Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 44:1 (2021) ► pp.75–112

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Focus enclitics in Bodo

 | Gauhati University
Published online: 11 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.19005.bor
Abstract
This paper describes a set of five focus enclitics in Bodo, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Assam, India. The focus enclitics are phonologically bound morphemes which are attached to a phrase-level constituent of a sentence, such as the verb, its arguments, or its adjuncts. They all trigger existential presuppositions and express various kinds of semantic and pragmatic relations between the asserted proposition and presuppositions, such as inclusion, exclusion, contrast, concession, and correction. The description of these relations as well as other more context and construction specific functions encoded by the focus enclitics constitutes the core of this paper. This paper also examines the distribution of the focus enclitics and discusses their associated scope and interpretations. Finally, this paper investigates co-occurrence, co-occurrence restrictions, and interpretations of sequences of the enclitics.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminology and assumptions
  • 3.The focus enclitics
    • 3.1Additive =bɯ & exclusive =lo
    • 3.2Corrective =sɯ & =nɯ
    • 3.3Contrastive topic/corrective =tʰo
  • 4.Multiple focus enclitics
  • 5.Summary
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (38)
References
Bajaj, Vandana. 2014. hii at the semantic-pragmatic interface. Retrieved from [URL] (Last accessed on February 28, 2019).
Basumatary, Prafulla. 2017. Verbal semantics in a Tibeto-Burman language: The Bodo verb. Oxford: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Pramod Ch. 1977. A descriptive analysis of the Boro language. Guwahati: Guwahati University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Nevertheless, still and yet: Concessive cancellative discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 421.1912–1927. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breugel, Seino van. 2008. A grammar of Atong. Melbourne: Research Center for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In P. Rosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. (Contrastive) Topic. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins & U. V. Joseph. 2009. Boro tones. In Stephen D. Morey & Mark W. Post (eds.), North East Indian Linguistics 2, 45–58. Foundation Books. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Kalyan & Shakuntala Mahanta. 2018. Distribution of lexical tones in Boro. Himalayan Linguistics 17(2).52–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon, Maria E. Hoffmann, Jan R. de Jong, Sie Ing Djiang, Harry Stroomer & Lourens de Vries. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In T. Hoekstra, H. Van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on functional grammar, 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endle, Sidney. 1884. Outline grammar of the Kachari (Boro) language as spoken in the district of Darrang, Assam. Shillong: Assam Secretariat Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Towards a typology for additive markers. Lingua 1801.69–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 141.383–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311.931–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87(1).2–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goswami, G. C. & Jyotiprakash Tamuli. 2003. Asamiya. In D. Jain & G. Cardona (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 391–443. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodgson, Brian H. 1847. On the aborigines of India. Essay the first: on the Kocch, Bodo, and Dhimal tribes. Kolkata: J. Thomas, Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Takashi. 1981. On enclitic hi: in Hindi. Indian Linguistics 42(1/4).48–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko N. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 401.646–675. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, F. & Lauri Karttunen. 1977. Even questions. In J. A. Kegl & A. Zaenen (eds.), North Eastern Linguistic Society no. 7, 115–134. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved from [URL] (Last accessed on January, 2021).
Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Ch. Oh & D. A. Dinnen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(1).59–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konnerth, Linda. 2014a. Additive focus and additional functions of Karbi (Tibeto-Burman) =tā. In K. Carpenter, O. David, F. Lionnet, Ch. Sheil, T. Stark & V. Wauters (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley, California, 11–12 February 2012, 206–222. Berkeley: eLanguage (Linguistic Society of America).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. A grammar of Karbi. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kӧnig, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 8, 111–129. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 2003. Contrastive topic and/or contrastive focus. In B. McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 121, 352–364. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matic, Dejan. 2015. Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In M. M. J. Fernandez-Vest & R. D. van Valin (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from cross-linguistic perspective, 167–190. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel, & Henriëtte Daudey. 2017. Copy-verb constructions in Tibeto-Burman and beyond. Linguistic Typology 21(1).53–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Melbourne: Research Center for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11.75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarmah, Priyankoo. 2004. Some aspects of the tonal phonology of Bodo. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages MPhil dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skrefsrud, Lars O. 1889. A short grammar of the Mech or Boro language, together with a small vocabulary. Ebenezer: Indian Home Mission’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, John. 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In L. M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure vol 1, 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue