The first person singular pronoun topic as attention-getter in interaction: A study of qá mà in Longxi Qiang

Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

The first person singular pronoun topic as attention-getter in
ma  in Longxi Qiang interaction: A study of qa Wuxi Zheng School of Chinese Language and Literature, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 April 2019 Received in revised form 10 July 2019 Accepted 1 December 2019


ma  [first-person singular pronoun þ topic This paper explores the multifunctionality of qa marker] in Longxi Qiang, a Tibeto-Burman language. The commonality of the various
ma  is attention-getting. Previous researchers have focused on how functions of qa imperative perception verbs in various languages, such as ‘look’ and ‘listen’, developed into pragmatic markers with an attention-getting function. The self-position of the speaker
‘I’ determines its attention-getting usage, that is, indicated by the deictic pronoun qa attracting the hearer's attention to the speaker's utterance. This paper also describes a new function of the particle ma, constraining the hearer's interpretation of the upcoming segment, that is rarely reported in the deeply contacted Mandarin Chinese. Context dependency allows for semantic change in the situations of language use. Speakers invite hearers to exploit conversational implicatures in different contexts (Inter)subjectification
ma  from ideational to interpersonal is the main mechanism of the semantic change of qa and textual meaning. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: First-person singular pronoun Topic Attention-getter Pragmatic marker Semantic change Longxi Qiang

1. Introduction
‘I’ combined with the topic marker ma  in Longxi Qiang may In natural conversations, the first-person singular pronoun qa
ma , regardless of the referential term or encode additional contentful meaning and procedural meaning. The nature of qa pragmatic marker, is an attention-getting device. The Longxi Qiang language belongs to the Southern Qiang of the Qiangic branch of the Tibeto-Burman family of Sino-Tibetan stock (Sun, 1981). The Longxi Qiang language is spoken by 3300 people, and these speakers are scattered throughout Longxi Township, Wenchuan County, Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan Province, China (Liu, 1998). The use of the combination ‘I þ topic marker’ in other Qiang varieties has not yet been discussed. Romero Trillo (1997) argues that the speaker uses attention-getting markers when s/he feels that “s/he is not being listened to, or the need to emphasize part of an utterance because of its importance for the correct understanding of message”. Attention-getting devices may be either physical or linguistic. Many previous studies of attention-getters focused primarily on imperative perception verbs such as ‘look’ or ‘listen’, in different languages and showed that these verbs developed into discourse markers with an attention-getting function (for example, Romero Trillo, 1997, Brinton, 2001, 2008; Van Olmen, 2010, Aijmer, 2018, San Roque et al., 2018). Romero Trillo (1997) analyzes the imperatives that are typically used to call the speaker's attention in English and Spanish. Van Olmen (2010) argues that the imperative visual verb look in English functions both to attract the addressee's attention and to introduce a quotation. San Roque et al. (2018:383) analyze how the

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.12.002 0378-2166/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

2

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

Spanish ver ‘see’ is used with a mental quotative function to introduce the thoughts of the speaker. They find that sight verbs are associated with the meaning of focused attention crosslinguistically. Brinton (2001) points out that “look expresses epistemic certainty and strengthens the argumentative position of the speaker”. Aijmer (2018) analyzes the listener-oriented function of look as a marker of relevance, argumentation, turn-taking, and topic shifts and as a part of reported speech. Fraser (1988:27e28) argues that discourse markers such as listen, look (here), and see in English are topic markers that serve both introducing and refocusing functions. We can conclude from the previous research that perception verbs exhibit multifunctionality e they are attention-getting, quotation-citing, turn-taking, topic-shifting, imperative, and express the speaker's epistemic certainty. I find that the perception verb look in English, the matrix clause wǒ shuo ‘I say’ in Mandarin and the topic
ma  in Longxi share similar multifunctional attributes: attention-getting, quotation-citing, turn-taking and first pronoun qa
ma . topic-shifting. This provides crosslinguistic evidence that supports the links between different functions of qa
ma  from a referential term to a pragmatic marker and to The purpose of this paper is to investigate the development of qa explain how and why the semantic change occurs semantically and pragmatically. I suggest that the commonality of the different functions is their use for attention-getting that calls the hearer's attention to the fact that a change in the discourse or important information is coming, for example, the speaker's quotation, epistemic stance, a request, topic continuation, or discourse repairing. The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change proposed by Traugott and Dasher (2001) suggests that certain inferences are inferred in certain contexts and that this can lead to conventionalization. The speaker/writer invites the addressee/reader to make inferences. Speakers/writers may begin to exploit a conversational implicature that already exists and may even use it innovatively in a new linguistic environment. If conversational implicatures acquire social value and therefore become salient in a community, that is, if they become available and recurrent, they are likely to spread to other linguistic contexts and to other speakers/writers; accordingly, they become generalized in the community with strengthened pragmatic impact (Traugott and Dasher, 2001:35). The development of as/so long as in English illustrates the mode of Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (Traugott and Dasher, 2001:36e37). In Old English and Middle English, the spatial meaning of as/so long as coexisted with the temporal meaning “for the same length of time as”. There is an invited inference of conditional “provided that”, but never seems particularly salient. In Early Modern English, the conditional invited inference has been generalized to contexts and become more salient; meanwhile, the temporal meaning is not predominant. By the mid-nineteenth century, conditional reading appears to be the only possible meaning. Conventionalization occurs when the original encoded meaning is no longer associated with the expression (Clark, 2016). LaPolla (2003, 2015) also argues that language structure (words, phrases, and grammatical forms) is formed from repeated linguistic patterns that constrain the hearer's interpretation. The processes that create language structure are conventionalization of repeated patterns. In this paper, I adopt the identification of the three following functional components that were proposed by Halliday (1979:198e199): “an ideational meaning” (“language as representation: the semantic system as expression of experience”); “an interpersonal meaning” (“language as interaction: it is meaning in the active mode”); and “a textual meaning” ̄ (“language as relevance: the semantic system enables the speaker to structure meaning as text”). Halliday (1979:199) provides an example “(the Carpenter says to the Walrus) Cut us another slice!” to illustrate these three functional modes of meaning. As to this example, the ideational meaning is the representation of the experience, cutting, where three entities participate: the person who cuts, the objects that is cut, the person who the thing is cut for, and the place of cut. The interpersonal meaning is a demand for a slice, “I want you to cut another slice for us”, embodied in the selection of the imperative mood. Here the speaker's demands reflect the speaker's intrusion in the speech eventdthe role of communicating information. The textual meaning is the internal meaning on what is demanded, and relating it to the preceding textda slice of something, of which the carpenter has already had. Brinton (2017:11) argues that Halliday's identification of the three functional components of language is “an excellent way of understanding the multifunctionality of pragmatic markers and their course of development”. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I provide a brief introduction of the data cited in the paper and discuss how
ma . In Section 3, I offer a detailed analysis of the prosodic and semantic features of qa
to analyze the different meanings of qa . In Section 4, I describe the semantic and pragmatic functions of qa
ma  in relation to the proposition to which it is attached. ma
ma  and explore why qa
ma  gradually loses its In Section 5, I summarize the directionality in the semantic changes of qa propositional meaning and gains its additional conceptual and procedural meaning which supports the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (Traugott and Dasher, 2001:5). 2. Data and methodology The data for this study comprised 8-h recorded and transcribed natural conversations. Among the data, the 6-h data were collected between 2013 and 2015, and the 2-h data were collected in the summer of 2018 in Longxi Township. The average
ma , is not found in the recording length of a conversation is 30 min. The phenomenon under discussion, the use of qa monologues, only in natural conversations data, attesting to its interpersonal function. Nine participants (5 females and 4 males) were involved in the data recording. The age of the participants ranged from 40 to 82 years. Wenchuan Mandarin has deeply influenced Longxi Qiang for a long time. All of the participants are Longxi Qiang and Wenchuan Mandarin bilingual speakers. There is no Longxi Qiang monolingual speaker. Detailed information on these participants is provided in Appendix A. All the speakers gave informed consent to the use of the recorded data.
ma  from a referential term to a pragmatic marker is supported by the synchronic The process of semantic change of qa evidence in language use. Language change does not originate within language. For example, grammar does not change by

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

3

itself but through language use, i.e., through factors that are external to the language structure (Traugott and Dasher, 2001:35). The chief driving force for regular semantic change is pragmatic. The synchronic analysis of the multi
ma  sheds light on diachronic semantic change wherein a lexical item gradually obtains additional confunctionality of qa
tentful and procedural/discourse meaning. This represents an (inter)subjectification process that develops the meaning of qa  from its contentful meaning to a textual and interpersonal function. I present a qualitative and quantitative examination of ma these different functions based on recorded conversations. I then note the similarities and differences of the various uses from a semantic and pragmatic perspective. Semantically, I analyze whether the lexical meaning of the first-person pronoun
ma  acts as one part of a proposition. Pragmatically, I explore whether qa
ma  disappears. Functionally, I observe whether qa expresses something related to communicative intention.
ma  is explicated at the semantic and discourse level. The frequencies of all tokens are counted; the The meaning of qa
ma  in conversations. Among these 119 results are shown in Table 1. The corpus under analysis contains 119 tokens of qa
ma  functions predominantly as the topic of a matrix clause (86 tokens, 72.3%); this category includes the topic of a tokens, qa quoting clause (57 tokens, 48.9%), the topic of an epistemic clause (24 tokens, 20.2%) and the topic of an imperative clause (5
ma  acts much less frequently as a pragmatic marker (11 tokens, 9.2%). The instances of qa
ma  acting as a tokens, 4.2%). qa pragmatic marker are fewer but cannot be neglected. Table 1
ma . Frequency of qa
ma  Uses of qa

Tokens

Percentage

1. I þ topic marker 2. Topic of a matrix clause (1) Quotative (2) Epistemic (3) Imperative 3. Pragmatic marker Ambiguous usages Total

21 86 57 24 5 11 1 119

17.7% 72.3% 48.9% 20.2% 4.2% 9.2% 0.8% 100%


ma  3. Description of qa
is the first-person singular pronoun qa . The high tone of qa
is due to regressive dissimilation. In The lexical source of qa  or zù, the underlying low tone of the pronoun optionally Longxi Qiang, if a pronoun is followed by the topic marker ma  always surfaces as high tone qa
. changes to a high tone. However, as a pragmatic marker, qa A considerable number of studies have discussed the many functions of ma嘛in Standard Mandarin Chinese; ma in Standard Mandarin Chinese acts to label topics, express obviousness or disagreement, connect segments, or indicate a speaker's certainty about a proposition (see Chao, 1968; Chappell, 1991; Chu, 2008; Li, 2008; Zhao and Yang, 2016).1 Tao (1996:52) argues that the traditional termed ‘sentence-final particles’ such as ma are intonation unit-final particles which constitute a useful cue for identifying intonation unit boundaries.  嘛in Wenchuan Mandarin Chinese is illustrated in (1e2), and the role of ma  in Longxi Qiang is shown in The role of ma  in sentence-intermediate position functions as topic marker. Lambrecht (1994:131) defines that (3e4). In (1) and (3), ma “referent is interpreted as the topic of a proposition if in a given situation the proposition is construed as being about this referent, i.e., as expressing information which is relevant to and which increased the addressee's knowledge of this referent.”  in sentence-final position expresses the sense of obviousness. I argue that they are cognate. ma  in Longxi In (2) and (4), ma Qiang is borrowed from Wenchuan Mandarin. In (1), the topic tse-tau tʰì “this question” is moved to the sentence-initial . In this instance, the pause particle ma functions as a topic marker to make the topic tse-tau position and is marked by ma  occurs in the sentence-final position to indicate that he must be a leader, which tʰì ‘this question’ more prominent. In (2), ma contains a sense of obviousness. Without the particle ma, it denotes less certainty of the speaker.

1 I cite two examples from Standard Mandarin Chinese to illustrate the functions of ma嘛. In (1), a storyteller expresses the situation ‘he was feeling upset’ as clear and obvious via the particle ma. i yinwe xin … xin huang ma. ta tou-le dongxi.

because

heart … heart

upset

MA

he

steal-le

something

“Because he was feeling upset, after all. He had stolen something.” (cited from Chappell, 1991:48) At the end of a phrase, ma is labelled as a topic marker that resumes an earlier topic or shared subject or a pause particle that draws attention to the point
nr
that is being made. In (2), the topic marker ma emphasizes the speaker's opinion on the topic na en ‘man.’  zhe

jiù

dui-le,


n n
anre

ma,

jiùshì

dĕi

k ao

zìji.

this

just

right-le

man

MA

exactly

should

depend

oneself

“That's right. Man should be on their own.” (cited from Zhang and Fang, 1996:46)

4

(1)

(2)

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

, ^ tse-tau tʰì ma so j^ e this-CL question MA 1SG also “I cannot answer this question either.”

ʦu answer

pù-laì. NEG-can


nkua
n-l
n tʰa
na ^s kʰa janʦə̀, ʦo ko ta e sə̌ look 3SG that looking exactly COP CL to.be.official-NOM “His appearance shows that he must be a leader.”

. ma MA

 in Longxi Qiang manifests similar functions to ma  in Wenchuan Mandarin. Example (3) illustrates The borrowed particle ma  in the sentence-intermediate position acts as a topic marker. In this case, the topic is the temporal phrase € ʨí-ə̀ʴ tʰa that ma e ìʦə́ a
k  is to attract the hearer's attention to the topic ‘eleven o'clock at night’. ta e ‘eleven o'clock at night’. Actually, the role of ma

(3)

ʨí-ə̀ʴ tʰa -ta
k , ʦʰaìsə̌ ȵìʦə́ a kʰaíxuei pù. e ma night 11-h that-time MA then(CH) hold.a.meeting(CH) do “We didn't hold a meeting until eleven o'clock at night.” (Text8_2)

 in (4) ̌denotes an obvious fact that the speaker is the elder sister, not the younger sister. ̌ Thě utterance-final particle ma  in (2), ma  in (4) actually functions to draw the hearer's attention to the Similar to the attention-getting role of topic marker ma fact ‘I am the elder sister’. (4)

 .
ʦ qa sə̌ e ma a 1SG COP(CH) elder.sister MA ̌ ̌ “Obviously I'm the elder sister.”

̌


ma  4. Semantic and pragmatic analysis of qa
ma : attracting hearer's attention to the topic ‘I’ 4.1. Referential term qa
ma  indicates the referential meaning ‘I’ and functions as a contentful term. The propositional meaning ‘I’ is expressed by qa
. The particle ma  plays the role of topic marker, which attracts the hearer's attention to the pronoun ‘I’. the personal pronoun qa ̌  is used to signal the
‘I’. Here, qa
acts as one part of the proposition ‘I want to go there In (5), the pause particle ma topic qa . Syntactically, ma  is a topic marker that attaches to a to have a look’ and presents an agreement with the person marker -sa  is equal to that of another widely used topic marker, zù. The first-person word or a phrase. The topic marker usage of ma  or the substitupronoun in (5) and (6) undergoes the same tonal regressive dissimilation. The omission of the particle ma  for the topic marker zù does not change the propositional meaning of the sentence. tion of ma


-ma  tʰ .  (5) qa ʦa e e-sa kə́ sə̀nʦ
1SG-TOP there look go want-1SG.CSM “I want to go there to have a look.”

(6)


-zù  ma
pù mí-ʨʰ qa ʦei niounaî ʂə̀-ʨʰí-zù, ma e 1SG-TOP 3SG.BEF milk(CH) OUT-drink-TOP2 meal do NEG-need -ma
n. pa la become-PRO PART “After he drank milk, I won't need to cook a meal for him anymore.”

2 Haiman (1978:564) argues that ‘conditional clauses and topics are marked identically in a number of unrelated languages’. He shows that some conditionals in Hua (a Papuan language) are clearly syntactically and semantically topics of their sentences. Actually, we cannot really distinguish temporal and conditional clauses from each other. Example (6) “After he drank milk, I won't need to cook a meal for him anymore” could also translated as “If he drank milk, I won't need to cook a meal for him anymore.”

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

5


and the topic marker ma  is contentful. Wilson and Sperber (1993) argue that The combination of the topic marker qa pronouns are not full-fledged concepts because their referents differ in different contexts and are pragmatically inferred from the context. Wilson (2011:15) points out that there are words that do not encode full concepts but instead encode semantically incomplete pro-concepts. For example, the word ‘my’ in the phrase ‘my N’ encodes a pro-concept that expresses that
in the utterance is plausibly seen as an encoding prothe speaker has a certain relation to the referent of N. The topic qa
encodes the speaker or things related to the speaker. This differs from the procedural/ concept since the referent of qa
to discussed in x4.3. discourse uses of the first-person pronoun qa
ma  4.2. The topic of matrix clause qa
ma  acts as the topic of a matrix clause, it expresses interpersonal meaning and communicates information. The When qa interpersonal component of the semantic system represents the speaker's intrusion in the speech situation. It is both speaker- and hearer-oriented (Halliday, 1979:199). Halliday and Matthiessen (2014:134) argue that the clause is “organized as interactive event” in which the clause contributes to the development of an exchange of meaning between speaker and
ma  introduces a proposition and expresses the speaker's communicative intention to attract the hearer. In interactions, qa hearer's attention to an upcoming quotation, his/her assessment of a proposition, or a request. In the subsections, I will introduce the interpersonal meaning represented by the topic of quoting clause, epistemic clause and imperative clause, respectively. 4.2.1. The topic of quoting clause: attracting the hearer's attention to an upcoming quote
ma , the frequency of the quoting clause is as high as 48.9%. The topic marker ma  of the Among the 119 tokens of qa
ma  discussed in x4.1 can be omitted. In contrast, as the topic of a matrix clause, qa
ma  has been referential term qa  cannot be omitted. The omission of ma  makes the expression undeveloped in a construction in which the particle ma
ma  functions to introduce a direct quote; at the same time, the speaker uses qa
ma  to attract hearer's acceptable. qa attention to the quote. Example (7) is an utterance cited from a conversation. Three methods of introducing direct quotes are involved in this utterance. In lines 2-33, the direct quotation “Grandmother, I'm arriving home. I've been in the bedroom already” is an utterance made by the speaker's grandson, i.e., the third party in the conversation. This quotation is labeled by the speech  ə̌ʴ-ù ‘(he) said so’, and the addressor of the quotation ‘the grandson’ is omitted. In line 4, the direct quote verb phrase ka
ma  alone. In lines 5e6, the direct quotation “If you continue to “It's fine” that is expressed by the speaker is signaled by qa do so, when you come back home, I will blame you. Our family doesn't permit you to live outside” is labeled by two
ma  at the left periphery of the quotation and the verb phrase ka  ə̌ʴ pù-sa  ‘(I) said so’ at the right periphery. At devices: qa
ma  marks the topic of the quoting clause. It helps the speaker identify the upcoming the beginning of a quote, qa proposition as a quote.

(7)

CX: 1 2 3

4

5 6 7

-k
zù 
zù  a e-zùta tʰa ʦʰaìsə̌-la ʨou tianxua-tì peìjì-ma DOWN-go-TOP then now-MA just(CH)-NFIN then(CH) telephone(CH)-DEF -ua
-la ,
n    da “a e, qa daìjì kə́ -sa po. qa jou AND-call-NFIN, grandmother 1SG arrive go-1SG.CSM POL 1SG then(CH) 
-sa  ʨʰîʂə̀-c
əʴ̌ -ù ja. e jí pa po.” ka bedroom(CH)-LOC EXIST become-1SG.CSM POL like.this say-INF EXC “After (my grandson) went down, (he) called me. ‘Grandma, I'm arriving home. I've been in the bedroom already.’ (He) said so.
-ma ,
zù tʰa qa “tuei”. then 1SG-MA OK(CH)
-ma  (well, I said), ‘It's fine.’ Then, qa
-ma ,   la  -ə̀ʴ 
-pú-ta -sə̀-ù-la qa “ȵìʦə́-ka ua a kaì ʨa 1SG-MA night-INDEF outside DOWN-sleep like.this CON-do-V-2SG.CSM-INF-NFIN a

-zə̀-ua
-zù  sua daìlo xaìsə̌ qo ʦa u e. jou finally arrive-TOP also(CH) 1SG blame-CAUS-1SG.PRO PART then(CH)  . 
-qa -ʨʰì.” ʨí ka mia ka ə̌ʴ pù-sa this like.this NEG-can-VIS like.this say do-1SG.CSM
-ma  (As for me), ‘If you continue to do so, when you come back home, I will blame you. Our family doesn't permit living qa outside.’ (I) said so.” (Conversation 10_20)


ma . In (8), the addressee nia
n-ʨʰoúʦə́ n ‘aunt Qiuzhen’ precedes the The addressee of the direct quotation precedes qa ̌ ̌ ̌
ma , which means ‘I said to aunt Qiuzhen’. Syntactically, qa
ma  is independent of the addressee of the quotative marker qa ̌ 3

To make the explanation clear, each line of a complex utterance is numbered.

̌

̌

̌ ̌

6

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

quotation. The direct quotation denotes a prohibitive mood wherein the speaker HQ advised aunt Qiuzhen not to work
ma  in (8) also co-occurs with the verb anymore because of her hypertension. Similar to the third direct quote given in (7), qa phrase kaì ə̌ʴ pù ‘said so’.

(8)


n-ʨʰoúʦə́ n
-ma , -sə̀ HQ: nia qa “k
e ʦə̀-laùtos pa aunt(CH)-Qiuzhen(person.name) 1SG-MA like.this PROH-work(CH) become-2SG.CSM   !”
po kaì əʴ̌ pù. aȵa ýn-la u e. k
e ma POL like.this say do a.little dizzy(CH)-LOAN PART like.this MA n. k
e xaìsə̌ laùtos pù la work(CH) do PART like.this still(CH)
-ma  (As for me,) ‘Don't work like this!’ I said to aunt Qiuzhen like this. (She) felt a little dizzy, (but) she is still working in “qa this way.”

SH: laùtos? tʰì kaukuei pin jì-sù. l^ e work(CH) that noble(CH) illness(CH) IN-COP what “Work? That (hypertension) is a noble illness. How is she still working?” (Conversation 7_84)

laùtos work(CH)


-qa
. ʨa CON-can


ma  generally occurs in the left periphery of a quote, very few examples illustrate that it also occurs inside a Although qa
ma . The scope of qa
ma  is shown in the first part of direct quote. As illustrated in (9), the direct quotation is separated by qa the quotation “How do we live? How do we die? Who knows?” (lines 1e2) and in the second part of the quotation “What are human beings? What are human beings like? How to do things? How long can a person live? Who knows?” (lines 3e7).
ma  does not co-occur with the speech verbal predicate kaì ə̌ʴ pù-sa  ‘(I) said
ma  not only acts as an In (9), qa so’; thus, qa ̌
ma  alone is translated as ‘well, I attention-getting marker but also obtains additional meaning ‘said so’. In this paper, qa
ma  co-occurs with thè speech verbal predicate ‘(I) said so’, qa
ma  is translated as ‘as for me/to said’. In the case in which qa me’. ̌

(9)

-jì  mo
-nì?  jì-ma “mù-tì-ʨì nə̀ka la person-DEF-this how-ADV FILL EXIST-PRO-1PL:N.CSM “‘How do we live? -jì -ma
-nì? 2 nə̀ka ɕa sə́ how-ADV die-PRO-1PL:N.CSM ̌ ̌ who ̌ ́
-ma  (well, I said), How do we die? Who knows?’ qa 3 “mù-tì-ʨì mù-tì person-DEF-this person-DEF ‘What are human beings?  mo  -tì-ʨì 4 la xaìsə̌ vúla FILL-DEF-this or(CH) 1 PL What are human beings like?  5 nə̀ka pù-nə̀~nə̀~nə̀? how do-even~even~even How to do things?
so 
so  6 jìmo jì jìmo oneself EXIST oneself How long can a person live? 7 sə́ sə̀-nì who know-1PL:N.CSM Who knows?’ (I) said so!” (Conversation _50)

CX: 1

sə̀-nì know-1PL:N.CSM


n.” la PART

̌

 nə̀ka how  mo -tì-ʨì la FILL-DEF-this


n.” la PART


-ma , qa 1SG-MA sù-nə̀~nə̀~nə̀? COP-even~even~even

l^ e-tì what-DEF

?
la zo like

na
na how.many

-ma -nì?
-ta xo live(CH)-LOAN-PRO-1PL:N.CSM

 ka like.this

 ! ə̌ʴ pù-sa ja say do-1SG.CSM

EXC


ma  alone elicits a direct quotation in the majority of instances; that is, qa
ma  coThe recorded data demonstrate that qa  ə̌ʴ ‘say so’ less frequently. In (10), there are two direct quotations. The direct quotation that is occurs with the verb phrase ka expressed by the younger brother is not marked by any quotative marker or speech-act verb phrase (line 2), whereas the
ma  (line 3). Based on my data collection, if the addressor of direct quotation that is expressed by the speaker is marked by qa
ma  functions to induce a direct quotation, whereas there is no *vú ma  (2SG MA) or the quotation is the first-person singular, qa  (3SG MA) that is used to signal a direct quotation expressed by the addressee or the third party. qa
ma  can be analyzed as *ʦə́ ma
ma  co-occurs with the an attention-getting marker that expresses the position of the speaker in the conversation. When qa
ma  acts to speech-act verb phrase ‘(I) said so’, the lexical meaning ‘(I) said’ is expressed by the speech-act verb phrase; qa
ma  in attract a hearer's attention to the upcoming utterance that is his/her own quotation. Therefore, I argue that the single qa utterance not only identifies a direct quotation but also calls the hearer's attention to the upcoming quotation.

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

(10)

CX:1

2

3


-mù-tì
zù qai tûʦù ʦa tʰa púɕì 1SG.GEN younger.brother small-NOM-DEF then today ! -ʨo
u sə̌nsə̌ e a a really(CH) DOWN-see PART EXC “Today, I really met my younger brother!
-sú-sə̀ “ceì ʨa u e.” good CON-COP-2SG.CSM PART (Younger brother said), ‘How are you going?’
-ma  
-sú-a n. qa “ceì ʨa nə̀ka mì-ceí, 1SG-MA good CON-COP-1SG.CERT NEG-good how
-ma  (Well, I said) ‘I'm fine. If I'm not fine, how can I be?’” qa (Conversation 12_30)

 ma ! a

7

púɕì-zù today-TOP

EXC

pù-jì do-CERT


n?” la PART

4.2.2. The topic of epistemic clause: attracting hearer's attention to speaker's epistemic stance
ma  helps the hearer identify an upcoming proposition as the speaker's personal view As the topic of an epistemic clause, qa
ma  marks the proposition as communicating the views of the speaker rather or stance. The function of the epistemic clause qa
ma  is the speaker's assessment of the proposition. It than the views of someone else. The proposition that is introduced by qa
ma  in communicating the speaker's attitude. It is similar to the role of Spanish ver ‘see’, serves the interpersonal function of qa which attests to a mental quotative function that introduces the thoughts of the speaker (San Roque et al., 2018:383).
ma  in examples (11e12) also co-occurs with verb phrases. In (11), the speaker's thought Similar to examples (7e9), qa
ma  and the verb phrase kaì tə̀-pa lo  ‘(I) thought so’. Example (12)
-sa ‘what is wrong with this person’ appears between qa
ma  co-occurs with the verb phrase kaì tə̀-ʦʰa -sa  ‘(I) thought so’. At the beginning of an epistemic propoillustrates that̀qa
ma  marks the topic of the epistemic clause. It helps the speaker identify the upcoming proposition as the speaker's sition, qa personal epistemic stance.


-ma ,  , (11) HQ: qa ʨì nə̀ka paí-la 1SG-MA this how become.CSM-NFIN
-ma  (As for me) what is wrong with this person. I thought so. “qa  xo  -o
l^ e ʦo mo kaì pa what idea(CH) NEG-EXIST like.this become (She) doesn't have ideas.”

SH: pùsù-tì k
e age-DEF like.this “Nevertheless, she is old.” (Conversation 7_72)

(12)

ȵ
a little

lo n.
-sa tə̀-pa UP-think-1SG.CSM.CERT

ʨì this

kaì like.this

pù do

ja.

mo . la

EXC

FILL

xaìsə̌. nevertheless(CH)

paî become.CSM


-ma ,  n ɕínlia
sxonî!” pù-zù, qa “jaúpa xo ko do-TOP 1SG-MA uncle(CH) He.Xinliang(person.name) Congratulations(CH)  -sa  -ȵa ,
ka e-la kaì tə̀-ʦʰa ə̌ʴ pù ʨʰ
j e. INDEF-little say do need-NFIN like.this UP-think-1SG.CSM EXC
-ma  (As for me) my mother should say ‘Uncle He, Congratulations!’. I thought so.” “(Uncle) stood there. qa (Conversation 7_74) HQ:

jì

EXIST

̌

lo  ‘(I) think so’ is much more
ma  without the verb phrase kaì tə̀-pa
-sa The interpersonal meaning that is indicated by qa
ma  is the topic of an epistemic clause that is used to identify a speaker's personal stance. In common in conversation. qa
ma  to (13), speaker HQ asked speaker SH whether there were some problems with her health; speaker SH then used qa signal her personal opinion (lines 2e4): all of the women that she knows had cut their tumors, so she thought that it was essential to cut her tumor as other women had done to avoid problems. Unlike examples (11e12), the verb phrases kaì tə̀-sa  ‘(I) thought so’ do not appear at the right periphery; only the single qa
ma  occurs at lo  ‘(I) thought so’ and kaì tə̀-ʦʰa
-sa pa lo  ‘(I) thought so’, the single qa
ma  can also serve to alert the hearer
-sa the left periphery. Without the verb phrase kaì tə̀-pa to the upcoming utterance and to introduce the personal view of the speaker. Example (13) illustrates the interpersonal
ma  that is independent of the predicate kaì tə̀-pa  lo  ‘(I) thought so’. Due to the absence of the predicate ‘(I)
-sa function of qa
ma  in (13) has two functions: the first one is attracting the hearer's attention to her personal stance; the thought so’, qa
ma  as ‘well, I second one is indicating an additional conceptual meaning ‘thought’. Therefore, I translate the single qa thought/suppose’. ̌

8

(13)

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

HQ:

SH:


n. pù  -o
peìjì la peìjì a mo now PART now anything NEG-EXIST “Now, aren't there any problems with you?”

1

2

3

4


n? la PART


-ma , ʨ  qa a pù emeí-zə́ ka 1SG-MA all-whole do
-ma  (Well, I think) all of the women cut (tumors). “No problem. qa  mo c
-zù -ɕa
-kə̀  la a e-ka a da FILL some-INDEF-TOP DOWN-cut AND-go Some women went to cut (tumors). -mì-ɕa -ȵ

-ta -zù, a l^ e ka a uanji DOWN-NEG-cut-V-NFIN in.case(CH) what INDEF-little ʨʰ
e. need If I don't cut it, I fear that there will be some problems.” (Conversation 8_70)  -o
. mo

u
e.

NEG-EXIST

PART

u e. PART


-zə̀ qo  so EXIST-CAUS fear


ma  introduces the speaker's counterfactual view of the proposition. It is equivalent to ‘I suppose’, which is In (14), qa
ma  is the speaker's own slightly different from ‘I think’. In the utterance of speaker HQ, the proposition that is attached to qa opinion, but it is counterfactual. Speaker HQ supposed that aunt Linlin's daughter-in-law is the grandmother's brother's wife's granddaughter, whereas Linlin's daughter-in-law is Luo Sheng's daughter.

(14)

SH:


n-línlín-jì
zo  mo -zù  nia ʨa la piaúsú aunt(CH)-Linlin(person.name)-GEN daughter-in-law-TOP FILL father's.brother(CH) .  sə́n-jì lo piaúsú ʨa Luo.Sheng(person.name)-GEN daughter father's.brother(CH) sə́ n-jì. lo Luo.Sheng(person.name)-GEN “Aunt Linlin's daughter-in-law is Luo Sheng's daughter.”

̌ ̀ HQ:


-ma , qa

-jì vúla

-jì ʨoǔpʰo

sə́nsə́n

1SG-MA

1

grandmother's.brother's.wife(CH)-GEN

grand-daughter(CH)

PL-GEN

jì-sù. IN-COP.


-ma  (I suppose), our grandmother's brother's wife's grand-daughter is aunt Linlin's “qa daughter-in-law.”

SH:

 -jì ʨoǔpʰo ma sə́ nsə́ n grandmother's.brother's.wife(CH)-GEN grand-daughter(CH) MA sʨín-jì. ʦʰə̀nlo Chen.Longqing(person.name)-GEN “Grandmother's brother's wife's grand-daughter is Chen Longqing's wife.” (Conversation 9_43)

4.2.3. The topic of imperative clause: attracting the hearer's attention to the speaker's request The imperative mood primarily expresses a request or command. The prohibitive, a negative imperative mood, refers
ma  that signals mood is to a request or command to not do something. It is expressed by the negative prefix ʦə̀-. qa
ma  that signals a direct quotation because the direct quotation is what the speaker said to the third different from qa party, whereas the suggestion is what the speaker makes to the hearer at the moment of the conversation. For instance, example (7) in x4.2.1 is a conversation between speakers CX and HQ, but the quote is for her grandson, not speaker HQ.
ma  is for the hearer. Similar to (15), the request “whatever Unlike a direct quotation, the request that is labeled by qa you do, don't look (outside)! You say what you want to say. Don't look outside” is given to hearer WL rather than to an absent person.

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

(15)


-ma , SH: qa 1SG-MA

 to actually

, pù-la do-

l^ e what

 ʦə̀-ʦa

^! ma

PROH-

PART

9

l^ e what

^ʴ-zù, qa say-

look NFIN NFIN . mo   ʂə̀-ʦə̀-z
e ma ʂə̀-z
e-zù la ja OUT-PROH-look MA OUT-look-NFIN FILL EXC
-sə̀. pú-ta DOWNdo-Vstop 2SG.CSM
-ma  (Well, I request) whatever you do, don't look (outside)! You say what you want to say. Don't look outside.” “qa (Conversation 29_25) ^ ʴ. qa say -jì a

 la -tì ua outside-DEF k e like.this

There is difficulty in distinguishing between quotative and imperative usage because a direct quotation may be a sug
ma  introduces a direct quotation, in this case a suggestion for the dance team. The auxiliary verb ʨʰ
gestion. In (16), qa e ‘need’
ma  would be misunderstood as the topic of a suggestive clause. However, it is indicates a sense of suggestion, so qa
ma  in (16) as the topic of the quoting clause rather than the topic of the imperative clause. There are appropriate to regard qa
ma  is seen as the topic of suggestive clause, the suggestion is for the hearer. Another piece of two reasons for this. First, if qa  ‘(I) said’ at the end of the utterance. The person marker -sa  for the perfective aspect evidence is the verb phrase ə̌ʴ pù-sa indicates that the quotation had already been said; however, the suggestive mood is given at the moment of the conversation, and the perfective aspect marker does not fit it.

(16)

SH:


-ma , qa 1SG-MA eʦou-tì ʨ rhythm(CH)-

“s^ e-jì beautiful-NOM ȵa
a a.little

 mo  la

 ko

FILL

INDEF

 s^ e-ko beautiful-

-jì.
ta ʦʰo dance-NOM  tə̀-múlia

needlook.for NFIN
-ma  (As for me): ‘(You) need a beautiful dance. You'd better look for (a dance music) with good intonation and “qa rhythm.’ I said so.” (Conversation 5_54) DEF

UP-

jíntiau-tì intonation(CH)-DEF . ” ʨʰ
ə̌ʴpù-sa e-la say do-1SG.CSM

INDEF

A direct quotation may be a prohibitive mood marked by the negative prefix ʦə̀-. As in (17), kaì tə̀-ʦə̀-pù ‘Don't do so’ (line -sə̀ ‘Don't blame your daughter anymore’ (line 3) are prohibitive moods, whereas these two qa
ma  are 1) and ʦə̀-kə́ pa  ‘(I) said’ (line 4) is evidence regarded as the topic of a quoting clause rather than the topic of an imperative clause. ə̌ʴ pù-sa
ma  in this instance is better seen as the topic of the quoting clause. The suggestion is for speaker supporting the idea that qa CX's brother, an absent person, not for the hearer HQ.

(17)

CX:1

2

3

4


-ma , ! qa “kaì tə̀-ʦə̀-pù ja 1SG-MA like.this UP-PROH-do EXC
-ma  (Well, I said to my brother): ‘Don't do it this way! “qa , -tì  ta
qeì ʨa vei tʰa l^ e pa pù-sə̀-ù-la 2SG daughter-DEF what become do-2SG.CSM-INF-NFIN that.time -ʨì
-nə̀.” ʦʰaìsə̌ zeì a -mù-ma ̌ then(CH) thing DOWN-find-CERT-PRO-2SG.NCSM (If) your daughter does something, you will have trouble in the future.
-m ,  -sə̀.” ̌a qa “xaûsə́n ka ə̌ʴ pù. ʦə̀-kə́ pa 1SG-MA well(CH) like.this say do PROH-go become-2SG.CSM
-ma  (As for me): ‘(You) talk (with your daughter) kindly, and do not blame (your daughter) anymore.’ qa   -dua . ka ə̌ʴ pù. ka ə̌ʴ pù-sa like.this say do like.this say do-1SG.CSM-CERT I said. I said so.” (Conversation 1_34)

4.2.4. Summary
ma  as the topic of a matrix clause indicates additional contentful From the discussion in this section, I conclude that qa
ma  as the topic of a quoting clause repmeaning and interpersonal meaning except for first-person singular references. qa
ma  as the topic of an epistemic clause identifies the speaker's view. As the topic of resents the concept ‘as for me, I said … ’ qa
ma  is used to identify the upcoming proposition as the speaker's request or suggestion. Semantically, an imperative clause, qa ̌
ma  as the topic qa of a matrix clause is still tied to the speaker's communicative intent; hence, the deictic weight still holds.
ma  marks the speaker of a quotative, epistemic or imperative proposition and is part of the proposition of the Functionally, qa

10

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15


ma  discussed in x4.1, which marks the subject of a proposition, not the matrix clause. It differs from the referential term qa
ma  functions to draw the hearer's attention to the proposition that is attached. addressee of a direct quote. Pragmatically, qa An example of each type of matrix clause is given below. In (10), the proposition that is expressed by the direct quotation is
ma , which in this instance is equivalent to ‘as for me’. qa
ma  points to an upcoming direct quotation. In (13), introduced by qa
ma  functions to draw the hearer's attention to the speaker's opinion. In (15), qa
ma  has a performative function, inviting the qa hearer to pay attention to the speaker's request.

(10) (13) (15)


ma  (Well, I said) “I'm fine. If I'm not fine, how can I be?” qa
ma  (Well, I think) all of the women cut (tumors). If I don't cut it, I fear that there will be some problems. qa
ma  (Well, I request) whatever you do, don't look (outside)! You say what you want to say. Don't look outside. qa

4.3. Pragmatic marker: attracting the hearer's attention to textual relevance
ma  that serves a textual and interpersonal function in discourse is understood as a pragmatic marker. The difference qa
ma  that serves as the topic of a matrix clause and qa
ma  that serves as a pragmatic marker is that qa
ma  used between qa
ma  loses the propositional as the topic of a matrix clause retains its deictic weight, while the pragmatic marker qa meaning ‘I’. Many scholars define pragmatic markers (for example, Schourup, 1999, Fraser, 2009, Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen 2011, Heine, 2013, Brinton, 1996, 2008, 2017). In this paper, I apply the definition and characteristics of pragmatic markers proposed by Brinton (1996, 2008, 2017). Pragmatic functions are broadly divided into two categories, namely, textual and interpersonal (Brinton, 1996:38e40, Brinton, 2008:17). Textual functions are related to the cohesive structure of discourse. Fundamental textual functions serve “to initiate and close discourse, to mark topic shifts, to indicate new and old information, to constrain the relevance of adjoining utterance, to repair one's own or other's discourse, to serve as a filler used to sustain discourse or hold the floor” (Brinton, 1996:37e39). Interpersonal functions are subjectively “expressing a response or a reaction to the preceding discourse or attitudes towards the following discourse” and “interpersonally effecting cooperation, sharing, or intimacy between speaker and hearer” (Brinton, 1996:37e38).
ma  may have a scope over the discourse. In this case, it has global functions in conversation, for The pragmatic marker qa example, attention-getting and reinforcing. It encodes procedural information, i.e., information that constrains the implicature of an utterance and guides the hearer to find the intended relevance of the proposition. From the relevance-theoretical point of view, pragmatic functions express the relevance of one utterance to another utterance (e.g., Blakemore, 1987; Redeker, 1990; Goldberg, 1982).
ma  may serve a textual function concerning discourse structure. The textual component is language as In conversation, qa
ma  include signaling a speaker's intention to continue with the relevance (Halliday, 1979:199). The textual functions of qa present topic as in (18), repairing discourse as in (19), and expressing a response to the preceding discourse as in (20).
ma  helps the speaker sustain or hold the topic on religious ceremony. Fraser (2009:896) argues that the In (18), qa speaker uses attention markers to announce that a change in topic is coming. From the relevance-theoretical perspective,
ma  also constrains the relevance of the following clause to the preceding clause. In the first segment, speaker CX said qa ta ə̀ʴ in Longxi Qiang. This is a that the shaman performed a religious ceremony. The religious ceremony is called ȵoùkʰua  ta ə̀ʴ very professional and traditional term; therefore, speaker CX thought that hearer HQ did not understand what ȵoùkʰua
ma  to express her intention to continue the topic on the religious ceremony named ȵoùkʰua  ta ə̀ʴ means. She then used qa (line 2).

(18)

CX:1

2

3

 ta ə̀ʴ.
zù a
-zùta zù, tʰa ȵoùkʰua sua then finally-TOP do.religious.ceremony “Finally, (the shaman) conducted a religious ceremony.
-ma , ta ə̀ʴ. ta ə̀ʴ
n? qa ȵoùkʰua l^ e ȵoùkʰua la 1SG-MA do.religious.ceremony what do.religious.ceremony PART
-ma  (Let's stay on the topic of) the religious ceremony. What is it? qa  mo -ʨ  -ʨ  e la a e-l e ʨousə̌ ȵapha c
e ʨou ka exactly(CH) man INDEF-CL needle FILL one-CL-AGT then(CH) kù-tì -ʦə́ . jua da mouth-DEF AND-thread To be exact, a man threaded through his mouth with a needle.” (Conversation 3_24)


ma  functions in repairing speaker CX's own utterance, a textual function. In the first segment, speaker CX In (19), qa said that she paid eight yuan to buy the ring; in the second segment, she indicates that the ring was ten yuan instead.
ma  between two segments functions in pointing back to the error ‘eight yuan’ and pointing forward to the revision qa ‘ten yuan’.

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

(19)

CX: 1

2

 
-o
-l qa sə̀nʦ
ʦʰa e e zə̀-pú-sa 1SG money eight-CL-AGT IN-buy-1SG.CSM “I paid eight yuan to buy the ring.
-ma ,  mo  ʨo   ^ qa qo la a 1SG-MA 1SG FILL ten
-ma  (Let me correct the former expression), I gave ten qa (the seller) to buy the ring.” (Conversation 4_59)

11

u e. PART

zə́ -ɕì. give-CERT yuan to


ma . There is not only an interpersonal function Example (20) illustrates both the interpersonal and textual functions of qa in claiming the hearer's attention to her personal view but also a textual function in expressing the relation to speaker SH's utterance. Speaker SH told speaker HQ that her mother wanted to celebrate her birthday at the time of another person's
ma  to attract hearer SH's attention to the reason she felt unsatisfied with her mother's wedding. First, speaker HQ used qa
ma  to signal her response to speaker SH's utterance. She expressed her unsatisfied behavior. Second, hearer HQ used qa attitude towards her mother's action. It was unsuitable to celebrate a birthday in the situation of another person's wedding because the wedding, not her mother's birthday, was the most important event that day.

(20)

 , ȵa
ȵa
-naînai zeì-la ə̌ʴ ʨʰ
e-la xo a a He(family.name)-Grandmother(CH) a.little early-NFIN say if-NFIN a.little ^. ta
q  ta
q tʰa ka tʰa e-zù jîʨín-zù e that.time-TOP already(CH)-TOP PART that.time kaì ə̌ʴ u e. MA like.this say PART 4 “Grandma He said that if we had told her earlier, she would celebrate (your mother's birthday). However, her son's wedding had begun already. Your mother told her birthday to grandmother at the time of the wedding.”


zù SH: tʰa then
-nì. tə̀-pù-mù-ma UP-do-CERT-PRO-1PL.NCSM  ma


-ma ! HQ: qa kaì l^ e 1SG-MA like.this what . pù-la aì lauz e do-NFIN EXT noisy(CH)
-ma  (Oh!) What did she say? It was “qa boisterous.” (Conversation 7_9)

^ʴ
-jì qa p e? zə̀nʨa sə́ n say become.CSM others-GEN birthday(CH) k e. like.this another person's wedding. The wedding was very

5. Discussion
ma  5.1. Directionality in semantic changes of qa ̀


ma  as Based on the discussion in Section 4, I summarize the correlated paths of directionality in the semantic change of qa
ma  represents a process of (inter)subjectivity with changes in syntactic meaning, semantic meaning and shown in Fig. 1 qa scope, as shown in Fig. 1. This semantic change process lends support to the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change. However, the commonality of these three usages is attention-getting, as shown below.

1st person topic: Topic of matrix clause: Pragmatic marker:

attracting hearer's attention to the topic ‘I’ attracting hearer's attention to the speaker's quotation, thought and command attracting hearer's attention to a topic shift, discourse repairing, response, etc.

̌


ma  indicates a conceptual meaning of ‘I’. The topic marker ma  functions to attract the hearer's As a referential term, qa attention to the topic ‘I’.
ma  expresses the conceptual meaning ‘as for me’ or ‘to me’. Speakers use it as an ostensive As a topic of a matrix clause, qa stimulus from which hearers derive the optimal inference of ‘the speaker, not other’. Consider the conceptual meaning of ‘I say’ as an example. The speaker aims to communicate that the speaker, not other people, addresses the quotation; the speaker aims to draw the hearer's attention to himself or herself rather than to others. The speech-act verb ‘say’ is less important and
ma  expresses both the deictic meaning of first person and the speaker's can even be an ellipsis in utterance. In this case, qa communicative intention.

4

Here, "He" is a Chinese family name, not third-person singular pronoun.

12

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

1st person topic (§4.1)

Topic of matrix clause (§4.2)

truth-conditional

>

Pragmatic marker (§4.3)

conceptual

>

additional conceptual/procedural

>

scope within the proposition

>

scope over the proposition

>

scope over discourse

nonsubjective

>

(inter)subjective

>

(inter)subjective

ideational

>

interpersonal

>

textual

non-truth-conditional procedural


ma . Fig. 1. Directionality in semantic changes of qa


does not refer to the speaker him/herself, and the topic marker ma  does not As a pragmatic marker, the first-person qa
has lost its referential property, and it becomes one part of the function as an independent pause particle. The subject qa
ma  that functions to indicate a speaker's potential communicative intentions. This change involves a pragmatic marker qa shift from an objective reference ‘I’ to a pragmatic marker that signals the speaker's communicative intention. The deictic
ma  still reflects the speaker's aim to attract the weight of the first person is gradually disappearing. The pragmatic marker qa hearer's attention to his/her upcoming utterance and to invite a response to the preceding proposition.
ma  as a whole has been used repeatedly and forms an ostension that constrains the hearer's interpretation in a qa
ma  exemplifies the development of conventionalized forms that restrict particular way.5 The structural development of qa
ma  only constrains the explicit meaning ‘I’ or the meaning regarding ‘I’, for example, ‘as for me’. interpretation. At first, qa Later, it constrains the (inter)subjective aspect of textual and interpersonal interpretation. This supports the hypothesis proposed by Traugott and Dasher (2001:279) that subjectification (including intersubjectification) is the main mechanism of semantic change. Various inferences of ‘I’, interpersonal meaning ‘as for me’ and textual meaning are inferred in certain contexts. Speakers use
ma  as an ostension to invite a hearer to infer conversational implicatures, and they may exploit a conversational implicature qa in a new context, which is used repeatedly. They become salient among Longxi Qiang speakers. The textual and interpersonal
ma  in different contexts. Below, I discuss the idea meanings belong to different types of implicatures that are generated by qa
‘I’ and the pause particle ma  account for the conventionalization of qa
ma . that both the first-person pronoun qa

(21)

 ʨ^ WL: vú ma efú mù-nə̀. 2SG MA brother-in-law(CH) person-2SG.NCSM
tako jì-sù-pù. eldest.brother(CH) IN-COP-NEGO “You(SG) are a brother-in-law. He is the eldest brother.” (CV56_56)

ʦə́ 3SG

 ma MA

 in structure development 5.2. The role of the first-person pronoun qa In Longxi Qiang, the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of the personal pronoun is restricted to the first person. It is similar to the subjectivity of the discourse marker I think in English. Based on Thompson and Mulac (1991) study, 95% of the tokens of expressions such as I mean, I think, I guess, you know, and other similar expressions are in the first person, 4% are in the second person, and 1% are in the third person. Thus, subjectification in English involves an overwhelming selection of the first person (Traugott, 1995:38). Brinton (2017) discusses how first-person subjects and epistemic verbs such as think, believe, and guess develop into epistemic parentheticals that denote epistemic, subjective, evidential and interpersonal meaning.  ‘I’, none of the personal pronouns (such as vúla  ‘we’, vùla  ‘you (PL)’, ʦə̀ ‘she/he’, and ʦə̀la  ‘they’) With the exception of qa  develop into pragmatic markers. Moreover, ma  cannot develop into a pragmatic marker by itself. The that are added to ma  following second-person pronouns has been found in only one example, namely (21). pause ma  5.3. The role of the topic marker ma ̌  plays an important role in the semantic change of qa
ma . As a topic marker, ma  makes the I argue that the topic marker ma
‘I’ prominent. ma  indicates that the upcoming comments are about the topic ‘I’. first-person pronoun qa
ma  is phased in its own Intonational Phrase, and it is separated from the following segment. As a topic of a matrix clause, qa
ma  alerts the hearer that the upcoming utterance is about the speaker rather than about other people. Accordingly, ma  qa
ma  used as the topic functions as a hint that constrains the hearer's interpretation of the upcoming segment. For example, qa
ma  as of a quoting matrix in (7) suggests that the upcoming direct quotation is expressed by speaker CX herself, not others. qa an ostensive stimulus constrains the inference and helps hearer HQ identify the optimal relevance that ‘speaker CX, not
ma  used as the topic of an epistemic clause causes the upcoming segment ‘what is wrong others, said something’. In (11), qa

5

Communication involves ostension and inference (Sperber and Wilson, 1995).

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

13


ma  with this person’ to be understood as speaker HQ's own thoughts, not other persons' thoughts. The ostensive stimulus qa
ma  acts as the topic of helps the speaker identify the optimal relevance that ‘speaker HQ thought about something’. In (15), qa an imperative clause and generates an implicature that indicates that the following segment ‘whatever you do, don't look (outside)’ is speaker SH's request rather than another person's request.
ma  constrains the hearer's interpretation of the relationship between two discourse segments. It As a pragmatic marker, qa is similar to topic orientation markers and attention markers in English (Fraser, 2009)6; for example, speakers use it to continue with the previous topic in (18), to correct an expression in (19) and to respond to the previous utterance in (20). , the first-person pronoun qa
alone cannot generate implicatures. A pause combined Thus, without the topic marker ma
forms an intonational phrase that generates various implicatures in conversation. Speakers use the simplest vehicle, with qa i.e., a pause, to achieve the most relevance. 6. Conclusion
ma  in recorded natural conversations, I conclude that the Based on a quantitative study of the frequency of the token qa first-person pronoun þ topic marker combination is gradually developing into a construct that is used as the topic of a matrix clause and as a pragmatic marker; 72.3% and 9.2% of the instances of its usage fall into these two categories, respectively. The  and the topic marker ma  examples that are cited from conversation manifest different features. The first-person pronoun qa
ma , which indicates the lexical meaning ‘I’. The topic of the matrix clause qa
ma  is interpersonal, not are the origin of qa ideational; at the same time, it differs from a pragmatic marker because it expresses additional contentful meaning, and the
ma  encodes textual meaning. The commonality between these three deictic meaning still exists. As a pragmatic marker, qa usages is attention-getting.
ma  functions in aiding communication to achieve optimal relevance. The most important inference As an ostensive stimulus, qa is the first-person pronoun rather than the meanings of ‘say’, ‘think’ and ‘request’. A speaker needs to call the hearer's attention to
ma  generates an implicature in a new context, and it is used repeatedly in communication until it his/her upcoming utterance. qa  is a vehicle that plays an important role in implicature generation. This becomes salient in the community. The topic marker ma  嘛 borrowed from Wenchuan Mandarin Chinese. study provides a new function of the pause particle ma Conflict of interest The author declares that there is no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions. This work was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant no. 18ZDA298) and the Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China (Grant no. 18YJC740148). Any remaining mistakes are my own. Appendix A. Details of participants The initial capitals of given names are used to stand for each participant's full name.

Participant

Sex, identity, age

CX HQ SH XM JM XD HP WL ZF

Female, retired worker, 81 Female, retired worker, 55 Female, farmer, 41 Female, farmer, 62 Female, housewife, 66 Male, farmer, 72 Male, worker, 56 Male, worker, 48 Male, farmer, 64

6 Fraser (2009:893) proposes one type of pragmatic marker, a discourse management marker that signals a metacomment on the structure of the discourse. A discourse management marker comprises at least the following three sub-types: (1) discourse structure markers, for example, First, ….Then, …., In summary, …; (2) topic orientation markers, for example, back to my original point, parenthetically, speaking of X, to change the topic; and (3) attention markers, for example, oh, ok, well.

14

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

Appendix B. Transcription conventions Abbreviations follows the Leipzig Glossing Conventions (citation). In addition, this paper uses AND for andative direction marker. 1, first person; 2, second person; 3, third person; ABL, ablative marker; AGT, agentive marker; AND, andative direction marker; BEN, benefactive markers; CERT: epistemic certainty; CH, Chinese loan word; CL, classifier; CON, continuative aspect maker; COP, copular; COORD, coordinative marker; CSM, change of state marker; DEF, definite marker; DOWN, downwards direction marker; EXC, exclamative; EXIST, existential verb; FILL: filler word; GEN, genitive; HS, hearsay evidential marker; LINK, linker; INDEF, indefinite marker; INF: inferential evidence; INS, instrumental marker; LOAN, loan word marker; LOC, locative maker; NEG, negator; NCSM, non-change of state marker; NEGO, non-egophoricity; NFIN, non-finite verb; NMLZ, nominalizer; OUT, outwards direction marker; PART: particle; PL, plural; POL, polite particle; PRO, prospective aspect marker; PROH, prohibitive prefix; Q, question particle; TOP, topic marker; UP, upwards direction marker; VIS, visual evidential marker. At the end of a phrase, ma is labelled as a topic marker that resumes an earlier topic or shared subject or a pause particle that draws attention to the point that is being made. In (2), the topic marker ma emphasizes the speaker's opinion on the topic
nr
na en ‘man.’ References Aijmer, K., 2018. Position of self in interaction: adolescents' use of attention-getters. In: Beeching, K., Ghezzi, C., Molinelli, P. (Eds.), Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company. € Aijmer, Karin, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, 2011. Pragmatic markers. In: Jan, Zienkowski, Ostman, Jan-Ola, Verschueren, Jef (Eds.), Discursive Pragmatics, 223e247. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Blakemore, D., 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Brinton, L.J., 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: the history of look-forms. J. Hist. Pragmat. 2 (2), 177e199. Brinton, L.J., 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions (Topics in English Linguistics, 19). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Brinton, L.J., 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brinton, L.J., 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge University Press. Chao, Yuen Ren, 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley. Chappell, H., 1991. Strategies for the assertion of obviousness and disagreement in Mandarin: a semantic study of the modal particle me. Aust. J. Ling. 11 (1), 39e65. Chu, Chauncey, 2008. Tidunci ma yu jumo xuci ma: yufa fengong yu yuyong zhenghe [Pause ma and clause-final function word ma: grammatical division and pragmatic integration]. Xiuci Xuexi [Rhetoric Learning] 5, 5e10. Clark, B., 2016. Relevance theory and language change. Lingua 175e176, 139e153. Fraser, B., 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Ling. Hung. 38, 19e33. Fraser, B., 2009. Topic orientation markers. J. Pragmat. 41, 892e898. Goldberg, J.A., 1982. Discourse Particles: an Analysis of the Role of ‘y’ Know’, ‘I Mean’, ‘well’ and ‘actually’ in Conversation. Doctoral thesis. Cambridge University. Halliday, M.A.K., 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structures and their determination by different semantic functions. In: Allerton, D.J., Carney, Edward, Holdcroft, David (Eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 57e79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Haiman, John, 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language V54 (3), 564e589. Heine, B., 2013. On discourse markers: grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51 (6), 1205e1247. Lambrecht, K., 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. LaPolla, R.J., 2003. Why languages differ: variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In: Bradley, D., LaPolla, R.J., Michailovsky, B., Thurgood, G. (Eds.), Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff ,113e144. Pacific Linguistics, Canberra. LaPolla, R.J., 2015. On the logical necessity of a cultural and cognitive connection for the origin of all aspects of linguistic structure. In: De Busser, R., LaPolla, R.J. (Eds.), Language Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 31e44. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Li, Chengtuan, 2008. Huayu biaojiyu ‘ma’ de yuyong gongneng [Pragmatic functions of discourse marker ma]. Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages] 31 (2), 150e156. Liu, Guangkun, 1998. Mawo Qiangyu Yanjiu [Studies on the Mawo Dialect of the Qiang Language]. Sichuan Nationality Press, Chengdu. Redeker, G., 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. J. Pragmat. 4 (3), 367e381. Romero Trillo, J., 1997. Your attention, please: pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee's attention. J. Pragmat. 28, 205e221. San Roque, L., Kobin, H., Elisabeth, N., Asifa, M., 2018. Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cogn. Linguist. 29 (3), 371e406. Schourup, L.C., 1999. Tutorial overview: discourse markers. Lingua 107, 227e265. Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, second ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Sun, Hongkai, 1981. Qiangyu Jianzhi [A Brief Description of the Qiang Language]. Nationalities Press, Beijing. Tao, Hongyin, 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Thompson, S.A., Mulac, A., 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. J. Pragmat. 15, 237e251. Traugott, E.C., Dasher, R.B., 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: Steinand, Dieter, Wright, Susan (Eds.), Subjectivity And Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31e54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Van Olmen, D., 2010. The imperative of intentional visual perception as a pragmatic marker: a contrastive study of Dutch, English and Romance. Lang. Contrast 10 (2), 223e244. Wilson, D., Sperber, D., 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90, 1e25. Wilson, D., 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future. In: Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, et al. (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Emerald, Bingley, U.K., 3e31.

W. Zheng / Journal of Pragmatics 156 (2020) 1e15

15

Zhang, Bojiang, Fang, M., 1996. Hanyu Gongneng Yufa Yanjiu [Studies on Functional Grammar of Mandarin Chinese]. Jiangxi Education Press, Nanchang. Zhao, Chunli, Yang, C., 2016. Jumo zhuci ‘ma’ de renzhi yu qinggan de guanlianxing yanjiu [Studies on the cognitive and emotive relevance of sentence-final particle ‘ma’]. Wai Guo Yu [Journal of Foreign Languages] 39 (5), 32e45. Wuxi Zheng got her PhD degree from the Department of Chinese Studies at the National University of Singapore in 2016. She is currently a lecturer at the School of Chinese Language and Literature at South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China. Her current research interests include language documentation, historical linguistics, typology and pragmatics.