866. Etudes philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages de 

I'Amerique. Montreal: Dawson Brothers. 
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1986. Narrative Structure in a Fox text 
— . 1988. Plains Cree Morphosyntax, Department of Linguistics, University of 

California, Berkeley: Ph.D. 
— . 1996. Narrative Structure in a Fox text, nikotwdsik iskwdhtem, pdskihtepayih! 

Studies in Honour of H.C. Wolfart, ed. by John D.; Nichols and Arden Ogg. 

Winnepeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics. 
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and 

Algonquian. Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference., ed. by William 

Cowan, 119-63. Ottawa: Carl eton University. 
Frantz, Donald. 1966. Person indexing in Blackfoot. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 32.50-58. 
Goddard, Ives. 1984. The obviative in Fox narrative discourse. Papers of the Fifteenth 

Algonquian Conference, ed. by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University. 
— . 1990. Aspects of the Topic Structure of Fox Narratives: Proximate Shifts and the Use 

of Overt and Inflectional NPs. International Journal of American Linguistics, 

56.317-40. 
Hockett, Charles. 1939a. The Potawatomi Language, Anthropology, Yale University: 

Ph.D. dissertation. 
— . 1939b. Potawatomi Syntax. Language, 15.235-48. 
— . 1948a. Potawatomi I: Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and Morphological Survey. 

International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi II: Derivation, Personal Prefixes, and Nouns. International 

Journal of American Linguistics, XIV.63-73. 
— . 1948c. Potawatomi III: The Verb Complex. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV. 139-49. 
— . 1948d. Potawatomi IV: Particles and Sample Texts. International Journal of 

American Linguistics, XIV.213-25. 
— . 1966. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American Linguistics, 

32.59-73. 
Jacobsen, William. 1967. Switch-Reference in Hokan-Coahuiltecan. Studies in 

Southwestern Ethnolinguistics, ed. by Dell H. Hymes, 238-63. The Hague. 
Jesperson, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press. 

187 



Michelson, Truman. 1921. The Owl Sacred Pack of the Fox Indians.vol. Bulletin no. 72: 

Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 
— . 1925. Accompanying papers.vol. 40: Bureau of Emerican Ethnology Annual Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 
Mithun, Marianne. 1990. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 
Rhodes, Richard A. 1976. The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, Linguistics, 

University of Michigan: Ph.D. 
— . 1985. Obviation: the Mark of Non-Coreference 
— . 1990a. Obviation, Inversion, and Topic Rank in Ojibwa. Proceedings of the Sixteenth 

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 16-19, 1990: 

Special Session on General Topics in American Indian Linguistics, 16S. 101-15. 
— . 1990b. Ojibwa Secondary Objects. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical 

Perspective, ed. by Katarzyna; Dziwirek, Patrick; Farrell and Errapel Mejias- 

Bikandi, 401-14: Center for Study of Language and Information. 
— . 1992. The Syntax of Possessor Obviation in Ojibwe 
— . 1993. The Possessor Constraint 
— . 1994. Agency, Inversion, and Thematic Alignment in Ojibwe. Proceedings of the 

Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 18-21, 

1994: General Session: Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. 

by Susanne; Dolbey Gahl, Andy; Johnson, Christopher, 431-46. Berkeley: 

Berkeley Linguistics Society. 
Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius. 1909. Grammatische onderscheidigen in het 

Algonkinsch. Amsterdam: Akademie van Wetenschappen. 
Wolfart, H. Christoph. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. Transactions of the 

American Philosophical Society, 63. 



188 



9 The Obviation Construction 



9.1 Introduction 

Like the Independent and Conjunct paradigms and the preverb e-, obviation is 
another grammatical phenomenon of Potawatomi which has different but related uses in 
syntax and discourse (described in Chapter 8). These different uses within various 
Algonquian languages have given rise to two main theories of how obviation works: that 
obviation is basically a syntactic device, or that it is primarily a function of discourse. 

It is a descriptive fact that within the Algonquian language family, some 
languages and dialects regularly employ discourse obviation in narrative while others 
make little to no use of it. For example, in languages like Fox and Plains Cree, proximate 
selection is largely determined by the role or status of nominal referents in the narrative, 
with the most central character, or 'hero', generally assigned proximate status. Proximate 
spans (where one nominal referent is maintained as a proximate) can last through long 
stretches of text (Dahlstrom, 1988; 1996; Goddard, 1984; 1990). In Ottawa, on the other 
hand, the proximate span is equal to roughly a sentence, and proximate selection is based 
on the grammatical function of a nominal (Rhodes, 1990; 2002). 

Potawatomi presents an interesting case for these theories, because the use of 
discourse obviation is not language or dialect specific, but rather appears to depend on 
the narrator: Jim Spear's texts (such as "Raccoon and Wolf) can be explained solely by 
reference to grammatical function within a sentence, however Alice Spear's texts (for 

187 



example, "Crane Boy"), show clear efforts at proximate maintenance/ A satisfactory 
account of Potawatomi must therefore allow 1) syntactic obviation in the absence of 
discourse obviation, and 2) some access/use of discourse obviation for those narrators 
that make use of it. 

In this chapter, I will argue for a constructional approach to obviation. That is, I 
will argue that obviation has a very broad function — hierarchically ranking 
non-coreferent third persons — and this finds different expression across grammatical 
domains. The advantages of such an approach are 1) it theoretically unifies various 
instantiations of obviation, 2) helps explain how obviation could be extended to apply in 
new contexts, and 3) allows us to explain how speakers of one language or dialect may 
access, to varying degrees, one particular type of obviation, such as its discourse use. 

In addition, I will incorporate information about Mental Space networks into 
constructions. Because Mental Spaces theory is designed to handle the representation of 
viewpoint, it allows us to capture the changes in perspective signalled by proximate 
shifts. Indexing the Mental Space network inside of constructions allows constructions to 
"see" what is happening at the discourse level. 

The format of the chapter is as follows: in Section 9.2, 1 discuss previous 
analyses of obviation, giving particular attention to a theory I call the "integrated 
approach" which forms the basis of the present analysis. Section 9.3 presents what I call 
the "constructional approach" to obviation. Section 9.4 lays out the details of this 
approach, and discusses how constructions are indexed to Mental Space networks. 



^ Grammatical attrition might be suspected here, but is not a Ukely explanation given both were very fluent 
speakers, narrating texts at at time when the use of Potawatomi was still quite robust. 

188 



Section 9.5 discusses the relationship between the various obviation constructions, and 
proposes the concept of "constructional maintenance" to account for the difference 
between the use of obviation in languages like Fox / Plains Cree, Ottawa and 
Potawatomi. 

9.2 Previous analyses 

Previous analyses of obviation in Algonquian languages can be grouped as 
pre-generative (traditional grammatical descriptions), syntax-based, discourse-based, and 
what I will call the "integrated approach". Each of these is discussed, in turn, below. 

Pre-generative descriptions of Algonquian languages treat obviation as essentially 
a discourse phenomenon, where proximates are described as the 'topic' or 'focus' of 
discourse (Bloomfield, 1962; Hockett, 1966; Wolfart, 1973). A good representation of 
this perspective is Bloomfield' s description of obviation in Menomini: "The proximate 
third person represents the topic of discourse, the person nearest the speaker's point of 
view, or the person earlier spoken of and already known" (1962, p. 38). 

Later syntactic studies of obviation rejected the notion of proximates being the 
discourse focus, arguing that this definition of focus is circular (defined only in relation 
to obviation), and that it does little to explain obligatory contexts of obviation, such as in 
the case of possession, and clausemate obviation (Dunnigan et al., 1978; Grafstein, 



189 



1981). While these syntactic studies do not discount the discourse use of obviation, they 
exclude it from their analyses, as Grafstein states:^ 

I suspect that one of the reasons for the shortcomings of the traditional approach lies 
partially in its failure to separate the semantic function of obviation at the level of discourse 
from its syntactic function at the sentential level. The attempt to describe and predict 
obviation exclusively in terms of notions such as 'focus' obfuscates the syntactic 
relationships which hold between proximate and obviative nouns within sentences, (p. 98) 

While these studies resulted in a much richer description of the syntactic realization of 
obviation, they were later criticized for disregarding the role of obviation in discourse and 
its effect on clause and sentence-level syntax (Goddard, 1984). 

Proponents of discourse-based obviation (Dahlstrom, 1988; 1996; Goddard, 1984; 
1990) argue that in any given narrative, the highest ranked nominal referent (the 'hero') 
will be assigned proximate status, and other nominals will be obviative. This default 
ranking is sometimes overridden in specific contexts, and the alternation of proximate 
status is known as a 'proximate shift'. Proximate shifts occur when there is focus on a 
particular character, or the narrative is presented from a particular character's viewpoint 
(what we have referred to as 'internal viewpoint' — see Section 6.3). In these cases, the 
ranking may assign a secondary character proximate status, and other nominals will be 
marked obviative. An indication that these shifts to secondary characters do not represent 
the default ranking is that they often require more 'machinery', such as specification with 
overt NPs (Goddard, 1990). 



" Aissen (1997), a more recent example of the syntactic approach to obviation, also adopts this tactic: "[t]he 
ranking of referents according to discourse salience is a psychological or cognitive task, not a Imguistic 



190 



Inversion is an important part of a discourse-based argument (see Section 2.8 for a 
description of direct and inverse verb forms). According to this theory, in any given text, 
direct and inverse verb forms are used to maintain a high-ranking argument as proximate. 
In any given clause, if a subject is proximate and the object obviative, the verb will be 
marked as 'direct'. If the subject is obviative and the object is proximate, the verb will be 
marked 'inverse'. Proximates and obviatives are therefore determined by discourse 
ranking, and inversion follows from the assignment of obviation status. 

Richard Rhodes, in several articles, argues against the idea that obviation is 
discourse-driven, in part because such a theory does not account for languages like 
Ottawa that do not make significant use of discourse obviation. He argues instead for an 
integrated theory of obviation that encompasses both syntax and discourse (1976; 1985; 
1990; 1992; 1994; 2002). 

The remainder of this section describes this theory in some detail, because it 
forms the basis of the present analysis. A summary of the relevant features of this theory 
is as follows. Within clauses, control of obviation is determined by a hierarchy of 
grammatical relations, given in (1): 

(1) subjects > primary objects > secondary objects > possessors of obliques 

The highest third person on this scale is the 'preferred argument' ("PA"). Within a 
clause, if anything may be proximate, it will be the preferred argument. The preferred 
argument then controls obviation of other third persons within the clause, and to some 
degree, sententially. In languages that have discourse obviation, nominals can be 

191 



obviated from outside the sentence. In this case, the selection of preferred argument is 
based on discourse topic: the highest nominal on the topic hierarchy is the preferred 
argument. 

Inverse verb forms also play an important part in this theory. It is worth noting at 
this point that inverse verbs in texts with syntactic obviation occur very infrequently, if at 
all (a rough estimate would be about 2% of all main clause transitive verbs). ^ While 
inverses have an obvious function in languages with discourse obviation — that of 
maintaining a proximate over a span of sentences — their role in syntactic obviation is not 
apparent (since there is also a passive). If inverses are less important for syntactic 
obviation, it stands to reason that they should not be common. 

Whereas in the discourse-central theory direct and inverse verb forms are read off 
of the mapping of proximate and obviative to surface grammatical functions, for the 
integrated theory, this mapping takes place between notional and final grammatical 
relations. That is, with a direct verb, notional and final relations are aligned, but inverse 
verbs reverse the notional and final relations, and are thus passive-like. 

In order to lay this out in a little more detail, I have shown the difference between 
the assignment of the Preferred Argument in a syntactic and discourse obviation language 
in the tables below. For the purposes of illustration, I have assumed a hypothetical text 
about Raccoon and Wolf, where Raccoon outranks Wolf on the topic hierarchy, that is. 
Raccoon is the central character. The example sentences use the transitive verb 'see' 
which takes a subject and primary object. 



^ I have observed this in Potawatomi, and Rhodes (p.c.) notes that this is also the case in Ottawa. 

192 



The first set of tables show how proximate assignment and inversion would work 
in a syntactic language. In (2), Rabbit is the final subject, and is assigned preferred 
argument status (shown in boldface). Using a direct form means that final relations 
match notional relations. 

(2) SYNTACTIC LANGUAGE, DIRECT VERB 





Raccoon 


saw 


Wolf 


Notional 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Final 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Preferred 
Argument 


PA 







Characteristic of syntactic obviation languages, if the nominal referents are switched 
(which is common when characters converse), a syntactic language will generally still 
assign PA to the final subject, and will use a direct verb, as shown by the alignment of 
notional and final relations in (3). 
(3) SYNTACTIC LANGUAGE, DIRECT VERB 





Wolf 


saw 


Raccoon 


Notional 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Final 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Preferred 
Argument 


PA 







Occasionally, however, in syntactic obviation language, an inverse verb form will be 
used. In this case, the PA is still the final subject, but because the notional and final 
relations are mismatched, the verb will be inverse, as shown in (4): 

193 



(4) SYNTACTIC LANGUAGE, INVERSE VERB 





Wolf 


saw 


Raccoon 


Notional 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Final 
Relations 


Primary 
Object 


< 


Subject 


Preferred 
Argument 






PA 



In a language with discourse obviation, the PA associates to the highest ranked 
nominal on the topic hierarchy, in this case, the Raccoon (shown in boldface in (5)). The 
alignment of notional and final relations means the verb is direct: 
(5) DISCOURSE LANGUAGE, DIRECT VERB 





Raccoon 


saw 


Wolf 


Notional 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Final 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Preferred 
Argument 


PA 







The association of PA to the topic hierarchy can be illustrated by switching the nominal 
referents, as shown in (6). Characteristically, a discourse obviation language will now 
use an inverse verb, which is based on the mismatch of notional and final relations. 



(6) DISCOURSE LANGUAGE: INVERSE VERB 





Wolf 


saw 


Raccoon 


Notional 
Relations 


Subject 


> 


Primary 
Object 


Final 


Primary 


< 


Subject 



194 



Relations 


Object 






Preferred 
Argument 






PA 



So while, for a discourse obviation language, obviation is linked to discourse topic, 
inversion is still a syntactic process, based on the comparison of notional and final 
grammatical relations. 

While this approach adds complexity by representing both notional and final 
relations, it has the benefit of accounting for both syntactic and discourse obviation 
languages, whereas stand-alone syntax or discourse theories of obviation only account for 
one type. The analysis of inverse verb forms as a kind of passive operation is a matter of 
debate among syntacticians studying Algonquian languages, about which I will only add 
that in the Potawatomi texts I have examined, inverses seem to have a small range of 
functions; they are mostly used when someone is being scolded, and therefore are 
probably a device to background the person doing the scolding. If so, this use would be 
in keeping with passive-like semantics."* 



9.3 Constructional approach 

The approach I will adopt here is basically that of Rhodes, as presented above. 
The modification I will propose is that obviation is constructional. This means that 
obviation is essentially a pairing between form (including proximate selection and 
obviative morphology) and meaning. I will argue that the meaning of the obviation 



"* For an analysis of inversion as a morphological rather than syntactic operation, see (Dahlstrom, 1 988). 
This is also the analysis of inverses adopted by Anderson in his discussion of Potawatomi (Anderson, 



1992). 



195 



construction itself is quite broad (ranked non-coreferent third persons), and that it is 
inherited by constructions that further specify its meaning within particular domains. The 
family of constructions that inherits obviation illustrates constructional polysemy. That 
is, constructions, like lexical items, can have multiple semantically related senses that 
form polysemy networks. 

In the next section, I will outline how such a constructional approach would work. 
I will not consider all the details of obviation, which would unnecessarily complicate the 
line of argumentation. Rather, I will focus on the operation of obviation in a few critical 
contexts such as possession, clausemate obviation (particularly between subject, primary 
object and secondary object), sentential obviation, sentence pairs, and discourse. I will 
also primarily lay out the constructions themselves, rather than the particular spelling of 
obviative morphology. (The exception will be the case of possession, where having a 
construction provides a means of distinguishing between the marking of obviation on 
animate possessees, but not inanimate ones.) 

9.4 Obviation constructions in Potawatomi 

9.4.1 Possession 

The smallest domain for the operation of obviation is the phrase, as evidenced by 
possessed NPs where the possessor is third person. In this case, obviation of the 
possessee is obligatory. Consider the following example where the possessor is third 
person and the possessee is a grammatically animate noun, dabyan 'car'. The possessed 
noun is obligatorily marked obviative with the /-En/ suffix: 



196 



(7) wdodabyanen 
wEd- Odabyan -En 
3- car -OBV 

In order to capture the obviation facts with possessed NPs, we will propose the 
first of several hierarchies, the possession hierarchy, given in (8), where possessors 
outrank possessees. 

(8) POSSESSION HIERARCHY: possessor > possessee 

In general, with regard to such hierarchies, we will say that a nominal that is highly 
ranked is more likely to be proximate and induce obviation on nominals of lower rank. 

A first formulation of the Possessee Obviation Construction is shown in (9). This 
matrix is an abbreviated representation of a construction (or construct, if the information 
in the matrix is entirely filled in), with information extracted from various parts of the full 
construction. The matrix includes three types of information, syntactic ("Syn") and 
semantic ("Sem") and role, or grammatical function information. Divisions of 
information within these types is represented by horizontal tiers. 

For the Possessee Obviation Construction, within the role specification, the 
grammatical function (gf) tier contains the ranking of possessor and possessee, and the 
person (pers) tier records the person of each nominal. Within the semantic specification, 
the obviation tier (obv) contains a single value of proximate (PROX +) which is available 
for linking with the other tiers (only the proximate value is shown in this representation, 



^ This abbreviated representation is based on those given in Goldberg (1995), who uses them to link 
grammatical functions and thematic roles provided by a general construction with the semantic roles 
provided by individual verbs. 

"^ The separation of role information from syntactic information is a convention of Construction Grammar, 
and serves as a means of linking grammatical functions with thematic roles. 

197 



obviative values (PROX-) will be filled in by default in a later construction, "Default 
Obviative Assignment, shown in (12)). Every nominal that is also third person is 
"visible" to the obviation tier, and thus available for linking with proximate. However, 
the proximate value associates only with the highest ranking (leftmost) nominal on the gf 
tier that is also third person. The construction will therefore assign proximate status to the 
highest ranking nominal on the Possession Hierarchy. 
(9) POSSESSEE OBVIATION (first formulation): 



Role: 


gf 


[ Possessor > 


Possessee] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ 3 


3 ] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ PROX+ 


] 



As stated, the Possessee Obviation Construction has information which will be 
redundant when we consider the operation of obviation at higher syntactic levels such as 
the clause and sentence. In order to make a more general obviation construction, we will 
need to separate out the information that is particular to possession, that is the Possession 
Hierarchy. The Obviation Construction, given in (10), will then have slots for ranked 
nominals in an unspecified tier, which will be filled in by particular hierarchies. 
(10) OBVIATION 



[ Nomi > Nomj > . 


. > Nomn] 


Syn: pers [ 3 3 


3 ] 


Sem: obv [ PROX+ 


] 



198 



The revised Possessee Obviation Construction, in (1 1), contains information inherited 
from the Obviation Construction, and contributes additional information by specifying 
the use of the Possession Hierarchy for the gf tier (shown in boldface). '' Given a ranking 
of specific nominals, then, Possessee Obviation will link proximate with the highest 
ranked third person nominal.^ 



^ This construction includes the grammatical relation ranking; I leave open the question as to whether such 
rankings are themselves constructional. Richard Rhodes has pointed out (p.c.) that if the hierarchies are 
constructional, it explains certain gaps in the application of clausemate obviation. 
^ Although in this instance, only Obviation is inherited, note that my convention for representing 
inheritance relationships will be to cite all the inherited constructions, rather than just the immediately 
inherited parent construction. 

199 



(1 1) POSSESSEE OBVIATION (revised) 



TNHF.RTT- ORVTATTON 




Role: 


gf 


[ Possessor > 


Possessee] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ 3 


3 ] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ PROX+ 


] 



The remaining issue to address is the assignment of obviative status (PROX -) to 
any other third person nominals not associated with proximate status. These values will 
be filled in by default, as given in (12). The arrows in the construction show that the 
third person nominals which were not previously assigned to proximate by the inherited 
Obviation Construction, are now all assigned obviative status. 
(12) DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 



Role: gf [ Nomi > Nomj > . 


. > Nom„ ] 


Syn: pers [ 3 3 


3 ] 




^r 


V 


Sem: obv [ PROX+ PROX- .. 


PROX-] 



To illustrate the full construct wdodabyanen, we will in this instance provide a 
morphological spelling rule, given in (13) below. This will illustrate that although 
constructions assign obviative status to both animate and inanimate nominals, only 
animate ones are given obviative marking. Possessee Obviative Spelling specifies that a 

200 



grammatically animate, obviative possessee will be marked by the obviative suffix, given 

here as {-En}: 

(13) POSSESSEE OBVIATIVE SPELLING 





syn 


^ cat n "^ 

lex C stem + ^ 

L word + J 

'^ prox - J 


sem anim + 




syn feat nsuff ] 
Ixm -En 













We now return to the example given in (7), of the possessed animate noun 
wdodabyanen 'his/her car'. The construct wdodabyanen is shown in (14) below. The 
construct inherits the Possession and Obviation constructions, and these together link the 
possessor nominal with proximate. The Default Obviation construction supplies the 
obviative value of the possessee. The noun dabyan is grammatically animate 
(abbreviated "anim +" in the diagram), and this animacy value unifies with the external 
semantics to make the construct as a whole grammatically animate. 

Because the construct is both obviative and animate (as specified in the external 
syntax and semantics of the construct), Possessor Obviative Spelling applies, supplying 
the obviative suffix {-En}. 



201 



(14) wdodabyanen 'his/her car' 



INHERIT: POSSESSEE OBVIATIVE SPELLING, POSSESSEE OBVIATION, 
OBVIATION, DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 



syn 



r 



cat n 



■N 



lex 



f stem + ^ 
L word + J 



V. prox ■ 



^ 



sem anim 



syn 


' cat npref 

^ role POSSESSOR __ 




sem 


' anim +' 
prox + 




Ixm wEd- 



syn 



/"cat n 



lex 



"A 



r stem + ^ 
l^ word - J 



role POSSESSEE 

sem r anim + 1 
L prox - J 

Ixm Odabyan 



syn feat nsuff ] 
Ixm -En 



Because Possessee Obviative Spelling only applies to grammatically animate 
obviative constructs, it will not apply in the case of an inanimate possessee. An example 
is given in (15) of the inanimate possessed noun wdonagen 'his/her dish'. The possessee 
is semantically obviative, as specified in the external semantics, but it is not 
morphologically marked as such: 



202 



(15) wdonagen 'his/her dish' 



syn 


^ cat n "^ 


sem fanim 1 




lex C stem + ^ 
^ word + j 








V. prox - y 










syn 


' per 3 
role POSSESSOR 






syn 


i^cat n A 
lexf stem + "| 
^ word + J 








sem 


' anim + 








role POSSESSEE 










prox + 






sem 


f anim - 








Ixm wEd- 




L prox - J 
Ixm OnagEn 

















9.4.2 Clausemate 

The next larger domain to which obviation applies is the clause. Only one third 
person in a clause may be assigned proximate; any other third persons will be obviative. 
For syntactic obviation languages, which nominal in a sentence will be proximate is 
predictable based on its grammatical function. 

Proximate selection follows the relational hierarchy, where subjects outrank 
primary objects, and primary objects outrank secondary objects (for a description of the 
operation of this hierarchy see Section 8.4): 

(16) RELATIONAL HIERARCHY; SUBJ > P.OBJ > S. OBJ 

We can then state Clausemate Obviation much as Possessee Obviation, the 
difference being that Clausemate Obviation inherits the Relational Hierarchy to fill in the 
values for the ranked nominals (shown in boldface): 



203 



(17) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION (first statement) 



INHERIT: OBVIATION 














Role: 


gf 


[ SUBJ > 


P. 


OBJ 


> 


S. 


OBJ 


] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ 3 




3 






3 


] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ PROX+ 












] 



9.4.2.1 Direct Verb 

To demonstrate the use of Clausemate Obviation, consider the direct transitive 
verb in (18), which has a proximate subject and an obviative primary object. In order to 
make the presentation somewhat easier, we will assign the nominal referent of the subject 
as RACCOON (esben) and the primary object as WOLF (m 'ewe) (these nominals are not 
included in the Potawatomi sentence here, but are registered inflectionally on the verb). 

(18) e-gi-wabmat 

e - gi- wabEiti -a -d 

FCT- PST- see.s.o\TA -DIR -3C 

'he [raccoon-PROX] saw him [wolf-OBV] ' 

When the nominal values for subject and primary object are supplied to 
Clausemate Obviation, the result is the matrix given in (19). The ranked grammatical 
roles of subject and primary object are supplied by Clausemate Obviation. The Obviation 
Construction associates PROX+ to the highest ranked nominal on the relational 
hierarchy, which is the subject. Clausemate Obviation inherits Default Obviative 
Assignment, which supplies PROX- for the remaining nominal, the primary object. 

204 



(19) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION CONSTRUCT, 

e-gi-wabmat 'he [raccoon-PROX] saw him [wolf-OBV]' 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, 

DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 

Sem: ref [RACCOON WOLF ] 

Role: gf [ SUBJ > P.OBJ ] 

Syn: pers [3 3 ] 

Sem: obv [PROX+ PROX- ] 



A fully specified construct oi e-gi-wabmat is shown in (20), which shows the 
information from (19) in its place within the verbal valence. 



205 



(20) Fully Specified Construct: 

e-gi-wabmat 'he [raccoon-PROX] saw him [wolf-OBV]' 



INHERIT: CLAUSEMATE, OBVIATION, 


DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 


syn 


^ cat V "^ 


sem C frame SEEING ~^ 




lex r stem + "^ 
^ word - J 




part 1 #1 [ ] 








part 2 #2 [ 1 




^ ^ ^' J 


val 


r 

#1 


/syn r cat nominal "^ \ 
per 3 


#2 


/^syn r cat nominal ^ \ 
[_ per 3 J 


-^ 








sem 


''ref raccoon] 




sem 


''ref WOLF^ 






< 






anim + 








anim + 






> 






obv prox + 






obv prox - 
V. J 








role 


gf subj 






role 


gfpobj 










V. 


^ L e exp J J 




L 


9 cont 

J 


J 





^A.1.1 Inverse verb 

Next we will compare the case of the inverse verb, which will require some 
refinements of Clausemate Obviation. To accommodate inverses, we will need a 
construction that specifies an additional tier, which records final relations alongside 
notional relations (notional relations are represented here as an inverted hierarchy): 



(21) INVERSE CONSTRUCTION 



Role: notgf [P.OBJ < SUBJ] 
Role: fin gf [ SUBJ > P.OBJ ] 



206 



We will also need to specify that the relational hierarchy in Clausemate Obviation 
is based on final relations (shown in boldface): 

(22) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION (final) 



INHERIT 


: OBVIATION 










Role: 


fingf 


[ SUBJ > P. 


OBJ 


> 


S. 


OBJ] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ 3 


3 






3 ] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ PROX+ 








] 



Let us now examine the inverse verb e-gi-wabmegot given in (23). This verb 
differs minimally from e-gi-wabmat (18) in that the final subject of the verb is obviative, 
and the primary object is proximate. (As above, we will use nominal referents, this time 
with the obviative WOLF as notional subject, and the proximate RACCOON as notional 
primary object.) 

(23) e-gi-wabmegot 

e - gi- wabEiti -Ego -d 

FCT- PST- see.s.o\TA -INV -3C 

'he [wolf-OBV] saw him [raccoon-PROX] ' 

When Clausemate Obviation applies, it operates on final relations, where the 
final subject is RACCOON and the final primary object is WOLF: 



207 



(24) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION CONSTRUCT, 

e-gi-wabmegot 'he [wolf-OBV] saw him [raccoon-PROX]' 



INHERIT: OBVIATION 

DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 

Sem: ref [RACCOON WOLF] 

Role: fingf [ SUBJ > P.OBJ ] 

Syn: pers [3 3 ] 

Sem: obv [PROX+ PROX- ] 



Clausemate Obviation then inherits Inverse, which applies because the notional 
and final relations are mismatched (see (25)). It does not change the assignment of 
proximate and obviative, which were already specified by Clausemate Obviation and 
Default obviative Assignment. 



(25) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION INHERITS INVERSE 



INHERIT: INVERSION 

Sem: ref [RACCOON WOLF ] 



Role: fingf [SUBJ 
Role: notgf [P.OBJ 
Syn: pers [ 3 
Sem: obv [PROX+ 



> P.OBJ ] 
< SUBJ ] 

3 ] 
PROX-] 



208 



The fully specified verbal construct for e-gi-wabmegot is given in (26), showing 
the information about final relations (in boldface): 

(26) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION INHERITS INVERSE, CONSTRUCT 
e-gi-wabmegot 'he [wolf-OBV] sawhim [raccoon-PROX]' 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DEFAULT OBVIATIVE 


ASSIGNMENT, INVERSE 


syn 


'' cat V "^ 


sem C frame SEEING "^ 




lex r stem + "1 
^ word - J 




parti #1 [] 
part 2 #2[] 

V. J 




val 


r 

#1 


/syn 


' cat nominal " 
per 3 


J 


#2 


/'syn r cat nominal "^ > 
L per 3 


"N 








sem 


^ref WOLF^ 






sem 


^ref RACCOON 






< 






anim + 








anim + 




> 






obv prox - 




' 




obv prox + 








role 


not gf subj 
fin gf pobj 






role 


not gf pobj 
fin gf subj 










V. 


6 exp 


^ 


^ 


9 cont 


y 


J 





Because direct and inverse verbs have different inflectional morphology, we will 
need to create a Direct Construction to parallel the Inverse construction. The Direct and 
Inverse Constructions can then be inherited by constructions which specify the spelling of 
direct and inverse morphology (these will not be given here, as discussed above). The 
Direct Construction is given in (27). The construction states that in a direct verb, final 
relations are the same as notional relations. 



209 



(27) DIRECT CONSTRUCTION 



Role: notgf [ SUBJ > P.OBJ] 
Role: fingf [SUBJ > P.OBJ] 



The fully specified verbal construct for (23) can then be restated as follows, which 
includes the information about final relations (in boldface): 

(28) CLAUSEMATE OBVIATION 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DEFAULT OBVIATIVE 


ASSIGNMENT, DIRECT 


syn 


" cat V ^ 


sem 1 


frame SEEING "^ 




lex C stem + "] 
, word - J 




part 1 #1 [ ] 








part 2 #2[] 




^ ^ ^ 


J 


val 


r 

#1 


/syn 


' cat nominal 


>~~^ 


\ #2 


f^syn f cat nominal ^ \ 
I per 3 J 


~^ 










per 3 


, 












sem 


''ref RACCOON 




sem 


^ref wolf" 


s 






< 






anim + 






anim + 






> 






obv prox + 


' 




obv prox - 


/ 








role 


not gf subj 
fin gf subj 






role 


not gf pobj 
fin gf pobj 










V. 


9 exp 


^ 


^ 


^9 cont ^ 


J 


J 





9.4.3 Primary Object > Secondary Object 

Besides notional subjects inducing obviation on notional primary objects, primary 

objects also induce obviation on secondary objects. In the following sentence, the 

210 



primary object 'him' is proximate, and induces obviation of the third person secondary 
object gigosen 'fish': 

(29) Nbegwzemwa niw gigosen. 

l.dry.for .3 .o. \TA=DIR. I those=OBV fish=OBV 

I'm drying those fish (OBV)for him (PROX). [POEX00287] 

This obviation fact is easily captured using the existing machinery of Clausemate 
Obviation. Since in this case the subject is first person, it is not visible to obviation. 
Proximate will associate to the highest available nominal on the hierarchy, which is in 
this case the primary object. The obviative status of the secondary object can then be 
filled in by Default Obviative Assignment. 

(30) PRIMARY OBJECT > SECONDARY OBJECT 



INHERIl 


^: RELATIONAL HIERARCHY 






Role: 


fingf 


[SUBJ> 


P. OBJ > 


S. 


OBJ] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ (1) 


3 




3 ] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ 


PROX+ 




] 



9.4.4 Sentential 

Obviation also operates across clauses. Within a sentence, the subject of a main 
clause can induce obviation on the subject of a subordinate clause. Consider the 
following sentence using the verb e-wabmat 'he sees him' where the main clause subject 



211 



is proximate and the subordinate clause subject is obviative: ^ 

(31) Bama zhe na mine e-wabmat [kwekseyen 

later EMPH EMPH again FCT-see . s . o\TA=3/3 ' C squirrel=OBV 

e-bmebtonet] . 

FCT-run . along\AI=0By=3C 

Later on, he (PROX) saw a squirrel (OBV) running along. [AS:2:2:021] 



To account for sentential obviation, we will need another hierarchy where main 
clause subjects outrank subordinate clause subjects, represented as follows: 

(32) SUBJECTS HffiRARCHY: SUB J > {SUB J} 

The Sentential Obviation Construction given in (33) will then inherit this hierarchy, and 
associate proximate with the highest ranked nominal, the main clause subject: 

(33) SENTENTIAL OBVIATION 



INHERIT: SUB.TECTS HIERARCHY 


Role: gf 


[SUBJ> {SUB J}] 


Syn: pers 


[3 3 ] 


Sem: obv 


[ PROX+ ] 



' As a general rule, an independent verb that takes a complement inflects as if it had an inanimate object, or 
no object at all (so a TI or AI verb may be used). If the subject of the subordinate verb is animate, the 
independent verb may optionally inflect for an animate object. Some types of complement clauses do not 
allow this optionality, such as embedded content questions. However, some semantic classes of main 
clause verbs, such as perception verbs (as m this example), require the main clause verb to inflect for an 
animate object, if the complement has an animate subject. 

212 



A fully specified construct for the main clause verb in (3 1) is given on the 
following page, which shows how the Sentential Obviation construction can 'see' the 
subordinate clause subject. The external syntax and semantics are for the main clause 
verb, abbreviated as SEEING in the semantics. The three-part valence is my 
representation of subject-to-object copy, where the subject of the subordinate clause, 
'SQUIRREL' is instantiated morphologically on the higher verb as primary object, and 
on the lower verb as subject. The subordinate clause subject is embedded in the valence 
of the subordinate clause verb RUNNING. 



213 



o 

< 

> 
PQ 
O 

u 

Pi 
< 
Pi 
w 

H 
O 

e^ 

PQ 

C/3 



r" 



w 
w 

gas 



+ + 



(U o 



r 



>^ 



"^1 






Pi 




^ 
a 



v^ 






r 

ft 

§ 8 
V 






a 

o 
a 

o 



ft, 



5 a g 

00 cd C 






a 



■A 
S 






V. 



"^^ 



^ 



C3 
> 



o 2 
ft ft 

t« bb o 
o a "" 

1 m C4_i <X) 1 



a a ia 



J 



r 



fin 
CM 



a 


o 


a- 






t/2 _ 


1 s. 


f^ 


J 


vO S 






bO 



2 ° a "" 

^ \ J 



u 









214 



9.4.5 Sentence clusters 

The final syntactic domain for the operation of obviation is with sentence clusters, 
which as a less-common phenomenon, will only be briefly dealt with here. With 
sentence clusters (described in Section 8.4), a third person subject of one sentence can 
induce obviation of a third person subject in the following sentence, given a particularly 
close semantic relationship between the sentences. 

We capture this using a different hierarchy, given in (34). 

(34) SEQUENTIAL SUBJECTS HIERARCHY: SUBJ. > SUBJj 

This hierarchy will be inherited by the Sentence Cluster Obviation Construction, 
given in (35): 

(35) SENTENCE CLUSTER OBVIATION 



INHERIT: SEQ. 


SUB.IECTS HIERARCHY 


Role: gf 


[SUBJ, > SUBJj] 


Syn: pers 


[3 3 ] 


Sem: obv 


[ PROX+ ] 



215 



9.5 Discourse Obviation and the role of mental spaces 

We now turn to the use of obviation in discourse. When a narrator makes use of 
obviation at the discourse level, I will assume there is access to a default ranking of 
nominals relevant to the narrative (based on the narrator's global conception of his tale, 
goals in telling it, etc.). In the default ranking, the central character (the one the narrative 
is 'about') is ranked highest, and other characters are ranked lower depending on their 
importance in the narrative. A narrator may access other rankings at various points in the 
narrative, making another character a temporary proximate, which is known as a 
'proximate shift'. However, the default ranking is the one predominantly used in the 
narrative, and the one to which a narrator will normally return after a proximate shift. 

The text I will be referring to in this section is 'Crane Boy' (given in Appendix 
C); in the previous chapter, I argued that the narrator made use of discourse obviation, 
which makes it suitable for analysis here. 

I will begin by constructing the default ranking of characters. The principle 
character is Crane Boy; he occurs early in the narrative, and is the central character in all 
subsequent episodes. The character he primarily interacts with is the Old Woman. 
Throughout the narrative, Crane Boy is generally maintained as a proximate, while the 
Old Woman is usually in the obviative. Other episodes that involve either Crane Boy or 
the Old Woman interacting with secondary characters have Crane Boy or the Old Woman 
as proximate, with the other characters as obviative. Based on the narrator's selection of 
proximates, we can rank the nominals in this narrative as follows: 



216 



(36) TOPIC HIERARCHY (DEFAULT, CRANE BOY NARRATIVE) 



Crane Boy > Old Woman > 



r 



Crane Boy's Parents, 
Bad Boy, 
Big Spoon, 
etc. 



> 



While this ranking is based on the proximate status of nominals in the narrative, it is also 
in accord with the overall topic structure; that is, the story is presented as being mainly 
about what happens to Crane Boy, and his experiences living with the Old Woman. 

Example (37) shows a mental spaces diagram that represents the act of narration 
in abbreviated form. The context of the narrative is represented by a space in the 
"Reality" Domain (Space R), and the narrative itself is represented by the space inside 
the Narrative Domain (Space N). Basic narration is 'external' narration, as opposed to 
'internal' narration where the narrator adopts the viewpoint of one of the characters in the 
narrative. External narration, as shown in this diagram, takes place from the V-POINT of 
the narrator in the Reality Domain (see Chapter 7 for the representation of external 
narration in Mental Spaces theory). This V-POINT is associated with the default Topic 
Hierarchy, where Crane Boy outranks the Old Woman (The ranking is abbreviated here 
to include just Crane Boy and Old Woman.): 



217 



(37) DEFAULT TOPIC RANKING ASSOCIATED TO "REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R: 



'REALITY" DOMAIN 



BASE 
V-POINT 



TOPIC HIERARCHY: 
Crane Boy > Old Woman 




NARRATIVE DOMAIN 



Space N: 



FOCUS 



The constmction we will posit for Discourse Obviation (given in (38)) is similar 
to those already proposed for syntactic obviation. The primary difference is that it uses 
the Topic Hierarchy, which is a ranking of nominals based on their relative importance to 
the current discourse (the topic hierarchy is represented by ranking the nominal referents 
in 'Sem: ref in the abbreviated matrix). 

(38) DISCOURSE OBVIATION 



INHERIT: OBVIATION 




Sem: ref 


[ NOM. > 


NOMj ] 


Syn: pers 


\ 3 


3 1 


Sem: obv 


[ PROX+ 


] 



218 



9.5.1 Inversion 

The Discourse Obviation construction is inherited, in turn, by the Direct and 
Inverse verbal constructions. To see how this works, we will examine a transitive verb. 
In a text such as Crane Boy, which shows evidence of proximate maintenance (and 
therefore a discourse topic hierarchy), we might expect to see a verb like the following 
(this example is constructed for ease of comparison with previous examples; there are 
plenty of comparable transitive verbs in the text). For our example, let us say that the 
notional subject is CRANE BOY and the notional object is OLD WOMAN (we will 
assume that the narrator 'chooses' which nominal referents will be associated with the 
notional subject and notional primary object). 

(39) e-wabmat 

e - wabEm -a -d 
FCT- see.s.o\TA -DIR -3C 

'he [Crane Boy-PROX] saw her [Old Woman-OBV]' 

Let us also say that this example comes from a point in the text where there is 
external narration, that is, the narrator is not overtly representing the viewpoint of a 
character. The Topic Ranking in use is then the default ranking, which is available by the 
viewpoint of the external narrator, as shown in (37) above. The external semantics of the 
verbal construction references information about the mental spaces structure, such as the 
location of the BASE, V-POINT and FOCUS (shown in boldface in (40)). In this case, 
BASE and V-POINT are in "R" (the reality domain) and FOCUS is in "N" (the narrative 
domain). The location of V-POINT, in particular, provides access to the associated Topic 
Hierarchy. 



219 



(40) MENTAL SPACES ARE INDEXED INSIDE OF CONSTRUCTIONS 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DEFAULT OBVIATIVE 
ASSIGNMENT 



syn 



r 



cat V 



"N 



lex 



V 



r stem + ^ 

L word + J 
J 



val 



r. 



< 



syn 



role 



^^ 



cat nom "^ 
per 3 



^CRANE BOY 
anim + 
prox - 

not gf subj 
fin gf subj 
9 exp 



~\ 



J 



frame SEEING 
part 1 
part 2 
spaces 



BASE R 
V-PODNT R 
FOCUS N 



u 



syn 



r 



cat nom "^ 
per 3 J 

OLD WOMAN 

anim + 

prox + 
V. 

role ( not gf pobj 
fin gf pobj 
9 cont 



r\ 



~\ 



J 



> 



V 



In this hypothetical example, the narrator has associated the notional subject with 
the final subject, motivating the use of the Direct Construction (the contribution of this 
construction is shown in boldface): 



220 



(41) DISCOURSE OBVIATION INHERITS DIRECT 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DIRECT 








Sem: 


ref 


[ CRANE BOY 


> 


OLD WOMAN ] 


Role: 


not gf 


[ SUBJ 


> 


P.OBJ 


] 


Role: 


fingf 


[ SUBJ 


> 


P.OBJ 


] 


Syn: 


pers 


[ 3 




3 


] 


Sem: 


obv 


[ PROX+ 






] 



Now let us examine the case of an inverse verb. This time, the Old Woman is the 
notional subject and Crane Boy is the notional primary object: 

(42) e-wabmegot 

e - wabEm -EgO -d 
FCT- see.s.o\TA -INV -3C 

'she [Old Woman-OBV] saw him [Crane Boy-PROX]' 

The space configuration remains the same, as for external narration: BASE and 
V-POINT are in R, and FOCUS is in N. This is shown in the external semantics of the 
verbal construct: 



221 



(43) MENTAL SPACES ARE INDEXED INSIDE OF CONSTRUCTIONS 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT 



syn 



r 



cat V 
lex r stem 
L word 



"N 



:] 



val 



r, 



< 



syn 



cat nom 
per 3 



r 



CRANE BOY 

anim + 

prox + 
V- 

role f not gf pobj 
fm gf subj 
9 exp 



V^ 



V 



y 



~N 



y 



frame SEEING 
part 1 
part 2 



spaces 



BASE R 
V-POEVT R 
FOCUS N 



syn 



r cat nom "^ 
[ per 3 J 



r 



role 



OLD WOMAN 
anim + 
prox - 



not gf subj 
fin gf pobj 
9 cont 



V. 



"^ 



y 



.^ 



"N 



y 



> 



V 



In this case, Discourse Obviation will still assign proximate status to Crane Boy 
as highest ranked nominal on the topicality scale and as the final subject. Old Woman, 
ranked lower on the topicality scale and the final primary object, will be obviative. 

Because there is a mismatch between notional and final relations as shown in the 
following matrix. Inverse applies: 



222 



(44) DISCOURSE OBVIATION INHERITS INVERSE 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, INVERSE 

Sem: ref [ CRANE BOY > OLD WOMAN ] 

Role: notgf [ P.OBJ < SUBJ ] 

Role: fin gf [ SUBJ > P.OBJ ] 

Syn: pers [3 3 ] 

Sem: obv [ PROX+ ] 



9.5.2 Proximate shifts 

Narrators sometimes shift perspective to represent the viewpoint of a character. 
To do so, they access a V-POINT from within the narrative domain. Since V-POINT is 
associated with a Topic Hierarchy, accessing a different V-POINT can result in a 
proximate shift, where a secondary character is temporarily a proximate. 

To illustrate, in the Crane Boy narrative, there is a proximate shift when the Old 
Woman first hears Crane Boy crying, and approaches him (lines 15-18). During this 
episode, all references to the Old Woman are proximate, and the references to Crane Boy 
are obviative, which is expected if there is a 'rezeroing' of the center of deictic reference. 
The Topic Hierarchy linked to the Old Woman's viewpoint has Old Woman ranked 
highest, followed by Crane Boy (these are the only two characters in the episode): 
(45) TOPIC HIERARCHY (associated with Old Woman): Old woman > CraneBoy 



223 



In this case, we might expect that if Old Woman sees Crane Boy', Old Woman 
will be proximate, and Crane Boy obviative, reflecting the new Topic Hierarchy 
associated with the Old Woman. As such, a direct form would be used: 

(46) e-wabmat 

e - wabEm -a -d 
FCT- see.s.o\TA -DIR -3C 

'she [Old Woman-PROX] saw him [Crane Boy-OBV]' 
This new topic hierarchy is indexed to a V-POINT inside the mental spaces 
network. The diagram in (46) shows a Character Domain inside of the Narrative 
Domain. This Character Domain represents the viewpoint (thoughts, construals, vantage 
point, etc.) of the Old Woman. The narrator, by representing the narrative as coming 
from the Old Woman's restricted point of view, makes use of 'internal' narration. This is 
represented in mental space terms by a V-POINT inside the Narrative Domain that is 
associated to the V-POINT of the Old Woman (represented by the arc in the diagram 
connecting the two "@" signs in each domain). This association link provides access to 
the Topic Hierarchy representing the Old Woman's viewpoint where Old Woman 
outranks Crane Boy: 



224 



(47) MENTAL SPACE REPRESENTATION OF A PROXIMATE SHIFT 



"REALITY" DOMAIN 



Space R: 



BASE 



TOPIC HIERARCHY: 
Old Woman> Crane Boy 



NARRATIl E DOMAIN 




CHARACTER DOMAIN (Old Woman) 



Space C 



The index to the new ranking is provided in the construct of the predicate, within 
the external semantics, as shown below (in boldface): 



225 



(48) NEW RANKING IS INDEXED INSIDE OF THE EXTERNAL SEMANTICS 
e-wabmat 'she [Old Woman-PROX] saw him [Crane Boy-OBV]' 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, 

DEFAULT OBVIATIVE ASSIGNMENT, 
DIRECT 



syn 



r 



V 



cat V 
lex 



■> 



r stem + "^ 

L word + J 
J 



sem /^rame SEEING 
part 1 
part 2 



val 



< 



syn 



sem 



^cat nom "^ 
per 3 



prox + 



J 



OLD WOMAN 
g. an + 



J 



role 



r 



V. 



not gf subj 
fin gf subj 
exp 



-N 



J 



\^ 



spaces 



BASE R 
V-POEVT N 
FOCUS N 



syn 



role 



^cat nom "^ 
per 3 
prox - 



CRANE BOY 
g. an + 



not gf pobj 
fin gfpobj 
cont 



> 



In this case, proximate status will be assigned to Old Woman, as the final subject 
and highest ranking nominal on the new topic hierarchy. Crane Boy, lower on the 
hierarchy and the final primary object, will be obviative. The alignment of notional and 
final relations allows the Direct construction to apply: 



226 



(49) PROXIMATE SHIFT, DISCOURSE OBVIATION INHERITS DIRECT 



INHERIT: OBVIATION, DIRECT 




Sem: ref [ 


OLD WOMAN > 


CRANE BOY ] 


Role: not gf [ 


SUBJ > 


P.OBJ ] 


Role: fin gf [ 


SUBJ > 


P.OBJ ] 


Syn: pers [ 


3 


3 ] 


Sem: obv [ 


PROX+ 


] 



9.6 Discussion 

The sections above have presented an analysis of obviation in several domains: 
the phrase, the clause, within a sentence, sequential sentence clusters, and in discourse. I 
have argued that these uses of obviation are themselves constructions, which are related 
by shared inherance of the Obviation Construction. 

Besides sharing the inheritance of the Obviation Construction, these constructions 
are also similar to each other in the types of hierarchies they introduce. Although the 
hierarchies have been stated as determined by the morphological marking of obviation, 
there is reason to suspect a deeper similarity: An argument can be made for the overall 
saliency of higher ranked nominals, based on animacy (possession), agency (clausemate), 
syntactic embedding (sentential), semantic embedding (sentence clusters), and topicality 
(discourse). A likely motivation for the extension of Obviation in each case seems 



227 



therefore to be 1) non-coreferential third persons, and 2) a reasonable basis for 
estabUshing relative saliency among them. 

The Obviation Construction itself has a very broad function, that of linking 
proximate status with the highest ranking third person nominal on some unspecified 
hierarchy. Each construction that inherits Obviation adds information by contributing a 
specific hierarchy. A construction that makes use of this kind of inheritance relationship 
is known as an 'instance' construction (for a discussion, see Goldberg, 1995). The 
inheritance relationships for the Obviation instance constructions are shown in the 
diagram on the following page: 



228 



<+H 




o 




fl 




« o 




& -^ 




o o 


u 


fa ^ 


o 


^■■B 


-*— » 


ote: 
ow 




Zi « 


fi 



00 

o 

l-H 

H 
U 

H 
on 

O 

u 

w 
u 

H 
oo 












>^ 








>! 




^ 








JH 




o 
























USTE 
ectsH 


i>^ 1 


ION 

n Hier< 


in 


o 

•-F3 
S3 


TIAL 
Hierar 


CECL 

al Subj 


RSE 

erarcb 


SSESS 
ssessio 


S3 


Z ^ 


SENTEN 
(Sequenti 


SCOU 

opic Hi 


2e^ 


h-1 


S 


S^ 


1 
1 




^ 



< 



229 



Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter, by advocating a 
constructional approach, we assume that neither syntax nor discourse plays a more 
important role in the application of Obviation/>er se] that is, both Clausemate and 
Discourse Obviation represent polysemic extensions of the Obviation Construction. It is 
another question, however, which constructions a language has in its inventory, and the 
extent to which its speakers make use of them. In order to address this question, I 
propose the concept of 'constructional maintenance', where different languages, dialects 
(or even narrators!) may access a construction to varying degrees. With respect to 
Discourse Obviation, we might define the following degrees of maintenance (although I 
believe it to be essentially a cline): 

STRONG MAINTENANCE: the nominal highest in the topic rank will be the 
proximate within the discourse span. 

WEAK MAINTENANCE: attention to topic rank will be given in some 
contexts, generally more visible ones, but not others. 

NON-MAINTENANCE: the construction does not apply or is not available in the 
constructional inventory. 

Comparing languages then, we might represent the maintenance of Clausemate 
and Discourse Obviation as follows: 



230 





Clausemate Obviation 


Discourse Obviation 


Fox 


Weak to non-maintenance 


Strong maintenance 


Ottawa 


Strong maintenance 


Weak to non-maintenance 


Potawatomi 


Strong maintenance 


Weak maintenance 



A language like Fox has strong maintenance of discourse obviation, while having weak to 
non-maintenance of Clausemate Obviation. Ottawa is the reverse; it has strong 
maintenance of Clausemate Obviation, but weak to non-maintenance of Discourse 
Obviation. Potawatomi is somewhere in the middle of these extremes: it can be 
generally characterized as a syntax obviation language, with strong maintenance of 
Clausemate Obviation, however some narrators make limited use of discourse obviation 
(for instance in main clauses transitive verbs, but not with main clause intransitives), and 
so has weak maintenance of the Discourse Obviation Construction. 



231 



Bibliography 



Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the Syntax of Obviation. Language, 73.705-50. 
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology.vol. 62: Cambridge 

Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini Language. William Dwight Whitney 

Linguistic Series, ed. by ed. Charles F. Hockett: Yale University Press 
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1988. Plains Cree Morphosyntax, Department of Linguistics, 

University of California, Berkeley: Ph.D. 
— . 1 996. Narrative Structure in a Fox text, nikotwasik iskwahtem, paskihtepayih! 

Studies in Honour of H.C. Wolfart, ed. by John D.; Nichols and Arden Ogg. 

Winnepeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics. 
Dunnigan, Tim, Patrick O'Malley and Linda Schwartz. 1978. Afunctional analysis 

of the Algonquian Obviative. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and the 

Philosophy of Language, 5.7-22. 
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 
Fleischman, S. 1990. Tense and Narrativity. Austin: University of Texas Press. 
Goddard, Ives. 1984. The obviative in Fox narrative discourse. Papers of the 

Fifteenth Algonquian Conference, ed. by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton 

University. 
— . 1990. Aspects of the Topic Structure of Fox Narratives: Proximate Shifts and 

the Use of Overt and Inflectional NPs. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 56.317-40. 
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to 

Argument Structure: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 
Grafstein, Ann. 1981. Obviation in Ojibwa. Linguistique amerindienne II: etudes 

algonquiennes., ed. by Lynn Drapeau: Universite du Quebec a Montreal. 
Hockett, Charles. 1948a. Potawatomi I: Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and 

Morphological Survey. International Journal of American Linguistics, 

XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948b. Potawatomi II: Derivation, Personal Prefixes, and Nouns. 

International Journal of American Linguistics, XIV.63-73. 
— . 1966. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 32.59-73. 
Rhodes, Richard A. 1976. The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, 

Linguistics, University of Michigan: Ph.D. 
— . 1985. Obviation: the Mark of Non-Coreference 
— . 1990. Obviation, Inversion, and Topic Rank in Ojibwa. Proceedings of the 

Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 16- 

19, 1990: Special Session on General Topics in American Indian 

Linguistics, 16S.101-15. 
— . 1992. The Syntax of Possessor Obviation in Ojibwe 

232 



— . 1994. Agency, Inversion, and Thematic Alignment in Ojibwe. Proceedings of 
the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 
18-21, 1994: General Session: Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles 
J. Fillmore, ed. by Susanne; Dolbey Gahl, Andy; Johnson, Christopher, 
431-46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 

— . 2002. Obviation, Inversion and Topic Rank Revisited. Paper presented at 
Paper presented to the 34th Algonquian Conference, Kingston Ontario. 

Wolfart, H. Christoph. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. Transactions of 
the American Philosophical Society, 63. 



233 



10 Summary: Cross Domain Mappings 



10.1 Cross-domain mappings 

According to Langacker, "semantic structures. . .are characterized relative to 
'cognitive domains', where a domain can be any sort of conceptualization: a perceptual 
experience, a concept, a conceptual complex, an elaborate knowledge system, etc." 
(1991, p. 5). He gives the example of the predication 'knife' which requires at least a 
spatial domain (for its physical shape), one for the activity of cutting, and one for its 
membership in the set of silverware, and probably several others. The set of domains 
required for characterization of a predication he calls a "complex matrix." Within the 
matrix, a domain may be more or less central, based on the context in which it is used. 
Moreover, one domain may figure into other domains; in the 'knife' example, the spatial 
domain (which is probably more basic) a component of the other two. 

Similarly, a full description of the use of independents, conjuncts, the preverb e-, 
and obviation require reference to at least two grammatical domains.^ One domain is 
that of the sentence, and the other is that of discourse, which together constitute the 
complex matrix. And while we will need to talk about their use within different 



^ I assume that linguistic knowledge constitutes a domain of experience. Within this wider domain, we 
have metalmguistic sub-domains or frames for sentence construction, the organization of discourse based 
on context, etc. 

232 



grammatical domains — that is, both in sentences and discourse — we will also need to 
characterize the relationships between their uses across these domains. 

10.2 Cross Domain Mappings as Grammatical Blends 

Recent work in Mental Spaces theory has argued that blends are central to 
grammar (Fauconier and Turner, 1996; Fauconnier, 1997). Generally, these studies have 
focused on the idea that constructions are blends that combine an input Space 1 for the 
basic use of the construction with another Space 2 that provides a context for a plausible 
extension of the construction. When the blend is 'run', there is a mapping between 
counterparts in the two input domains, which are then projected into the blend. These 
common elements are projected into the blend. The form of the construction is also 
projected from input Space 1 allowing for the labeling of the construction with its new 
semantic extension. 

In this chapter, I will argue that the use of the independent, conjunct, preverb e- 
and obviation within syntax in everyday discourse, and their discourse uses in narrative 
are the result of grammatical blends. 

10.2.1 Obviation 

The diagram in (1) represents the cross-space mapping for obviation, and shows 
how the marking of obviation in a particular domain might be extended to another 
domain that is perceived by speakers to be similar in semantic structure. 



233 



(1) OB VIATION BLEND 



Generic 
Space 




Input Spac^ 1 \ 
Discourse Structure ^ 



Input Space 2 
Sentence Structure 



Blend 



The input spaces represent two obviation instance constructions (see Chapter 9). 
Input Space 1 contains a representation of Discourse Obviation, where jejakos 'Crane' 
outranks mdemoze 'Old Woman' on the Topic hierarchy (see Chapter 9, examples (39) - 
(41)). Input Space 2 contains a representation of Possessee Obviation where the 

possessor nene 'man' outranks the possessee wgwesen 'his son' (see Chapter 9 examples 

234 



(7) - (1 1)). In Input Space 1, the vertical arrow represents the topic hierarchy. This 
space has the most topical nominal jejakos 'Crane Boy' ranked higher than mdemoze 
'Old Woman'. In Input Space 2, the vertical arrow represents the possession hierarchy, 
where the possessor outranks the possessee. This space shows a possessor, nene 'man' 
ranked higher than the possessee, wgwesen 'his son', (see Chapter 9 for a discussion). 

In the cross-domain mapping, the topic hierarchy maps onto the possession 
hierarchy. The highest ranking nominal in Input Space 1 maps onto the possessor in 
Input Space 2, and the lower ranked nominal in Input Space 1 maps onto the possessee in 
Input Space 2. 

The generic space represents the comparison of the input spaces, and contains a 
representation of the elements shared by the input spaces. In this case, the generic space 
contains a hierarchy, non-coreferential third persons "A" and "B" that are ranked relative 
to the hierarchy, and requires the grammatical marking of the lower ranked nominal. 
This, in fact, is a good representation of the Obviation Construction. 

Once the mapping between the elements of the input spaces is established, the 
blend can be 'run'. The blend contains the hierarchy of ranked possessor and possess 
from the Input Space 2, and takes the grammatical marking of the lower ranked nominal 
from Input Space 1 . The result is grammatical marking of obviation in a new syntactic 
domain. 

10.2.2 Main Clause Conjunct Verbs in Narrative 

The next case I will consider is the use of main clause conjuncts in narrative 
discourse. I have argued that the use of the conjunct in the main clauses of narrative 

235 



foreground sentences (that is, the NC) represents the embedding, or subordination, of 
narrative within a larger non-narrative discourse (see Chapter 6). I argue below that this 
is also accomplished with a blend. 

The set up of the blend is much the same as for obviation, with both a syntactic 
and discourse input space. In the diagram in (2), Input Space 1 (Sentence Structure) 
contains a representation of a complex sentence with a subordinate clause, the 
subordinate clause containing a conjunct verb, indicated with a "C" (the argument for this 
type of representation is given in Chapter 4). Input Space 2 (Discourse Structure) 
contains a representation of narrative discourse embedded inside of a larger non-narrative 
discourse. The line between the two spaces represents a division of information into the 
"Reality" Domain (everyday discourse) and the Narrative Domain (narrative discourse). 
(The argument for this representation is given in Chapter 7.) 



236 



(2) NARRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BLEND 



Input Space 1 ^\v^ 
Sentence Structure \ 



Generic 
Space 



"Reality" 
Domain 




Narrative 
Domain 



Input Space 2 
/' Discourse Structure 



Blend 



The cross-space mappings are as follows: The main clause of Sentence Structure 
maps onto the "Reality" Domain network of Discourse Structure, the subordinate clause 
of Sentence Structure maps onto the Narrative Domain network of Discourse Structure. 

The Generic Space contains a representation of a complex structure with a parent 
space and a subordinate space. The parent space maps onto the main clause in Sentence 



237 



Structure and the "Reality" Domain network of Discourse Structure, and the subordinate 
space maps onto the subordinate clause in Sentence Structure and the Narrative Domain 
network in Discourse Structure. 

The blend functions to map the subordinate clause from Sentence Structure onto 
the Narrative Domain network from Discourse Structure, and crucially provides the 
label — the conjunct — which is then applied to the Narrative Domain network. 

The way the conjunct specifically represents the Narrative Domain network is 
accomplished through a series of metonymies, as follows: 

(3) 

Main clause Instance of Narrative Narrative 

conjunct -^ a sentence -^ foreground ^ discourse 

in the NC information 

In each mapping, the smaller grammatical unit stands for the larger unit that includes it: 
the main clause stands for a sentence as a whole, so a main clause conjunct can stand for 
a sentence in the NC pattern. The NC pattern represents narrative foreground 
information, and this in turn represents narrative discourse. (The main clause conjunct 
alone does not trigger this mapping, since there are other uses of main clause conjuncts, 
as described in Chapter 4. I presume there are many contextual cues along with the use 
of main clause conjuncts that indicate a narrative discourse). 



238 



10.2.3 Main Clause Independent Verbs in Narrative 

The use of main clause independent verbs in narrative (that is the use of the CC) 
can also be represented as a blend, in much the same way as with the use of main clause 
conjuncts in narrative, as shown in (4): 
(4) CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRUCTION BLEND 



Input Space 1 \ "^-^^ 
Sentence Structure\ 




Narrative 
Domain 



Input Space 2 
Discourse Structure 



Blend 



239 



In this case, the critical cross-space mapping is of the main clause independent 
verb (represented by "I" in the Sentence Structure input space) onto the "Reality" 
Domain network of Discourse Structure. In the blend, the use of the independent "label" 
gets extended to the "Reality" Domain. 

As with the conjunct, there is a series of metonymies: 



(5) 



Main clause Instance of Everyday 

independent -^ a sentence -^ discourse 

in the CC 



A main clause independent stands for a sentence in the CC pattern, which in turn 
is representative of everyday discourse. 

This indexicality of the independent for the "Reality" Domain is not as apparent 
as the indexicality of the conjunct for the Narrative Domain, largely because this function 
is 'hidden in plain view'. That is, it takes the contrast of narrative sentences with main 
clause conjuncts to show this functionality of the conjunct. Everyday discourse does not, 
in and of itself, show the indexicality of the independent for a non-embedded domain. 
Clues to this use are, however, provided by the use of main clause independent verbs in 
narrative (instances of the CC), which I have argued index everyday discourse (and thus 
the "Reality" Domain) in various ways. The types of information that the CC can 
represent due to this indexicality include background and focalized information — see 
Chapter 6 for a discussion). 



240 



10.2.4 The e- preverb 

In Chapter 4, we argued that the function of the e- preverb within the sentence is 
as a kind of factive, indicating strong speaker confidence in the factuality of the 
proposition expressed in a subordinate clause. In Chapter 6, we argued for its role in 
narrative discourse as a kind of evidential, marking the strong epistemic stance 
conventionally taken by a speaker in the telling of a traditional narrative. We are now 
able to demonstrate that the use of the e- preverb on conjunct verbs in the main clauses of 
narrative foreground sentences is another instance of a blend that takes Sentence 
Structure and Discourse Structure as input spaces. 

Since the e- preverb accompanies main conjuncts in narrative foreground 
sentences, it makes sense to use the basic blend structure given in (2) for the use of main 
clause conjuncts in narrative. The blend for the e- preverb is shown in (6) below: 



241 



(6) BLEND FOR THE PREVERB E- 



Input Space 1 "■\ 
Sentence Structure 



Generic 
Space 



'Reality" 
Domain 




Narrative 
Domain 



Input Space 2 
/' Discourse Structure 



Blend 



The input spaces are again Sentence Structure and Discourse Structure. The 
subordinate clause space in Sentence Structure maps onto the subordinate Narrative 
Domain in Discourse Structure. In the blend, the label "e-" is applied to the Narrative 
Domain, to which it contributes its semantics as a marker of factivity. Its association to 



242 



main clause conjuncts as representative of the narrative domain is again accomplished 
through the series of metonymies as given in (7), repeated and slightly modified below: 

(7) 

Main clause Instance of Narrative Narrative 

e-conjunct -^ a sentence -^ foreground ^ discourse 

in the NC information 

10.2.5 Directionality of mapping 

In the discussion above, I have represented particular mapping as being projected 
from one domain onto another. While I assume that there is a directionality to the 
mapping, I am not here making a claim about the particular directionality of each blend. 
The directionality I have posited for the purposes of exposition are merely those that 
seem to be plausible directions of grammaticalization in each case. That is, it seems 
plausible that the 'basic' uses of independents, conjuncts and the preverb e- are what we 
find in everyday discourse, and their narrative uses are derived from this. However, 
knowing that conjuncts are older verb forms and narrative discourse tends to be 
conservative, there are likely good arguments for the opposite directionality.^ Obviation, 
on the other hand, more likely arose as a discourse mechanism, and seems to be 
grammaticalized in syntax (in fact, I have argued that Potawatomi shows this in 
progress). My point is the mapping could go either way without undermining the 
existence of the blend. While I find the question of directionality an interesting one, I 



See Goddard (1967) for a discussion of the development of independent verbs as nominalizations. 

243 



am mainly interested in establishing the existance of a mapping between the domains of 
discourse and syntax. 

10.3 Conclusion 

The descriptive problem posed at the beginning of this discussion was the 
behavior of several grammatical elements in Potawatomi whose distributions vary 
depending on the discourse context. Standard theories of syntax are bound to fail at an 
explanation, because they cannot "see" the discourse. Without reference to discourse, 
how can one reconcile the fact that in Potawatomi, both independent and conjunct verbs 
are used to mark main clauses? Or that the preverb e- has a restricted use in conversation 
to certain types of subordinate clauses, but proliferates to nearly every finite verb in 
narrative? 

I have argued that a cognitive linguistic framework provides the means of 
describing such constructions whose distribution is dependent on discourse context. 
Using the theory of Mental Spaces, I have argued that these different distributions 
represent constructional polysemy, where a single grammatical form is mapped onto 
multiple functions. Because discourse structures are seen as part of a continuum of form- 
meaning pairings that include syntactic structures, it makes sense that functions of 
constructions might be predicated in these different domains. 

In this chapter, I have argued for the existence of several mental space blends in 
Potawatomi that take as their inputs constructions in syntax and constructions in 
discourse. Existing contexts for the use of a construction are compared to possible new 
contexts, and this comparison generates cross-space mappings. If there are enough 

244 



similarities, and the motivation is strong enough, the new context may be adopted, the 
blend run, and the marking (form) of the construction can be extended to the new, 
semantically related function. While I have argued that this blend structure is productive 
in Potawatomi, it seems likely to be productive in many, if not most languages, given the 
assumption that in all languages, syntactic structures and discourse structures are the 
same basic kinds of entities. 

The goals of this dissertation were to describe several areas of Potawatomi 
morphosyntax that have not been given much attention in the literature, and at the same 
time to argue for a theory of grammar that allows an examination of relationships across 
traditional domains of grammatical description. I have argued that the use of 
independents, conjuncts, the preverb e- and obviation have functions across grammatical 
domains, and that a full grammatical description requires not only addressing their use in 
each domain, but the relationship between their functions across these domains. Since 
each discourse genre comes with a set of requirements about grammatical form, it makes 
sense to describe grammatical form with reference to those genres. And, only after we 
can talk about this relationship can we address the possibility of a systematicity to the 
various uses of these constructions. 



245 



Fauconier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. 

Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg. Stanford: 

CSLI. 
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
Goddard, Ives. 1967. The Algonquian Independent Indicative. National Museum of 

Canada Contributions to Anthropology, Linguistics 1.66-106. 
Langacker, R. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. vol. 

1: Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 



246 



Bibliography 



AISSEN, JUDITH. 1997. On the Syntax of Obviation. Language, 73.705-50. 
ANDERSON, STEPHEN R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology .vol. 62: Cambridge Studies in 

Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1927. Notes on the Fox Language. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 4.181-219. 
— . 1946. Algonquian. Linguistic Structures of Native America, ed. by H. Hoijer, 85-129. New 

York. 
— . 1958. Eastern Ojibwa: Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Word List. Ann Arbor: University of 

Michigan Press. 
— . 1962. The Menomini Language. William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series, ed. by ed. Charles 

F. Hockett: Yale University Press 
COSTA, DAVID. 1996. Reconstructing Initial Change in Algonquian. Anthropological Linguistics, 

38.39-72. 
CUOQ, JEAN- ANDRE. 1866. Etudes philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages de I'Amerique. 

Montreal: Dawson Brothers. 
CUTRER, MICHELLE. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language, University 

of California: Ph.D. dissertation. 
DAHLSTROM, AMY. 1988. Plains Cree Morphosyntax, Department of Linguistics, University of 

California, Berkeley: Ph.D. 



246 



— . 1996. Narrative Structure in a Fox text, nikotwasik iskwahtem, paskihtepayih! Studies in 

Honour of H.C. Wolfart, ed. by John D.; Nichols and Arden Ogg. Winnepeg: Algonquian 

and Iroquoian Linguistics. 
DANCYGIER, BARBARA; and EVE SWEETSER. 1996. Conditionals, Distancing, and 

Alternative Spaces. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg, 

83-99. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 
DRYER, MATTHEW. 1992. A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and Algonquian. 

Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference., ed. by William Cowan, 119-63. 

Ottawa: Carleton University. 
DUNNIGAN, TIM, PATRICK O'MALLEY and LINDA SCHWARTZ. 1978. A functional 

analysis of the Algonquian Obviative. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and the Philosophy 

of Language, 5.7-22. 
FAUCONIER, GILLES and MARK TURNER. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. 

Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg. Stanford: CSLI. 
FAUCONNIER, GILLES. 1984. Espaces mentaux. Paris: Minuit. 
— . 1985. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
— . 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
FILLMORE, CHARLES and PAUL KAY. 1993. Construction Grammar, vol. Unpublished ms. 

Berkeley, CA 
— . 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? 

Construction. Language, 75.1-33. 
FLEISCHMAN, SUZANNE. 1990. Tense and Narrativity. Austin: University of Texas Press. 



247 



FRANTZ, DONALD. 1966. Person indexing in Blackfoot. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 32.50-58. 
GENETTE, GERARD. 1980. Narrative Discourse an Essay in Method. Ithaca, New York: Cornell 

University Press. 
GODDARD, IVES. 1967. The Algonquian Independent Indicative. National Museum of Canada 

Contributions to Anthropology, Linguistics 1.66-106. 
— . 1974. Remarks on the Algonquian Independent Indicative. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, 40.317-27. 
— . 1984. The obviative in Fox narrative discourse. Papers of the Fifteenth Algonquian Conference, 

ed. by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University. 
— . 1990. Aspects of the Topic Structure of Fox Narratives: Proximate Shifts and the Use of Overt 

and Inflectional NPs. International Journal of American Linguistics, 56.317-40. 
GOLDBERG, ADELE. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument 

Structure: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press. 
GRAFSTEIN, ANN. 1981. Obviation in Ojibwa. Linguistique amerindienne II: etudes 

algonquiennes., ed. by Lynn Drapeau: Universite du Quebec a Montreal. 
GRIMES, JOSEPH E. 1975. The Thread of Discourse, vol. 207: Janua Linguarum Series Minor. 

The Hague: Mouton. 
HOCKETT, CHARLES. 1939. The Potawatomi Language, Anthropology, Yale University: Ph.D. 

dissertation. 
— . 1939. Potawatomi Syntax. Language, 15.235-48. 



248 



— . 1948. Potawatomi I: Phonemics, Morphophonemics, and Morphological Survey. International 

Journal of American Linguistics, XIV. 1-10. 
— . 1948. Potawatomi II: Derivation, Personal Prefixes, and Nouns. International Journal of 

American Linguistics, XIV.63-73. 
— . 1948. Potawatomi III: The Verb Complex. International Journal of American Linguistics, 

XIV. 139-49. 
— . 1948. Potawatomi IV: Particles and Sample Texts. International Journal of American 

Linguistics, XIV.213-25. 
— . 1966. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32.59-73. 
HOPPER, PAUL. 1979. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. Discourse and Syntax, ed. by 

Talmy Givon, 213-41. New York: Academic Press. 
— . 1979. Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in 

Language, 3.37-64. 
HOPPER, PAUL J. and SANDRA A. THOMPSON. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. 

Language, 56.251-99. 
JACKENDOFF, RAY. 1975. On belief contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6. 
JACOB SEN, WILLIAM. 1967. Switch-Reference in Hokan-Coahuiltecan. Studies in Southwestern 

Ethnolinguistics, ed. by Dell H. Hymes, 238-63. The Hague. 
JAMES, DEBORAH. 1983. Simple versus Conjunct Verbs in Moose Cree: Some Whys and 

Wherefores. Actes du Quatorzieme Congres des Algonquinistes, ed. by W. Cowan, 345-61. 

Ottawa: Carleton University. 
JESPERSON, OTTO. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 



249 



LABOV, WILLLIAM and JOSHUA WALETZKY. 1967. Narrative analysis. Essays on the Verbal 

and Visual Arts, ed. by J. Helm, 12-44. Seattle: Unversity of Washington Press. 
LABOV, WILLIAM. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. 

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 
LAKOFF, ROBIN. 1968. Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge: The MIT 

Press. 
LAKOFF, GEORGE. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about 

the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
LANGACKER, RONALD. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of 

Grammar .vol. 1: Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
LEVINSON, STEPHEN C. 1983. Pragmatics: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 
LIDDELL, SCOTT. 1995. Real, Surrogate, and Token Space: Grammatical Consequences in ASL. 

Language, Gesture, and Space, ed. by J. Reilly, 19-41. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum 

Assoc. 
LONGACRE, ROBERT. 1976. 'Mystery' particles and affixes. Proceedings of the Twelfth 

Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 468-75. 
— . 1985. Sentences as combinations of clauses. Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 

II: Complex Constructions, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 235-86. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
MICHELSON, TRUMAN. 1921. The Owl Sacred Pack of the Fox Indians.vol. Bulletin no. 72: 

Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 



250 



— . 1925. Accompanying papers.vol. 40: Bureau of Emerican Ethnology Annual Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 
MITHUN, MARIANNE. 1990. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
MUSHIN, ILANA. 1998. Viewpoint Shifts in Narrative. Discourse and Cognition, ed. by Jean- 
Pierre Koenig, 323-36. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 
NOONAN, MICHAEL. 1985. Complementation. Language typology and syntactic description. 

Vol. II: Complex Constructions., ed. by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
NUNBERG, GEOFFREY. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana 

University Linguistics Club. 
— . 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3. 
OCHS, ELINOR. 1979. Planned and Unplanned Discourse. Discourse and Syntax: Academic 

Press, Inc. 
PLATO. 1968. The Republic. New York: Basic Books. 
RHODES, RICHARD A. 1976. The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, Linguistics, 

University of Michigan: Ph.D. 
— . 1985. Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. 
— . 1985. Obviation: the Mark of Non-Coreference 
— . 1990. Obviation, Inversion, and Topic Rank in Ojibwa. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual 

Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 16-19, 1990: Special Session on 

General Topics in American Indian Linguistics, 16S. 101-15. 
— . 1992. Ottawa Word Order. Paper presented at SSILA Summer Meeting. 



251 



— . 1992. The Syntax of Possessor Obviation in Ojibwe 

— . 1993. The Possessor Constraint 

— . 1994. Agency, Inversion, and Thematic Alignment in Ojibwe. Proceedings of the Twentieth 

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society February 18-21, 1994: General 

Session: Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. by Susanne; Dolbey 

Gahl, Andy; Johnson, Christopher, 431-46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 
RHODES, RICHARD A. 2002. Obviation, Inversion and Topic Rank Revisited. Paper presented at 

Paper presented to the 34th Algonquian Conference, Kingston Ontario. 
SANDERS, JOSE and GISELA REDEKER. 1996. Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse. 

Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, ed. by G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser. Chicago: The 

University of Chicago Press. 
THOMPSON, SANDRA; and ROBERT LONGACRE. 1985. Adverbial clauses: Language 

typology and syntactic description. Vol. II Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
THUNDER, JIM SR. and KIM WENSAUT. 1998. Bodewadmimwen Nswe Mbok (Bodewadmi 

Language Book Three): Jim Thunder and Kim Wensaut, publishers. 
UHLENBECK, CHRISTIANUS CORNELIUS. 1909. Grammatische onderscheidigen in het 

Algonkinsch. Amsterdam: Akademie van Wetenschappen. 
VALENTINE, J. RANDOLPH. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of 

Toronto Press. 
WOLF ART, H. CHRISTOPH. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. Transactions of the 

American Philosophical Society, 63. 



252 



Appendix A 
Grammatical Codes Used in Morpheme Glosses 



AI 


intransitive verb stem that takes an animate subject 


AN 


animate 


AUG 


augment suffix (optional with some II stems) 


C 


verb stem inflected in the conjunct paradigm 


CH 


initial change 


DIM 


diminutive suffix 


DIR 


direct theme suffix 


DUB 


dubitative suffix 


EMPH 


emphatic particle 


FCT 


factive prefix 


PUT 


future tense prefix 


I 


verb stem inflected in the independent paradigm 


II 


intransitive verb stem that takes an inanimate subject 


IMP 


verb stem inflected in the imperative 


INAN 


inanimate 


INV 


inverse theme suffix 


LOC 


locative suffix 


MOD 


modal prefix 


NEG 


negative suffix 


OBJ 


object suffix (on some TI stems) 


P 


verb stem inflected in the participle 


PASS 


passive suffix 


PL 


plural suffix 


PRET 


preterite suffix 


PST 


past tense prefix 


TA 


transitive verb stem that takes an animate object 


TI 


transitive verb stem that takes an inanimate object 


Person inflection 


; 


1 


first person 


2 


second person 


3 


third person 


3' 


third person obviative 


15 


first person plural, exclusive 


12 


first person plural, inclusive 


25 


second person plural 


35 


third person plural 





inanimate 


05 


inanimate plural 


X 


indefinite 



253 



Appendix B. 
Glossed Examples from Chapters 6 and 7 

1 Examples from Chapter 6 

(1) (JS.4.1) 

1 I me se ngodek neshnabek 

iw mE sE nEgOd -Eg EnEshEnabe -g 
that.INAN EMPH EMPH one -LOG person -PL 

e-wdodanwat i je weye 

e- wEdodanE -wad iw jE weye 

FCT- have . a . village\AI -35. C and someone 

e-nshonajtagwat wgetgansewan 

e - nEshwEna jEtEw -Egwat wE- gEtEganEs -Ewan 

FCT- destroy. s.t. on. s.o. \TA -3'/35.C 3- garden -35 

mine mbish wed'emwat. 

minE nEbish CC.OdE'EmEw -ad 

and water CC . get . it . from. there . for . s . o . \TA -35. P 

Once there was a village, and someone was destroying their gardens and wells. 

2 Iw je nish wshkalsewsen e-gi-nokanawat 

iw jE nizh OshkabewEs -En e- gi- nokaN -awad 

and two helper -OBV FCT- PST- have . s . o . do . s . t . \TA -35/3 '.C 

e-wi-kewabmawat wegwendek o 

e- wi- EkEwabEm -awad wegwen -EdEg ow 

FCT- FUT- watch. out. for. s.o. \TA -35/3 '.C whomever -DUB that. AN 

ezhcheget . 

CC.EzhEchEge -d 

CC . do . things . a . certain . way\AI -3P 

So they had two scouts watch out for whomever might be doing that. 

3 I je bama zhe na geten e-byanet weye. 

iw jE bama zhE na geten e- bya/e -nEd weye 
and later EMPH EMPH sure FCT- come\AI -3'.C someone 

Later, sure enough, someone came along. 

4 E-wabmawat kojesen e-bshkobnanet; 

e- wabEm -awad kojes -En e- bEshkobEn -anEd 
FCT- see.s.o\TA -35/3 '.C bean -OBV FCT- pull . out . s . o . \TA -3/3 '.C 



254 



jak zhena e-zhechgenet . 

jag EzhEna e- EzhEchEge -nEd 

all EMPH FCT- do . things . a . certain . way\AI -3'.C 

They saw him pulling out beans and doing all kinds of things. 

5 Wabozoyen je ni . 

wabozo#y -En jE niw 
rabbit -OBV but that.OBV 

It was Rabbit. 

(2) (JS.1.1) 

1 Ngodek walsgonoshkwe e-gche-mwet jik-zibe. 

nEgOd -Eg wabEgonoshkwe e- gEchE- mEw -Ed jig- zibE 
one -LOG rat FCT- really- cry\AI -3.C next. to- river 

Once a rat was crying by the edge of a river. 

(3) (JS.4.4) 

1 ode yadsokan espen e-bmebtot. 

odE yadsokan esEbEn e- bEmEbEto -d 
this story raccoon FCT- run.along\AI -3.C 

This story is about the Raccoon running along. 

(4) (JS.4.5) 

1 I me se ngodek neshnabek 

iw mE sE nEgOd -Eg EnEshEnabe -g 
that.INAN EMPH EMPH one -LOC person -PL 

e-wdodanwat . 

e- wEdodanE -wad 

FCT- have.a.village\AI -35. C 

Once there was a village. 
(6) (JS.4.2) 

50 E-bwamshe-nyewgongek 

e- bwamEshE- nyewgonEg -Eg 
FCT- before- be . f our . days\II -O.C 

e-byawat giw neyap i je o nene 

e- bya/e -wad giw neyab iw jE ow EnEnE#w 
FCT- come\AI -35C those. AN back and that. AN man 

255 



e-nat niw osen, 

e- En -ad niw #os -En 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV father -OBV 

"Nnedwendan debendemak. " 

nE- nEdwend -a -n CH.dEbEnd -Emag 
want.s.t\TI -OBJ -OBJ own.s.t.\TI -15/0. C 

e-nat. 

e- En -ad 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -3/3'. C 

Before the four days ended, the couple came back, and the man said to his 
father, "I want our belongings. " 

(7) (MD 102694) 

46 Iw je i ga-nakwneget 

iw jE iw CH.gi- nakOnEge -d 
and that.INAN CH.PST- plan . things\AI -3.P 

e-wi-debmat pi bwamshe 

e- wi- debEm -ad Opi bwamEshE 
FCT- FUT- grab.s.o\TA -3/3 '.C when before 

gwabtonet . '^ 

gwabEto -nEd 

run . out . of . water\AI -3 ' . C 

The one that planned it would grab him before he reached the shore. 

(8) (MD 102694) 

28 A, babwichget jigbyek. 

a babwichEge -Ed jigbyeg 

ah wait . for . things\AI -3.C by. the. water 

Ah, he waited there by the shore. 

(9) (MD 102694) 

35 A, gkanabmat o wabozo. 

a gEkanabEm -ad ow wabozo#y 

ah look. over. at. s.o\TA -3/3'. C that. AN rabbit 

Ah, the rabbit looked across at him. 



^ This is a conjunct, not a participle. The participle would be egwabtot. 

256 



(10) (JS.4.1) 

44 Iw je e-bme-byat niw 

iw jE e- bEmE- bya/e -d niw 

and FCT- in . the . process . of- come\AI -3.C that.OBV 

beshkmwen e-nat "Nseze! 

bEshkEmwe -n e- En -ad nE- #sEze 

lion -OBV FCT- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C 1- older . brother 

Gyetnam nzeges . 

gyetnam nE- zegEzE 

for. sure 1- be . scared\AI . I 

When he [Rabbit] came across the lion he said to him, "Brother, I'm very scared. 

45 Nwebi ' we . 

nE- webi ' Ewe 

1- run . away . f rom. people\AI . I 

I'm running away from someone. 

46 Weye zhode nshiwnagze anwe ge gin 

weye zh odE nEshiwnagOzE anwE ge gin 
someone here look . hostile\AI . 3 . I all. right also 2 . EMPH 

gneshiwnagwes nesh je win nwech. 

gE- nEshiwnagOzE nEzh jE win nwEj 

2- look. hostile\AI . 3 . I contrarily but 3 . EMPH more 

There is someone here pretty scary; and you're scary, but he's even worse. 

47 Ibe gge-zhyamen; geten nshiwnagze." 

ibE gE- gE- Ezhya/e -mEn geten nEshiwnagOzE 

there 2- FUT- go.there\AI -15.1 sure look . hostile\AI . 3 . I 

Let's go over there; he sure is scary. " 

48 Beshkmwe e-kedot, "Gzhyamen, 

bEshkEmwe e- EkEdO -d gE- Ezhya/e -mEn 
lion FCT- say\AI -3 . C 2- go.there\AI -15.1 

gge-we-wabmamen. " 

gE- gE- wE- wabEm -a -mEn 
2- FUT- go. and- see.s.o\TA -DIR -12.1 

Lion said, 'Lets go and take a look at him. " 



257 



(11) (HOPTl) 



2 Neshnabe je o weni'get esben 

EnEshEnabe jE ow CC.wEni'Ege -d esEbEn 
person but that. AN trap -3.P raccoon 

gi -yawe . 

gi- YawE 

PST- be. a. certain. thing\AI . 3 . 1 

When thelndian went trapping, the raccoon went along. 
(12) (HOPTl) 

11 Gi je yaygenwik je 

giw jE YayEgenO -g jE 

those. AN but be . the . same . size\AI -35.1 but 

giw, jo je mamda 

giw jo jE mamda 
those. AN not but possible 

e-wi-wepodwat, 

e- wi- wepod -Ewad 
FCT- FUT- hit.s.t.\TI -3/3 '.C 

e-bwa-gkenmat ni 

e- bwa- gEkenEm -ad niw 
FCT- NEG- know.s.o.\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV 

wde-esbenmen . 

wEdE- esEbEn -Em -En 
3- raccoon -POSS -OBV 

They were just the same size, these two, you see; so it was 
impossible for him [the man] to hit him [the other coon]; he 
couldn't tell which one was his own. 

12 Pene je niw wde-esbenmen 

pEne jE niw wEdE- e sEbEn -Em -En 
always but that. OBV 3- raccoon -POSS -OBV 

nam-yegwan gi-wjeshnon. 

nam-yEgwan gi- OjEshEn -on 

under . something PST- lie . underneath\AI -3 '.I 



His own coon was always underneath. 



258 



(13) (JS.4.4) 

1 Ode yadsokan espen e-bmebtot. 

odE yadsokan esEbEn e- bEmEbEto -d 
this story raccoon FCT- run.along\AI -3.C 

This story is about the Raccoon running along. 

2 E-ye-bmebtot o espen 

e- ye- bEmEbEto -Ed ow esEpEn 
FCT- while^- run.along\AI -3.C that. AN raccoon 

wgi-wabman amon e-gojnenet. 

w- gi- wabEm -a -n amo -n e- gojEn -EnEd 
3- PST- see.s.o\TA -DIR -OBV bee -PL FCT- hang\AI -3'.C 

While Raccoon was running along, he saw bees (a hive) hanging (from a tree). 

3 Ga-zhewebzet je 

CC.gi- EzhEwebEzE -Ed jE 

PST- have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI -3.C but 

gi-gmegmode gokosh wzheyen 

gi- gEmEgEmode gokosh w- #zh Ey -En 

PST- RED. steal. s. t. \AIO. 3. I pig 3- skin -OBV 

ngo ji . 

ngOj i 
somewhere 

He would go about stealing pork rind somewhere. 

(14) (JS.4.5) 

1 I me se ngodek neshnabek 

iw mE sE nEgOd -Eg EnEshEnabe -g 
that.INAN EMPH EMPH one -LOC person -PL 

e-wdodanwat . 

e- wEdodanE -wad 

FCT- have.a.village\AI -35. C 



Once there was a village. 



' This preverb, which is not attested elsewhere in the corpus, may be some kind of initial change. 

259 



Gi-dbedbowek; gego zhena 

gi- dEbEdEbEwe -g gego EzhEna 

PST- DUP.have. a. council\AI -3.C something EMPH 

gi-ya jdanawat . 

gi- YajEd -a -n -awad 

PST- tell.of . s. t\TI -OBJ -OBJ -35/3'. C 

They were having a council; talking about something. 

I je ibe mbesek nawesh [gagita] odan 

iw jE ibE nEbEs -Eg nawezh odan 

and there lake -LOG in . the .middle . of . an . area town 

gi -yawen ibe . 

gi- yawEn ibE 

PST- be . in . a . certain . place\II . . I there 

And there was a town in the middle of a lake. 



4 I je ye i ga-wje-dbedbowewat . 

iw je ye iw CC.gi- wEjE- dEbEdEbEwe -wad 

that ' s. the. one. (INAN) CO. PST- where- DUP . have . a . council\AI -35. P 

That's where they would go for their council. 

5 I je ngot nene neshzhena gi-wijewe 

iw jE nEgOd EnEnE#w nEshzhEna gi- wijewe 

and one man for. no . reason PST- go . along.with.people\AI . 3 . I 

neko . 

nEko 
used. to 

So there was one man who used to go along for no particular reason. 

6 Jo zhena win gego 

jo EzhEna win gego 

not EMPH 3. EMPH something 

gi-zhe-dbowesi neshzhena 

gi- EzhE- dEbEwe -si nEshzhEna 

PST- in . a . certain . way- have . a . council\AI -NEG.I f or . no . reason 

e-zhyat . 

e- Ezhya/e -d 
FCT- go.there\AI -3.C 

He did not go for the council; he went for no particular reason. 

260 



7 Ga-wje-zhyat je e-wi-mnekwet . 

CC.gi- wEjE- Ezhya/e -d jE e- wi- mEnEkwe -d 
CC.PST- why- go.there\AI -3.P but FCT- FUT- drink\AI -3 . C 

The reason he went was to drink. 

8 Ngodek e-dokit bama zhena jo weye; jayek 

nEgOd -Eg e- doki -d bama EzhEna jo weye jayeg 
one -LOG FCT- wake.up\AI -3 . C later EMPH not someone all 

gi -ma j iwagben . 

gi- maji -wag -EbEn 
PST- leave\AI -3 -PRET.I 

Once this man woke up and nobody was there; everyone must have left. 

9 E-gingenayek nsheke. 

e- ginEgEn -ayE -g nEshEke 

FCT- leave. s . o. alone\TA -PASS -3 . C alone 

He was left all alone. 

10 Ngodek jigbyek e-gi-we- jajibdebet 

nEgOd -Eg jigbyeg e- gi- wE- DUP.jibEdEbE -d 
one -LOC by. the. water FCT- PST- go . and- sit\AIO -3.C 

gdewanen e-giwadzet i j® o mtek 

gEdEwan -En e- giwadEzE -d iw jE ow mEtEg 
log -OBV FCT- be.lonely\AI -3 . C and that. AN tree 

e-gi-ggenonat . 

e- gi- gEgEnon -ad 

FCT- PST- talk. to. s.o. \TA -3/3'. C 

One time he went by the lake and sat by a log, feeling lonely, and the tree talked 
to him. 

(15) (JS.4.1) 

88 I je iw bodwagen megwa shkode 

iw jE iw bodwagEn megwa Eshkode 
and that.INAN fireplace still fire 

gi-temget . 

gi- te -mEgEd 

PST- be. in. a. certain. place -AUG. O.I 

So there was still a fire in the fireplace. 



261 



(16) (JS.4.6) 

9 Ode mko wgi-sheman. 

odE mEko wE- gi- EshEm -a -n 
this bear 3- PST- feed.s.o.\TA -DIR -OBV.I 

This bear was feeding them. 



(17) (JS.4.3) 

18 O negdoshas wgi-nizhokmagwan. 

ow negEdosha -es wE- gi- nizhokEmEw -Egwan 
that. AN horse -DIM 3- PST- help.s.o.\TA -3'/35.I 

The pony helped them. 

19 E-bwamshe- je-yewawat negdoshayen 

e- bwamEshE - EjE- EyEw -awad negEdosha#y -En 
FCT- before - where- have.s.o\TA -35/3 '.C horse -OBV 

wgi-wbesh ' egwan seksiyen wgetganeswa. 

wE- EsEkEsi -yEn wE- gEtEgan -es -wa 

3- deer -2.C garden -DIM -3PL 

Before they had the pony, the deer were ruining their gardens. 

(18) (JS.4.2) 

47 Iw je e-gi-babgemat 

iw jE e- gi- babEgEm -ad 

and FCT- PST- DUP . strike . s . o . on . the . head\TA -3/3'. C 

niw ndemozeyen. 

niw mEdEmoze#y -En 
that. OBV old. woman -OBV 

So he knocked the old lady (in the head). 

48 Jak bkwezhgasen wa-mijet zhiw 

jag bEkwezhEgas -En CC.wi- mij -Ed zhiw 
all cracker -PL CC.FUT- eat.s.t\TI -3.C there 

gi-tene . 

gi- te -nE 

PST- be . in . a . certain . place -O'.I 

All the crackers for her to eat were there. 

49 Iw je e-gi-bkwenshkodwat niw 

iw jE e- gi- bEkwenEshkodEw -ad niw 

and FCT- PST- choke . s . o . \TA -3/3 '.C that . OBV 

262 



bkwezhgasen mine ±w ziwabo abte 

bEkwezhEgas -En minE iw ziwabo abEtE 
cracker -OBV and that.INAN cider half 

e-gi-zigwebnek . 

e- gi- zigwebEn -Eg 
FCT- PST- spill. s.t.\TI -3/0. C 

He stuffed the crackers in her mouth and poured out half of the cider. 

(19) (JS.4.4) 

39 O mwe gi-wzam-debsenyet jo mamda 

ow mEwe gi- Ozam- debEsEnye -d jo mamda 
that. AN wolf PST- too. much- be.full\AI -3.C not possible 

e-wi-majnewit 

e- wi- mEmajEnEwi -d 
FCT- FUT- move.away\AI -3 . C 

e-pich-dbomayek . 

e- pij- dEbom -ayE -g 

FCT- so. much- talk . over . s . o . \TA -PASS -3 . C 

The wolf was too full; he couldn't move away while they talked over (what to do 
about) him. 

(20) (JS.4.1) 

8 Iw je o wabozo zhiw gi-dbendagze odanek jo je 

iw jE ow wabozo#y zh iw gi- dEbEnEdagEzE odan -Eg jo jE 
and that. AN rabbit there PST- belong\AI . 3 . I town -LOC not but 

mamda 1 

mamda iw 
possible that.INAN 

e-wi-zhe-nsawat mamwech bshe 

e- wi- EzhE- nEs -awad mamwej bEshE 

FCT- FUT- in. a. certain. way- kill.s.o.\TA -35/3'. C more EMPH 

gego gjiyek bama a-je-nsawat. 

gego gjiyEg bama a- EjE- nEs -awad 

something better later MOD- FUT- kill.s.o.\TA -35/3 '.C 

Since the Rabbit belonged to the village, they couldn't kill him as they please; they 
would have to get something more on him in order to kill him. 



263 



(21) (JS.4.6) 

10 I je iw pi neshnalsek e-giwsewat jo 

iw jE iw Opi EnEshEnabe -g e- giwse -wad jo 

and that.INAN when person -PL FCT- hunt\AI -35. C not 



wgi-widpemasiwan 

wE- gi- wiDpem -a -si -wan 

3- PST- sleep. together\TA -DIR -NEG -35/3'. I 

wdekweyomwan babkan zhena gi-nbek. 

wEdE- Ekweyom -wan babEkan EzhEna gi- nEbe/a -g 
3- wife -35.0BV different EMPH PST- sleep\AI -35.1 

And when people went hunting, they didn't sleep with their wives; they slept 
separately. 

(22) (MD 102594) 

1 O, neko ngi-babzedwak neshnabek 

nEko nE- gi- DUP.bEzEdw -a -g EnEshEnabe -g 
oh used. to 1- PST- listen. to\TA -DIR -1/35.1 person -PL 

e-yayajmowat eyayenga jmowat . 

e- DUP.YajEmO -wad CC . yayenEga jEmO -wad 

FCT- tell\AI -35. C CC . laugh . about . s . t . told\AI -35. P 

1 used to listen to the people telling stories; something they laughed about. 

2 [Iw je] ni wabozoyen ngodek 

niw wabozotty -En nEgOd -Eg 
that.OBV rabbit -OBV one -LOC 

e-gi-ya jmawat . 

e- gi- YajEm -a -wad 

FCT- PST- tell. about. s.o\TA -DIR -35/3'. C 

Once they told about Rabbit. 

3 O, bnewi neko o wabozo gi-gnewanwe. 

o bEnEwi nEko ow wabozo#y gi- gEnEwanwa/e 

oh long. ago used. to that. AN rabbit PST- have . a . long . tail\AI . I 

Oh, at one time. Rabbit had a long tail 

4 Gi-gnewanwedek kedwik . 

gi- gEnEwanEwa/e -dEg EkEdO -g 
PST- have.a.long. tail\AI -DUB. I say\AI -35.1 

He must have had a long tail, they say. 

264 



5 Iw je i wech-shkwanwat 

iw jE iw CC.wEjE- EshkwanEwa/e -d 

and that.INAN the . reason . why- have . a . short . tail\AI -3.C 

ngom ga-zhewebzet . 

nEgom CC.gi- EzhEwebEzE -d 

today PST- have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI -3.C 

That 's why he has a short tail today, because of what happened to him. 
Continued. . . . 

56 Iw je iw yedek 

iw jE iw yedEg 

and that.INAN must.be 

wech-ngom-shkwanwat 

CC.wEjE- nEgom- EshkwanEwa/e -d 

the . reason . why- today- have . a . short . tail\AI -3.C 

o wabozo, gi-kedwik neko gi 

ow wabozo#y gi- EkEdO -g nEko giw 
that. AN rabbit PST- say\AI -35.1 used. to those. AN 

gekyajek neko e-gi-wnanodogwa 

CC.gEkya -jEk nEko e- gi- OnanodEw -Egwa 
be.old\AI -35P used. to FCT- PST- hear.s.o\TA -1/35. C 

e-yanga jmowat . 

e- yanEgajEmO -wad 
FCT- tell. s. t. funny\AI -35. C 

That's must be why Rabbit has a short tail today, the elders used to say, 
when I heard them telling funny stories. 

(23) (JS.4.3) 

1 Ngom wdopi wemtegozhl yewak naganit. 

nEgom Odopi wemEtEgOzhi EyE -wag CC.nigani -d 

today now French be . in . a . place\AI -3.1 lead\AI -3.P 

Up to today, the French are the leaders somewhere. 

2 Iw je ngom wdopi nnodamen weye 

iw jE nEgom Odopi nE- nod -a -mEn weye 

and today now 1- hear.s.t\TI -DIR -15.1 someone 

e-wepodek biwabek wizhgya 

e- wepod -Eg biwabEk wizhEgya 
FCT- hit.s.t.\TI -3/0. C iron be. solid 



265 



e-nayek wi zhe ibe Kansas 

e- En -ayE -g wi EzhE ibE Kansas 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -PASS -3 . C EMPH EMPH there Kansas 

memek . 

memEg 
especially 

Nowadays we hear someone blacksmithing, especially there in Kansas, they say. 

O je ye o gche-mnedo eng[e]t wemtegozhi . 

ow jE ye ow gEchE- mEnEdO wemEtEgOzhi#y 

but . that ' s . the . one . (AN) great- spirit French 

That's the great spirit of the French. 

ye o gangezot wemtegozhi ekdonegek . 

ow ye ow CC.ginEgEzO -d wemEtEgOzhitty CC.EkEdO -nEgEg 

that ' s. the. one. (AN) be.lost\AI -3.P French say\AI -35. P 

That's the lost French, so they say. 

1 je ngom bme-yewak zhena 

iw jE nEgom bEmE- EyE -wag EzhEna 

and today in . the . process . of- be . in . a . place\AI -3.1 EMPH 

nekmek . 

EnEkEmEg 
different .places 

Now he is moving around in different places. 

Jo win gdemagzesi ginan wi 

jo win gEdEmagEzE -si ginan wi 
not 3. EMPH be.poor\AI -NEG.I 12. EMPH EMPH 

eneshnabewigo gdekdomen . 

e- EnEshEnabewE yEgO gEd- EkEdO -mEn 
FCT- be.IndianX AI 12. C 2- say\AI -15.1 

He is not poor; we who are Indians say that. 

Wemtegozhi maneton wzaw-zhonya 

wemEtEgOzhi manet -o -n wEzaw- zhonya 

French have . plenty . of . s . t . \TI -OBJ -OBJ. I yellow- money 

mine mkede-biwabek . 

minE mEkEde- biwabEk 
and black- iron 

The French have lots of gold and black iron. 



266 



8 Mine ngom e-gkendemgo bgoch-negdoshayek mine 

minE nEgom e- gEkendEm -Ego bEgOj- negOdosha#y -Eg minE 
and today FCT- know\AI2 -12. C wild- horse -PL and 



seksik jak zhena e-yemgek. 

EsEkEsi -g jag EzhEna e- EyE -mEgEg 

deer -LOG all EMPH FCT- be . in . a . place\AI -AUG.O.C 

And today we know wild horses and deer and so forth are there. 

9 Ode je nene win wdebenman. 

odE jE EnEnE#w win wE- dEbenEm -a -n 
this but man 3 . EMPH 3- own.s.o\TA -DIR -OBV.I 

This man owns them. 

10 Ode je wemtegozhi gzhe-mnedon 

odE jE wemEtEgOzhi gEzhe- mEnEdO -n 
this but French great- spirit -OBV 

wgi-nizhokmagon e-wi-mishgwezet ode 

wE- gi- nizhokEmEw -agOn e- wi- mishEgwEzE -d odE 
3- PST- help.s.o\TA -0/3. C FCT- FUT- be . powerful\AI -3 . C this 

je anet gikansenan Spanish 

jE anEd gE- # ikanEs -Enan Spanish 
but some 2- brother -12.P0SS Spanish 

e-nayek ode 

e- En -ayE -g odE 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -PASS -3 . C this 

wdekwenzhgewan . 

wEdE- EkwenzhEgEw -a -n 

3- beat . s . o. in. a. contest\TA -DIR -OBV.I 

Now God helped the French to be powerful, but his brother the Spanish was 
victorious, they say. 

11 I je ngom wdopi ode wemtegozhi nwech zhe ninweze 

iw jE nEgom Odopi odE wemEtEgOzhi nwEj zh E ninwEzE 

and today now this French more EMPH be . weak\AI . 3 . I 

zhode kik . 

ZhodE EkE -g 
here earth -LOC 

Up to today, the French are very weak in the world. 

12 Ngodek je ode wemtegozhi wgi-nizhokmowen 

nEgOd -Eg jE odE wemEtEgOzhi wE- gi- nizhokEmEw -En 
one -LOC but this French 3- PST- help.s.o.\TA -OBV.I 



267 



neshnaben . 

EnEshEnabe -n 
Indian -OBV 

At one time, the French helped out the Indians. 

13 I je i pi ode wemtegozhi 

iw jE iw pi odE wemEtEgOzhi 
and that's. when this French 

wgi-minan ngemwen 

wE- gi- miN -a -n nEgEmOwEn 

3- PST- give. to. s . o\TA -DIR -OBV. I song 

i je ye i ngoiti gode neshnabek 

iw je ye iw nEgom godE EnEshEnabe -g 

that ' s . the. one. (INAN) today these. AN Indian -PL 

e-yewat i je ode ngom nim'ediwen 

e- EyE -wad iw jE odE nEgom nimE ' EdiwEn 

FCT- be . in . a . place\AI -35. C and this today dance 

gode neshnabek e-gche-yowat . 

godE EnEshEnabe -g e- gEchE- EyEw -Ewad 
these. AN Indian -PL FCT- really- use.s.t.\TI -35/1. C 

At that time the French gave him a song, and that's the one these Indians here use 
in their dancing to this day. 

(24) (JS.4.3) 

14 I je o wemtegozhi e-gi-nat 

iw jE ow wemEtEgOzhi e- gi- En -ad 

and that. AN French FCT- PST- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C 

niw gigabeyen "Nasena 

niw gigabe#y -yEn nasEna 
that. OBV boy -2C be. careful 

zhechgen ezh-widmonan . " 

EzhEchEge -n CC.EzhE- widEmEw -nan 

do. things . a. certain. way\AI -OBV thus- tell.s.o\TA -1/2. C 

The French told one boy, "Be careful to do things the way I tell you to. " 



268 



15 I je o wemtegozhi e-wishteyaywat 

iw jE ow wemEtEgOzhi e- wishEtEyay -Ewad 
and that. AN French FCT- blacksmith\AI -35. C 

e-gkeno 'mewat ni gigabeyen. 

e- gEkEno ' EmEw -ad niw gigabe#y -yEn 
FCT- teach. s.o\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV boy -2 . C 

So that French (Spirit) was teaching the boy how to blacksmith. 

16 I je o gigalse wikapi 

iw jE ow gigabe#y wikapi 
and that. AN boy finally 

e-gi-ne-wishteyaywat 

e- gi- nE- wishEtEyay -Ewad 
FCT- PST- start. to- blacksmith\AI -35. C 

e-gi-gkeno 'mowat niw wmeshomsen. 

e- gi- gEkEno 'EmEw -ad niw wE- mEshomEs -En 
FCT- PST- teach. s.o\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV 3- grandfather -OBV 

Finally, the boy started to blacksmith, and he taught his grandfather. 

n Wikapi e-gi-negdoshayensawat mine zhena 

wikapi e- gi- negOdoshayEnEs -awad minE EzhEna 
finally FCT- PST- have . horses\TA -35/3 '.C and EMPH 

gego . 

gego 
something 

Finally, they had a pony and so forth. 

18 O negdoshas wgi-nizhokmagwan. 

ow negEdosha -es wE- gi- nizhokEmEw -Egwan 
that. AN horse -DIM 3- PST- help.s.o.\TA -3'/35 

The pony helped them. 

19 E-bwamshe- je-yewawat negdoshayen 

e- bwamEshE - EjE- EyEw -awad negEdosha#y -En 
FCT- before - where- have.s.o\TA -35/3 '.C horse -OBV 

wgi-wbesh ' egwan seksiyen wgetganeswa. 

wE- EsEkEsi -yEn wE- gEtEgan -es -wa 

3- deer -2.C garden -DIM -3PL 

Before they had the pony, the deer were ruining their gardens. 



269 



20 Gigabe e-ggenowat ni 

gigabe#y e- gEgEnow -ad niw 

boy FCT- talk. to. s.o. \TA -3/3'. C that . OBV 

negdoshayen, "Ni je wa-zhechgeyan?" 

negOdosha#y -En ni jE CC.wi- EzhEchEge -yan 

horse -OBV what FUT- do . things . a . certain . way\AI -l.C 

The boy asked the pony, " What should I do?" 

21 I je o negdosha e-nat, 

iw jE ow negEdosha#y e- En -ad 

and that. AN horse FCT- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C 



"Wigbish mtegok wdenen 

wigObish mEtEg#0 -g OdEn -En 

basswood. bark tree -LOG get . s . t . from. someplace\AIO -2 . IMP 

ge-dkobdon nkwegnak gekwedso 

gE- dEkobEd -on n- # kwegEn#a -g EgEkwEdEso 
FUT- tie.s.t.\TI2 -3/0. IMP 1- neck -LOG so .many . times 

egme-kezhyep ge-giwta ' omgon 

GG.EgEmE- gEgEzhyeb gE- giwta ' omEgo -n 

every- morning FUT- ride . around. in . a . circle\AI -2 . IMP 

iw ggetganwa . " 

iw gE- gEtEgan -wa 
that.INAN 2- garden -2PL 

And the pony said, "Get some bark, tie it around my neck, and ride me 
around your garden every morning. " 

22 I je gi seksik e-wi-zegzewat . 

iw jE giw EsEkEsi -g e- wi- zegEzE -wad 
and those. AN deer -PL FGT- FUT- be.scared\AI -35. G 

The deer will be scared. 

23 Nesh je gego zhe 

nEzh jE gego zhE 
contrarily but something EMPH 

gwi-zhe-ngok . " 

gE- wi- EzhE- En -Ego -g 

2- FUT- in. a. certain. way- say . to . s . o\TA -INV -35.1 



Of course, they will say something to you. " 



270 



2i O seksi e-kedot "Wegni je o 

ow EsEkEsi e- EkEdO -d wegni jE ow 
that. AN deer FCT- say\AI -3.C what that. AN 

wakayabde 

wakayabEde 

have . a . round . tooth 

bye-zizdeyatek?" 

bye- zizEdEyatEg 

come- have . s . t . sticking . out . between . one ' s . legs\AI .3.1 

The deer said "What does that round-tooth have sticking out between his 
legs?" 

25 Egme-kezhyep zhena o je wemtegozhi 

CC.EgEmE- gEgEzheb EzhEna ow jE wemEtEgOzhi#y 
every .morning EMPH that. AN but French 

nizhokmowen i je mine wa-mijwat 

nizhokEmEw -En iw jE minE CC.wi- mij -Ewad 
help.s.o.\TA -3/3 '.I and and FUT- eat.s.t\TI -3/3 '.P 

wiyas o gi-wje-wdetnanawa. 

wiyas ow gi- wEjE- OdEdEn -a -nawa 
meat that. AN PST- how- get.s.o.\TA -DIR -35/0.1 

Every morning the French Spirit helped them, and that's how they obtained their 
meat to eat. 

26 Ga-gish- jagnenet 

CC.gi- gizh- jagEne -nEd 
CC.PST- finish- be.dead\AI -3'.C 

wdenwemagnen wmeshomsen 

wEdE- nwemagEn -En wE- mEshomEs -En 
3- relative -OBV 3- grandfather -OBV 

ga-gish-mbonet e-gi-majit. 

CC.gi- gizh- nEbo -nEd e- gi- maji -d 
PST- finish- die\AI -3'.C FCT- PST- leave\AI -3 . C 

After his relatives and grandfather died, he left. 



271 



27 I je geyabe wemtegozhi nizhokmowan geyabe 

iw jE geyabE wemEtEgOzhi nizhkEmEw -o -wan geyabE 
and still French help.s.o\TA -OBJ -35/3 '.I still 

je ngom gnizhokmagnan. 

jE nEgom gE- nizhkEmEw -EgO -Enan 
but today 2- help.s.o\TA -INV -3/12.1 

Still the French helped him, and is helping us to this day. 

28 I je ngom pi neshnabe wemtegozhi mskwe 

iw jE nEgom Opi EnEshEnabe wemEtEgOzhi mEskwe 
and today when Indian French blood 

we j-gwgezhkek o wemtegozhi 

CC.wEjE- gOgEzhk -gEg ow wemEtEgOzhi#y 

CC.why- have. s . t . in. one ' s .body\AI -35/0. P that. AN French 

e-gi-zhwenmat . 

e- gi- EzhEwenEm -ad 
FCT- PST- bless. s.o. \TA -3/3'. C 

Up to today Indians have French blood inside them, because the French 
(Spirit) blessed them. 

29 Ode gigabe e-gi-majit e-gi-byat 

odE gigabe#y e- gi- maji -d e- gi- bya/e -d 
this boy FCT- PST- leave\AI -3 . C FCT- PST- come\AI -3 . C 

odanek neshnaben eyenet, 

odan -Eg EnEshEnabe -n CC.EyE -nEd 

town -LOC Indian -OBV CC . be . in . a . place\AI -3'.P 

ga-gkendek je ni wemtegozhiyen 

CC.gi- gEkend -Eg jE niw wemEtEgOzhi -yEn 
PST- know.s.t\TI but that . OBV French -2.C 

wgi-gkeno 'mowan neshnaben 

wE- gi- gEkEno'EmEw -a -n EnEshEnabe -n 

3- PST- teach. s.o\TA -DIR -OBV person -OBV 

wa-zhi ' enet . 

CC.wi- Ezhi' -EnEd 

CC.FUT- be.in.a.certain.place\AI -3'.C 

This boy left and came to where there was an Indian village; what he 
learned from the French he taught the people who were there. 

30 Ga-gish-gkeno 'mowat wiznaben 

CC.gi- gizh- gEkEno'EmEw -ad wiznabe -n 
CC.PST- finish- teach. s.o\TA -3/3'. C fellow. men -OBV 

272 



wa - z he tone t , gego 

CC.wi- OzhEto -nEd gego 
FUT- make.s.t.\TI -3'.C something 

wgi-nan: 

wE- gi- En -a -n 

3- PST- say. to. s.o\TA -DIR -OBV 

" Gego nsedi ' kegon , " 

gegO nEsEdi' -kegon 

don't kill . one. another\AI -25. IMP 

wgi-nan. 

wE- gi- En -a -n 

3- PST- say. to. s.o\TA -DIR -OBV 

After he taught his fellow people what to do, he told them something: 
"Don't kill one another, " he said. 

31 I je o wemtegozhl e-gi-nat 

iw jE ow wemEtEgOzhi e- gi- En -ad 

and that. AN French FCT- PST- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C 

niw gigabeyen ga-widmowak 

niw gigabe#y -yEn CC.gi- widEmEw -wag 
that. OBV boy -2.C PST- tell . s . o\TA -3.1 

e-wi-bwa-mje-dodadwat, mine i je ngom wdopi 

e- wi- bwa- mEjE- dodad -Ewad minE iw jE nEgom OdE Opi 

FCT- FUT- NEG- bad- do . to . e . o . \AI -35. C and and today now 

neshnabek enwek-dbenbwek . 

EnEshEnabe -g enwek- dEbEnEbwe -g 

Indian -PL better- be . civilized\AI -35.1 

And the French told the boy what to tell them, that they should not abuse 
each other, and so up to this day, the Indians are surely civilized. 

(25) (JS.4.4) 

32 I je ngom wdopi dewe ' gen-nim ' ediwen 

iw jE nEgom Odopi dewe'EgEn - nimE'EdiwEn 
and today now drum - dance 

debwetanawa neshnabek 

debwet -a -nawa EnEshEnabe -g 

believe. s.t\TI -OBJ -35/0.1 Indian -PL 



273 



i ye i gagowat ni wemtegozhiyen . 

iw ye iw ? niw wemEtEgOzhi -yEn 

that ' s. the. one. (INAN) ? that.OBV French -2C 

Up to this day the Indians beUeve in the drum dance; that's the one the French 
told him about. 

33 Iw je ngom wdopi jak neshnabek 

iw jE nEgom Odopi jag EnEshEnabe -g 
and today now all Indian -PL 

wdebwetanawa ode madmowen iw je 

wE- debwet -a -nawa odE madEmowEn iw jE 

3- believe. s.t\TI -OBJ -35/01 this belief and 



we j -mno-widokwdadwat . 

CC.wEjE- mEnO- widokwdad -Ewad 
why- good- be . f riends\AI -35. C 

And up to today, all the Indians believe this way and that's why they are good 
friends. 

34 Nchiwenmok e-wabdawat ngom wdopi . 

nEchiwenEmO -g e- wabEd -awad nEgom Odopi 
be.glad\AI -35.1 FCT- see.s.t\TI -35/3'. C today now 

They are happy to see each other up to today. 

35 Iw je ekwak ode wemtegozhi yajmowen. 

iw jE CC.Ekwa -g odE wemEtEgOzhi YajEmowEn 
and be.long\II -O.C this French story 

So that's how long this French story is. 
(26) (MD 102694) 

12 I je ge wi zhi o gagtanago i yedek . 

iw jE ge wi zhiw ow gagEtanago#y iw yedEg 
and also EMPH there that. AN crocodile that. INAN must.be 

So must be Crocodile was there. 

13 Beshoch zhena zhi jigbyek [ge] 

beshoj EzhEna zhiw jigbyeg 
near EMPH there by. the. water 

e-gegwi jek . 

e- DUP.gwiD -Eg 

FCT- float. in. the. water\AI -3.C 

He was floating in the water near the shore. 

274 



13 Zagwjanegwi jen zhi 

zagwjanegwiD -En zhiw 

have . one ' s . nose . float\AI -3.1 there 

His nose was sticking out there. 

(27) (MD 102694) 

46 [win] ibe shkweyak gi-nshkweshen 

[win] ibE Eshkweyak gi- nEshkweshEnO 

[3.EMPH] there last PST- lie . in . last . place\AI . 3 . I 

i ga-nakwneget gagtanago . 

iw CC.gi- nakOnEge -d gagEtanago#y 
that.INAN CC.PST- plan . things\AI -3 . P crocodile 

The Crocodile that planned it lay at the end, there in last place. 

(28) (JS.4.4) 

28 Espen o mtegok gi-gdegosi 

esEpEn ow mEtEg#0 -g gi- gEdEgosi 
raccoon that. AN tree -PL PST- climb . up\AI . I 

e-wawabmat niw mwen wete 

e- DUP.wabEm -ad niw mEwe -n wEtE 
FCT- watch. s.o\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV wolf -OBV for. sure 

zhe e-gi-bdek ' egaznet . 

zhE e- gi- bEdEk' -EgazO -nEd 
EMPH FCT- PST- sting . s . o . \TA -PASS -3'.C 

The Raccoon was high (in a tree) and saw the Wolf get badly stung. 

29 I je o mwe jo gi-nshkadzesi ; neshnege 

iw jE ow mEwe jo gi- nEshkadEzE -Esi neshEnEge 
and that. AN wolf not PST- be.angry\AI -NEG.I all. the. same 

megwa gi-dnendan 

megwa gi- EdEnend -a -n 

still PST- think. that . s . t. is . in. a. certain. place\TI -OBJ -OBJ. I 

i wa-zhyawat 

iw CC.wi- Ezhya/e -wad 
that.INAN FUT- go.there\AI -35. C 



275 



e-wi-gmodwat gokoshen. 

e- wi- gEmOd -wad gokosh -En 
FCT- FUT- steal\AIO -35. C pig -OBV 

That Wolf didn't get mad; he still thought the meat would be there, and wanted to 
go there and steal that pork. 

(29) (JS.4.4) 

5 Gete zhena 

gEtE EzhEna 
for. sure EMPH 

e-gi-nkweshkwat mwen. 

e- gi- nEkweshkEw -a -d mEwe -n 
FCT- PST- meet.s.o.\TA -DIR -3.1 wolf -OBV 

Sure enough, he (the Raccoon) met Wolf. 



6 "Nshi, gde-ton ne 

nshi gEdE- Et -o -n nE 

little. brother 2- have.s.t\TI -OBJ -OBJ. I Q 

gego wa-mijyan?" 

gego CC.wi- mij -yan 
something FUT- eat.s.t\TI -1/0. C 

e-nat espenen. 

e- En -ad esEpEn -En 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -3/3'. C raccoon -OBV 

"Brother, do you have anything to eat? " he said to the Raccoon. 

7 "Jo zhe kwech bkeji nde-ton 

jo zhE kwej bEkeji nEdE- t -o -n 

not EMPH hardly a. little 1- have.s.t\TI -OBJ -OBJ. I 

wa-mijyan nawkwek," 

CC.wi- mij -yan nawEkweg 
FUT- eat.s.t\TI -1/0. C at . noon 

e-nat espen. 

e- En -ad esEpEn 

FCT- say. to. s . o\TA -3/3'. C raccoon 

"Not much, I just have a little for my own dinner, " said the Raccoon. 

8 Mwe e-natewat, "Wegni je 

mEwe e- natEw -ad wegni jE 
wolf FCT- ask.s.o.\TA -3/3'. C what 



276 



etoyen? " 

CC.Et -o -yEn 
have.s.t\TI -OBJ -2 . C 

Wolf asked him, "What do you have ? " 

9 Espen e-nat, "Mteno zhe na 

esEpEn e- En -ad mEtEno zhE na 

raccoon FCT- say . to . s . o\TA -3/3'. C only EMPH EMPH 

bkeji gokosh-wzhey ndesa," 

bEkeji gokosh-w#zhEy nEd- Es -a 

a. little pork. rind 1- have.s.o\TA -DIR.I 

e-nat. 

e- En -ad 

FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -3/3'. C 

Raccoon said, "I have just a httle meat-rind, " he said. 

10 Mwe e-nat, "Mojma 

mEwe e- En -ad mojma 

wolf FCT- say. to. s.o\TA -3/3'. C please 

shemshen o wzhey. " 

EshEm -shEn ow w- #zhEy 
feed.s.o.\TA -2/1. IMP that. AN 3- skin 

Wolf said, "Please feed me that rind. " 

11 I je o espen 

iw jE ow esEpEn 
and that. AN raccoon 

msach e-gi-minat. 

msaj e- gi- miN -ad 

finally FCT- PST- give . to . s . o\TA -3/3 '.C 

So the Raccoon finally gave it to him. 
(30) (JS.4.2) 

62 Ga-gish-ngo ' wawat gigabe neyap 

CC.gi- gizh- nEgO'Ewa -wad gigabe#y neyab 
CC.PST- finish- bury.s.o.\TA -35/3'. C boy back 

e-wawidmewat niw keweziyen, 

e- DUP.widEmEw -Ewad niw kEwezi#y -En 

FCT- tell. s. t. to. s.o.excitedly\TA -3/3'. C that . OBV old. man -OBV 



277 



"Nmesho, ngodwak gwkengo'gazo 

nE- mEsho nEgOdwag gOkenEgo ' Egazo 

1- grandfather .VOC one . hundred be . buried. with . s . o . \AI . I 

o ndemoze . " 

ow mEdEmoze 
that. AN old. woman 

After they buried her, the boy went back and excitedly told the old man, 
"Grandfather, one hundred dollars is buried with that old lady. 

63 Nwi -mon ' wa . " 

nE- wi- mon ' Ew -a 

1- FUT- dig. s.o.up\TA -DIR.I 

I'm going to dig her up. " 

64 Kewezi "Jo, gego" wdenan . 

kEwezi#y jo gegO wEd- En -a -n 

old. man no don't 3- say . to . s . o\TA -DIR -OBV.I 

But the old man said, "No, don't. " 



65 "Gda-bon-gdemagzemen iw ngodwak," 

gE- da- bon- gEdEmagEzE -mEn iw nEgOdwag 
2- MOD- quit- be.pitiful\AI -15.1 that.INAN one . hundred 

wdenan . 

wEd- En -a -n 

3- say. to. s.o\TA -DIR -OBV 

"We could quit living poorly with that hundred, " he said to him. 

66 Kewezi "Gego" wdenan. 

kEwezitty gegO wEd- En -a -n 

old. man don't 3- say . to . s . o\TA -DIR -OBV.I 

"Don't, " said the old man. 



278 



(31) (MD 102694) 

27 "A, iw zhe yedek e-wi-dkemozh ' ewat 

a iw zhE yedEg e- wi- dEkEmozhE' -Ewad 

ah that.INAN EMPH must.be FCT- FUT- take . s . o . across\TA -35/1. C 

gode," zhede'e o wabozo. 

godE EzhEde'a/e ow wabozo#y 
these. AN think\AI.3I. that. AN rabbit 

"Ah, must he they will take me across, " thinks the Rabbit. 

(32) (MD 102694) 

25 "Gego zhe ode gagtanago nwi-nakwnek, " 

gego zhE odE gagEtanago#y nE- wi- nakwEn -EgO 

something EMPH this crocodile 1- FUT- plan . for . s . o\TA -INV.I 

e-zhde'at o wabozo. 

e- EzhEde'a/e -Ed ow wabozo#y 
FCT- think\AI -3.C that. AN rabbit 

"This Crocodile has something planned for me, " thought the Rabbit. 

(33) (MD102694) 

36 "O, wzam ne zhe gete ode? 

o Ozam nE zhE getE odE 
oh too. much Q EMPH for. sure this 

37 Gagtanago nwe jitmagodek?" e-zhde'at. 

gagEtanago#y nE- wEjitEm -agO -EdEg e- EzhEde'a/e -Ed 
crocodile 1- help.s.o\TA -PASS -DUB.l.I FCT- think\AI -3.C 

"Oh, can this really be? Will Crocodile really help me? " he thought. 

(34) (MD 102694) 

15 "A! Nshi! Ni je 

a nshi ni jE 

ah little . brother what 

ezhwebzeyen? " 

CC.EzhEwebEzE -yEn 

have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI -2 . C 

wdenan ni wabozoyen. 

wEd- En -a -En niw wabozo#y -En 

3- say. to. s.o\TA -DIR -3/3'. I that . OBV rabbit -OBV 

"Ah, little brother! What's the matter?" he said to the Rabbit. (MD 1 02 694. 01 5) 

279 



(35) (MD 102694) 

19 "O, jo wi zhe na gego abje 

o jo wi zhE na gego abEjE 
oh not EMPH EMPH EMPH something very 

yawsenon i , " kedo o 

yaw -sEnon iw EkEdO ow 

be. a. certain. thingXlI -NEG.O.I that.INAN say\AI.3.I that. AN 

gagtanago . 

gagEtanago#y 
crocodile 

"Oh, there 's nothing much to that, " said the Crocodile. 

(36) (see 30) 

(37) (MD 102694) 

48 O, [nme pa zho] megwa e-gche-bmebtot bama zhe 

o megwa e- gEchE- bEmEbEto -d bama EzhE 

oh still FCT- really- run\AI -3.C later EMPH 

gete. . . [o] bikwa zhe na wangoyane 

getE bikwa zhE na wanEgoyanE 

for. sure just. like EMPH EMPH be . an . underwater . hole\II . . I 

wiye gego e-wabdek. 

weye gego e- wabEd -Eg 
someone something FCT- see.s.t\TI -3/0. C 

Oh, as he was dashing across, he soon [saw something] that looked just like a 
hole. 

(38) (MD 102694) 

59 Iw je o wabozo neko 

iw jE ow wabozo#y nEko 
and that. AN rabbit used. to 

e-wi-wabmek megwa 

e- wi- wabEm -Eg megwa 
FCT- FUT- see.s.o\TA -1/3. C still 

e-peno jewyan, iw zhe neko i 

e- EpEnojew -yan iw zhE nEko iw 

FCT- be.a.child\AI -l.C that.INAN EMPH used. to that.INAN 



280 



e-gwdenmewek iw wzewangos 

e- gOdEnEmEw -Eg iw wE- zEwanEg#o -s 

FCT- try. feeling. s.o\TA -1/3. C that.INAN 3- tail -DIM 

And when I used to see the rabbit, when I still was a child, I used to feel his little 
tail. 

60 O, gete zhe na ode gi-gishk jegadenek iw 

o getE EzhE na odE gi- gishkE jEgade -En -Eg iw 

oh for. sure EMPH EMPH this PST- be.spared\II -OBV -35.1 that.INAN 

wzewangos, neko ngi-zhde'a. 

wE- zEwanEg#o -es nEko nE- gi- EzhEde'a/e 
3- tail -DIM used. to 1- PST- think\AI . I 

Oh, for sure that little tail was bitten off, I used to think. 

61 Nmet se na yedek w± na! 

nEmED sE na yedEg wi na 
I. don't. know must.be EMPH EMPH 

/ don't know about that! 

(39) (JS.4.6) 

8 I je ode nene e-gi-nme-ninwezet 

iw jE odE EnEnE#w e- gi- nEmE- ninEwEzE -d 

and this man FCT- PST- getting.to.be- be.weak\AI -3C 

e-wzam-bkedet i je ode kwe mine o 

e- Ozam- bEkEde -d iw jE odE Ekwe minE ow 
FCT- too. much- be . hungry\AI -3.C and this woman and that. AN 

gigabe pene zhena winwa gi-gimoch-wisnik . 

gigabe#y pEne EzhEna winEwa gi- gimoj- wisEnE -g 
boy always EMPH 35. EMPH PST- secretly- eat\AI -35.1 

So this man got to be weak from hunger, but the woman and the boy were secretly 
eating. 

(40) (JS.4.2) 

116 I je gi wewiwdeyek e-gi-yewat 

iw jE giw DUP.wiwdEyEg e- gi- EyE -wad 

and those. AN married . couple FCT- PST- be . in . a . place\AI -35. C 

jayek debendemwat e-gi-mbomgek 

jayeg CC.dEbendEm -wad e- gi- nEbO -mEgEg 
all CC.own\AI -35. P FCT- PST- die\AI -AUG.O.C 



281 



e-gi-gdemagzewat . 

e- gi- gEdEmagEzE -wad 
FCT- PST- be.poor\AI -35. C 

And the couple settled, and all that they owned [their stock and fowl] died, and 
they were poor. 

117 Mine wzhonyamwa e-gi-jagsanek. 

minE wE- zhonya -Em -wa e- gi- jagEsa -n -Eg 

and 3- money -POSS -3PL FCT- PST- run . out . of . s . t . \AIO -OBJ -3C 

Also their money ran out. 

118 O je kewezi mine gigabe gi-mno-bmadzik . 

ow jE kEwezi#y minE gigabe#y gi- mEnO- bEmadEzE -g 
that. AN but old. man and boy PST- good- live\AI -351 

But the old man and the boy lived happily. 
(FN18)(JS.4.1) 

20 E-pitajmewat ngot mine e-kedot, 

e- EpitajEm -Ewad nEgOd minE e- EkEdO -d 

FCT- talk. a. certain. amount\AI -35C one and FCT- say\AI -3C 

"Shebzhi ngi-nek, 'Nin 

mEshEbEzhi nE- gi- En -EgO nin 

tiger 1- PST- say . to . s . o\TA -INV I . EMPH 

nda-nsa, ' kedo . " 

nE- da- nEs -a EkEdO 

1- MOD- kill.s.o.\TA -DIR say\AI . 31 

While they were talking, another man said, "Lion said to me 7 can kill him '. " 



2 Example from Chapter 7 

(13) (MD 102694) 

6 Jigbyek ibe e-pa-zhyat. 

jigbyeg ibE e- bEba- Ezhya/e -d 
by. the. water there FCT- around- go.there\AI -3.C 

7 "O, begesh na ezhi gameyek 

o begEzh na ezhi gameyEg 

oh would. that EMPH over. there across . the . river 



282 



gshketoyan 

gEshEkEt -o 

be. able. to.do. s . t\TI -OBJ 



e -by ay an, " 

-yan e- bya/e -yan 
-IC FCT- come\AI -l.C 



e-kedot . 

e - EkEdO -d 
FCT- say\AI -3 . C 

E -dnednangedok 

e- EdEnEdEnanEgEdO -Eg 

FCT- be . the . sound. of . s . o . talking . in . a . certain . place\II -O.C 



j igbyek . 

jigbyeg 

by. the . water 

Gegpi zhe 

gegEpi zhE 
finally EMPH 



gwagwashkze ' o . 

gwagwashkEzE ' o 

DUP . j ump . up . and . down\AI .3.1 



He went around there by the water. "Oh, I wish I was able to get across over to 
there, " he said. He was talking to himself along the river. Finally, he started 
jumping up and down. 



283 



Appendix C. Crane Boy Narrative 



I me se ngodek jejakok 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH one=LOC crane=PL 

e-gche-wzhenwiwat e-nme-dgwagek 

FCT-really-get. ready\AI=35C FCT-getting . to . be-be . fall\II=OC 

wech-gzhatek 

CC . towards -be . hot . weather\II=OP 



Once when it was getting close to 
Autumn, cranes were preparing for 
spending the winter in the south; at 
first, they talked to each other about 
when they would start, as was 
customary. 



to 

00 



e-we-bbonshewat , 

FCT-go . and- spend. the .winter.in.a.certain.place=35C 

netem zhe na e-widmedwat o pi 

first EMPH EMPH FCT-say . to . e . o . \AI = 35C that. AN when 

wa-majiwat neko . 

CC. FUT-leave\AI=35P used. to 

Iw je i e-dwagnekewat 

and that.INAN FCT-store . things . away\AI=35C 

wa-mijwat e-pich-bmodegzewat . 

CC. FUT-eat. s.t\TI=35/0P FCT-while-move\AI=35C 



They stored things away to eat while 
they moved. 



Nangodek nyew gon dnekiwdek 

Sometimes four day happen. in. a certain . place\II=DUB . 01 

e-wzhenwiwat e-nwepwankewat wa-mijwat. 

FCT-get. ready\AI=35C FCT-pack . a . lunch\AI=35C CC . FUT-eat. s.t\TI=35C 



Sometimes it must have taken four 
days for them to get ready, packing 
their food to eat. 



Iw se ga-gish-wzhenwiwat 

that.INAN EMPH CC . PST-f inish-get . ready\AI=35C 

e-wi-majiwat zhye bos-kezhyep. 

FCT-FUT-leave\AI=35C EMPH very-early 



So when they were finished getting 
ready, they would leave very early. 



E-bkonyak e-gche-giwnezwat 

FCT-be . night\II=OC FCT-really-f ool . around\AI=35C 

gigabesek e-pich-nchiwenmowat 

boy=DIM=PL FCT-so .much-be . glad\AI=35C 



At night, the boys really fooled 
around they were so glad to move, 
and one boy broke his arm. 



to 

00 



e-wi-bmodegzewat, iw o ngot gigabe 

FCT-FUT-move\AI=35C that.INAN that. AN one boy 

e-gi-boknekeshkwayek . 

FCT-PST-break . one' s . arm\AI=PASS=3C 

Iw se niw wmezodanen 

that.INAN EMPH that . OBl^ 3-parent=OBl^ 

e-wi-ngengot 

FCT-FUT-leave . s . o . behind\TA=3' /3C 

gbe-bbon e-got. 

through. all . of -winter FCT-say. to. s . o. \TA=3'/3C 



So his parents told him they were 
going to leave him behind all winter . 



An we e - gche -mwe t . 

although FCT-really-cry\AI=3C 



He really cried hard, though. 



"Ni je bzhe a-napnennak, anwe 

what EMPH MOD-deal . with . s . o . thus\TA=15/2C although 

bzhe gche-mwin gbe-dbek," 

EMPH really-cry\AI=2C through . all . of-night 

e-got ni wmezodanen, 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C that . OBV 3-parent=OBI^ 



"What will we do with you if you cry 
all night? " his parents said to 
him, "You did this to yourself; you 
don't listen to what you are told, you 
are too naughty. " 



"gin je ge zhe na gde-dodan 

2. EMPH but also EMPH EMPH 2-do . something . to . s . t . \TI=OBJ=OBJ 

giyow, e-bwa-bzedageyen 

yourself FCT-NEG-listen . to . people\AI=2C 



to 

00 



e-keno 'megoyen anwe i 

FCT-teach. s.o. \TA=PASS=2C all . right that . INAN 

e-wzam-kebadzin. " 

FCT- too .much-be . naughty\AI=2C 



9. 
10. 



Gete zhe na gbe-dbek e-mwet gigabe . 

for.sureEMPH EMPH through . all . of-night FCT-cry\AI=3C boy 

Iw se kezhyep e-yawek, 

that. INAN EMPH morning FCT-be . a . certain . thing\II=OC 

e-wi-majiwat zhye. 

FCT-FUT-leave\AI=35C EMPH 



Sure enough, the boy cried all night 

So morning came, and they were 
leaving. 



J 2 Iw se gigabe e-towayek 

that.INAN EMPH boy FCT-put . s . t . \TI=OBJ=PASS=0C 

ngot wabozoyen zhiw wdeshkmodak 

one rabbit=OBl^ there 3-sack=L0C 

wa-mwajen gbe-bbon. 

CC. FUT-eat. s.o. \TA=DIR=3/3 ' P through . all . of-winter 



So one rabbit was put in his sack for 
him to eat for the entire winter. 



\2 E-bwa-wdapnat anwe, 

FCT-NEG-pick. s.t.up\TI=3/0C although 

e-gi-gzekeyewnedwat gi jejakok gyetnam 

FCT-PST-fly.up\AI = 35C those. AN crane=PL for. sure 



He didn't take it though. As the 
cranes flew up, the boy jumped and 
jumped, [trying to follow them]. 



to 

00 

<1 



zhe gigabe e-gche-gwagwashkze ' ot . 

EMPH boy FCT-really-DUP . jump . up . and. down\AI . 3I=3C 

J 3 Jo mamda e-wi-gzekat; i 

not possible FCT-FUT-f ly . away\AI=3C that.INAN 

e-boknekwat . 

FCT-have . a . broken . arm\AI=3C 

24 Iw se ga-bondemwet 

that.INAN EMPH CC . PST-stop . crying\AI=3C 

e-bme-nanibwet zhiw 

FCT-in . the .process . of -stand. up\AI=3C there 



He couldn't fly away; his arm was 
broken. 



After he stopped crying, he stood 
around there by the ocean. 



j ik -gchegem . 

next . to-big . lake 



J 5 I wi ge wi mdemoze 

that.INAN EMPH also EMPH old. woman 

e-bba-nanibwet, i je weye 

FCT-go . around-stand. up\AI=3C and someone 



So an old woman was standing 
around and heard something; Uke 
someone crying, she thought. 



e-nodwat e-mwenet gechwa 

FCT-hear. s. t\TI=3/3'C FCT-cry\AI=3' C like 

e-zhede ' at. 

FCT-think\AI=3C 



to 

00 
00 



Jg "Weni je yedek a-yawet?" 

who must.be MOD-be . a . certain . thing\AI=3C 

e-kedot 

FCT-say\AI=3C 

e-bme-kenondezot, "Na se wi na 

FCT-in. the. process. of-talk. to. s.o. \TA=REFL=3C EMPH EMPH EMPH EMPH 



"Who could it be?'" she said, talking 
to herself, "Maybe I will be blessed 
by a child, " she said. 



nda-ne-zhwendagwes penoje 

1-MOD- start. to-be . blessed\AI child 

e-kedot. " 

FCT-say\AI=3C 



J7 Iw je gete e-gi-naskwat 

and for. sure FCT-PST-approach . s . o . \TA=3/3' C 

ednwe wegz ene t 

FCT- sound. comes . from. a . certain . place\AI=3' C 



So she went to where the sound of 
him was coming from; straight 
across there. 



dbaze e-gi-zhyat. 

straight . across FCT-PST-go . there\AI=3C 



Jg Ibe e-byat jik-gchegem bama zhe na 

there FCT-come\AI=3C next . to-big . lake soon EMPH EMPH 

gete gigabeyen e-nemsenet; "Ni je 

for. sure boy=OBl^ FCT-walk . of f \AI=3' C what 

bem-zhewebzin gigabe?" 

along-be .in. a. certain. state\AI=2C boy 

e-nat, e-gi-yatwasat 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3/3'C FCT-PST-f all . on . back\AI=3C 

gigabe e-pich-zegzet . 

boy FCT-so .much-be . scared\AI=3C 



She came to the big lake there, and 
soon the boy had started to walk ojf; 
"What's the matter, boy, " she said, 
and the boy was so scared, he fell 
back. 



to 

00 



J 9 "Jo zhe na gego 

no EMPH EMPH something 

ngi -ngedgamgok 

1-PST-leave. s . o . behind. with . s. t. \TA=INV=35/1I 



"My parents left me behind with 
nothing; they won 't come back until 
springtime, " said the boy. 



nmezodanek; bama nokmek wi-byek," 

l-parent=PL later be . springtime\II=OC FUT-come\AI=35I 



e-kedot gigabe. 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 

20 "Gego myanendeken, nin gbe-bbon 

don't be.sad=2PR0H I . EMPH through . all . of-winter 

gge-mik jewit; o gge-ndasgo; noses 

2-FUT-work\AI=3C that. AN 2 . FUT-be . good. company\AI . I my . grandchild 

je ggeyaw," e-kedot mdemoze. 

but 2-FUT-be. a. certain. thing\AI . I FCT-say\AI=3C old. woman 



"Don't be sad, all through winter you 
shall work for me; you will be good 
company; you 'II be my grandchild, " 
said the old woman. 



2\ Gete se e-mnewendek gigabe 

for. sure EMPH FCT-be . glad\AI2=3C boy 

e-wi-tot 

FCT-FUT-have. s . t\TI=OBJ=3/0 (5) C 



The boy was very happy to have a 
place where he would spend the 
winter. 



wa- je-bbonshet . 

CC . FUT-whe re- spend. the .winter. in. a. cert ain.place=3C 



to 

o 



22 Iw se e-gi-wijewat ni 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-PST-go . with . s . o . \TA= 3/3' C that . OBl^ 

okmesen bama zhe na e-byawat wigwam 

grandmother=OBI^ later EMPH EMPH FCT-come\AI=35C house 

ga-tenek pekyegan 

CC . PST-be . in . a . certain . place=OBV"=0C mat . house 

e-je-dat o mdemoze. 

FCT-where-live . in . a . certain . place\AI=3C that. AN old. woman 



So he went with his grandmother, 
and soon they came to where her 
house was; the old woman lived in a 
mat-house. 



23 Jak zhe na gego neshnabe-zhechgewen, 

all EMPH EMPH something Indian=do . things . a . certain . way\AI -NOM 

e-wabdek o gigalse naknen 

FCT-see. s. t\TI=3/0C that. AN boy mat=PL 

e-wenek e-zheweksek gawta-yegwan . 

FCT-be. good\II=OC FCT-lie . spread. out\II=OC around. something 



Everything was all done the Indian 
way; the boy saw that the mats were 
good, and spread out all around. 



24 Iw se e-yayajmo ' got 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-tell . stories . to . s . o . \TA=3' /3C 

e-bkonyak ni okmesen. 

FCT-be. night\II = OC that.OBl^ grandmother-OBl^ 



So his grandmother told him stories 
at night. 



25 Wa-nme-zhewebzet 

CC . FUT-in . the . process . of-have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI=3C 

e-widmagot, 

FCT-tell. s.o\TA=3'/3C 



She told him what would happen, 
and afterward, she told him, "there 
is one other boy I take care of. " 



e-nme-gizha jmo ' got 

FCT- in . the . process . of- finish . telling . stories. to. s.o. \TA=3 '/3C 

e-widmagot, 

FCT-tell. s.o\TA=3'/3C 



"Anwe ngot gigabe nbem-zhewenma, " 

although one boy 1 . in . the . process . of-pity. s . o . \TA. 



to 



e-kedot o mdemoze. 

FCT-say\AI=3C that. AN old. woman 

25 Bama zhe na gete e-wabmat, "Nesh 

later EMPH EMPH for. sure FCT-see . s . o\TA= 3/3' C contrarily 

je gyetnam nakwtem mine nta-mnekwe 

but for. sure talk . back\AI2=3I and like . doing-drink\AI=3I 



Sure enough, soon he saw him, "He 
sure talks back, and he drinks a lot, 
that bad young fellow , " said the old 



woman. 



o wshkenigesh, " e-kedot o mdemoze. 

that. AN young. man=PEJ FCT-say\AI=3C that. AN old. woman 



27 Bama zhe na gete shkech 

later EMPH EMPH for. sure a. while 

e-wi-ne-iribawat e-bye-bapashkwet 

FCT-FUT-start . to-sleep\AI=35C FCT-come-whoop\AI=3C 

weye, "Mbe! O ye o beydwewegze, " 

someone jeez that ' s . the . one . (AN) CC . sound. comes\AI . 3P 

e-kedot o mdemoze. 

FCT-say\AI=3C that. AN old. woman 



Sure enough, later on when they 
were going to sleep, they heard 
someone whooping. "That's him all 
right, coming yelling, " said the old 



woman. 



to 
to 



23 Bama zhe na shkech 

later EMPH EMPH a. while 

e-bye-bidge-go jek, "Noko gyetnam 

FCT-come-enter\AI grandma for. sure 

ndenniw," e-kedot 

1-be.a.man FCT-say\AI=3C 



After a while, he came tumbling in, 
"I'm the man, Grandma" said the 
boy, and he kicked around some 
pails. 



gigabe, e-bye-ddegshewat kekoyen. 

Boy FCT-come-kick. around. s . o. \TA=3/3'C pail=OBl^ 



29 Iw se gigabe e-gi-bzegwidzet 

that.INAN EMPH boy FCT-PST-get . up\AI=3C 

e-gi-zagjewebnat . 

FCT-PST-throw. s . o . out\TA=3/3' C 



So the Crane-boy got up and threw 
him outside. 



30 "Noko, ni VTpi je ga-danet 

grandma where CC . PST-live . in . a . certain . place\AI=OBI/'=3P 

ode bye- je-nshiwzet zhode 

this come-f or . to-be . efficient\AI=3C here 



"Grandma, where does he live, this 
fellow who 's come to run our 
place ? " said the bad boy. 



edaygo , " e-kedot o 

live. in. a. certain. place\AI=15 . C FCT-say\AI=3C that. AN 



to 



shkenigesh . 

young . man=PE J 

3 J Iw zhe na, "Wi-majin, noses," 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH FUT-take . s . o . away\TA my . grandchild 

e-nat o mdemoze, "ekwiyen 

FCT-say. to. s . o. \TA=3/3'C that. AN old. woman that's. right 

bba-nshonadzen . 

around-be . naughty\AI=2IMP 



"You go away, now, grandchild" 
said the old woman, "that's right, 
you go on, behaving any old way. " 



32 Iw je ge na e-gi-gizhgennen 

and also EMPH FCT-PST-raise . s . o . \TA=1/2C 

e-gish-yanwe ' nan e-wi-bzedwin, 

FCT- finish-believe. s.o. \TA=1/2C FCT-FUT-listen . to . s.o. \TA=2/1C 



"/ already raised you, and I can't 
make you listen anymore. Go on and 
take care of yourself, now. " 



wme-bba-bmendezon zhe na zhye. 

go. and-around-take. care. of . o. s . \AI=2IMP EMPH EMPH EMPH 



33 Gde-mgegno zhe na, 

2-be.big\AI . I EMPH EMPH 

e-wi-bmendezyen, " 

FCT-FUT-take.care.of .o. s. \AI=2C 



"You're big enough to take care of 
yourself, " the old woman said to her 
grandson. 



to 



e-nat ossesen mdemoze. 

FCT-say. to. s . o. \TA=3/3'C grandchild=OBI^ old. woman 

34 "Wakokiwek jo 

as . long . as . the . world. stands not 

gwi-nme-gkenmasik gmezodanek, 

2 -getting. to. be- know. s.o. \TA=DIR=NEG=2/35I 2-parent=PL 

wzam e-naktemen. 

too. much FCT-talk.back\AI=2C 

35. I ye i 

that ' s . the . one . ( INAN) 

wa-wje-zhewebzin, 

CC . FUT-why-have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI=2P 

mshikes gge-nme-go 

turtle 2 . FUT-getting. to.be=say. to. so. \TA=INV. I 



"You talk back too much, so you will 
never know your parents. 



That's why this will happen to you: 
you will always be called turtle. 
You'll never have any smarts, 
because you talked back too much, " 
he was told. 



wakokiwek jo 

as . long . as . the . world. stands not 

gge-nme-winedbisi , 

2 -FUT-getting. to . be- FUT-have . brains \AI . I 

e-bbich-naktemen, " e-gi-nayek. 

FCT-so.much-talk.back\AI .2C FCT-PST-say . to . s.o. \TA=PASS=3C 



35 Iw je ye i we j-bwa-gkenmat nmezodan 

and PRED that . INAN CC . why-NEG- know. s . o . \TA= 3/3' C 1-parent 

o mshike . 

that. AN turtle 



That's why the turtle doesn't know 
his parents. 



37 Iw se gigabe e-gi-me-mik jewit 

that.INAN EMPH boy FCT-PST-continue-work\AI=3C 

jejakos e-gi-bmenmat 

crane=DIM FCT-PST-take . care . of \TA= 3/3' C 



So the little crane kept working, and 
he took care of his grandmother all 
winter. 



gbe-bbon okmesen. 

through . all . of-winter grandmother-OBl^ 



to 



3g Iw je neko kezhyep o mdemoze 

and used. to early that. AN old. woman 

e-widmawat eni 

FCT-tell. s.o\TA=35/3'C this . over . there . OBV 



So usually in the morning, the old 
woman would tell him what she 
would be cooking. 



wa-me-zekwet . 

CC. FUT-continue-cook\AI=3P 

39 "Mbish naden, noses," 

water fetch . s . t . \TI=2/0IMP my . grandchild 

e-got gigabe. 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C boy 



"Fetch water, grandchild, " she 
would say to the boy. 



4Q "Gask-wiyas mine mdamnesek 

dried-meat and corn=DIM=PL 

nwi-gizzwak e-wi-wisneygo, " e-kedot. 

1. FUT-cook. s.o. \TA=1/3I FCT-FUT-eat\AI=15 . C FCT-say\AI=3C 



"I'll cook dried meat and corn for us 
to eat, " she said. 



41. 



to 

On 



42. 



43. 



Pene "Wech 

always why 



i kedot?" gigabe wegni je 

that.INAN say\AI=3C boy what 



yedek, "Pene wech-widmewat 

must.be always CC . why-tell . s . o\TA= 3/3' C 

wa-ne-zekwet? " 

CC. FUT-start. to-cook\AI=3P 

I me je wi zhe pene 

that.INAN EMPH but EMPH EMPH always 

e-kenongot o gigabe. 

FCT-talk. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C that. AN boy 

I je e-byat neko 

and FCT-come\AI=3C used. to 

e-nnatagot ni okmesen "Weye 

FCT-ask. s . o. \TA=3'/3C that . OBV grandmother=OB\^ someone 

ne ggi-wabma noses," 

Q 2-PST-see. s . o\TA=DIR. I my . grandchild 

e-got ni mdemozeyen. 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C that . OBl^ old. woman=OB\^ 



The boy would always wonder, "Why 
does she do that? Why does she 
always tell me what she'll cook?" 



So it must be that he would always 
talk to the boy. 



So when he came back, his 
grandmother would ask him, "Did 
you see someone, grandchild? " 



44 "Jo," e-kedot gigabe. 

no FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



"No, " said the boy. 



45 I j© ngodek e-zhede'at gigabe, 

and one=LOC FCT-think\AI=3C boy 

"Nda-gi-gkendan wegni yedek 

1-MOD-PST-know. s. t\TI=OBJ=OBJ what must.be 



So once the boy thought, "I must 
know why he asked me what it is 
we 're going to eat. " 



wech-nnatewat i wegwendek 

CC.why- that.INAN whatever 

wa-mijyak," e-zhede'at. 

CC. FUT-eat. s.t.\TI=15P FCT-think\AI=3C 



to 
<1 



4g Iw je ngodek zhe na mine 

and one=LOC EMPH EMPH and 

e-nadet kezhyep i 

FCT-fetch. s. t. \TI=3/0 (5) C early that.INAN 

nibish, "Wegni wa-mijyek, jejakos," 

water what CC . FUT-eat . s . t\TI=25C crane=DIM 



So in the morning, once again, he 
went to fetch water and someone 
said to him, "What are you going to 
eat, little crane?" 



e-got weyeyen. 

FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=3'/3C someone=OB\/^ 



47 "Gete se gwi ' dem 

for. sure EMPH 2 . bother . s . o . \TA=DIR . I 

pene e-nnatoyen wegni wa-mijyak. 

always FCT-ask . f or . s . t . \TI=2C what CC . FUT-eat . s . t . \TI=15P 



"You sure bother me, always asking 
what we're going to eat. " 



48 Iw je ge je widmownen. Wabgoneshen, 

and also but tell . s . o\TA=INV=l/2I squash=PE J=PL 

mine gokosh wi-dgoze zhiw, wabgonesgik , " 

and pig FUT-mix . things\AI=3 . I there squash=DIM=LOC 

e-kedot gigabe . 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



Well, I'll tell you: Squash with a 
little pork mixed in, " said the boy. 



to 

00 



49 Iw se e-wi-gkendek zhye gigabe. 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-FUT-know. s . t\TI=3/0C EMPH boy 

5Q Gego bama zhe na gete . 

something soon EMPH EMPH for. sure 

5 J E-nme-gisekwet mdemoze, 

FCT- get ting .to. be- finish. cooking\AI=3C old. woman 

e-bye-bidgeshkak gche-emkwan. 

FCT-come-enter\II=OC big-spoon 



So now the boy wanted to know 
[what would happen]. 

Something happened, sure enough. 



When the old lady is almost through 
cooking, in comes a big spoon. 



52 Iw se mdemoze, "Yaa, noses! 

that.INAN EMPH old. woman EXCL my . grandchild 

Gi-yajmo negne * 

2 . PST-say\AI . I so 

Iw se e-wi-bkedeygo, iw 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-FUT-be . hungry\AI=15 . C that.INAN 

se ye i ga-wje-dne 'monan 

EMPH PRED that.INAN CC . PST-why-tell . in . a . certain . place=l/2P 



"Yaa! Grandchild! " she exclaimed, 
"You told after all! Now we'll be 
hungry. That's why I told you not to 
tell what we would be eating, " she 
said to the boy. 



e-wi-bwa-yajmoyen wegni 

FCT-FUT-NEG-tell . about\AI=2C what 



wa-mi jyego, 



e-nayet 



gigabe . 



CC. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=15.C FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=PASS=3C boy 



53 Iw gshe zhe gete e-gi-bkedewat 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH for. sure FCT-PST-be . hungry\AI=35C 

gbe-gizhek, iw gshe e-gi-gkendek 

through. all. of-day that.INAN EMPH FCT-PST-know. s . t\TI=3/0C 

e-zhewebek e-bkedek 

FCT-happen. a. certain . way\ I I=OC FCT-be . hungry\AI=3C 



Sure enough, they were hungry all 
day, and so the boy knew what it was 
like to be hungry. 



gigabe . 

boy 



54 E-bkonyak e-widmagot ni 

FCT-be.night\II=OC FCT-tell . s . o\TA=0/3C that . OBV 

okmesen, "Gego mine yajmoken 

grandmother=OBl^ don't and tell . about . s . o\TA=0BJ=2IMP 



When it was night, his grandmother 
told him "Don't say anything else 
about what we will eat " 



wegni wa-ini jyego, " 

what CC. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=15.C 

e-nayek . 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=PASS=3C 



o 
o 



55 Iw se gigabe e-nagdewendek 

that.INAN EMPH boy FCT-keep . s . t . in .mind\TI=3/0C 

ga-zhewebzet . 

CC . PST-have . happen . to . one . a . certain . way\AI=3C 

5g "Nehaw, noses," e-nayek mine kezhyep, 

okay my . grandchild FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=PASS=3C again morning 

" I ngom gego wi ngom yajmoken 

that.INAN today don't EMPH today tell . about\AI=2IMP 



So the boy kept in mind what 
happened. 



"Okay, grandchild, " he was told 
again in the morning, "Today, don't 
tell him what we 're going to eat: I'm 
going to make corn soup. " 



wa-mijyak: mdamnabo nwi-gizsan." 

CC. FUT-eat. s.t. \TI=12C corn. soup 1-FUT-cook . s . t . \TI-OBJ-OBJ. I 



57 "Wewene bshe nwi-nagdewendan ngom 

carefully EMPH 1-FUT-keep . s . t . in .mind\TI . I today 

neko," e-kedot o gigabe. 

used. to FCT-say\AI=3C that. AN boy 



"I'll certainly keep that in mind 
today, " said the boy. 



58 E-nme-zag' ek 

FCT-in . the . process . of -go . outside\AI2=3C 

e-kenongot mine weye, "Wegni 

FCT-talk. to. s . o. \TA=3'/3C again someone what 



When he went out, again someone 
spoke to him, "What are you going to 
eat. Utile crane?" 



wa-mijyek jejakos?" 

CC. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=25P crane=DIM 

59 "Ni je bshe wa-dodwayek , " 

what EMPH CC . FUT-do . something . to . s . t . \TI 

e-kedot je jakos=giga}3e . 

FCT-say\AI=3C crane=DIM-boy 



"What are you going to do? " said the 
Crane-boy. 



o 



gQ Babek okmesen e-nnatagot, 

sure. enough grandmother=OBl^ FCT-ask . s . o . \TA=3' /3C 

"Ni je na, noses, gi-yajmo ne . " 

what EMPH my . grandchild PST-tell . about\AI . 31 Q 



Sure enough, his grandmother asked 
him, "Well, grandchild, did you 
tell?" 



Q\ "Jo noko nda-ya jmosi , 

no grandma 1-MOD-tell . about\AI -NEG 

ngi-bkede je ge na we j-bwa-yajmoyen, " 

l-PST-be.hungry\AI but also EMPH CC. 



"No, grandma, I didn't tell I was 
hungry, so that's why I didn't tell, " 
said the boy. 



e-kedot gigabe . 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



52 Gigosen ge e-gche-mamikmewat 

fish=OBV also FCT-really-gather . s . o . \TA- 35/3' C 

e-gwa je ' gonet 

FCT-be. washed. ashore\AI=OBV"=3C 



They gathered fish that the waves 
had washed ashore, and the old 
woman would roast them. 



e-mwawat, neko e-bwenet 

FCT-eat. s.o. \TA=35/3'C used. to FCT-roast . s . t . \AIO=OBV"=3C 

o mdemoze. 

that. AN old. woman 



O 
to 



53 Iw se o gigabe 

that.INAN EMPH that. AN boy 

e-gche-mneset pene gigosen pene 

FCT-really-cut . wood\AI=3C always fish=OBl^ always 

e-bwenewat . 

FCT-roast . s . t . \AIO=OBV"=35C 



The boy gathered lots of wood, 
because they would always roast 
fish. 



54 Iw gshe zhe neko e-ne-iribawat 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH used. to FCT-start . to-sleep\AI=35C 

pene e-gkyekmegot ni okmesen. 

always FCT- that . OBl^ grandmother -OBV 



So usually when they were going to 
sleep, his grandmother would teach 
him. 



55 Ngodek zhe na e-zhgezhgeshek o gigabe e-bkonyak 

one=LOC EMPH EMPH that. AN boy FCT-be . night\II=OC 

gechwa zhe na e-nodwat bmekchakoyen , 

like EMPH EMPH FCT-hear . s . t\TI=35C frog=OBl^ what 



Once, when he was lying down at 
night, the boy heard something that 
sounded like frogs. " What 's 
happening. Grandma?" said the boy. 



"Ni je ezhwebek, 

what CC . happen . a . certain . way\II=OC 

noko?" e-nat gigalse . 

grandma FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=3/3' C boy 



O 



gg "Ni je ezhwebzin, noses?" 

what CC . be . in . a . certain . state\AI=2C my . grandchild 

e-kedot mdemoze. 

FCT-say\AI=3C old. woman 

57 " Gechwa gshe nin bmekchako nnodwa , " 

like? EMPH I. EMPH frog hear.s.o\TA -DIR 

e-kedot gigabe . 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



"What's the matter, grandchild?" 
said the old woman. 



"Seems like I hear frogs. " said the 
boy. 



gg "O noses, iw gshe nina zhye beshoch 

oh my. grandchild that.INAN EMPH EMPH near 

e-wi-nokmek, " e-kedot mdemoze. 

FCT-FUT-be. springtime\II=OC FCT-say\AI=3C old. woman 



"Oh, grandchild, now soon it will be 
Spring. " said the old woman. 



59 "Ezhi pene gwi-nap wech-nawkwek 

over. there always 2-FUT-look\AI . I CC . towards-be . noon\II=OC 

gishpen bye-gdegdegankok, 

if come-be . spotted. clouds\II=OC 



"Always look there, towards noon. If 
spotted clouds come, you're parents 
will be leaving to come back" said 
the old woman. 



iw ye i zhye e-bye-majiwat gmezodanek 

that.INAN PRED that . INAN EMPH FCT-come-leave\AI=35C 2-parent=PL 

e-wi-byawat, " e-kedot mdemoze. 

FCT-FUT-come\AI=35C FCT-say\AI=3C old. woman 



o 



7Q Gyetnam zhe e-mnewendek gigabe . 

for. sure EMPH FCT-be glad\AI2=3C boy 

^\ Babek kezhyep e-dokit. 

sure. enough morning FCT-wake . up\AI=3C 

72 'L'h& gshe e-dnabet 

there EMPH FCT-look . towards . a . certain . place=3C 

wech-nawkwek gawa zhe na 

CC. towards-be. noon\II=OC scarcely EMPH EMPH 

bme-nangodek ode i e-wabshkankok . 

along-once . in . a . while this that.INAN FCT-be . white . clouds=OC 



The boy was very glad. 

Sure enough, in the morning he woke 
up. 

He kept looking towards noon, just 
barely, every once in a while, there 
would be white clouds. 



o 



Y3 Gigabe e-bidgesat okmesen 

boy FCT-fly. in=3C grandmother -OBV 

e-widmawat, "Bme-nangodek 

FCT-tell . s . o\TA=35/3'C along-once. in. a. while 

ode e-gdegankok, noko," e-kedot 

thisFCT-be. spotted. clouds\II=OC grandma FCT-say\AI=3C 

gigabe . 

boy 

74 "I zhye e-bye-majiwat gmezodanek, " 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-come-leave\AI=35C 2-parent=PL 

e-kedot mdemoze. 

FCT-say\AI=3C old. woman 

"75 Iw se e-dapnat wdekkon 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-pick . s . t . up\TI=3/0C 3-pail=OBl^ 

o gigabe; "Igwamsen, noses, gego 

that. AN boy careful my . grandchild don't 

wi -y a j moken wa -mi j yego , 

FUT- tell. about \AI=2 IMP CC . FUT-eat. s.t\TI=15.C 

nwi-gizsanen bokshegneyek , 

1-FUT-cook . s . t . \TI=OAM=OBJ=PL . OBJ yuccapan=PL 

mko weyas , nwi-bbawe," e-kedot 

bear meat 1-FUT-mix . things . around FCT-say\AI=3C 



The boy came flying in and told his 
grandmother, "Every once in a 
while, I see spotted clouds, 
Grandma! " 



"Your parents are starting to leave, " 
said the old woman. 



So the boy took his pail "Be carefiil 
Grandchild; don't tell what we 're 
going to eat: I'm going to cook 
yuccapans with bear meat mixed in, " 
said the old woman. 



mdemoze . 

old. woman 



7g Wete se e-mnotwat gigabe 

really EMPH FCT-like . hearing . s . o . \TA=3/3' C boy 



That really sounded good to him. 



okmesen wa-ne-zekwenet . 

grandmother-OBl^ CC . FUT-start . to-cook\AI=OBV"=3P 



yy "Jo gshe nde-yajmosi, " e-zhede'at gigabe. 

not EMPH l-tell.about\AI=NEG. 31 FCT-think\AI=3C boy 

7g Gete ga-gish-gwap ' ek i nibish, 

for. sure CC . PST-f inish-scoop . s . t . up\TI=3/0C that.INAN water 

e-nnatagot ni nenwen, 

FCT-ask. s.o. \TA=3'/3C that . OBl^ man=OBl^ 



"For sure, I won't tell " thought the 
boy. 

After he dipped into the water, that 
man asked him "What are you going 
to eat, little crane?" 



o 



"Wegni wa-mijyek jejakos," 

what CC. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=25P crane=DIM 

e-nayek gigabe. 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=PASS=3C boy 



79 Babek okmesen e-nnatagot, 

sure. enough grandmother=OBl^ FCT-ask . s . o . \TA=3' /3C 

"Ni je na noses, gi-yajmo ne?" 

what EMPH my . grandchild PST-tell . about\AI Q 

e-got . 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C 



Sure enough, his grandmother asked 
him, "Well, grandson, did you tell?" 



gQ "Jo wi zhe na, noko," e-kedot gigabe. 

no EMPH EMPH EMPH grandma FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



"No, I did not. Grandma, " said the 
boy. 



Iw se na e-gi-mno-wisnewat, ngodek zhe na 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH FCT-PST-good-eat\AI=35C one=LOC EMPH EMPH 

o gigabe e-mlkwendek mine 

that. AN boy FCT-think . of . s . t . \TI again 



So they had a good meal, and the 
boy once again thought of what his 
grandmother had said. 



ga-kednet ni okmesen . 

CC. PST-say\AI=3 ' P that . OB\^ grandmother-OBt^ 



g2 "Gete shke na wi-bye-wdegankot, " 

for. sure that's. it EMPH FUT-come-be . a . spotted. cloud=OI 

e-zhede'at gigabe, "kezhyep nwi-doki 

FCT-think\AI=3C boy early 1-FUT-wake . up\AI 



"That's right, the spotted clouds will 
come, " thought the boy. "I'll wake 
up early and look for the spotted 
clouds. " 



o 



83. 



e-wi-nde-wabdemen e-wi-gdegankok . 

FCT-FUT-1-see. s . t\TI FCT-FUT-be. spotted. clouds=OC 

" Iw se zhye yedek e-wi-byawat 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH must.be FCT-FUT-come\AI=35C 

nmezodanek , " e-zhede ' at . 

l-parent=PL FCT-think\AI=3C 



"So now must be my parents will 
come, " he thought. 



g4 Iw se mine wdekkon e-nanat, 

that.INAN EMPH again 3-pail=OB\^ FCT-f etch . s . o . \TA=3/3' C 

"Noses, mdamnek nwi-gizswak, seksi-wiyas 

my . grandchild corn=PL 1 . FUT-cook . s . o . \TA=1/3I deer=meat 



So he took his pail again, and he was 
told "Grandchild, I'll cook corn and 
mix in some deer meat. " 



nwi-bba-bwe . " e-nayek gigabe. 

1. FUT-around-roast\AIO. I FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=PASS=3C boy 



g5 Jo zhe na wbezdewasin okmesen, 

not EMPH EMPH 3 . listen . to . s . o . \TA=DIR=NEG. I grandmother-OBI/ 



e-bbich-nchiwenmot 



e-wi-wabmat 



He didn't listen to his grandmother, 
he was so happy about seeing 
hisparents. When he came to the 



FCT- so .much-be . happy\AI=3C FCT-FUT-see . s . o\TA=3/3' C 

wmezodanen, ibe e-byat zibik babek zhiw 

3-parent=OBl^ there FCT-come\AI=3C river=LOC sure. enough there 



river, sure enough, someone asked 
him, "What are you going to eat, little 
crane?" 



mine weye e-nnatagot, "Wegni 

again someone FCT-ask . s . o . \TA=3'/3C what 

wa-mijyek jejakos?" e-nayek. 

CC. FUT-eat. s. t\TI=25P crane=DIM FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=PASS=3C 



gg "Da she ma je se ge gin 

EXCL? EMPH also 2 . EMPH 

gdezhwebes mteno 

2 . be . in . a . certain . state . I only 

e-wi-nega'et gich-bmazdi. 

FCT-FUT-abuse . s . o . \TA=2/3C 2 . fellow-creature 



"Boy, you certainly have a way of 
abusing your fellow creatures. 



gy E-penmen e-nshiwzin 

FCT-depend.on. s.o. \AI=2C FCT-be. fast\AI=2C 

e -bme -mnene t 

FCT-along-take . away. from. s.o. \TA=2/3C 



You're dependant and swiftly take 
away what your fellow creatures 
would eat. 



wa-mijet gich-bmadzi. 

CC. FUT-eat. s.t.\TI=3/0P 2. fellow-creature 



gg Mdamnesek, gask-weyas, wi-dgode 

corn=DIM=PL dried-meat FUT-be .mixed. in\II . 01 

ge-nabjetonen je zhi . " 

2?-use. s. t. \TI=2/05. I but there 



She's going to cook a little corn 
mixed with dried meat, whatever you 
may do about it. " 



89. iw 



se gigabe e-gi-myazhewit 



So the boy once again did wrong. 



that.INAN EMPH boy FCT-PST-do . wrong\AI=3C and 

9Q Iw se bapich e-nnatewat 

that.INAN EMPH now. and. then FCT-ask . s . o . \TA=3/3' C 

ni okmesen, 

that. OBV 3 . grandmother-OBI/^ 

"De ni e-bbich-zekwenet?" 

how. far FCT-so . long-cook\AI = OBV"=3C 

g\ " Iw zhe gaga," e-nayek 

that.INAN EMPH almost FCT-say . to . s . o . \TA=PASS=3C 

gigabe, "Shkwademek nwi-jejibdep noko," 

boy door=LOC l-FUT-sit\AI . I grandma 

e-kedot gigabe. 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



Every once in a while, he asked his 
grandmother, "How soon until it is 
cooked? " 



"Almost. " The boy was told. "I'll sit 
by the door. Grandma, " said the boy. 



92 Gche-mtek e-gkegkebet. 

big-stick FCT-sit . hidden\AI=3C 

93 "Ni je ezhwebzin, noses?" 

what CC . be . in . a . certain . state\AI my . grandchild 

e-nayek . 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=PASS=3C 



He sat hiding with a big stick. 

"What's the matter, Grandchild? she 
asked him. 



94 "Jo ne ggekendesin, noko? Gzhate 

not Q 2-know. s . t\TI=NEG=OBJ grandma be . hot . weather\II 

ma zhe na ode , noko . Gechwa zhe na gde-gkendan . 

but EMPH EMPH this grandma like EMPH EMPH 2-know. s . t\TI 



"Don't you know, Grandma? It's hot 
here. Grandma. Seems like you 
would know." 



95 Iw zhye e-mnokmek ggi-ket, ge na noko. 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-be . spring\II . I 2 . PST-say\AI . I also EMPH grandma 



"It's getting to be spring, you said. 



Grandma. " 



95 I je ye i wech-gche-gzhatek, " 

that's it CC . why-really-be . hot . weather\II=OC 

e-kedot gigabe . 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 

97 Iw zhe na zhye e-bme-gwashmat 

that.INAN EMPH EMPH EMPH FCT-along-take . s . o . of f . f ire\TA=3/3' C 

ni wdekkon o mdemoze. 

that.OBl^ 3-kettle=OBl^ that. AN old. woman 



"That's why it's getting to be hot, " 
said the boy. 



So then, the old lady took up her 
kettle. 



9g Bama zhe na e-bye-bidgeshkannek 

soon EMPH EMPH FCT-come-enter . with . body\AI = OBV"=0C 



That big spoon came reaching in. 



iw gche-emkwan. 

that.INAN big-spoon 

99 Gigabe babek 

boy sure. enough 

wmetgom ga-nwedsat 

3-stick=P0SS CC. PST- take. hold. of . s.o. \TA?=3/3'C 

e-gi-baskeknadek i gche-emkwan. 

FCT-PST-split. s. t. \TI=3/0C that.INAN big-spoon 



So the boy grabbed the stick and 
split that big spoon. 



100. 



Iw se e-gi-zagjebozot gigabe. 

that.INAN EMPH FCT-PST-run . out\AI=3C boy 



So then the boy ran out. 



101. 



102. 



Ibe zhe na ga-wje-byat 

there EMPH EMPH CC . PST-where-come\AI=3P 

e-zhe-gche-majit e-byat ibe 

FCT-in. a. certain. way-really-leave\AI=3C FCT-come\AI=3C there 

jajibdebet e-ne-wabet bzhe ibe 

sit\AI=3C FCT-start. to-see\AI=3C EMPH there 

e- je-gdegankodnek . 

FCT-there-be . spotted. clouds\II=OBV"=C 

Pene zhe na gego e-nshet, 

always EMPH EMPH something FCT-hear . in . a . certain . way\AI=3C 

wika zhe na e-bzegwit 

finally EMPH EMPH FCT-stand. up\AI=3C 

we na pi e-zhewebzet 

so. far FCT-CC.be. in. a. certain. state\AI=3C 

ibe e-nesmegagwet 

there FCT-f ace .in. a. certain. direction\AI=3C 

wete zhe na e-bye-mkedewangok . 

for. sure EMPH EMPH FCT-come-be . black . clouds\II=OC 



He ran to the place where he had 
come from, and when he arrived, he 
sat down and looked, and there were 
spotted clouds! 



He began to hear something, and 
finally he stood up and faced that 
way— for sure, a black cloud was 
coming. 



103. 



"Wzam ne wi zhe na gi jejakok 

too. much Q EMPH EMPH EMPH those. AN crane=PL 

a-yawik," e-kedot gigabe . 

MOD-be. a. certain. thing\AI=35I FCT-say\AI=3C boy 



"Is it too much? It must be the 
cranes! " said the boy. 



104. 



Bama zhe na gete jejakok e-byawat 

soon EMPH EMPH for. sure crane=PL FCT-come\AI=35C 

i se mine e-gche-gwagwaskze ' ot 

that.INAN EMPH again FCT-really- jump . up . and. down\AI=3C 



Soon, sure enough, the cranes came 
and again the Uttle crane jumped up 
and down, he was so happy. 



e-bbich-nchiwenmot o jejakos. 

FCT-so. much-be. happy\AI=3C that. AN crane=DIM 



105. 



Bama zhe na wgyeyen mine 

soon EMPH EMPH 3.mother=0BV and 

osen e-bme-nde-wabmagot, 

3 . f ather=OBt^ FCT-along-try-see . s . o . \TA=3/3' C 



"A, ngwese, 

ah 1 . dear . son 



Soon his mother and father were 
looking for him. "Ah, my son, we 
are very glad you are still alive, " 
said his parents. 



to 



i se gweyen e-bmadzeyen megwa," 

that.INAN EMPH good FCT-live\AI=2C still 

e-got ni wmezodanen. 

FCT-say. to. s.o. \TA=3'/3C that . OBl^ 3 . parent=OBl^ 



-ir\f: "Neshpa se na nokmes jo wi zhe o-- 

if. not. for but EMPH 1 . grandmother not EMPH EMPH that. AN 

ndo j-bmadzesi o wabozo 

1. reason-live\AI=NEG. I that. AN rabbit 



"If it weren't for Grandma, I 
wouldn't be— I couldn't live on just 
that rabbit you abandoned me with, " 
said the boy. 



ga-ngedmayek , " 

CC. PST-leave. s.t. behind. for. s.o. \TA=PASS=3P 



e-kedot gigabe . 

FCT-say\AI=3C boy 






107 "'"*' ^^^® ^® ''^ ° e-kwadsokazot So that is as far as the story goes, 

■ that.INAN EMPH also EMPH that. AN FCT-be . so . long . as . a . story\II = OC about Uttk Cram misbehaving. 

o jejakos e-gi-gyebadzet . 

that. AN crane=DIM FCT-PST-misbehave\AI=3C 

108 ^"^ ^^^® ^^°- That's all. 

that.INAN EMPH a . certain . amount