The intangible demonstrative yu- in Hup

2.1 The Hup language and its speakers

Hup (glottocode: hupd1244) belongs to the Naduhup family and is spoken by some 1,500 speakers in the Amazonian basin at the border between Brazil and Colombia. The closest relative of Hup in the Naduhup family is Yuhup, followed by Dâw and Nadëb (Epps 2008: 3). The area where most Hup speakers live is located between the Tiquié, the Vaupés and the Papuri rivers as shown in Figure 1 (Epps 2008: 1). Traditionally recognized as skilled hunters, the Hup people (Hupd’ǝh) have been known for a semi-nomadic lifestyle. Due to missionary work in the region, however, most of the Hupd’ǝh had settled in villages along the Tiquié and Papuri Rivers by the 1970s (Epps 2008: 34–36). The Vaupés region is also known for its linguistic diversity with various languages from different families being spoken in the area, and for the complex socio-linguistic contact between the various communities (Epps and Michael 2017: 938). Multilingualism is also common among the Hup’ǝh; according to Epps (2008: 27), virtually all adult Hup speakers also understand and speak (at least) Tukano. Hup also exhibits notable dialectal variation, and three main dialect areas can be distinguished: Western, Central, and Eastern (Epps 2008: 10).

Figure 1:

Map of the Vaupés and Rio Negro area where Hup is spoken; reproduced from Epps (2012: 199) with permission.

2.2 Hup noun phrases

Nouns in Hup can be divided into two main categories that show different morphosyntactic properties: free nouns and bound nouns. Free nouns typically consist of a single morpheme and can appear as a bare stem without any additional overt grammatical markers. Bound nouns, however, cannot occur on their own and must be preceded by another nominal expression, e.g. a possessive marker, a possessive construction or occur in a compound construction (Epps 2008: 232). Bound nouns include terms referring to humans, kin terms, animal body parts and plant parts.^[1] Examples of free and bound nouns are shown in (1) and (2), respectively.

Nouns in Hup can be marked for plural with the clitic =d’ǝh, as can be seen in (17). The use of plural marking depends on the animacy of the referent; nouns referring to humans are consistently marked for plural, nouns referring to non-human animates can but do not necessarily receive plural marking, and nouns referring to inanimates are typically not overtly marked for number.

Hup also marks nominal case for both core and oblique verbal arguments (Epps 2008: 165). Core case marking in Hup follows nominative-accusative alignment, with single arguments of intransitive clauses as well as agents remaining formally unmarked. Patients in transitive clauses, but also recipients or beneficiaries are flagged overtly as objects by the marker -ǎn. Example (3) shows -ǎn marking a transitive pronominal object.

(3)

hd-ǎn,	húptok	g’ɔ́p=n’ǎn,	hɨd	wæd-hũʔ-yʔ-y
3pl- obj	caxiri	scoop=pl.obj	3pl	eat-finish-tel-dynm
‘They ate up all of them, those who were serving caxiri.’
(Epps 2008: 167)

Note that Hup has differential object marking based on the animacy status of the referent expressed as the object. Object marking is obligatory with human referents (including pronouns and demonstratives), can but does not necessarily have to be used with other non-human animate referents and is ungrammatical with inanimate referents (Epps 2008: 170). Besides core case marking, Hup features a number of case markers to express other relations, such as comitative, instrumental, or directional. One example is given in (4), showing the use of the directional marker -an.

There are two other important markers that can occur on nominal expressions in Hup under certain circumstances, namely the dependent marker and the declarative marker. The dependent marker -Vp is mainly used to signal subordinate clauses such as relative and adverbial clauses (Epps 2008: 841–845).^[2] The marker is relevant for the present study because of its extended functions related to discourse structure. The dependent marker is not only used to signal a structural relation between the dependent clause and the main clause, but it can also occur in main clauses to mark the relation between the current predication and the larger discourse context (Epps 2008: 845–847). Epps (2008: 845) notes that, in such uses, the marker “[…] is particularly frequent with emphatic and evaluative statements, and in some cases appears to mark the utterance as topical or relatively presupposed in relation to the larger discourse or pragmatic context.” This is important, because the dependent marker can also be used with nominal arguments in a clause to mark topicality, and it is likely that this function is an extension of its function to express emphasis or topicality when used with predicates of main clauses. When a subject is expressed clause-finally, for instance, it generally receives some overt contrastive or focus marking as well as the dependent marker (or the declarative marker, see below). This is shown in (5), where the pronominal subject ʔám ‘you.sg’ occurs with the dependent marker - a ˜ ´ p.

The dependent marker also occurs on nominal arguments that are fronted or post-posed and separated from the rest of the clause prosodically by a slight pause and can be co-referenced by a pronoun in the main clause. In such cases, the nominals can be interpreted as topics (Epps 2008: 848). An example is given in (6). We will see similar constructions that include the dependent marker in Sections 3.2 and 3.4.

Another marker that is mainly used with predicates but that can be used on nominal arguments to express topicality is the declarative marker -V´h. This marker generally occurs on the last element in the clause and its main function is to mark a clause as declarative, as opposed to, e.g., interrogative, imperative or negative (Epps 2008: 761). As will be shown in Section 3.6, the intangible demonstrative yu- combines with the declarative marker when used as a demonstrative identifier.

2.3 Hup demonstratives

There are four types of demonstratives in Hup: a proximal and distal one, which mainly express spatial deixis, the alternative demonstrative to express ‘other’, and the intangible demonstrative, which has a number of discourse-managing functions. All four types of demonstratives can occur on their own in their uninflected form, or in combination with other inflectional, e.g. case, markers (Epps 2008: 291). The four types of demonstratives are shown in Table 2 in their uninflected, pronominal and adnominal forms.^[3]

The proximal and distal demonstratives are the main markers of spatial deixis, which directs the hearer’s attention to entities that are physically present in the discourse situation. Such deictic uses of demonstratives are prototypically accompanied by a pointing gesture towards the entity referred to (Diessel 1999: 94).^[4] The proximal demonstrative nu- points to a referent near or within the range of the speaker and is commonly used together with a pointing gesture. An example of the proximal demonstrative is shown in (7), which is taken from a conversation about a violent and long fight with many deaths in the village of Santa Atanasio. When recounting what happened during this fight, the speaker makes use of the proximal demonstrative, together with a pointing gesture to the torso.

(7)

Nɨ-nh-t=ʔǔy=d’ǝh=mah	naʔ-yʔ-h.
this-nmz-obl=who=pl=rep	lose.consciousness-tel-decl
‘Those shot here [gestures to torso] died.’
(Epps 2004: 11)

Besides expressing spatial deixis, the proximal demonstrative can also be used to express temporal proximity, anaphoric reference and discourse deixis. An example of the latter use is shown in (8), where núp ‘this’ refers to the idea expressed in the immediately preceding clause.

(8)

g’æ̌g=tæ̃h	ʔn-ǎn	y’æt-yʔ-ay-áh,	j’ǔg	cóʔ	núp	ʔɨn
bone=son	1pl-obj	leave-tel-inch-decl	forest	loc	this	1pl
ni-nɨh-tég-éh
be-be.like-fut/purp-decl
‘Bone-Son left us in the forest (area); this is the way we are supposed to live.’
(Epps 2008: 295)

The distal demonstrative n’i- is typically used for spatial deictic referents that appear further away from the speaker; often, the referent remains in the visible area (Epps 2008: 296). An example is given in (9), showing n’ít ‘over there’ in its locative adverbial use.

Similarly to the temporal functions of the proximal demonstrative, the distal demonstrative can also be used to encode a temporal meaning, but in contrast to its proximal counterpart it is used to refer to a past event. This is shown in (10).

The alternative demonstrative expresses, as the label indicates, alterity. An example is given in (11), where we see the demonstrative in both an adverbial and an adnominal context.

(11)

n’íp	pótʔah=cóʔ-óy	nh	ʔd	cãp=yʔ=b’ay-áh,	cã́p
that	upriver=loc-dynm	poss	speech	other=tel=again-decl	other
ʔɨd=yɨʔ
speech=tel
‘Those upriver people’s language is different, it’s a different language.’
(Epps 2008: 304)

Before we turn to the intangible demonstrative in Section 3, a few notes regarding the morphosyntactic properties of demonstratives in Hup are in order. As could be seen from the examples in this section, Hup demonstratives can occur in adverbial (9), pronominal (7) and adnominal (10) contexts. Hup demonstratives also inflect for number and case when used pronominally. With animate referents, example (12) shows that demonstratives take the same plural marker =d’əh, otherwise used for animate plural nouns.

(12)

hĩ́	j’ek-yɔhɔy-yʔ-y,	yɨ-d’ə̌h-ə́h!
only	steal-search-tel-dynm	that.itg-pl-decl
‘They’re just looking (for something) to steal, those ones!’
(Epps 2008: 199)

(13)

ʔn-p	y-nh=n’ǎn	hipãh-nh	yǽh	tí
1pl-dep	that.itg-nmz=obj.pl	know-neg	frust	emph.dep
‘We (humans) don’t know about these things.’
(Epps 2008: 695)

As mentioned in Section 2.2, inanimate nouns are not marked for plural. With demonstratives, however, plurality of inanimate referents can be marked by using the nominalizer -n’ɨh. This is shown in (13).

3.1 Anaphoric use

One of the common functions of the intangible demonstrative in Hup is to express anaphoric reference. In such uses, the demonstrative is co-referential with a previously mentioned (pro)nominal expression, which helps to track referents through discourse (Diessel 1999: 95). The intangible demonstrative in Hup can mark such an anaphoric relation together with a lexical noun or on its own as a pronoun.

Adnominal anaphoric uses of the intangible demonstrative seem to occur in cases in which the antecedent is not found in the immediately preceding discourse segment, but somewhat further away. This means that the referent is typically not in the current center of attention, and the use of the intangible demonstrative helps to guide the addressee’s attention back to an afore-mentioned referent. This is very much in line with the types of contexts and conditions in which anaphoric demonstratives are used as opposed to, e.g., zero anaphora, pronouns or lexical nouns, the latter of which may also occur with a definite article (cf. Ariel 1988, Gundel et al. 1993, Himmelmann 1996: 226–229, Diessel 1999: 96).

One example of the intangible demonstrative marking the nominal expression it occurs with as anaphoric is shown in (14). Here, baktb’ ‘spirit’ is the main protagonist of the preceding discourse segment (14a) and therefore activated. The last lexical mention, however, occurs four clauses before (14b), and we also find a number of intervening referents between its last lexical mention and its mention in (14b).

(14)

a.

‘So, it’s said, having said “Let’s go fish for traira together!” he (the spirit relative) took his affinal relative along, (took) that man, the spirit (did), (took) his affinal relative. It was out there in a forest clearing, in a forest clearing, it’s said, he fished for traira. He (the spirit) searched out rats (for bait) with his hands,

b.

cǎʔ-át	hãʔ-ʔě-h,	yúp	baktb’-h.
root.clump-obl	search.in-perf-decl	that. itg	spirit- decl
‘searched (them) out in clumps of roots, (did) that spirit.’
(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 2)6

1. 6

   Audio of (14b) at https://osf.io/snzp8.

Probably more common in narratives, however, is the use of the intangible demonstrative as an anaphoric pronoun with no accompanying lexical noun. So much so that Epps (2008: 285) describes the pronominal singular and plural forms of the intangible demonstrative as “common variants of the basic third person pronouns.” She further notes that these pronouns commonly occur as post-verbal subjects in clause-final position, as is shown in (15).

Similarly to (14b), the intangible demonstrative in (15) is also postposed like an afterthought. It is preceded by a silent pause of about 0.6 s, which sets it apart prosodically from the rest of the clause.^[8] This position is, however, not the only context for anaphoric pronominal occurrences of the intangible demonstrative, as can be seen in (16).

In this example, the intangible demonstrative is additionally marked for feminine gender, as it refers to a woman.^[10] The antecedent of the referent expressed by yúp=ʔãy in (16) was last mentioned eight clauses earlier. A longer distance between the antecedent and the current mention of a referent paired with intervening referents is a typical context for demonstratives. As Diessel (1999: 99) states: “What all anaphoric demonstratives have in common is that they do not just continue the focus of attention; rather, they indicate that the antecedent is not the referent that the hearer would expect in this context (i.e. the most topical NP).”

3.2 Discourse deictic uses

Another common function of demonstratives is to signal discourse deixis. In this case, the demonstrative points to an adjacent discourse segment, referring back to an event that was previously established in the discourse. Discourse deixis thus anchors the current proposition to a specific preceding discourse segment, ensuring coherence and continuity in communication (cf. Diessel 1999: 100–105, Himmelmann 1996: 224–226).

Examples (17) and (18) show how the intangible demonstrative is used to mark discourse deixis in a conversation. The pronominal forms of the demonstrative occur clause-initially to refer back to the entire proposition of the preceding utterance. In both examples, speaker P uses the intangible demonstrative to add new information in relation to the proposition of the preceding utterance by speaker J.

(17)

J:	‘That woman was covered with wounds!’
P:	Yúp	tɨh=tǽh=d’ǝh	k’t-ɨp	mǽy=yɨʔ=mah;	…
	that. itg	3sg=offspring=pl	cut-dep	payment=tel=rep	…
	“That was her (B’ɔŋ’s) sons’ revenge, it’s said; …”
	(Epps 2004: 10)

(18)

J:	‘When they eat snake, it’s said, they lose all self-control.’
P:	Y	nɔ́-ɔ̃́y=mah	j’ám	yɨ-d’ǝ̌h-ǝ́h,	y
	that. itg	say-dynm=rep	dst.cntr	that.itg-pl-decl	that. itg
	nɔ́-ɔ̃́y	j’ám	ʔãh=hũtǽh	n’ǔh-ṹh.
	say-dynm	dst.cntr	1sg=nephew	cntr-decl
	‘That’s what they say, that’s what my nephew told.’
	(Epps 2004: 4)

The intangible demonstrative in Hup is also commonly found in sequences of events in narratives, where it marks the relation between the current and a previous event.^[11] One example of this use is given in (19b). Here, yúp is used to establish a relation between the event of arriving and the sequence of events described in the previous discourse segment in (19a). Note that the predicate of the first clause in (19b) includes the use of the sequential marker yóʔ, which additionally signals a temporal chain of events.^[12] Syntactically, verbs marked by -yóʔ correspond to dependent clauses, which usually precede the main clause as in (19b). In this example, the yúp-marked dependent clause in (19b) summarizes the previous clause (19a), before the next event is introduced by the following main clause.

Example (20) shows another context in which yúp occurs together with a predicate that resumes the previous clause to signal their connection and temporal succession. In (20b) and (20c), the speaker uses yúp repeatedly in this sequence describing how the protagonist cooks fish in order to share the food with her relatives.^[14]

(20)

a.

“Come cook (these fish), I’ll offer food to (i.e., eat with) my affinal relatives!” (he) said, it’s said, her husband. So it’s said, she cooked (them),

b.

cɨw-yóʔ=mah	yúp,
cook-seq=rep	that. itg
‘having cooked them,’

c.

cɨw-hup-cp=mah	yúp,
cook-refl-compl=rep	that. itg
‘it’s said, when she finished cooking them,’

d.

“‘come offer food to your affinal relatives,” she said, it’s said.’

(Epps & Monteiro 2001: 5)15

1. 15

   Audio of (20b) and (20c) at https://osf.io/r3egw.

The intangible demonstrative can also occur clause-initially when referring back to the preceding event in a sequence of events. This is shown in examples (21) and (22).

(21)

a.

‘After having spent a long time coming up (to reach her field), she lit a fire, she would sweep the ground (and burn the weeds), so she lit a fire.’

b.

Yúp	th=yɨʔ	hæp-hup-cp=mah,	ʔayǔp=ʔĩh	th-ǎn
that. itg	3sg=tel	sweep-refl-compl=rep	one=m	3sg-obj
wɨdnǽn-ay-áh.
arrive.come-inch-decl
‘Then when she had finished sweeping up, it’s said, a man arrived to her.’

c.

‘He looked like her husband, it’s said; however, it was Curupira, apparently.’

(Epps & Monteiro 2001: 2)16

1. 16

   Audio of (21b) at https://osf.io/g39vx.

(22)

a.

‘Having washed her manioc, it’s said, she went up from the river, to her house. She arrived and set down her manioc.’

b.

Yúp	tɨh	wɨdcɔp-húyʔah	dyɨʔ=mah,
that. itg	3sg	arrive.go.from.river-before	vdim=rep
tɨh=tæ̃hʔíp	hɔ̃̌p	mæh-ʔay-ʔeʔ-ní-p,
3sg=child.father	fish	kill-vent-perf-infr2-dep
wɨdb’áy-ay-áh.
arrive.return-inch-decl
‘Then shortly after she had arrived, her husband, who had gone to kill fish, returned.’

c.

‘He had killed a lot of fish.’

(Epps & Monteiro 2001: 4–5)17

1. 17

   Audio of (22b) at https://osf.io/dmzt6.

We saw in examples (19) to (22) that event sequences in narratives include repetitions. Information from the previous clause is repeated as given information and combined with new information in the current clause. According to Epps (cf. 2008: 861), this is a fairly common strategy in Hup narratives. In fact, repeating discourse-old information to introduce new information in this way is a cross-linguistically common strategy to organize discourse. The Hup patterns are reminiscent of what has been discussed as tail-head linkage or as bridging constructions more recently in the typological literature (cf. de Vries 2005; Guérin 2018). Interestingly, in her analysis of discourse demonstratives in Vatlongos (Oceanic, Vanuatu), Ridge (2020: 86) notes that the demonstrative that has important reference tracking functions is often used in the first part of such bridging constructions, where old information is repeated. This is very similar to the use of yúp in (19) to (22).

Another noteworthy aspect of the use of the intangible demonstrative in the preceding examples is that it also appears to mark a topic shift, or at least to close the current discourse topic. The clauses in which yúp occurs conclude a dynamic sequence of events, marking the transition to a new discourse segment. The start of these new discourse segments are shown in (19c), (20d), (21c) and (22c), respectively. More research is needed to assess properly to what extent and under which circumstances yúp marks a topic shift, but this function is certainly not uncommon for demonstratives in general. Especially for anaphoric uses of demonstratives, it is established in the literature that such uses often mark topic shifts in that the demonstrative refers back to a referent who was not in the center of attention in the immediately preceding discourse segment (cf. Diessel 1999, 2006; Fuchs and Schumacher 2020; Himmelmann 1997), and demonstrative clause linkers have also been shown to develop into topic markers (Diessel and Breunesse 2020).

Himmelmann (1996) distinguishes a further, temporal, subtype of discourse deixis. In this case, the demonstrative is used to refer back “to a point in time in a sequence of narrated events, or, in expository and procedural texts, a sequence of arguments or acts” (Himmelmann 1996: 225). In Hup, this type of temporal discourse deixis is also expressed by constructions that include the intangible demonstrative. An example is shown in (23). Here, the use of the complex adverbial expression yɨnɨhmʔ=mah indicates the event referred to in the current proposition (23b) occurs simultaneously to the event described in the previous utterance (23a).^[18]

(23)

a.

‘A woman, it’s said, once went to her roça. She went across to her roça on the other side of the river, it’s said, she alone.’

b.

Yɨnɨh-mʔ=mah	th=tǽhʔíp=b’ay	hɔ̃p	kǝ́k-ǝp
that. itg .be.like- under=rep	3sg=child.father=again	fish	pull-dep
hám- a ˜ ´ h.
go-decl
‘At the same time her husband went fishing.’
(Epps & Monteiro 2001: 2)19

1. 19

   Audio of (23b) at https://osf.io/yh7a2.

Another example of the intangible demonstrative used to express temporal discourse deixis is given in (24). In this example, yɨnɨh-yóʔ signals temporal sequence between the events expressed in (24a) and (24b).

(24)

a.

tɨnh	pã́t	cóʔ-óy	ʔɨn	hæy’-hũʔ-yɨʔ-tég=ǝʔ,
3pl.poss	hair	loc-dynm	1pl	cut-follow-tel-fut=tag2
‘We’ll cut off her hair;’

b.

yɨnɨh-yóʔ	ʔɨn	hi-cɨʔ-wob-té-h!
that. itg. be.like- seq	1pl	fact-stick-rest.on-fut-decl
‘then we’ll stick her hair onto our heads’
(Epps 2008: 589)

Note that the form of the intangible demonstrative is very similar in (23) and (24), being based on its manner variant yɨnɨh. To express simultaneity as in (23), it is combined with the spatial expression -mʔ ‘under’, while it occurs with the sequential marker -yóʔ to express temporal succession.

3.3 Other clause-linking uses

Epps (2008: 301) mentions a few additional, conventionalized expressions based on the intangible demonstrative that mark other clause-linking functions related to discourse deixis. One of these is the oblique form of the intangible demonstrative, yt ‘thus, with that’, which is often used to express a sequential or also causal relation between propositions. Two examples are shown in (25b) and (25c). In (25c), we also see that yt can combine with the reportative marker =mah in narratives.

(25)

a.

‘So, it’s said, a child was crying (at night). Because she cried, it’s said, her father put her outside.’

b.

Y t	tɨh	d’oʔ-way-g’et-yʔ-t=mah	yɔ̌y	canǎ
thus	3sg	take-go.out-stand-tel-obl=rep	pineapple.type	pineapple
pɔ́	baktb’	d’oʔ-ham-yʔ-h.
thicket	spirit	take-go-tel-decl
‘Then when he put her outside, it’s said, a yɔy pineapple-thicket spirit took (her) off.’

c.

Y t=mah	hɨd	ʔũh-toh-hám-ã́h, …
thus= rep	3pl	intrc-steal-go-decl
‘With that, it’s said, they (the other spirits) went chasing after each other to steal (the girl), …’
(Epps & Pires 2002: 1)20

1. 20

   Audio of (25b) at https://osf.io/n2vh3; audio of (25c) at https://osf.io/4exkm.

The oblique form of the intangible demonstrative can also combine with the telic marker yt-yɨʔ ‘like that, exactly’ (Epps 2008: 301). An example is shown in (26), where the expression is used by speaker J to refer back to the previous proposition uttered by speaker P. Speaker J confirms the proposition and thereby expresses agreement with P.

(26)

P:	‘My little nephew, that Fernando, the father of that girl they apparently cut there in Manaus.’
J:	Yt-yɨʔ.	nɨ-n’h-t	pd=mah	hɨd	kɨt-j’ap-d’ǝh-hám-ã́h,	…
	thus- tel	this-nmz-obl	distr=rep	3pl	cut-divide-send-go-decl	…
	‘That’s right. They chopped off right here, …’
	(Epps 2004: 4)

Another common clause-linking construction based on the intangible demonstrative is shown in (27). Here, the manner variant yɨnɨh ‘be.like.that.itg’ of the demonstrative combines with the dynamic suffix -ɨy. According to Epps (2008: 301), the resulting expression yɨnɨh-ɨy ‘thus and so’ often occurs in the reduced form yɨnɨy. The speaker uses yny=mah in (27b) to refer back to the proposition of the final clause in (27a).

(27)

a.

‘The women too are always holding machetes, they say, always holding hoes. They always fight with their husbands!’

b.

Y n y=mah	yúp	tãʔã́y=n’an=hin	hɨd
that. itg. be.like. dynm=rep	that.itg	woman=pl.obj=also	3pl
mæh-yɨʔ-b-h.
beat-tel-hab-decl
‘That’s why they always hit/kill the women too.’
(Epps 2004: 13)

Manner demonstratives such as yɨnɨh and its variants in Hup are commonly found across languages to develop into markers of discourse deixis and clausal connectives (cf. Guérin 2015; König 2015). As we will see in 3.5, the manner demonstrative yɨnɨh is also the basis of a more complex construction that is used to mark discourse relations.

3.4 The yúp=mah yúp construction

We also find the intangible demonstrative yu- as part of the more complex construction yúp=mah yúp, which is used to establish a link between different clauses.^[21] The construction is common in narratives, and its function seems to be to connect a previous sequence of events with the following discourse event(s). More so than the other expressions based on the intangible demonstrative presented in Section 3.3, yúp=mah yúp concludes and summarizes the previous sequence of events.

An example is given in (28). Here, the speaker mentions several sounds that Curupira makes and types of birds that he imitates in (28a). The following utterance in (28b), which summarizes the previous statements, is introduced by yúp=mah yúp. In (28c), we see how the following utterances then turn to the beginning of the story about a woman who encounters Curupira. In (28b), yúp=mah yúp is uttered as a single intonation unit, with a short following pause of about 0.1 s.

The yúp=mah yúp construction has a similar function in (29). In this case, its use in (29b) also appears to mark the transition to a new discourse segment from (29a), describing the bathing of the child, to the actions of the man in (29b). In (29b), yúp=mah yúp is followed by a longer pause of 0.5 s.

(29)

a.

‘So, it’s said, there was a man standing there listening, one who was out shooting inambu. So, it’s said, she bathed (the child), in the lake. She bathed him, it’s said, and took him back up to the house.’

b.

Yúp=mah	yúp	(0.5)	th=ʔíp-ǎn	ʔɨd-wɨdyé-éh.
that.itg=rep	that.itg		3sg=father-obl	speak-arrive.enter-decl
‘So, it’s said, (the man) went back and told her father.’
(Epps & Pires 2002: 2)23

1. 23

   Audio of (29b) at https://osf.io/fguq2.

Example (30) provides evidence for the fact that yúp=mah yúp is a formulaic discourse marker which can be used as a filler in hesitation contexts. The utterance in (30a), which starts with yúp=mah yúp, is the first utterance of a story, i.e., there is no preceding context that the construction could establish a link to. Note that the yúp=mah yúp construction is also followed by a longer pause in this example.

(30)

a.

Yúp=mah	yúp	(0.6)	baktb’=ʔ a ˜ ´ y-ǎn=mah	ʔayǔp=ʔĩh	yɔh-ní- ı ˜ ´ y.
that.itg=rep	that.itg		spirit=f-obj=rep	one=m	affine-be-dynm
‘So, it’s said, there was a man who had taken a spirit woman as a wife.’

b.

‘That man, the one who was thus affinally related, it’s said, he went visiting his affinal relatives (spirits).’

(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 1)24

1. 24

   Audio of (30a) at https://osf.io/a5utm.

Furthermore, we find several instances in narratives where the yúp=mah yúp construction precedes direct speech. Two examples are given in (31) and (32). Note that in both cases, the speech is also marked as such by the following speech verb. Because of that, and because yúp=mah yúp does not occur systematically with direct speech, it should certainly not be analyzed as a quotative marker per se. Still, it is interesting to note that the use of yúp=mah yúp in (31) and (32) resembles constructions from other languages in which demonstratives have developed into quotative markers (cf. Diessel and Breunesse 2020: 314–317).

(32)

a.

‘Having carried them (traira fish) quickly off, at the stream he said, “let’s gut them!”’

b.

Yúp=mah	yúp	(0.15)	“pěc	kój!”	nɔ-yóʔ=mah
that. itg=rep	that. itg		scale	scrape.off.imp	say-seq=rep
th-h,
3sg=decl
‘So then, it’s said, “scrape off the scales!” he (the spirit) said;’

c.

‘“I don’t know how!” the man said in his turn. “We don’t know anything about those things!”’

(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 5)26

1. 26

   Audio of (32b) at https://osf.io/ze9xr.

The last aspect of yúp=mah yúp to be mentioned is its internal form and potential diachronic origin. While we cannot be certain about the latter, there are several constructions and uses of the intangible demonstrative that are likely to have contributed to the development of yúp=mah yúp as a formulaic construction. We have seen in Section 3.2 that yúp occurs as a marker of discourse deixis clause-finally in bridging contexts following a dependent clause as in (19) and (20), or in clause-initial position as in (21) and (22). We also find contexts in which both yúp-marking strategies are combined, as in (33). Similarly to the uses of yúp in Section 3.2, the yúp-marked clause in (33b) summarizes the discourse segment in (33a) and marks the transition to the following event in (33c) and (33d). In addition to the clause-initial yúp, we see that yúp is also used clause-finally in a dependent clause in (33b) that forms a bridging construction with the following clause in (33c). It is possible that yúp=mah yúp developed from this type of construction through the omission of the predicate.

(33)

a.

‘Having had a child, it’s said, she took him down to the river to bathe him.’

b.

Yúp	d’oʔ-d’ób-op=mah	yúp,
that. itg	take-go.to.river-dep=rep	that. itg
‘As she was taking him down to the river, it’s said,’

c.

tɨnh	mɔ̌y-ɔ̃́t	kǝk-g’ãʔ-d’oʔ-kǝdwáy-ay-áh;
3sg.poss	house-obl	pull-be.suspended-take-pass.go.out-inch-decl
‘she swung him against the house (rafter) as she went quickly out (bumping him accidentally),’

d.

‘and the child cried.’

(Epps & Pires 2002: 1–2)27

1. 27

   Audio of (33b) and (33c) at https://osf.io/bvk37.

Moreover, we also find yúp together with the reportative marker in a clause-initial position. Two examples are shown in (34b) and (34d). Note that in (34d), the dependent clause features another instance of yúp at the end, which makes it even more similar to the yúp=mah yúp construction.

(34)

a.

‘“The little ones always arrive first,” (the spirit) said, it’s said.’

b.

Yúp=mah	tɨh	kǝ́k-ǝ́h,	tɨh	b’uy-yæt-d’ǝh-pd-h,
that. itg=rep	3sg	pull-decl	3sg	throw-lie.on.ground-send-distr-decl
‘So he fished; he kept pulling (them) out and throwing them on the ground,’

c.

‘he kept pulling out the little ones.’

d.

Yúp=mah	tɨh=nuhǔ̃y	tɨh	tǝ́h-ǝp=mah	yúp,	kúnunununu
that. itg=rep	3sg=neck	3sg	break-dep=rep	that. itg	ideo
tɨh	nɔ-pd-h.
3sg	say-distr-decl
‘Then, it’s said, he broke their necks, kúnunununu was the sound it made.’
(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 2)28

1. 28

   Audio of (34b) at https://osf.io/dvjbt; audio of (34d) at https://osf.io/fr8dj.

Another potential explanation of the repeated use of the intangible demonstrative in the yúp=mah yúp construction comes from evidence of processing in articulation (planning). As we have shown in the preceding examples, from a synchronic perspective, yúp=mah and following yúp arguably form one prosodic unit, since speakers systematically pause after yúp but not before.^[29] It is unclear, however, what specific function the final yúp has in this construction. It does not seem to be referential;^[30] its use rather appears to have arisen from its discourse-deictic function that was shown in examples (19) to (22). Such uses of the form yúp of the intangible demonstrative are very frequent, and we can assume that it has a lower activation level compared to new, lexical material (cf. Levelt 1989; Levelt et al. 1999). Himmelmann (2014) shows for various languages that this often leads to high-frequency function words being uttered early, followed by a pause, after which speakers articulate the remaining lexical material. He shows how this systematically breaks up syntactic units, e.g. a preposed determiner (followed by a pause) and the head noun of the NP. Besides the processing account, Himmelmann (2014) argues that the early production of the function words and the resulting pause serve a communicative purpose. It allows the speaker to hold the floor, signaling the intent to continue speaking. While the situation of the yúp=mah yúp construction is somewhat different from the types of constructions discussed by Himmelmann (2014), the construction-final yúp could be the result of the speakers’ intention to hold the floor and to avoid complete silence while preparing the articulation of the following clause, which usually contains new information and has an arguably higher processing load. Further evidence to support the hypothesis that yúp has a low activation load and can be articulated easily comes from its use as a repair strategy with hesitations.^[31] As can be seen in (35), yúp is used as a placeholder for baktb’ ‘spirit’.

(35)

Yúp	tɨh=yɔ̌h=d’ǝh	máh-an	wat-hám-ãp=mah	yúp,	hã́y
that.itg	3sg=affine=pl	near-dir	go.visiting-go-dep=rep	that. itg	um
máh	yúw-úh,	baktb’	máh-an	wɨd-hám-ã́h.
near	that. itg-decl	spirit	near-dir	arrive-go-decl
‘He went visiting to where his affinal relatives lived; he arrived to where the, um, where the spirits were.’
(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 1)32

1. 32

   Audio of (35) at https://osf.io/qprxy.

Thus, the systematic combination of yúp=mah and yúp for processing and discourse-managing reasons could have contributed to the development into yúp=mah yúp as a single construction. As we will show in the following section, Hup has another, similar construction that could have reinforced the construction-final yúp.

3.5 The yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah (yúp) construction

In narratives, the intangible demonstrative can also occur in another complex construction that links clauses, namely yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah (yúp) ‘that.itg.be.like-seq=rep (that.itg)’. According to Epps (2008: 862), the construction yɨnɨh-yóʔ ‘that.itg.be.like-seq’ is used to signal the start of a new event in narratives. Interestingly, almost all instances that we find in the corpus data also include the reportative marker and the repeated demonstrative yúp ‘that.itg’. We take yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp to form a single, complex construction, as it is uttered within a single prosodic unit, with a silent pause following yúp in most cases.

Example (36) shows yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp being used to summarize the previous discourse segment and to mark the transition to the next one. Note that the construction in (36b) is followed by a pause. Also in (37), yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp concludes the proposition of the previous utterance and introduces the current one, which involves a shift from the description of jaguars arriving to the actions of the spirit. Again, we find a pause between yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp and the second part of the utterance.

(36)

a.

‘So, it’s said, (the man) went back and told her father. “Your daughter is bathing a child, the girl you beat and drove away,” (he) said to him as he entered.’

b.

Yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah	yúp	(1.0)	ʔecáp	cóʔ	hɨd
that. itg .be.like- seq=rep	that. itg		tomorrow	loc	3pl
nǽn-ay-áh,	hd-ǎn	mǽh=d’ǝh-ǝ́h.
come-inch-decl	3pl-obj	kill=pl-decl
‘So with that, it’s said, the following day they went out, in order to kill them.’
(Epps & Pires 2002: 2)33

1. 33

   Audio of (36b) at https://osf.io/hdxpv.

(37)

a.

‘And in the middle of the night the big ones began to arrive; for us (humans) they were big jaguars.’

b.

Yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah	yúp,	(1.3)	tɨh	mæh-hũʔ-yʔ-h,
that.itg.be.like-seq=rep	that.itg		3sg	kill-finish-tel-decl
‘So after that, it’s said, he (the spirit) finished killing them all,’

c.

‘(while) that person was trembling right up against his (the spirit’s) back, against his affine’s back, afraid of the jaguars.’

(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 2–3)34

1. 34

   Audio of (37b) at https://osf.io/2exzd.

In other examples, the main function of yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp seems to be to summarize the previous sequence of events rather than marking the beginning of a new discourse segment. In other words, it signals the closing of a discourse topic. This is shown in (38). Here, the previous utterances given in (38a) describe how the spirit strings up the traira fish, and the utterance in (38b), introduced by yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp, summarizes and concludes the discourse segment that describes how the fish are strung up. It is only in the following utterance in (38c), where the discourse moves from the description of stringing up the traira fish to a conversation between the spirit and the man.

(38)

a.

‘“This is how I always do it, when I string traira,” (the spirit) said, it’s said, and he strung them all up. (He) strung (one) up by the chin, strung (the next) up by the chin (and so on), thus he did, it’s said.’

b.

Yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah	yúp	(0.96)	tɨh=pǒg=n’ǎn	tɨh
that. itg. be.like- seq=rep	that. itg		3sg=big=pl.obj	3sg
cuh-d’oʔ-y-b’ay-áh.
string-take-tel-again-decl
‘Having done this, it’s said, he then strung up the big ones.’

c.

‘“Go on, carry them,” (the spirit) said. Then, it’s said, he (the man) was standing around again, not knowing how to carry (them).’

(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 4)35

1. 35

   Audio of (38b) at https://osf.io/xc7h5.

Similarly, the first instance of yɨnɨh-yóʔ in (39b) summarizes the sequence of events described in (39a). This is the only instance of the short alternative in the corpus, without the reportative marker and without the repeated demonstrative. There is no pause after yɨnɨh-yóʔ, but the last syllable yóʔ is substantially lengthened, which could also indicate a prosodic break between yɨnɨh-yóʔ and the remainder of the utterance in (39b).

(39)

a.

‘Having opened the bellies and thrown out the innards, he um, he scraped off the scales.’

b.

Tɨh	koj-yóʔ,	yɨnɨh-yóʔ	tɨh	tok	cɔʔ-hũʔ-yóʔ,
3sg	scrape-seq	that. itg .be.like- seq	3sg	belly	gut-finish-seq
‘(The spirit’s) having scraped off the scales, and after that having finished gutting them,’

c.

‘they went off carrying (the fish) dangling from their hands,’

d.

té	yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah	yúp	tɨh
until	that. itg. be.like- seq=rep	that. itg	3sg
wɨdye-yʔ-ay-áh.
arrive.enter-tel-inch-decl
‘until after that, it’s said, he (they) arrived home.’
(Epps & Salustiano 2001: 5)36

1. 36

   Audio of (39b) at https://osf.io/6r5v3; audio of (39d) at https://osf.io/kexnz.

The use of yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp in (39d) serves to sum up and conclude the previous propositions, and it links the current proposition about arriving home to the preceding ones. The utterance in (39d) also corresponds to the end of the story.

As for the development of the yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah yúp construction, it is likely that it interacted with the development of the yúp=mah yúp construction. The account based on processing and articulation planning, and on early utterance for holding the floor that was presented for construction-final yúp in Section 3.4 may also account for the use of yúp in this construction.

3.6 Uses as a predicative demonstrative

According to Epps (2008), the intangible demonstrative yu- can also be used as a demonstrative identifier. This is shown in (40), where yúw-úh, the combination of the intangible demonstrative and the declarative marker, presents and identifies Mario.

For such uses as in (40), Epps further notes:

While this form is clearly a demonstrative, and not a true copula, the demonstrative identifier realization of yu- does appear to be taking on an identity that is distinct from that of its other functions. In particular, yu- often appears at the end of clauses that already have a verbal predicate and that may even have an explicit subject (to which yu- then refers back). In these cases, the demonstrative almost always occurs following a verb-final enclitic or particle (usually an evidential or contrast marker). (Epps 2008: 301)

We found three examples of yúw-úh as a demonstrative identifier in the corpus, shown in (41) to (43). Example (41) concludes a narrated story; the speaker clarifies that she has told everything. In this example, yúw-úh does in fact combine with a verbal predicate as described by Epps in the quote above.^[37]

The other two examples feature nominal predicates (Epps p.c., 2025) but involve contrast. In (42), several spirits argue about who gets to steal a girl, and the statement in (42b) includes the marker páh, which Epps (2008) analyzes as a proximate contrast marker.^[38]

(42)

a.

‘With that, it’s said, they (the other spirits) went chasing after each other to steal (the girl), saying,

b.

N=mah	páh	yúw-úh!
1sg.poss=rep	prx.cntr	that. itg-decl
‘“But she’s mine!”’
(Epps & Pires 2002: 1)39

1. 39

   Audio of (42b) at https://osf.io/u7zst.

Also the context of (43) involves contrast, as speaker J corrects the previous statement of speaker P when trying to remember who was involved in a certain fight. Here, we see the use of the so-called distant past contrast marker j’ã´h.^[40]

(43)

P:	Tɨh=tǽh=d’ǝh=y’ʔ=mah!
	3sg=offspring=pl=tel=rep
	‘It was her sons, they say!’
J:	Tɨh=hũtǽh=d’ǝh=mah	j’ã́h	yúw-úh.
	3sg=nephew=pl=rep	dst.cntr	that. itg-decl
	‘It was her nephews, they say.’
	(Epps 2004: 8)

Given that contrast is already encoded by the proximate and distant past contrast markers in (42) and (43), the demonstrative identifier yúw-úh does not necessarily express contrast as such. What could explain its use in contrastive contexts, however, is the fact that the core function of demonstratives is to draw the hearer’s attention towards some entity or event (Burenhult 2003; Dawuda et al. 2009; Diessel 2006; Enfield 2003). In these types of contexts, the function of the demonstrative identifier could thus be to draw the hearer’s attention to the entire proposition to highlight that it goes against the hearer’s expectations in some way.

Demonstrative identifiers constitute one type of a broader category of predicative demonstratives. Besides the uses of yúw-úh as a demonstrative identifier shown in the preceding paragraphs, certain uses of yu- resemble those of other types of predicative demonstratives.^[41] Killian (2022) defines predicative demonstratives as follows:

The canonical construction for predicative demonstratives is a nominal or pronominal argument in combination with a unique demonstrative form, which together forms a sentence. They are used for presentation, identification, and localization; to a more limited extent, they can be also used for possession or nominal predication. (Killian 2022: 5)

Killian (2022) further distinguishes between four subtypes of predicative demonstratives, namely presentative, identification, localizing and copular demonstratives. Whether or not yúw-úh, i.e. the combination of the intangible demonstrative and the declarative marker, comply with Killian’s criteria to be counted as a predicative demonstrative requires a more detailed analysis. The important point is that yúw-úh shares some of its functions with presentative and identification demonstratives, as it is used to identify, present and highlight a referent or an event.

Moreover, there also seems to be a parallel between some of the functions of clause-initial constructions with yu- and some secondary functions of presentative demonstratives. For instance, Killian (2022: 19) notes that “[p]resentative demonstratives are also important to the organization of discourse, such as marking the opening or closing of topical units […]” He cites the following example from Russian, where “/” marks a brief unmeasured pause between the presentative demonstrative and the rest of the utterance (Grenoble and Riley 1996: 819).

Example (44) and its description resemble the yúp=mah yúp and the yɨnɨh-yóʔ=mah (yúp) constructions presented in Section 3.4 and 3.5. Like vot in (44), both types of constructions in Hup were shown to be followed by a pause in most cases, setting them apart prosodically from the rest of the clause. In terms of their function, the two Hup constructions also marked the closing or opening of discourse topics by concluding a previous sequence and/or by marking the transition to a new discourse segment.

Another function that Killian (2022: 19) mentions for presentative demonstratives is that they “may also be used to help organize the temporal flow of discourse.” He shows example (45) from Kordofanian Baggara Arabic to illustrate this function. Here, the demonstrative dawú is used together with the conjunction wa ‘and’ to mark the temporal succession of two events. Again, “/” is used to indicate a minor pause (Manfredi 2014: 30).

The function of wa dawú ‘and then’ shown in (45) is very similar to those of yúp and yt ‘thus, then’. As was shown in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, Hup commonly uses yúp and yt to express temporal (and other) discourse-deictic relations between the current and the previous proposition.

The last additional function of presentative demonstratives that Killian (2022: 19) mentions is that of “strengthen[ing] social bonds between speakers.” He shows an example of French voilà for illustration:

Again, we find that the intangible demonstrative in Hup also covers this function. As was shown in example (26), yt-yɨʔ expresses confirmation and agreement and translates as ‘exactly, that’s right’.