Research Articles

On quotatives and speech verbs in Yudja

Author
  • Suzi Lima orcid logo (University of Toronto)

Abstract

Much literature has debated the argument structure of speech verbs. For example, Munro (1982) has provided evidence to show that, in many languages, quotations do not pattern like the complements of transitive verbs. In this paper, I analyze the distribution of four speech verbs in Yudja (Juruna branch, Tupi), an Indigenous language spoken in Brazil, and compare them with bona fide transitive verbs. I provide morphosyntactic evidence to argue that direct quotations are not complements of speech verbs based on the distribution of such verbs both in quotative and non-quotative constructions.

Muitos trabalhos tem debatido a estrutura argumental dos verbos de fala. Por exemplo, Munro (1982) forneceu evidências para mostrar que, em muitas línguas, as citações não seguem o padrão dos complementos dos verbos transitivos. Neste artigo, analiso a distribuição de quatro verbos da fala em Yudja (família Juruna, Tupi), língua indígena falada no Brasil, e os comparo com verbos transitivos. Forneço evidências morfossintáticas para argumentar que as citações não são complementos de verbos de fala com base na distribuição de tais verbos tanto em construções citativas como não citativas.

Keywords: speech verbs, quotatives, Yudja, Tupi

How to Cite: Lima, S., (2023) “On quotatives and speech verbs in Yudja ”, Language Documentation and Description 23(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.25894/ldd.354

148 Views

100 Downloads

Published on
16 Feb 2024
Peer Reviewed

1. Introduction

Much literature has debated the syntactic status of quotations when they occur in structures with speech verbs (Buchstaller 2014; D’Arcy 2015; Munro 1982; Partee 1972 among many others). Cross-linguistic data shows that the verb say in quotative constructions can be analyzed as an intransitive verb in many languages. Munro (1982) discusses several features of quotatives that can be used to argue that speech verbs do not pattern as canonical transitive verbs.

The first feature discussed by Munro (1982) is the lack of morphological marking on quotatives in comparison with transitive structures. For example, in Chickasaw, objects are suffixed with the object marker -ã. Quotations, however, are incompatible with this marker as illustrated in examples (1) and (2) (Munro 1982: 303):1

    1. Chickasaw
    1. (1)
    1. ihoo
    2. woman
    1. (*-ã)
    2. OBJ
    1. aachi
    2. say
    1. He says: “woman.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 303, example 2a)
    1. (2)
    1. hilha
    2. dance
    1. (*-ã)
    2. OBJ
    1. aachi
    2. say
    1. He says: “She is dancing.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 303, example 2b)

A similar pattern is observed in the Uto-Aztecan language Cahuilla, where an agreement prefix occurs in transitive clauses (pe-) for both non-clausal (3a) and clausal complements (3b), but not in quotations (4). The central contrast is observed between (3b) and (4): in (3b) the clause henhichika ‘I want to go/I am going’ is a clausal object—the argument of the verb ’ayaw ‘want’—and the verb is marked with the third person singular object prefix pe-; contrariwise, in (4), the same clause is unmarked because it is a quotation.

    1. Cahuilla
    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. pe-n-’ayaw-qa
    2. it-I-want-PRES
    1. mansaana-y
    2. apple-OBJ
    1. I want an apple.
    2. (Munro 1982: 306, example 11a)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. pe-n-’ayaw-qa
    2. it-I-want-PRES
    1. hen-hichi-ka
    2. I-go-INCOMP
    1. I want to go.
    2. (Munro 1982: 306, example 11b)
    1. (4)
    1. ni-ya-qa
    2. I-say-PRES
    1. hen-hichi-ka
    2. I-go-INCOMP
    1. I say: “I am going.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 307, example 12)

Munro also discusses the restrictions on objects in constructions with speech verbs. In Godié, a Kru language, the speech verb ‘say’ introduces quotations (5) (Munro 1982: 304). But this verb is incompatible with non-clausal complements, such as pronouns and noun phrases.

    1. Godié
    1. (5)
    1. Baalɯ
    2. Baalo
    1. say
    1. ʌ̃̄ʌ̃́
    2. I-NEG
    1. lɔ́
    2. here
    1. kɯ̄
    2. be
    1. Baalo said: “I am not here.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 304, example 3)

Other languages discussed by Munro (1982) have restrictions on which speech verb can occur with quotations. In Hausa, the verb céè ‘say’ (6) is only compatible with quotative clauses while fàdi ‘say’ (7) can be used in non-quotative clauses. In examples (6–7), we see the same phrase (kalmà biyu ‘two words’) following these verbs, but only in (6), with the verb céè ‘say’, will this phrase be interpreted as a quotation:

    1. Hausa
    1. (6)
    1. yaa
    2. he
    1. céè
    2. say
    1. kalmà
    2. word
    1. biyu
    2. two
    1. He said: “two words.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 305, example 6)
    1. (7)
    1. mɨn
    2. what
    1. yaa
    2. he
    1. fàdi
    2. say
    1. kalmà
    2. word
    1. biyu
    2. two
    1. He said two words.
    2. (Munro 1982: 305, example 5)

It has also been shown that in English there are syntactic differences between objects of transitive sentences and quotative clauses in sentences with speech verbs (see Partee 1973, Munro 1982). For example, while quotations and objects of transitive sentences both allow for clefting (8), passivization (9) is not available for quotations (Vandelanotte 2008, 2012, as cited in Buchstaller 2014: 38–39). Conversely, while inversion is possible in quotative structures (especially in written genres), it is disallowed in transitive sentences (10):

    1. (8)
    1. what Jim said was “I love you.”
    2. cf. What he just ate for dinner is a sandwich.
    3. (Buchstaller 2014: 39, example 5b)
    1. (9)
    1. ? “I love you” was said by him.
    2. cf. A sandwich was eaten by him.
    3. (Buchstaller 2014: 39, example 5c)
    1. (10)
    1. “I love you” said John.
    2. cf. *A sandwich ate he for dinner.
    3. (Buchstaller 2014: 39, example 6a)

Munro’s work was instrumental in providing cross-linguistic evidence and tests to argue that speech verbs may not display features of transitive verbs when they occur in quotative constructions. Two of these diagnostics are presented above: the absence of object marking in quotations in languages where objects are morphologically marked, as in Chickasaw and Cahuilla (Munro 1982, examples 1–4), and restrictions on the types of objects a speech verb might take as in Godié and Hausa (Munro 1982, examples 5–7). The other diagnostics discussed by Munro (1982) include: absence of agreement in languages where there is object marking on verbs; alignment of a ‘say’ verb with intransitive verbs in ergative languages such as Samoan and Yup’ik Eskimo (Munro 1982: 307); restrictions on passivization, as discussed in example 10 above for English; treating quoted materials as obliques as in Mojave (Munro 1982: 308); word order differences between quotative structures and transitive sentences (Munro 1982: 311); and overall similarities between quotative structures and intransitive clauses.

The goal of this paper is to discuss the status of the speech verbs in Yudja (Juruna branch, Tupi family; Brazil), and more specifically, to draw hypotheses about their argument structure based on their distribution in quotative and non-quotative structures. Tests to explore the transitivity of a verb are language specific. As such, I will first introduce some morphosyntactic characteristics of transitive verbs in the language, focusing on word order and encoding of objects (Section 2). After a presentation of materials and methods (Section 3), I will discuss three characteristics of quotative constructions that can be used to argue that they are not parallel to canonical transitive sentences in Yudja (Section 4). Then, I will discuss constructions with the reportative particles hi/ti, since hi often will co-occur with speech verbs (Section 5). I also discuss quotative frame constructions, when a quote occurs between two speech verbs (Section 6). I conclude the paper by summarizing the patterns observed and discussing how Partee’s (1973) analysis of speech verbs can account for speech verbs in Yudja (Section 7). By comparing morphosyntactic features of speech verbs and transitive verbs such as word order and object marking, I argue that quotations are not complements of speech verbs in Yudja.

2. Characterizing transitive sentences: object marking in Yudja and word order

Yudja belongs to the Juruna branch of the Tupian family. The Yudja number around 950 people, most of whom live in the Xingu Indigenous Territory.2 In this Section, I will present a brief overview of transitivity in Yudja by focusing on word order and on how objects are marked in transitive sentences.

As highlighted in the introduction, in many languages speech verbs do not present features of canonical transitive verbs. As such, in this section, I will provide features that characterize transitive verbs in Yudja to motivate the discussion about the argument structure of speech verbs, presented in Section 4. Most of the literature review presented in Section 2 is based on Fargetti’s PhD dissertation that presents a comprehensive overview of phonological and morphosyntatic features of the Yudja language (Fargetti 2001). Examples will be presented in the language’s orthography. (A guide on the orthography’s correspondence to the IPA can be found in Fargetti (2001: 53)). Examples whose author is not identified were elicited by me. Finally, examples are not marked for tone in this paper (tone is not marked in the Yudja orthography). However, for examples from other authors, please consult the original source for tone marking.

2.1. Encoding of pronominal objects in Yudja

Subjects in Yudja are encoded via free pronominal forms while internal arguments are encoded via a set of clitics that occur prefixed on the verb (Table 1).

Table 1

Pronominal forms in Yudja.

FREE FORMS (SUBJECTS) CLITICS (INTERNAL ARGUMENTS)
1SG una/na u-
2SG ena e- or l-
3SG amï/anï [demonstratives] or ∅ i- or ∅
du- (third person reflexive)
1PL (EXCLUSIVE) ulu’udi ulu- or ul-
1PL (INCLUSIVE) si se- or s-
2PL esi ese- or es-
3PL anïdai/abïdai i-

Fargetti (2001: 146) observes that there is phonological conditioning on the use of some of the forms presented in Table 1. Fargetti suggests that some forms (for example, l-, ul-, s-, es-) occur prior to roots that start with a vowel (see example 12). On the other hand, the morpheme e—in examples (11) and (13)—occur before roots that start with a consonant. The second person singular clitic morphemes e- and l- may be prefixed on verbs encoding reflexivity (11–12) or the internal arguments of transitive verbs (13):

    1. (11)
    1. ena
    2. 2SG
    1. e-duku
    2. REFL-hurt
    1. You hurt yourself.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 185, example 72)
    1. (12)
    1. l-ãpinu
    2. REFL-brush
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. I brushed myself.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 184, example 66)
    1. (13)
    1. e-djidaku
    2. 2SG-hit
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. e-be
    2. 2SG-DAT
    1. I hit you.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 212–213, example 59)

2.2. Word order

Yudja’s basic word order is subject-object-verb, or SOV, as seen in (14):

    1. (14)
    1. idja
    2. woman
    1. mayaka
    2. manioc
    1. iyũbï
    2. shred
    1. The woman shredded the manioc.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 133, example 60)

Other word orders are attested in transitive sentences, as illustrated in (15a–15c). Note that, when the object occurs in a non-canonical position, i.e., after the verb, rather than before, it will be followed by the dative marker be:

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. iyũbï
    2. shred
    1. idja
    2. woman
    1. mayaka
    2. manioc
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. The woman shredded the manioc. (VSO)
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. idja
    2. woman
    1. iyũbï
    2. shred
    1. mayaka
    2. manioc
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. The woman shredded the manioc. (SVO)
    1.  
    1.  
    1. iyũbï
    2. shred
    1. mayaka
    2. manioc
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. idja
    2. woman
    1. The woman shredded the manioc. (VOS)
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 133, examples 61–63)

The same pattern is observed for clausal objects (Fargetti 2001: 249). In (16), the clausal complement of the verb zaku ‘see’ precedes the verb, which is the canonical word order for transitive sentences:

    1. (16)
    1. Tawaiku
    2. Tawaiku
    1. iidja
    2. woman
    1. aparu
    2. beiju
    1. ipïku
    2. make
    1. yãhã
    2. NMLZ
    1. zaku
    2. see
    1. Tawaiku saw the woman preparing beiju.

When this clausal complement occurs after the verb, it too is marked with the dative morpheme be (as seen in (15b–c) for NP-objects), as illustrated in (17):

    1. (17)
    1. izaku
    2. saw
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. iidja
    2. woman
    1. aparu
    2. beiju
    1. ipïku
    2. make
    1. yãhã
    2. NMLZ
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. I saw the woman making beiju.

Pronominal objects appear prefixed on the verb, as shown in (18).

    1. (18)
    1. una
    2. 1SG
    1. e-depu
    2. 2SG-push
    1. I pushed you.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 147, example 114)

For the first person (19) and second person (20) pronominal forms, pronominal objects may be optionally repeated after the verb and marked as dative (Fargetti 2001: 211):

    1. (19)
    1. ena
    2. 2SG
    1. u-zaku3
    2. 1SG-see
    1. (u-be)
    2. (1SG-DAT)
    1. You saw me.
    1. (20)
    1. una
    2. 1SG
    1. e-zaku
    2. 2SG-see
    1. (e-be)
    2. (2SG-DAT)
    1. I saw you.

When the pronominal is in the third person (either singular or plural), a specialized form may occur after the verb (te/he (21) or tese (22)) (Fargetti 2001: 212); *i-be (the regular third person pronominal form followed by the dative morpheme) is not possible:

    1. (21)
    1. ali
    2. child
    1. i-zaku
    2. 3-see
    1. te/he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. The child saw it.
    1. (22)
    1. ali
    2. child
    1. i-zaku
    2. 3-see
    1. tese
    2. 3PL.DAT
    1. The child saw them.

In ditransitive constructions, the indirect object is obligatorily marked with be (dative) if non-pronominal (23). If the indirect object is pronominal, it will be followed by -be if the person prefixes are first and second person, or the forms te/he/tese will be used for the third person (24). Given that these forms (te/he/tese) have the same distribution as first and second person dative-marked objects, we will refer to them as third person singular/plural dative throughout the paper (te or he: 3SG.DAT; tese: 3PL.DAT):4

    1. (23)
    1. Tarinu
    2. Tarinu
    1. Yabaiwa
    2. Yabaiwa
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. txukaya
    2. arrow
    1. kua
    2. give
    1. Tarinu gave an arrow to Yabaiwa.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 200, example 149)
    1. (24)
    1. senahï
    2. man
    1. tese
    2. 3PL.DAT
    1. arapadïka
    2. ball
    1. kua-yãhã
    2. give-NMLZ
    1. zaku
    2. see
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. I saw the man who gave the ball to them.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 249, example 213)

As discussed so far, pronominal objects are necessarily marked on the verb. As shown in Table (1), the clitic for third person is either i- or phonologically null. Fargetti (2001: 219) argues that when the direct object is not a pronoun, the clitic is not required. The contrast between examples (24) and (25) illustrates this analysis. In both cases, the verb being used is kua ‘give’. In (25), the verb is prefixed with i- because the object (he ‘third person singular dative’, postverbal) is pronominal. This can be contrasted with the use of the same verb kua ‘give’ in (24), where the verb appears without the prefix i- because the object ball is a full noun phrase.

    1. (25)
    1. Yabaiwa
    2. Yabaiwa
    1. naimã
    2. NEG
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. Tarinu
    2. Tarinu
    1. i-kua
    2. 3-give
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. Taxabï
    2. Taxabï
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. i-kua
    2. 3-give
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. ‘It wasn’t to Yabaiwa that Tarinu gave this (arrow), (he) gave it to Taxabï’
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 200, example 152)

Exceptions to this pattern are observed when the direct object is out of canonical order. In (26) the verb is prefixed with -i despite the object being non-pronominal:5

    1. (26)
    1. i-zaku
    2. 3-see
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. yakare
    2. crocodile
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. iya
    2. river
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. ‘I saw the crocodile that was in the river’
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 137, example 80)

Other exceptions to the pronominal marking rule might be due to phonological conditions: verbs that start with a vowel will not necessarily be prefixed with i- regardless of whether the object is pronominal or non-pronominal. As such, later in this paper when we discuss transitivity, I will not rely on the prefixation of the third person to determine whether a speech verb is analyzed as transitive or intransitive.

Thus far, we have seen that one criterion to characterize a construction as transitive is word order: non-pronominal objects precede the verb in transitive canonical order. When non-pronominal objects occur after the verb, they are marked by the dative marker -be, whether they are clausal or not. As for pronominal objects, first and second person pronominal objects are prefixed onto the verb; the third person may be prefixed on the verb or be null (Table 2, column 2). Finally, pronominal objects may optionally be repeated after the verb, followed by the dative marker be, except for the third person singular/plural pronouns, which have suppletive forms (Table 2, column 3).

Table 2

Bound pronouns in Yudja and dative forms.

CLITICS (INTERNAL ARGUMENTS) FORMS USED FOR MARKING THE INDIRECT OBJECT OR POSTVERBAL OBJECT (DATIVE)
1SG u- u-be
2SG e- or l- e-be
3SG i- or ∅ te/he
1PL (EXCLUSIVE) ulu- or ul- ulu-be
1PL (INCLUSIVE) se- or s- se-be
2PL ese- or es- ese-be
3PL i- tese

We will now evaluate the transitivity of speech verbs in Yudja in light of the characteristics of canonical transitive verbs in Yudja discussed in this section. In Section 3, I present a description of the materials and methods used in this study and in Section 4 I present an analysis of the data.

3. Speech verbs in Yudja: materials and methods

The data presented in this paper is from texts and elicitation tasks. Data from elicitation tasks were obtained via a mix of context-based translations (where a context is presented, and then a sentence is provided for translation) and grammaticality judgment tasks (where a grammatical sentence is modified and the speaker has to evaluate whether the modified version is possible in the language or not). The text data comes from three previously published texts by Fargetti (2001) and one storyboard elicited by the author, presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Texts analyzed: source and type of text.

TEXT SOURCE TYPE OF TEXT
Sãluahã Fargetti (2001: 257–264) Biographical narrative (a father describes the process of seclusion of his daughter)
Dialogue Fargetti (2001: 265–267) Dialogue between a son and his mother about aspects of Yudja culture (e.g., subsistence agriculture)
Tuwï̃ ‘anaconda’ Fargetti (2001: 269–287) Historical narrative
The fortune teller (TSF Working Group 2010) Elicitation Storyboard

The storyboard referred to in this paper was created by the Totem Field Storyboards Working Group.6 Storyboards are coherent stories that use overarching storylines to explore a target question/hypothesis (Burton & Matthewson 2015). I followed Burton and Matthewson’s (2015: 146) guide on how to work with storyboards in the field. First, I presented the story to the language consultant in Portuguese, with the support of pictures. The language consultant then took a few minutes to think about how they would tell the story in Yudja. After that, they told the story to another speaker of the language who did not hear the story in Portuguese; this was important to make the task communicatively relevant to the language consultants who participated in this task. The story was then transcribed, glossed, and translated with the help of the language consultant.

In the following sections, I will indicate the source of the examples by including the method or source below each example.

4. Speech verbs: data description and analysis

Yudja uses different strategies to encode quotations. We may encounter both examples of quotations introduced by speech verbs, as well as quotations that are not introduced by them. Consider (27):

    1. (27)
    1. a.
    1. tadei
    2. then
    1. hae:
    2. say
    1. Then (she) said:
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. wabï
    2. good
    1. anu,
    2. ASP
    1. epaa
    2. go up
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. “Ok, I will go up.”
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. sudade
    2. then
    1. epa
    2. go up
    1. panahu
    2. manage
    1. a
    2. like
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. Then she managed to enjoy going up.
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. wãbi
    2. good
    1. sa
    2. then
    1. epa
    2. go up
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. aramũhinaku
    2. for a small period of time
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. abahu
    2. nauseate
    1. tade
    2. then
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. leave
    1. “Ok, I will go up for a small period of time. When I get nauseated, I will leave.”
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 259–260, Sãluahã narrative)

In this example, we have two quotations: one that is introduced by a speech verb, hae ‘say’ (line b) as well as a quotation that occurs independently in the text, without a speech verb (line d). My focus here will be on the first strategy, since my goal is to explore the argument structure of speech verbs.

Four verbs will be considered: abï ‘tell’ and endu ‘ask’, hae ‘say/talk’ and a ‘say/speak’. As suggested by their translations, some of these verbs are translatable in more than one possible way by the language consultants and/or in the published sources. The verb endu, for example, was translated as ‘ask’ in some cases, but it can also be used to describe auditive perception (hearing, listening) and certain forms of somesthesis (e.g. feeling a burn).

Here I argue that quotations do not occupy the object position in constructions with speech verbs in Yudja. Three pieces of evidence will be provided towards this analysis: 1) the use of some speech verbs (hae ‘say/talk’, a ‘say/speak’) as intranstive verbs; 2) the presence of pronominal objects co-occuring with quotations in constructions with transitive speech verbs (abï ‘tell’ and endu ‘ask’); 3) the absence of dative marking on quotations occurring after speech verbs.

To facilitate the presentation and discussion of the data in this section, as in other parts of the paper, quotations are italicized in the first line of the example. In the translation line, quotations are presented inside quotation marks.

4.1 Argument 1: Some speech verbs can be used as intransitive verbs

The first piece of evidence supporting the argument that quotations are not objects of speech verbs is the use of some speech verbs as intranstive verbs. To illustrate this, I will discuss the distribution of the verb hae ‘say’. Often, hae ‘say’ occurs after the subject of the matrix clause (28):

    1. (28)
    1. Mahu
    2. Mahu
    1. hae
    2. say
    1. i-zaku
    2. 3-see
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. Yaba
    2. Yaba
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. Mahu said: “I saw Yaba.”
    2. (context-based translation)

When this verb is used in non-quotative structures, it can be used as an intransitive verb (29a–29b). Consider first (29a), an excerpt from a narrative:

    1. (29)
    1. a
    1. bitu
    2. again
    1. iyu
    2. sleep
    1. dade
    2. when
    1. DUB
    1. ide
    2. ?
    1. ’e’elu
    2. dream
    1. ta,
    2. also
    1. ikũdama
    2. spirit
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. hae
    2. talk
    1. ta
    2. also
    1. When he slept again, I think he dreamed, and the spirit talked to him.
    1.  
    1. b
    1. pa…
    2. first
    1. paku
    2. wake up
    1. dade
    2. when
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. abï
    2. tell
    1. he.
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. Pa…
    2. first
    1. paku
    2. wake up
    1. dade
    2. when
    1. abï:
    2. tell
    1. When he woke up, he told it. When he woke up, he said:
    1.  
    1. c
    1. takurare
    2. tortoise
    1. isãna
    2. put together
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. esi
    2. 2PL
    1. a
    2. say
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. “you are going to put tortoises together”, (he) said.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 275–276, Tuwï̃ narrative)

In (29a, line a), no object (pronominal or non-pronominal) is included in the sentence; there is neither a personal pronominal prefix nor a pronominal third person dative form following the verb. The same pattern was attested in spontaneous examples like (29b) created by Yudja speakers for a book about Yudja verbs (Juruna et al. manuscript):

    1. (29b)
    1. anï
    2. DEM
    1. mïsu
    2. stand up
    1. NMLZ
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. una
    2. 1SG
    1. hae
    2. talk
    1. I am talking to that one who is standing up.

Another piece of evidence suggesting that hae ‘say’ is intransitive (or at least allows for intransitive uses) is its contrast with transitive speech verbs such as abï ‘tell’ and endu ‘ask’. In non-quotative constructions, both abï ‘say’ and endu ‘ask’ include objects. In example (30) the object of abï ‘tell’ is dukuperi ‘her work.’ In example (31), the object of endu ‘ask’ is ali iza ‘name of the child.’ In both examples, we observe the canonical transitive word order where objects precede verbs. In (32), the object is marked by means of the dative third person object occurring after the verb (te ‘3SG.DAT’) and in (33), a non-pronominal object is marked by the morpheme be ‘dative’:7

    1. (30)
    1. Suzi
    2. Suzi
    3. Suzi
    1. anïda
    2. anïda
    3. they, people
    1. be
    2. be
    3. DAT
    1. dukuperi
    2. du-kuperi
    3. 3SG.POSS-work
    1. abï
    2. abï
    3. tell
    1. Suzi told people about her work.
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (31)
    1. Suzi
    2. Suzi
    1. ali
    2. child
    1. iza
    2. name
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. Suzi asked the name of the child.
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (32)
    1. Paulo
    2. Paulo
    3. Paulo
    1. abïa
    2. abï-a
    3. tell-IRR
    1. te
    2. te
    3. 3SG.DAT
    1. Paulo will tell it (to someone).
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (33)
    1. endu
    2. heard
    1. na
    2. 1SG
    1. motor
    2. motor
    1. arrive
    1. yãhã
    2. NMLZ
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. su
    2. DIR
    1. I heard the motor (boat) arrive.
    2. (context-based translation)

In sum, in this section, I have provided evidence to argue that hae ‘say’, a commonly used speech verb in Yudja, can be used as an intransitive verb. This is evident through the absence of an object or object markers in non-quotative constructions.

4.2 Argument 2: Pronominal objects co-occur with quotations in constructions with some speech verbs

In Section 2 it was shown that third person object markers may occur after the verb as te/he or tese ‘3SG.DAT’ or ‘3PL.DAT’, respectively. In transitives structures, these markers (te/he or tese) do not co-occur with non-pronominal objects (clausal or non-clausal objects).

This feature of transitive verbs is evident from the distribution of the verb endu ‘ask’ in quotative constructions. Example (31) illustrates that in non-quotative constructions, endu ‘ask’ is used as a transitive verb where the object precedes the verb. In (34) the same verb is used in a quotative construction. In this case, however, a third-person object marker is included after the verb:

    1. (34)
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. ma
    2. who
    1. de
    2. Q
    1. arrive
    1. Maria asked me this: “Who arrived?”
    2. (context-based translation)

In this example, the object of the verb endu ‘ask’ is encoded by the postverbal object form (te ‘3SG.DAT’). Given that the object position has already been filled, this suggests that the quotation may not function as the complement of the speech verb. The same pattern is observed regardless of the type of question; other wh-questions such as alu ne ‘when’ (35) and apa ‘what’ (36), as well as yes/no questions (37), pattern the same way:8

    1. (35)
    1. Dema
    2. Dema
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. alu
    2. when
    1. ne
    2. Q
    1. tade
    2. DS
    1. ane
    2. 2SG.Q9
    1. txa
    2. travel
    1. anu?
    2. ASP
    1. Dema asked me: “When are you going to travel?”’ (lit: Dema asked it: “When are you going to travel?”)
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (36)
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. apa
    2. what
    1. ixa
    2. eat
    1. ne
    2. Q
    1. Maria asked me: “What did you eat?” (lit: Maria asked it: “What did you eat?”)
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (37)
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. taeta
    2. bath
    1. de
    2. Q
    1. Dema
    2. Dema
    1. Maria asked me: “Did Dema bathe?” (lit: Maria asked it to me: “Did Dema bathe?”)
    2. (context-based translation)

For non-speech verbs, there are no examples of transitive verbs where the third person dative pronominals te/he/tese co-occur with a non-pronominal object. As such, it is reasonable to hypothesize that quotatives are not occupying the object position in such structures.

The examples with the verb endu ‘ask’ can also be used to shed light on the verb hae ‘say’ in quotative constructions. Recall that differently from endu ‘ask’, hae ‘say’ allows for intransitive uses in non-quotative constructions. In quotative constructions, this verb does not present object marking and it is not followed by one of the third personal pronominal dative forms (te/he/tese).

    1. (38)
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. hae
    2. say
    1. ma
    2. who
    1. de
    2. Q
    1. arrive
    1. ‘Maria said to me, “Who arrived?”’
    2. (context-based translation)

Our claim is that, just as in example (37), ma de wï ‘who arrived?’ is not the complement of the speech verb in example (38). The difference between (37) and (38) is that in (38), the speech verb hae, is an intransitive verb, based on the evidence presented in 4.1.

4.3. Argument 3: Quotations are not marked as other objects when they appear after speech verbs

In Section 1, I showed that objects precede the verb in the canonical order. When complements appear after the verb, they are marked as dative (15), including clausal complements (17).

In all examples presented so far, the speech verb preceeds the quote. In none of these cases is the quotation marked with the dative marker be. If quotations were objects of speech verbs, when they occur following the verb, we would expect they would be followed by the dative be, as objects of transitive verbs are in non-quotative constructions. The fact that quotations are not followed by the dative marker be suggests that they are not objects.

A reviewer proposed an alternative analysis of the distribution of the dative marker. According to this analysis, the dative marker can only follow noun phrases and nominalized clauses. In this account, it is possible to maintain that quotations are clausal complements of speech verbs, despite the fact that they cannot be followed by the dative marker, since they are not nominalized. In that case, however, quotations would still stand out from (other) clausal complements due to the lack of nominalization (see Section 2.2., examples 16 and 17).

The distribution of the dative marker is one of the three arguments presented against an analysis of quotations as complements of speech verbs. As such, an alternative analysis of quotatives as complements of speech verbs would still need to address the other two observations presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

4.4. Summary

In Section 4, I discussed three arguments that could be used to claim that quotations do not occupy the complement position of speech verbs in Yudja. Of the speech verbs discussed so far, one—hae ‘say’—is used intransitively in non-quotative constructions and, in quotative constructions, does not seem to take the quotation as its object (arguments 4.1, 4.3). The other—endu ‘ask’—is transitive but it does not take quotations as its object (argument 4.2).

Another important dimension of analyzing speech verbs in Yudja is their possible co-occurrence with reportative markers. In Section 5, I introduce the distribution of these markers. In Sections 6 and 7, I will discuss their co-occurrence with speech verbs.

5. THE PARTICLES hi AND ti

5.1. Distribution of reportative particles

The morphemes hi and ti are described by Fargetti (2001: 152) as reportative markers. One piece of evidence to argue that these morphemes carry evidential information comes from adversative conjunctions. Fargetti (2001: 245) observes that dati and dahi morphemes are sensitive to some degree of evidentiality, namely the presence or absence of firsthand experience: dati is used when the speaker was present when an event occurred, while dahi is used when the speaker was not present.9

    1. (39)
    1. Karin
    2. Karin
    1. kïhu
    2. fish
    1. txa
    2. go
    1. hide,
    2. ?
    1. dati
    2. CONJ
    1. anapïdïk-a-ũ
    2. get fish-IRR-NEG
    1. pitxa
    2. fish
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. Karin went fishing, but he did not get any fish.
    2. Consultant’s comment: the speaker saw the events.
    3. (context-based translation)
    1. (40)
    1. Karin
    2. Karin
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. kïhu
    2. fish
    1. txa
    2. go
    1. hide,
    2. ?
    1. dahi
    2. CONJ
    1. anapïdïk-a-ũ
    2. get fish-IRR-NEG
    1. pitxa
    2. fish
    1. be
    2. DAT
    1. They said that Karin went fishing, but he did not get any fish.
    2. Consultant’s comment: the speaker did not see the events.
    3. (context-based translation)

The hi morpheme that appears in the adversative conjunctions might as well be the same hi we observe in quotatives, encoding non-direct evidence. Contrariwise, ti, the other reportative, seems to be associated with direct evidence:

    1. (41)
    1. meũ
    2. menstruate
    1. tade
    2. then
    1. ti
    2. REP
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. ’a’u
    2. put
    1. he
    2. 3SG
    1. anu
    2. ASP
    1. When she menstruated, we put her (in the house)
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 257, Sãluahã narrative)

In example (41), the narrator (the father of the girl that was secluded in the house) is reporting an event that he has been part of, and we see the occurrence of ti. In the texts being analyzed in this paper, hi was much more frequently used than ti (less than 10 occurrences of ti; over 100 occurrences of hi [by itself/with a ‘say’]) and co-occurred with speech verbs; for this reason, the discussion that follows will focus on hi.

5.2. Co-occurrence of quotative strategies: the case of a hi

The reportative hi discussed in the previous section often co-occurs with the verb a ‘say’. Before discussing their co-occurrence, I will present a brief overview of the distribution of the verb a ‘say/tell’. As observed for hae ‘say’ (Section 4.1), we find instances of a ‘say’ being used as an intransitive verb in non-quotative constructions, as illustrated in (42):

    1. (42)
    1. txa…
    2. Humm
    1. pae
    2. say
    1. da
    2. people
    1. abïbï
    2. tell.RED
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1.  
    1. txa…
    2. Humm
    1. su
    2. like that
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. si
    2. 1PL
    1. payũ
    2. in the old days
    1. a
    2. speak
    1. da
    2. people
    1. da
    2. INS
    1. kamenu
    2. tell
    1. hae
    2. ASP
    1. Humm, (they) say that the people used to tell (something), humm that is how people used to tell [the event the speaker is reporting] in the old days.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 260–261, Sãluahã narrative)

In (42), there is no object associated with the verb a ‘say’ or kamenu ‘say/tell’; in contrast, abï ‘tell (something)’ (reduplicated) includes an object (he ‘third person singular’).

The element a ‘say’ usually occurs at the end of the reported clause (43). In some examples, the addressee (in 44 he ‘to him/to her’) is part of the matrix clause (44):

    1. (43)
    1. a’u-a
    2. Put-IRR
    1. si
    2. 1PL
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. a
    2. say
    1. “Let’s put her (in the house),” (they) said.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 257, Sãluahã narrative)
    1. (44)
    1. mïsa
    2. stand up
    1. hinaku
    2. ?
    1. kara-yãhã
    2. pass-NMLZ
    1. de
    2. F
    1. a-ũ
    2. want-NEG
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. a
    2. say
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. “We don’t want you to stand up,” we said to her.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 259, Sãluahã narrative)

In quotative constructions, the verb a is often followed by the reportative hi that seems to carry evidential information (non-direct evidence) (45, 46):

    1. (45)
    1. ena
    2. 2SG
    1. senahï
    2. man
    1. urahïhï̃
    2. tall
    1. etata-de
    2. marry.RED-F
    1. le-ali
    2. 2SG.REFL-child
    1. amï
    2. this
    1. lapïku
    2. marry
    1. dade
    2. when
    1. ese
    2. 2PL
    1. ali
    2. child
    1. itxïbï
    2. many
    1. a
    2. say
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. de.
    2. F
    1. “(If) you marry the tall man, you will have many children” she said.
    2. (The Fortune Teller storyboard)
    1. (46)
    1. alu
    2. as such
    1. hinaku
    2. almost
    1. si
    2. 1PL
    1. ixu
    2. eat
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. anaana
    2. ASP
    1. a
    2. say
    1. hi.
    2. REP
    1. “As such, we eat [raw] (referent: watermelon) always” (he) said.12
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 281, Tuwï̃ narrative)

A hi ‘say + reportative’ is primarily attested at the end of the sentence, after the reported clause. One of the consultants mentioned that a hi is used when the speaker was not present at the event being reported. Indeed, many more occurences of hi were observed in the Tuwï̃ narrative than in the Sãluahã narrative. This difference is likely due to the fact that most events described in the Sãluahã story were witnessed by the speaker while this is not the case in Tuwï̃.10

It is also interesting to note that in the Tupi language Gavião (Moore 2019), the morpheme -á that is used to indicate the end of a quotation (or more generally, the right hand boundary of various constructions) may also be followed by an evidence particle (kíip ‘recalled’). The distribution of -a in Yudja and the intuitions reported on the role of hi in these constructions (non-direct evidence evidential) seem to be parallel to the pattern observed for Gavião.

6. Co-occurrence of quotative strategies: quotative frames

Among the common features that characterize quotative clauses, Munro (1982: 311) identifies the use of what I will label here as quotative frames. In Munro’s words (1982: 311), “in a variety of languages, for example, quotation clauses (direct or indirect) may be framed – both preceded and followed by an inflected form of ‘say (…)”. That is, when quotations occur between two speech verbs.11 This is illustrated with Chickasaw in (47):

    1. (47)
    1. Chickasaw
    1.  
    1. Jan-at
    2. Jan-SUBJ
    1. aachi-kat
    2. say-same
    1. ish-ī’sh-a’chi
    2. you-take-FUT
    1. assh-tok
    2. say-PAST
    1. Jan said: “you take it.”
    2. (Munro 1982: 311, example 24)

In Yudja, quotative frames seem to be used as a strategy to delimit direct speech in the discourse. This type of strategy is used both in narratives and elicited data. Consider (48):

    1. (48)
    1. tade
    2. then
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. te
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. hae:
    2. say
    1. So we told her:
    1.  
    1. ebe
    2. 2SG
    1. abahu
    2. nauseate
    1. tade
    2. when
    1. mãdïka
    2. moon
    1. abï
    2. how many
    1. ne
    2. similar
    1. tade
    2. when
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. l-ãlũ
    2. 2SG-remove
    1. e-be
    2. 2SG-DAT
    1. a
    2. say
    1. udi
    2. 1PL
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. When you feel nauseous, after these many moons (gesture: 4 fingers), we will remove you” – we said to her.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 260, Sãluahã narrative)

In (48), the speech verb hae ‘say’ is used to introduce the quotation. The quotation’s end is indicated by the verb a ‘say’.

Other speech verbs can also serve as quotation framers. Consider examples (49) where the quotation frame includes the verb abï ‘to tell’ before the quote and a hi ‘say + reportative’ after the quote:

    1. (49)
    1. sudade
    2. then
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. txa
    2. go
    1. abï
    2. tell
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. So he told this:
    1.  
    1. apa ne
    2. what
    1. iya
    2. there
    1. tade?
    2.  
    1. a
    2. say
    1. hi
    2. REP
    1. “What is there?”– (he) said.
    2. (Fargetti 2001: 277–278, Tuwï̃ narrative)

The difference of frames between hae ‘say’ and abï ‘tell’ is that abï has the structure of a transitive verb and, as such, an object marker may occur after it in constructions with quotations, similarly to what we saw for endu ‘ask’ (34–37).

In elicitation sessions, speakers have also produced sentences with such frames. In examples (50) and (51), we observe the frame: hae ‘say’ + quote + a ‘say’. In Yudja, this type of lexical verb ‘framing’ is a specific feature of quotations, not observed in other constructions.

    1. (50)
    1. Frame:
    2. Mahu
    3. Mahu
    1. speech verb 1
    2. hae
    3. say
    1. [quote]
    2. [i-zaku
    3. 3-see
    1.  
    2. na
    3. 1SG
    1.  
    2. Yaba
    3. Yaba
    1.  
    2. be]
    3. DAT
    1. speech verb 2
    2. a
    3. say
    1. Mahu said: “I saw Yaba.”
    2. (context-based translation)
    1. (51)
    1. Frame:
    2. kaukade
    3. tomorrow
    1.  
    2. João
    3. João
    1. speech verb 1
    2. hal-a
    3. say-IRR
    1. [quote]
    2. [Maria
    3. Maria
    1.  
    2. aparu
    3. beiju
    1.  
    2. ipïpïku]
    3. make
    1. speech verb 2
    2. a
    3. say
    1. João will say tomorrow: “Maria made beiju.”
    2. (context-based translation)

Example (51) also illustrates hae ‘say’ being inflected for mood; hala ‘will say’ is the irrealis version of hae (unmarked). The verb a ‘say’ does not alternate morphologically for realis/irrealis and, as such, it remains the same in (51). As expected, when one of the speech verbs that is part of the frame is negated, both of them are (52):

    1. (52)
    1. abïdai
    2. 3PL
    1. hala-ũ
    2. say.IRR-NEG
    1. papera waxĩahã
    2. teacher
    1. arrive
    1. a-ũ
    2. say-NEG
    1. da
    2. people
    1. People did not say: “the teacher arrived.”
    2. (context-based translation)

During elicitation sessions, it was also observed that, when quotative frames are used in Yudja, the addressee may also appear on both sides of the frame (in 53 u-be ‘1S-DAT’):

    1. (53)

Similarly to hae ‘say’ and abï ‘tell’, endu ‘ask’ may also occur as part of a quotative frame (54):

    1. (54)
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. endu
    2. ask
    1. he
    2. 3SG.DAT
    1. taeta
    2. bath
    1. ne
    2. Q
    1. a
    2. say
    1. u-be
    2. 1SG-DAT
    1. Maria asked me, “Did you bathe?” (lit: Maria asked it to me: “Did you bathe?”)
    2. (context-based translation)

In (54) we observe that endu ‘ask’ + quote + a ‘say’ forms a quotative frame; as observed in examples (53) with hae ‘say’ + quote + a ‘say’, here the addressee is also repeated.

7. Conclusion

Cross-linguistic evidence suggests that quotations are not necessarily complements of speech verbs. In this paper, I provided evidence that this is also the case for Yudja. The morphosyntactic evidence includes word order and absence of object marking. The materials analyzed provided overwhelming evidence that whenever speech verbs such as hae ‘say/talk’, endu ‘ask’, and abï ‘tell’ are used in quotatives, they precede the quotation. As discussed in Section 1, objects appearing after the verb (non-canonical position) are marked as dative in constructions with transitive verbs, regardless of whether they are non-clausal (15) or clausal complements (17). If quotations were objects of the speech verbs that precede them, we would expect that they would be marked as dative, like other objects in the language, which is not the case.

With transitive verbs, such as endu ‘ask’ and abï ‘tell’ it becomes very clear that the quotation has an independent status of the verb that introduces it. As illustrated for endu (34–37, 54) and abï (28, 32, 42, and 49), the argument of the verb is encoded by the third person dative morpheme te/he; as such, the quotation may not occupy the object position in the structure since it is already occupied.

Out of the analyzed speech verbs, the only one that appears after the quotation is a ‘say.’ This verb is most frequently followed by the reportative/evidential marker hi. Evidence from non-quotative structures suggests that this verb is intransitive (42). In quotative constructions, it is often used as part of a quotative frame with another speech verb (speech verb + quote + a or speech verb + quote + a hi, Section 6). As discussed in Section 6, a seems to be a delimitator that indicates the end of quotes (48). Additional evidence for this analysis comes from Gavião (-á followed by an evidential marker). Moore (2019) analyzes á as a clitic that occurs in the language to mark right hand boundaries. In Karitiana (Ferreira & Storto, this volume), ‘a ‘to do/to make’ is also analyzed as an intransitive verb that reports speech acts. As such, not only internal evidence from Yudja but cognates of this verb in other Tupian languages provide support to the hypothesis that this verb is best analyzed as an intransitive verb.

We can analyze Yudja quotatives in light of Partee’s (1973) analysis of demonstratives (see also Davidson 1968). To understand Partee’s proposal, we first need to discuss how demonstratives work. Partee (1973: 416) points out that this, that, here, etc.:

do not contribute to the meaning of a sentence by virtue of having a meaning or a sense on their own. Rather, for each demonstrative there is some kind of associated algorithm which, given the linguistic context of the demonstrative in the sentence and the linguistic and extralinguistic context in which the sentence occurs, picks out certain objects in or properties of the whole contexts as reference of the demonstrative.

Partee illustrates this idea with examples such as (55):

    1. (55)
    1. a
    1. A circular staircase looks like this: [gesture]
    1.  
    1. b
    1. He stuck out his tongue and went like this: [gesture]
    2. (Partee 1973: 416, example 22a)

In such examples, the demonstrative is referring to the gesture, but the gesture per se is not part of the sentence. From there, Partee argues that a similar pattern is observed in sentences such as (56):

    1. (56)
    1. a
    1. Mory went like this: [vocal noise]
    1.  
    1. b
    1. Mory went: [vocal noise]
    2. (Partee 1973: 416, example 23a–b)

The vocal noise is not part of the sentence in the same way the gesture is not.

Based on these observations, Partee argues that a similar analysis can be proposed for speech verbs such as say in English:

    1. (57)
    1. a
    1. John said this: Alice swooned.
    1.  
    1. b
    1. John said, “Alice swooned”.
    2. (Partee 1973: 416, example 25a–b)

I propose that in Yudja, verbs such as endu ‘ask’ and abï ‘ask/tell’ exemplify something similar, since a third person dative object appears as the object of these speech verbs in quotatives and refers to the quotation. The quotation is, however, syntactically and semantically independent of the speech verb – in the same way the gestures and speech verbs are independent of each other in (56) and (57). As predicted by Partee (1973), quotations do not seem to have complement status in Yudja.

Notes

  1. Abbreviations: ASP aspect; CAUS causative; COL collective; CONJ conjunction; DAT dative; DEM demonstrative; DIR direct evidence; DS different subject (switch reference marker); DUB dubitative; EVID evidential; F focus; FOC focus; FUT future; INCOMP incomplete action; NEG negative; NMLZ nominalizer; INS instrumental; IRR irrealis; OBJ object; OM object marker; PAST past; PRES present; POSS possessive; PL plural; Q question particle; REALIS realis; RED reduplicated verb; REFL reflexive; REP reportative; SG singular; SUBJ subject; 1 first person; 2 second person; 3 third person. [^]
  2. Source: Enciclopédia Povos Indígenas no Brasil/Instituto Socioambiental [Encyclopedia of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil/Socio-environmental Institute]. https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Main_Page. [^]
  3. Yudja verbs are suffixed with the morphemes -u and -a for realis and irrealis, respectively (Fargetti 2001: 158). In this paper, realis mood is not marked in the examples but irrealis is. As such, when a verb is unmarked for irrealis, the reader can assume that the verb is in the realis form. [^]
  4. As suggested by one of the reviewers data from other authors is similarly reglossed in this paper for consistency. [^]
  5. Example (26) also illustrates that adjuncts (e.g., locatives such as iya be ‘in the river’) may also be marked with dative be. [^]
  6. http://totemfieldstoryboards.org/. [^]
  7. There is one occurrence of abï + quotation (with no object marker) in the texts analyzed (example 29a). In this example we have two occurrences of abï: with and without the third person marker (he ‘3SG.DAT’). [^]
  8. When the subject of the interrogative sentence is second person singular, the form ane (instead of ena de) is used. See Fargetti (2001: 223) for more details. [^]
  9. Another source of direct evidence in Yudja seems to be the use of the morpheme su, illustrated by the contrast between (i) and (ii).
      1. (i)
      1. João
      2. João
      1. pïri
      2. short
      1. João is short.
      2. (context-based translation)
      1. (ii)
      1. João
      2. João
      1. pïri
      2. short
      1. su
      2. DIR
      1. João is short.
      2. Speaker’s comment: “I’ve already seen him. It’s not correct [to say this] if I haven’t seen him, but someone told me.”
      3. (context-based translation)
    [^]
  10. The habitual interpretation is derived from the morpheme anaana. In Yudja, aspect is encoded via postverbal participles: anu (non-progressive), anaana (habitual) and hae (progressive) (see Fargetti 2001 for details). [^]
  11. Munro (1982: 311) reports that this is observed in many other languages (Lahu [Tibeto-Burman; Matisoff 1973]; Gahuku [New Guinea; Deibler 1971]). [^]

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to the Yudja communities, and especially to Karin Juruna and Tawaiku Juruna. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Lise Dobrin for their valuable comments. This paper builds on data elicited for my MA thesis on argument structure and subsequent fieldwork trips. I am grateful for fellowships received during MA and PhD studies (Fapesp, Capes/Fulbright and NSF). All errors are my own.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

References

1 Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584415

2 Burton, Strang & Lisa Matthewson. 2015. Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork. In Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212339.003.0006

3 D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. Quotation and advances in understanding syntactic systems. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 43–61. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125220

4 Davidson, Donald. 1968. On saying that. Synthese 19(1–2): 130–146. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00568054

5 Deibler, Ellis. 1971. Uses of the verb ‘to say’ in Gahuku. Kivung 4(2): 101–110.

6 Fargetti, Cristina Martins. 2001. Estudo fonológico e morfossintático da língua Juruna [Phonological and morphosyntatic study of the Juruna language]. Campinas, SP: University of Campinas dissertation.

7 Ferreira, Luiz Fernando & Luciana Storto. 2023. Complex structures in Karitiana: Quotatives and conditionals. This volume.

8 Juruna, Aduaza, Arekadu Juruna, Arewana Juruna, Chadaha Juruna, Chadawa Juruna, Dadyma Juruna, Dayawa Juruna, Dawizu Juruna, Mahũrima Juruna, Karin Juruna, Mahũrima Juruna, Marikawa Juruna, Mawaré Juruna, Nawi Juruna, Pasĩ Juruna, Sadea Juruna, Sedu Juruna, Tachabï Juruna, Tamaika Juruna, Tamakade Juruna, Tarinu Juruna, Tawaiku Juruna, Tupãu Juruna, Txapina Juruna, Wayuhi Juruna, Xibidu Juruna, Yaremadi Juruna, Yariato Juruna, Yabaiwa Juruna, Yarukare Juruna, and Suzi Lima. Yudja Kamena Abïaha Xipa [Book of verbs of the Yudja language]. Manuscript.

9 Matisoff, James A. 1973. The grammar of Lahu. University of California Publications in Linguistics 75. Reprinted 1982. Berkeley: University of California Press.

10 Moore, Denny. 2019. Quote/thought constructions in Gavião de Rondônia. Paper presented at the Speech and Attitude Reports in Brazilian Languages Workshop. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brazil, December 9–11, 2019.

11 Munro, Pamela. 1982. On the transitivity of ‘say’ verbs. In Paul Hopper & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Studies in transitivity: Syntax and Semantics, 301–318. The Netherlands: Brill. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368903_017

12 Partee, Barbara. 1973. The syntax and semantics of quotation. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 410–418. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

13 TFS Working Group. 2010. The Fortune Teller. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org.

14 Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2008. Dependency, framing, scope? The syntagmatic structure of sentences of speech or thought representation. Word 59(1–2): 55–82. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2008.11432581

15 Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2012. Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives, 173–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.11van