RESUMPTIVE REPETITION?INTRODUCTION TO A UNIVERSAL DISCOURSE FEATURE
on
LINGUISTIKA
Resumptive Repetition—Introduction to a Universal Discourse Feature
Phil Quick
SIL International
Abstract
Abstrak
Kalau pengulangan dipakai melanjutkan satu topik sebelumnya penyimpangan, satu lanturan, atau selingan, itu dapat diberikan istilah ‘pengulangan resumptif’. Pokoknya makalah ini memperkenalkan pengulangan resumptif sebagai satu ciri kognitif terutama yang dipakai untuk kontinuiti topik dengan konteks penyimpangan. Pengulangan resumptif adalah ciri wacana universial yang sangat penting oleh karena itu adalah sebagian kognitif bahasa manusia yang “membungkuskan” atau “mengenkapsulasi” sintaks dari bahasa-bahasa di mana-mana. Ciri ini salah satu dari beberapa ciri bahasa saja yang diperlihatkan dengan transparen bahwa otak manusia bekerja dengan sama caranya kros-linguistik di dalam teori kontinuiti topik.
Kata Kunci: pengulangan, pengulangan resumptif, penyimpangan, kontinuity topik, wacana
Abstract
When repetition is used to resume a previous topic after a digression, interruption or some other interlude, then we can call this ‘resumptive repetition’. The focus of this paper introduces resumptive repetition as a leading cognitive device used for topic continuity in the environment of digressions. Resumptive repetition is an important universal discourse feature because it is a cognitive part of human language that “wraps around” or “encapsulates” the syntax of any language. It is one of the few features of language that transparently shows the human mind working the same way cross-linguistically in the area of topic continuity.
This article introduces a discourse feature that has often been overlooked and neglected, but is, as I claim, a universal feature of languages: resumptive repetition. Resumptive repetition is a discourse feature used to resume a previous topic, story line or theme line that has been interrupted by a span of information that is related to but diverges for a short or long gap before being resumed.
Resumptive repetition is one of a number of different types of repetition that can be classified typologically into two groups which function primarily for 1) prominence or for 2) cohesion (see Quick 1985, 1986a, 1993). Figure 1 shows the basic taxonomy of repetition.
|
Prominence |
Cohesion |
|
Chiasmus |
Overlay |
|
Ellipsis | |
|
Emphatic |
Resumptive Repetition |
|
Hendiadys | |
|
Paraphrastic |
Tail-head transitions |
|
Repetitive Motif | |
|
Sandwich Structures (inclusio) |
-
Figure 1. Typological Taxonomy of Repetition
The focus of this paper will deal with resumptive repetition and the context of various types of digressions (or ‘interruptions’) that always occur together with resumptive repetition. The digressions can be classified according to whether they are event or non-event. This discussion demonstrates that this classification is important to understanding the role of resumptive repetition, and is the necessary piece of evidence to distinguish resumptive repetition from tailhead repetition (as well as from the other types of repetition).
|
Language Name (location) |
Primary data or reference |
|
Angave (Papua New Guinea) |
Speece 1989 |
|
Antiguan Creole (Caribbean) |
Shepherd 1984 |
|
Bahnar (Vietnam) |
Quick 1985 |
|
Balinese (Indonesia) |
Pastika 1999, 2006 |
|
Choctaw (USA) |
Quick 1986a |
|
Da’a (Indonesia) |
Barr 1980 and personal communication |
|
English |
Kipling 1901, Ludlum 1980, Michener 1959, Tolkien 1937 |
|
Greek, Koine |
Quick 1985, 1986, 1993, Levinsohn 1992 |
|
Guanano (South America) |
Waltz 1976 |
|
Gumawana (Papua New Guinea) |
Olson 2005 |
|
Hebrew, Biblical |
Quick 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 2003 |
|
Hixkaryana (South America) |
Derbyshire 1977, 1985 |
|
Indonesian |
Lubis 1975 |
|
Italian |
Eco 1980 (English translation: Eco 1983) |
|
Jamamadí (South America) |
Campbell 1986 |
|
Jirel (South America) |
Strahm 1978 |
|
Konzime (Africa) |
Bevon 1984 |
|
Pendau (Indonesia) |
Quick 2003 |
|
Riung (Indonesia) |
Rosen 1977 |
|
Tamang (Nepal) |
Hepburn 1978 |
|
Ute (North America) |
Givón 1983 |
-
Figure 2. Sample of Languages Documented with Resumptive Repetition1
This paper begins with a definition and examples of repetition. This is followed by a discussion of topic continuity as the theoretical context for understanding resumptive repetition. Following this is a discussion of the facts of digression types and the correlation of digressions
that are always found in the environment of a resumptive repetition. The last section deals with several syntactic possibilities of the grammaticization of resumptive repetition.
Resumptive repetition is the ultimate cognitive device used for topic continuity. When repetition is used to resume a previous topic after a digression, interruption or some other interlude, then we can call this ‘resumptive repetition’. The various types of repetition are interesting because their use encapsulates the particular syntax of different languages, and so its function and use does not hinge on the requirement of specific grammatical devices. Resumptive repetition does not require an exact lexical repetition or even a complete matching of two parts. What is essential is that there be 1) a digression, 2) an overlap in the meaning that is repeated, and 3) optionally an additional adverbial phrase to aid in the re-orientation to the previous topic. This last feature is usually determinate on how long the gap has been before the resumption occurs.
One important note that needs to be observed here is that there is not any significant difference in how resumptive repetition functions in ‘oral’ and ‘written’ language. This is because resumptive repetition is a primary cognitive strategy for topic continuity and it is obviously used in either mode of language. Winter (1974:7, 8) recognizes the basic oneness of repetition found between ‘spoken’ and ‘written’:
In this study, we regard speech as primary to the written language. It would have been ideal if a comparative study of spoken and written materials could have been made. There is, however, sufficient evidence of the richness of repetition in the written language to stand for the repetition function in language as a whole. We will in any case, see that repetition structures are indispensable in the written language. If there is an obvious difference between spoken and written it would be a difference of degree rather than of kind, though there are some kinds of repetition which never occur in careful writing (e.g. I, I thought you were were coming today).
This section will present several examples of resumptive repetition. The repetition and the item to be repeated are underlined in these examples. Also, for those examples which are from long examples the digression is indicated by a bracketed statement.
A typical example of resumptive repetition is found in the English novel The Hobbit (Tolkien:1937:16) where the underlining shows the item to be repeated as well as the repetition of the item. The digression is a background explanation.
The mother of our particular hobbit--what is a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. They are (or were) a little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves. Hobbits have no beards.
… [the digression continues on here for several sentences, giving a further description of hobbits] …
Now you know enough to go on with. As I was saying, the mother of this hobbit--of Bilbo Baggins, that is--was the fabulous Belladonna Took ....
Example (1) illustrates resumptive repetition in a Pendau folktale.2 In (1) it is stated that the main character was in the jungle for two years, and was healed there. This is followed by eight clauses of explanatory background. After this digression then the previous topic is resumed by repeating the fact that this man was in the jungle for two years and that his body was healed.
|
(Abbreviations: stative verb) |
3SG third singular, AB absolute, GE genitive, LOC locative, RE realis, ST |
|
(1) Paas paas precisely |
ruo pariama io ri’uo, ruo pariama io ri=’uo two years 3SG/AB LOC=yonder |
|
tarus tarus continue |
nombosi’ alaenyo uo. no-mbosi’ alae=nyo ’uo ST/RE-good body=3SG/GE yonder |
‘He was there exactly two years, and then his body was healed there.’
… [8 clauses of explanatory background intervene here]
|
Paas ruo pariama paas ruo pariama precisely two year tarus alaenyo tarus ‘alae=nyo continue body=3SG/GE |
io ripangale uo io ri=pangale ’uo 3SG/AB LOC=jungle yonder najari nombosi’. na-jari no-mbosi’ ST/RE-become ST/RE-good |
‘He was in that jungle for exactly two years, and then his body became healed.’
Example (2) is from Balinese, as cited in Pastika (2006:93). In this context Pastika states, “…the Agent needs to be re-mentioned in order to reactivate something already mentioned, usually quite a while before.” The digression is a background explanation which is followed by the resumptive repetition which is used to continue the story. (Abbreviations: 3Agt third person agent, 3POSS’R third person possessor, APPL applicative, ART article, LIG ligature, ZT zero transitive verb form)
-
(2) Beh ni Kesuna mula sayang-ang-a
well ART K always ZT favour-APPL-3Agt
pesan teken meme bapa-n-ne…
very.much by mother father-LIG-3POSS’R
‘Well, Kesuna is always favoured by her parents.’ (CK 7)
-
2 For another Pendau example of resumptive repetition analyzed within the semantic structural analysis theory, see Quick 2003:553-554, 589-596.
. . . [2 background clauses intervene here as the digression] . . .
Meme-ratu Ø jeg gugun-a
mother-Lord Ø just ZT believe-3Agt
dogen teken meme bapa-n-ne…
always by mother father-LIG-3POSS’R
‘Oh, my Lord, her complaints are always believed by her parents.’ (CK 10)
The following short example is from the English novel, Kim by Rudyard Kipling, and contains the complete digression. The digression is about what Kim is thinking during a lengthy monologue by another character, i.e. this is background information. This example highlights that the resumptive repetition can be quite short.
“….Then I lay in old Chitor city a week, penitent in a temple, but I could not get rid of the letter which was my charge. I buried it under the Queen’s Stone, at Chitor, in the place known to us all.”
Kim did not know, but not for worlds would he have broken the thread.
“At Chitor, look you, I was all in Kings’ country; for Kotah to the east is beyond the Queen’s law, and east again lie Jeypur and Gwalior….”
The next example is an English translation from the Koine Greek, however the translation followed here is from the literal New American Standard Bible translation and does not depart from how the digression and resumptive repetition are used in both the source and target language. This is a good example that illustrates an event digression in which the digression is simultaneous to the following resumed storyline.
18:18 Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. 19 The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. 21 “Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; behold, these know what I said.” 22 And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” 24 Annas therefore sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, “You are not also one of His diciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.”
The following example illustrates resumptive repetition as found in Indonesian from Harimau! Harimau! by Mochtar Lubis (1975:92-94):
….Seteleh makan Pak Balam merasa perutnya mules. Pak Haji berkata bahwa dia terlalu banyak makan daging rusa. Pak Balam berdiri dan pergi ke sungai. Tempat dia melakukan hajatnya tak jauh dari tempat mereka bermalam. Sinar api unggun masih mencapai pinggir sungai, dan Pak Balam duduk di daerah perbatasan yang samar-samar antara pinggiran lingkaran cahaya api unggun dan pinggiran tempat mulainya kegelapan hutan di sungai, Pak Balam duduk mencangkung di atas batu, menghadap api unggun, dan membelakang ke kegelapan hutan. Dan itulah kesalahan besar yang dilakukannya…
[several paragraphs occur here as an event digression]
Tiba-tiba harimau tua bergerak, bersikap siap, ketika melihat seorang di antara mereka melepaskan diri dari lindungan cahaya api, dan melangkah sendiri menuju kegelapan sungai Orang itu duduk mencangkung di air.
Another example from Tolkien (1937) illustrates an event digression where a whole chapter intervenes. Tolkien summarizes in a single sentence (the resumptive item is condensed after the digression) where he had had several paragraphs describing the dragon closing the magic door with his tail (this is the item before the digression). The digression follows one participant, the dragon attacking a city and how the dragon is killed. Then Tolkien resumes back to Bilbo and the dwarves in time and location. They then proceed to their escape from the dragon's lair while the dragon is away attacking the city, and unbeknownst to them the dragon had been killed. These two events occur simultaneously, and the reader is kept informed of the time and location status by the use of the adverbial orientation margin and the resumptive repetition (Tolkien 1937:234):
Now if you wish, like the dwarves, to hear news of Smaug, you must go back again to the evening when he smashed the door and flew off in rage, two days before.
Topic continuity as dealt with here is used in the sense that Givón (1983, 1984, 1990) defines it. Cooreman (1983:442) restates Givón’s view this way:
The quantitative analysis assumes that each NP in the discourse has some degree of topicality and provides an adequate, empirical method to measure this degree of topicality for any NP in the discourse. Topicality here does not refer to what has been called the subject or theme of the paragraph or discourse, rather it refers to the degree of referential continuity of a given NP on the clausal level.
In looking at how discourse is continued, i.e. topic continuity, from a psycho-linguistic perspective (in following Givón:1990) it is helpful to contrast what Givón calls “default status of continued activation” (1990:917) with the opposite extreme. Following iconicity principles Givón (1990:917) shows that,
[Z]ero anaphora and unstressed pronouns are the smallest code units in the grammar of referential coherence. Stressed pronouns, names, full nouns and other noun-phrase types are all much larger.
Givón (1990:917) then gives a “grammatical code-quantity principle”:
Information that is already activated requires the smallest amount of code.
Contrastively then one can say that non-activated topics previously mentioned will require a larger amount of code to reactivate. Givón takes the cognitive principle above and expands it into the following cognitive terminology (1990:917):
Code-quantity, mental effort, memory and atention:
-
(a) The activation of an inactive referent requires more mental effort.
-
(b) The processing of a larger code sequence requires more mental effort.
-
(c) Larger ('more salient') coding is more effective in activating attention.
-
(d) Therefore, referents that are already active require minimal coding.
The use of resumptive repetition corroborates the hypotheses of Givón as another cognitive strategy. Resumptive repetition can be viewed as a leading strategic device which occurs at the
upper bounderies of reactivating a deferred topic. Givón (1990:894) summarizes the basic mental strategy for topic continuity:
The grammatical signals (morphemes, syntactic constructions) used to code referential coherence in discourse are designed to trigger specific mental operations in the mind of the speech receiver ('de-coder', 'hearer'). These mental operations, I will suggest involve two well known cognitive domains:
-
(a) attentional activitation
-
(b) search in memory storage
Viewed from a cognitive perspective than we can reaffirm my earlier hypothesis (Quick:1985; 1986a) that resumptive repetition is a universal discourse feature. Givón (1990:894) states the essential theory underlying topic continuity as follows:
The central hypothesis offered below is that the grammar of referential coherence is not primarily about reference. Rather it is about identifying and activating the locations ('files', 'nodes') where verbally-coded text is stored in episodic memory.
The longer the digression the more likely there is to be a need to use resumptive repetition because the syntactical and interclausal devices become less likely to be of any help in the coherence and referential system (i.e. participant tracking). Hierarchy of the referential nature of the entity is scaleable by distance. The greater the distance the greater the need for more information. This is where resumptive repetition becomes most user friendly. Givón has devoted a considerable amount of research in identifying a relative scale for referential accessibility and how a discourse is entered and re-entered (1984:402). Table 5 is a synthesis of his research (cf. Givón:1990:913 for his detailed chart for referential distance values; Givón admits the referential distance values are only a heuristic tool and table 5 is only an indication of tendencies not absolutes).
|
Surface structure |
Referential Distance (# of clauses) |
|
Zero Anaphora |
1 |
|
Pronouns |
1-3 |
|
Definite Noun Phrase |
3-20 |
|
Indefinite Noun Phrase |
20+ |
|
Referent Repetition |
20+ |
-
Figure 3. Referential distance values of topic (adapted from Givón 1990)
When zero anaphora is used to track a participant it is normally only one clause in distance from its referent. Free pronouns and affixed pronouns are generally one to three clauses in distance from their referent. Definite noun phrases range from three to twenty clauses in distance from the last point referred to in the text. Indefinite noun phrases are twenty clauses and above in distance to their last referent. The value of twenty was chosen by Givón (1983) somewhat arbitrarily since a noun phrase is often introduced for the first time without any prior referent.
One of the key considerations in the theory of topic continuity is the contrast between definite and indefinite noun phrases and their introduction or re-introduction. A resumed topic noun phrase is already definite. When a larger gap occurs in a discourse the normal means of reintroducing a topic is as a definite noun phrase. Thus a repetition of the prior topic will include a
definite noun phrase (at least in a larger gap) in the resumptive repetition. Notice how resumptive repetition fits neatly into the generalization Givón (1990:402) makes in the following paragraph:
While morpho-syntactically referential-indefinite topics tend to be uniformly coded -- by one grammatical device -- whenever they enter into the active file, definite topics are coded in all languages by a wide variety of means. This is due to the fact that the grammar of all languages systematically clues the hearer not only about whether he is expected to identify the topic but also about the extent of that topic's accessibility, the source of that accessibility and often the rough location within the specific discourse where the topic may be accessed.
An important distinction and clarification must now be introduced. Resumptive repetition is distinct from referent repetition, although it includes it. Resumptive repetition seems to be a repetition of an earlier proposition (or more than one). This explains the diversity in useage of what the surface form can be found as. The proportion of the proposition that is repeated is in direct relation to the gap or span of the digression. A simple noun phrase or pronoun will suffice when the digression is one clause, but when an episode or several chapters intercedes then whole propositions are needed to reorient the reader/listener.
There is a distinct correlation of resumptive repetition with digressive material (but not necessarily the other way around). In my discussion on digressions, I do not intend to mean that they are unnecessary or unimportant. I am using the term digression to capture a range of distinctions that create a gap in the storyline in order to facilitate the discussion on digressions that must co-occur with resumptive repetition. These thus may include pauses, interruptions, background material, and forked storylines. This is what makes resumptive repetition stand out as a distinct type of repetition from sandwich structure and tail-head transitions.
An important feature of digressions that occur with resumptive repetition is the fact that they can be classified according to one of two domains: event and non-event. An important note here is that while I am focussing on narrative material, event can be considered in this discussion to apply to non-narrative genres such as expository discourse, in which case event can be considered to be equivalent to a ‘theme line’. To capture all or most genres we could discuss this more generically as differentiating a ‘main line’ and ‘background material’. The distinction between event and non-event (or main-line versus off-line) will be readily recognized as a major emphasis in the literature on discourse theory (e.g. Grimes 1975 and Longacre 1983, 1996), and this finding corroborates that there is a fundamental distinction in narrative texts (and as appropriately extended to other genres).
|
Non-Event |
Background material in the digression |
Low level (restricted) |
|
Event |
Simultaneous material in the digression |
High level (unrestricted) |
Figure 4. Resumptive Repetition at the Perimeter of Digressions
First we will examine non-event digressions. The non-event digressions can be further divided into four subtypes of digressions (Quick:1985; 1986b):
-
• flashback or foreshadow
-
• new information
-
• quotive
-
• explanation
Although there are other ways to categorize digressions, the above four groups will serve our basic purpose in describing resumptive repetition occuring at the perimeter following a non-event digression.
When a digression is an event (or forked story line), there is a simultaneous story line. This is a trademark of resumptive repetition when the digression is an event. Grimes (1975:37) has this to say about simultaneous actions (‘forked actions’) and related means of communicating multiple complex actions in linear language:
Language is capable of communicating FORKED action as in you take the high road and I’ll take the low road, which is not a description of a sequence of events. Forked actions may be related only by their simultaneity, or they may be different sides of a single complex action as in the dog chased the fleeing cat or they got the car started by him pulling and her pushing.
Since the resumptive repetition is occurring at the perimeters of two types of digressions (i.e. event and non-event) a further insight can be demonstrated. That non-event digressions are bound to a “lower-level”, that is restricted to episodes or lower, and event digressions are “higher-level” since they may cross episode boundaries. I have read numerous English novels where there are complex partipant story-lines where several chapters can occur (as the digression) before resuming to a previous participant (cf. Quick:1985 for a documented example).
Figure 5 shows a schematic diagram on how forked storyline occurs as a digression, and how resumptive repetition continues a previous storyline. The use of letters indicate a series of chronological events in a story. In this sequence the story shifts to another storyline at F, where we begin another line of events that are marked here as F1, G1, and H1. The dotted arrows show the direction the story takes, and at the end of H1 the story resumes back to point F2 and resumes the story at this point. The parallel lines indicate that there is simultaneity in time, in which in a typical narrative the location and participants are different for each storyline.
F1 G1 H1
A B C D E F2 G2 H2 I J K L ....
-
F igure 5. Resumptive Repetition Following an Event Digression in a Typical Forked Storyline
In figure 6, the digression is a flashback, but is a mirror image of the schematic diagram in figure 5. In a flashback the storyline goes back in time at point H to another location and different participants at point F2, however the parallel storyline is also simultaneous to a previous series of parallel time events.
F2 G2 H2
A B C D E F1 G1 H1 I J K L ....
-
F igure 6. Resumptive Repetition Following an Event Digression as a Flashback
Resumptive repetition frequently is used in combination with an anaphoric phrase or particle to help specificly orient the reader/listener. This is still an area that needs more research but is clear that it occurs at least in some languages (cf. Quick:1985; 1986b for additional documented instances). It may even be optional in some languages depending on the degree of the gap. Longer gaps probably will need an anaphoric phrase or particle coupled with repetition to resume the previous topic, whereas smaller gaps would need less information. This principle is discussed under the principles of topic continuity in §3.
Resumptive repetition may be fused with a locative or temporal adverbial phrase, or in lengthy repetitions functioning as an adverbial clause to introduce the continuation of the previous story-line (cf. Thompson and Longacre:1985:206ff). They (1985:209-210) note that tail-head linkage and summary-head linkage are a kind of adverbial clause.
Adverbial clauses may be used to provide cohesion for an entire discourse by assisting to maintain the discourse perspective and by helping to articulate the sections of the discourse (Thompson and Longacre:206).
Thus it would seem natural that resumptive repetition may sometimes function similarly (as these are either typological or universal types of cohesive repetition).
Left-dislocation is similar to resumptive repetition in that it is often used to return to a previously interrupted topic. Left-dislocation may be in fact a grammaticized form of resumptive repetition (Quick 2003). In example (3) the resumption to the monkey occurs after a brief interlude in which the turtle is attempting to reach the turtle without success and shouts to the monkey to give him a banana. (Abbreviations: 3SG third singular, CN common noun, DIR directional, GE genitive, IV inverse voice, NEG negative, RE realis, TZ transitivizer)
ndau ni-bagi-i nyau mai ulasang siopu nu=lokamoo
NEG IV/RE-give-DIR go.down come turtle owner CN/GE=bananathis
‘(And the monkey) didn’t give any down to the monkey, the owner of the banana tree.’
… [several clauses intervene here with the turtle shouting to the monkey]
Odo moo, sura ulinyo nitabola’onyo nyaumai.
odo moo sura uli=nyo ni-tabol-a’=nyo nyaumai
monkey this only skin=3SG/GE IV/RE-discard-TZ=3SG/GE go.downcome
‘This monkey, he only discarded its skin down to him (the turtle).’
Left-dislocation is the extraposition of a noun phrase to a position in front of a clause in which the dislocated NP is also referred to (see Payne 1997:271-276, Andrews 1985:77-80, Foley and Van Valin 1985:355-358, and Givón 1990:740-741, 757-760). Left-dislocation is a discourse strategy for re-introducing a topic after a gap (Givón 1990:740-741, 757-758, Foley and Van Valin 1985:355-356) Left-dislocation would appear to be related to ‘resumptive repetition’ (see Quick 2003). Example (3) is from Andrews (1985:78, with his emphasis):
-
(4) Word-processors, I sometimes think they should be recycled into Space Invaders machines.
Example (5) illustrates left-dislocation in Pendau with an active voice clause construction, and examples (6)-(7) illustrate this with inverse voice clause constructions. Example (7) illustrate that the dislocated NP may itself be preceded by an adverbial adjunct or discourse connector. (Abbreviations: 3SG third singular, AB absolute, ABL ablative, AV active voice, CAUS causative, CN common noun, GE genitive, IR irrealis, IV inverse voice, PT primary transitive verb class, RE realis, SF stem former, TZ transitivizer, UD undetermined prefix)
-
(5) Ulasang moo, io nompamula nepesu’ata’ nemene’
ulasang moo io N-pong-pa-mula nepe-su’at-a’ ne-mene’
turtle this 3SG/AB RE-SF/PT-CAUS-begin AV/RE-test-TZ UD/RE-go.up
|
moluar |
mangalap |
bua |
nulokanyo |
uo. |
|
mo-luar |
M-pong-alap |
bua |
nu=loka=nyo |
’uo |
|
UD/IR-want |
IR-SF/PT-get |
fruit |
CN/GE=banana=3SG/GE |
yonder |
‘This turtle, he had begun to test going up, he wanted to get the banana tree’s fruit.’
|
(6) Odo odo |
moo, sura ulinyo nitabola’onyo nyau mai. moo sura uli=nyo ni-tabol-a’=nyo nyau mai |
monkey this only skin=3SG/GE IV/RE-discard-TZ=3SG/GE go.down come ‘This monkey, he only discarded its skin down to him (the turtle).’
(7) Jari ila uo, ulasang moo, nisu’ata’onyo nemene’…
jari ila ’uo ulasang moo ni-su’at-a’=nyo ne-mene’
so ABL yonder turtle this IV/RE-test-TZ=3SG/GE UD/RE-go.up
‘So after that, this turtle, he attempted to climb (up the tree)…’
In addition to left-dislocation it seems feasible that languages could indicate resumption after a considerable span via a resumptive particle. Maryott (1977) describes a particle in Sangih that he calls a ‘resumptive particle’ which also appears to function in the same way as resumptive repetition. In his paper he calls it a "resumption of narrative marker". This is an area that needs further research.
7. Conclusion
Resumptive repetition is an important universal discourse feature because it is a cognitive part of human language that “wraps around” or “encapsulates” the syntax of any language. It is one of the few features of language that transparently shows the human mind working the same way cross-linguistically in the area of topic continuity.
This universal feature can be productively tapped into for translation tasks. Often a translator encounters problems of communicating a text naturally, and by understanding that any kind of digression that may present challenges in producing a natural translation can be considered to be a candidate for introducing resumptive repetition immediately following the digression. For some texts, it may also be useful for disambiguating the meaning of a text by analyzing what sort of a digression occurs before the repetition. One of the important points that is made in this paper is that simultaneous events can be communicated linearly with the aid of digressions and resumptive repetition. This fact will certainly be useful for translation and the interpretation of texts. It is likely that further research on resumptive repetition will shed further light for understanding the use of language.
REFERENCES
Barr, Donald. 1980. Interlinearized text on how to build a house. Manuscript.
Beavon, Keith. 1984. A partial typology of Konzime (Bantu) discourse. In Robert E. Longacre, ed. Theory and Application in Processing Texts in non-Indoeuropean Languages. 211271. Hamburg: Buske.
Campbell, Barbara. 1986. Repetition in Jamamadí Discourse. In Grimes, ed., 171-185. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
Cooreman, A. 1983. Topic continuity and the voicing system of an ergative language: Chamorro. In Givón, ed. 1983. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1977. Discourse redundancy in Hixkaryana. International Journal of American Linguistics. Vol. 43(3):176-188. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_______. 1985. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
Dooley, Robert A. and Stepen H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing discourse: a manual of basic concepts. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Eco, Umberto. 1980. Il nome della rosa. (IX edizione Bompiano agosto 1982) Milano, Bompiani, Sonzogno: Gruppo Editoriale Fabbri.
___________. 1983. The name of the rose. (Translated from the Itialian by William Weaver). New York: Warner Books, Inc.
Givón, Talmy, ed. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
____________. 1983. Topic continuity and word-order pragmatics in Ute. In Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, Talmy Givón, ed., pp. 141-214 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
____________, ed. 1994. Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1975. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Grimes, Joseph E., ed. 1978. Papers on discourse. SIL Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, 51. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Harm, Harry. 1985. Choctaw government text. Field data typed from taperecording of narrative. Manuscript.
Hepburn, Jennifer. 1978. Linkage at high levels of Tamang discourse. In Papers on Discourse, Joseph Grimes, ed. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Kipling, Rudyard. 1901. Kim. New York: Dell Publishng Co., Inc.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. 1992. Discourse features of New Testament Greek. A course book. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics.
_______. 2003. Analysis of narrative texts. Manuscript, SIL International.
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.
_______. 1996. [2nd edition] The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.
Lubis, Mochtar. 1975. Harimau! Harimau!. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Ludlum, Robert. 1980. The Bourne identity. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.
Maryott, Kenneth R. 1977. Semantics of Focus in Sangih. Studies in Philippine Linguistics 1(1):93-131.
Michener, James. 1959. Hawaii. Madison Heights, MI: Fawcett Crest Books.
Olson, Clif. 2005. Conjoining strategies in Gumawana narrative. Manuscript.
Pastika, I Wayan. 1999. Voice selection in Balinese narrative discourse. PhD dissertation. Australian National University. Canberra, Australia.
______. 2006. Voice selection in Balinese narrative discourse. Kuta, Bali: Pustaka Larasan.
Quick, Philip A. 1985. Resumptive repetition: a cohesive discourse feature in Biblical Hebrew (Genesis 1-15). M.A. thesis. University of Texas at Arlington.
______. 1986a. Taxonomy of repetition. Notes on Translation, No. 114, 15-26. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
______. 1986b. Resumptive repetition—a discourse feature towards naturalness in translation. In Notes on Translation no. 114, 26-38. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
______. 1993. Resumptive repetition: A two-edged sword. Journal of Translation and Text Linguistics 6:4, 289-316.
______. 2003. A grammar of the Pendau language. PhD dissertation. Australian National University. Canberra, Australia.
Rosen, Joan M. 1977. Tambi-lawan. Miscellaneous Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia, Ignatius Suharno, ed., NUSA vol. 5, part IV, pp. 38-58. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya, Unika Atma Jaya.
Shepherd, Susan. 1984. Repetition and cohesion in narrative discourse. “Multiple functions and ambiguity: The use of repetition in Creole narratives”. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Conference, Decemer 1984.
Speece, Richard. 1989. Redundant clauses in Angave narratives. Notes on Translation Vol. 3, No. 1. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.
Strahm, Esther. 1978. Cohesion markers in Jirel narrative. Papers on Discourse, Joseph E. Grimes, ed, SIL Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields, 51. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Tolkien, J. R. R. [1937] 1984. The Hobbit. New York: Ballantine Books.
Winter, Eugene Otto Oscar. [1974] 1977. Replacement as a function of repetition: a study of its principal features in the clause relations of contemporary English. PhD dissertation. University of London. Ann Arbor: University Micro Films.
Waltz, Nathan. 1976. Discourse patterns in John 11. Notes on Translation No. 59, 2-8. Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Vol. 14, No. 26, Maret 2007
SK Akreditasi Nomor: 39/Dikti/Kep. 2004
15
Discussion and feedback