10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14864
Oji-Cree (Algonquian) makes use of two negation constructions which overlap in non-future environments and differ subtly in their pragmatic contexts of use. Ci-negation is used for neutral, descriptive negation whereas hsii-negation is associated with polemic, emphatic-like uses within stronger assertions. While hsii-negation dates to Proto-Ojibwe, I show that ci-negation developed more recently from indirect irrealis expressions as a way to downplay the inherent abruptness of negation. This represents an opposite pathway from Jespersen’s Cycle, which is partly motivated by the desire to emphasize negatives. Oji-Cree ci-negation instead arose as a new unemphatic expression, motivated by the desire to avoid social tension. Though many languages of the world feature multiple standard negation constructions, the development of these systems remain to be investigated in relation to their diachrony and social contexts. This study contributes to our knowledge of why and how such systems might arise
application/pdf
2785-0943
14864
2
en
Matthew Windsor
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
pragmatics
The rise of unemphatic negation: two standard negation constructions in Oji-Cree  and their patterns of use 
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
2
Reports from the field
2022-12-22
2022-05-10
2022-12-22
2022-12-22
187-221
LTC
Matthew Windsor
2022/12/22
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14864
187
SIL International / Mishamikoweesh Corp.
2785-0943
2
pragmatics
en
221
<p>Windsor, Matthew. 2021. Oji-Cree language vitality in a community of North-western Ontario. In David Eberhard &amp; Scott Smith (eds.), <em>Planning language use: Case studies in community-based language development</em>, 11-54. SIL International.</p>
The rise of unemphatic negation: two standard negation constructions in Oji-Cree  and their patterns of use 
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/14864/15266
2
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 187-221   ISSN 2785-0943



                     The rise of unemphatic negation:
        two standard negation constructions in Oji-Cree
                            and their patterns of use

                                    MATTHEW WINDSOR
                          SIL INTERNATIONAL / MISHAMIKOWEESH CORP


                    Submitted: 10/05/2022       Revised version: 10/09/2022
                      Accepted: 17/10/2022          Published: 22/12/2022




                                             Abstract
Oji-Cree (Algonquian) makes use of two negation constructions which overlap in non-future
environments and differ subtly in their pragmatic contexts of use. Ci- negation is used for
neutral, descriptive negation whereas hsii- negation is associated with polemic, emphatic-like
uses within stronger assertions. While hsii- negation dates to Proto-Ojibwe, I show that ci-
negation developed more recently from indirect irrealis expressions as a way to downplay the
inherent abruptness of negation. This represents an opposite pathway from Jespersen’s Cycle,
which is partly motivated by the desire to emphasize negatives. Oji-Cree ci- negation instead
arose as a new unemphatic expression, motivated by the desire to avoid social tension. Though
many languages of the world feature multiple standard negation constructions, the
development of these systems remain to be investigated in relation to their diachrony and social
contexts. This study contributes to our knowledge of why and how such systems might arise.


Keywords: negation; Oji-Cree; Ojibwe; pragmatics



1. Introduction


This paper presents the first description of two alternate standard negation (SN)
constructions in Oji-Cree which overlap in non-future contexts. Compare the
affirmative statement in (1a) with the two corresponding negatives in (1b-c).


(1)   a. ᐅᐸᓑᑯᐱᓈᐣ.
         O-pashkopin-aan.
         3-pluck.TA-3SG⟶3
         ‘S/he’s plucking it (ex. a goose).’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14864                                                 187
Windsor                                                                  The rise of unemphatic negation


        b. ᑳᐏᐣ ᐅᐸᓑᑯᐱᓈᐦᓰᐣ.
           Kaawin o-pashkopin-aahsiin.
           NEG      3-pluck.TA-3⟶3:NEG
           ‘S/he’s not plucking it.’
        c. ᑳᐏᐣ ᒋᐸᓑᑯᐱᓈᐨ.
           Kaawin      ci-pashkopin-aac.
           NEG         SUB.IRR-pluck.TA-CJ.3SG ⟶3
           ‘S/he’s not plucking it.’


The construction in (1b) uses a negative particle kaawin1 plus a verb inflected with
the negative paradigm (Table 1). I will use the label hsii- negation for this construction,
since most forms in the paradigm contain a segment -(h)si(i).


Affirmative                                       Negative

minohpikwan ‘it tastes good’                      minohpikwahsinoon ‘it doesn’t taste good’

minohpikosi        ‘s/he tastes good’             minohpikosihsiin         ‘s/he doesn’t taste good’
                   (ex. fish)                                              (ex. fish)

ominohpitaan ‘s/he enjoys the taste               ominohpitaansiin         ‘s/he doesn’t enjoy the
                   of it’                                                  taste of it’

ominohpinaan ‘s/he enjoys the taste               ominohpinaahsiin         ‘s/he doesn’t enjoy the
                   of it (ex. fish)’                                       taste of it (ex. fish)’


                      Table 1: Select verbs with affirmative and negative inflection


The second SN construction in (1c) uses the same negative particle kaawin, plus a
verb which takes the irrealis subordinating prefix ci- and conjunct (subordinate)
inflection. Its only grammatical restriction is to non-future contexts. Otherwise, the
two constructions overlap in their distribution, and occur with similar frequency in
natural speech.
     The term standard negation was first introduced by Payne (1985) and refined in
Miestamo (2005) to refer to constructions which:


1
    The negative particle kaawin is often reduced to kwaan, and often occurs with the contrast-marking
clitic =(w)iin, which for some younger speakers is in the process of becoming a fused form kaawiniin
or kwaaniin.



                                                                                                     188
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


            •   negate declarative verbal main clauses,
            •   are productively extendable to verbs across the language in question,
            •   and are not clearly secondary in frequency or pragmatic meaning to
                another negation construction.


Constructions which add significant semantic content in addition to negation are
excluded from Miestamo’s definition, though he allows for cases where two
constructions differ more subtly.
     Many languages in his typological study feature multiple standard negation (SN)
constructions, and at least 40 by my count have constructions which overlap in their
grammatical contexts. Miestamo (2005) discusses overlapping SN constructions
which differ subtly in their semantics (Kayardild; p.88), to contrast in emphasis (Lahu;
p.308; 389), or to be largely interchangeable (Korean; p.17). Some differ only by word
order or the addition of a particle; others appear to be structurally unrelated. There
are few dedicated studies which examine two such alternating SN constructions in a
given language (though Schwenter (2005) represents an example).
     Oji-Cree hsii- negation and ci- negation can both be analyzed as SN constructions
which extend to any verbal negation in the language (including existential negation).
Both are used to express neutral (non-emphatic) negation in declarative verbal main
clauses2 and both can be used with any verb in the language. Both occur with a similar
frequency, with 43 occurrences of hsii- negation and 44 occurrences of ci- negation in
the current corpus. The difference lies in their patterns of use, which contrast subtly
in their relative strength of assertion.
     The aims of this paper are to describe the usage of each SN construction, identify
their pathways of development, and discuss possible motivating social-pragmatic
factors. I will show that ci- negation arose more recently as an extension of an irrealis
category, and functions to downplay the inherent abruptness of negative assertions.
This represents a very different pathway from the well-documented Jespersen’s Cycle,
whereby a negative construction evolves through the addition of a new emphatic
expression. The expansion of ci- negation has resulted in a layering effect over above
hsii- negation, which continues to cover neutral as well as emphatic-like contexts.



2
    Although I will show that hsii- negation is associated with contexts of emphasis, this is not directly
part of its semantics – it also occurs in neutral contexts and remains the sole means of expressing SN
in future tense.



                                                                                                      189
Windsor                                                             The rise of unemphatic negation


     Since Oji-Cree is a divergent and under-described variety of Ojibwe, §2 will give a
profile of the language and briefly describe the major types of standard and non-
standard negation in relation to other dialects. §3 will describe the usage of each SN
construction in natural speech, and section §4 will identify the diachronic pathways
involved. §5 discusses the social-pragmatic factors which influenced the rise of a
neutral, descriptive negation construction.


2. Background


Anihshininiimowin, or Oji-Cree, is the northernmost, most divergent variety of the
Ojibwe language complex, having developed in close contact with Cree, another
central Algonquian language.3 Oji-Cree is spoken in Canada by approximately 12,000
people in the province of Ontario. The unique character of Oji-Cree is partly the result
of its relative isolation from other dialects and partly the result of contact with Cree,
which has influenced its lexicon, grammar and phonology.
     Within Oji-Cree there exists considerable dialectal variation, which can be divided
into three main sub-dialects: an Eastern dialect located within the Winisk River basin,
a western dialect within the Severn River basin, and a southwestern dialect located
further upriver near the Severn River headwaters (Valentine 1994; Nichols 2014).
The map in Figure 1 displays these in relation to each river system.
     This paper is primarily based on the variety spoken in Kingfisher Lake of the Winisk
River dialect. The youngest fluent speakers in the community are in their twenties,
though the level of language use among this age group varies considerably from
household to household (Windsor 2021).
     Significant works on Oji-Cree include a dissertation by Todd (1970) cast within
transformational grammar and an ethnography of speaking by L. Valentine (1995).
R. Valentine’s (1994) dialectology of Ojibwe also contains much information about
the distinctives of Oji-Cree.




3
    Oji-Cree was formerly known in the linguistic and anthropological literature as Severn Ojibwe
(Ethnologue ISO ojs; Glottocode seve1240).



                                                                                               190
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161




               Figure 1: Oji-Cree communities in northwestern Ontario, by sub-dialect


2.1 Grammatical profile


Ojibwe is a highly synthetic language. Oji-Cree verbs directly index their core
arguments and express complete propositions by themselves. The alignment of
grammatical relations is hierarchical, being largely determined by the relative
ranking of participants according to a predetermined hierarchy (roughly, 1/2nd
person⟶3rd person). The ordering of constituents is flexible and functions primarily
to convey pragmatic information. A large set of clitics serve to express varying degrees
of assertion, contrast and emphasis.
   Algonquian languages make a clear morphological distinction between nouns and
verbs, and include many derivational resources for deriving one from the other. A set
of some 200 affixal “pre-nouns” and “pre-verbs” express basic adjectival and adverbial
meanings, and almost all other modification is achieved using a relative clause
strategy.
   Nouns fall into two inherent genders according to animacy, resulting in two
separate paradigms for the marking of number, and obviation status. Obviation in the
tradition of Algonquian linguistics refers to a grammatical system which



                                                                                        191
Windsor                                                                 The rise of unemphatic negation


disambiguates two third person referents where the most topical (typically animate)
referent has the value of “proximate status,” and all other referents receive overt
obviative marking. Person, number, and obviation values of core participants are also
indexed on verbs regardless of the presence of co-referring nominals.
     Since Bloomfield (1946), Algonquian verbs are traditionally described according
to a tripartite template structure consisting of an initial slot (containing root-like
elements), a medial slot (containing nominal or classifying elements), and a final slot
(containing elements which specify verb class and often add further root-like
semantics). The majority of verbs in Ojibwe have a bipartite (initial-final) stem
structure (Rhodes 2011).
     Verbs further fall into four structural sub-classes which specify transitivity and the
animacy of the S argument (for intransitives) and O argument (for transitives). The
basic categories are Inanimate Intransitive (II), Animate Intransitive (AI), Transitive
Inanimate (TI), and Transitive Animate (TA). In the presentation of examples these
abbreviations are appended to verb stem glosses, as they are central to the
interpretation of each clause.
     The verbal inflection system contains a primary division between two paradigm
sets, traditionally termed independent (unglossed) and conjunct (CJ). The conjunct set
of inflections is used for subordination of all kinds, as well as a smattering of specific
constructions (including content questions, specific focus constructions and the ci-
negation construction). It also has extended uses in main clauses in certain pragmatic
contexts – a phenomenon discussed elsewhere under the term insubordination (Evans
2007).4 Table 2 shows independent and conjunct forms for a family of four related
verbs belonging to each of the four sub-classes.
     Subordinate clauses carry a high functional load in Oji-Cree, and there are six
primary subordinating prefixes which occur with conjunct inflection. Relevant to the
current paper are the subordinator ci- (an irrealis covering potential, purposive,
modal meanings and negative) and ke- (irrealis2 covering future, counterfactual and
modal meanings). Despite the centrality of verbs, Oji-Cree also makes frequent use of
verbless clauses to express basic existence or identity of nominals.
     Tense is optionally specified using verbal prefixes. Verbal suffixes further
distinguish a preterite (PRET) tense for remote past and events which do not extend to


4
    See also Mithun (2008) who includes discussion of Algonquian languages and Drapeau & Lambert-
Bretiere (2014) for specific analysis of a central Algonquian language, Innu.



                                                                                                   192
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


present,5 and a dubitative (DUB) category which expresses a reduced level of certainty.
Further information on Ojibwe grammar can be found in Valentine (2001).


                      Independent                                Conjunct

    Inanimate
                        ᒥᓄᐦᐱᑿᐣ                                  ᐁᒥᓄᐦᐱᑿᐠ            ‘(that) it tastes
    Intransitive                         ‘it tastes good’
                      minohpikwan                            e-minohpikwahk              good’
    (II) verb

    Animate
                       ᒥᓄᐦᐱᑯᓯ             ‘s/he tastes          ᐁᒥᓄᐦᐱᑯᓯᐨ          ‘(that) s/he tastes
    Intransitive
                      minohpikosi       good’ (ex. fish)      e-minohpikosic             good’
    (AI) verb

    Transitive                                                                        ‘(that) s/he
                       ᐅᒥᓄᐦᐱᑖᐣ          ‘s/he enjoys the        ᐁᒥᓄᐦᐱᑕᐣᐠ
    Inanimate                                                                      enjoys the taste
                      ominohpitaan         taste of it’       e-minohpitank
    (TI) verb                                                                            of it’

    Transitive                          ‘s/he enjoys the                              ‘(that) s/he
                       ᐅᒥᓄᐦᑇᐣ                                    ᐁᒥᓄᐦᑇᐨ
    Animate (TA)                        taste of him (ex.                          enjoys the taste
                     ominohpwaan                              e-minohpwaac
    verb                                      fish)’                              of him (ex. fish)’


                        Table 2: Verb classes and primary inflectional division


2.2 Presentation and methodology


As the topic of this paper relates mainly to discourse-level phenomena, example
glosses will not always decompose the internal morphology of each verb. Instead,
each verb stem will be treated according to its meaning in context, and inflectional
suffixes will sometimes be treated together according to their combined paradigmatic
value.
      Oji-Cree examples in this paper will be given first in the syllabic orthography used
in Kingfisher Lake, followed by the standard “northern double vowel” writing system
used in reference works such as Nichols (2014). This system corresponds more or less
to IPA values, with doubled vowels indicating phonemic length, and <h> +
consonant clusters corresponding to fortis consonants in other dialects of Ojibwe.
      This study is primary based on examination of a growing corpus of Oji-Cree texts,
currently numbering 8,115 words, composed of monologues and some conversation.


5
    Compare Plungian & van der Auwera's (2006) “discontinuous past tense” category.



                                                                                                     193
Windsor                                                                 The rise of unemphatic negation


Initial transcription and translation were carried out collaboratively by a small team
of fluent native speakers and me using the software ELAN, 6 and subsequently
imported to FLEx          7
                              for further analysis. All recorded material is housed by
Mishamikoweesh Corp. in a community language and culture archive in Kingfisher
Lake and is accessible to community members. The examples used for illustration
below are drawn primarily from Mamakwa & Windsor (2021), which contains a
collection of stories concerning the time period when the community of Kingfisher
Lake moved to its current location in 1965.8 Examples without a source reference
were constructed in dialogue with speakers.


2.3 Overview of the negation system: standard and non-standard negation


This section will offer a brief overview of major negation constructions in Oji-Cree,
since it is an under-described dialect and since the two negation constructions
considered in this paper interact with non-standard negation. Oji-Cree features four
major non-standard negation constructions which differ from other varieties of
Ojibwe.
     i. In subordinate clauses, Oji-Cree maintains a separate negator ekaa, borrowed
from neighbouring dialects of Cree (2). It has also lost the entire set of negative
inflections within the conjunct paradigm.


(2)     ...ᐅᑕ ᐱᑯ ᐁᑳ ᐁᑮᐊᓂᒥᐦᑎᑯᐦᑳᐠ.
        ota    piko ekaa       e-kii-ani-mihtikohkaa-k.
        PRT    just NEG        SUB-PST-starting-be.many.trees.II-CJ

        ‘...with there just starting to not be many trees [standing dead-wood] left.’
        [SS01.2]


ii. For negative commands, Oji-Cree has lost the prohibitive inflection of other dialects
and simply pairs the standard negative particle kaawin with an imperative verb.



6
    By Max Planck Institute (https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan)
7
    SIL Fieldworks Language Explorer (https://software.sil.org/fieldworks)
8
    Primary story-tellers included Moses Mamakwa, Bessie Mamakwa, Simon Sakakeep, Samuel Winter,
Martha Winter, and James Mamakwa. Examples below are identified by the initials of the speaker, text
number, and line number.



                                                                                                   194
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


(3)   ᑳᐏᐣ ᒪᐏᐣ.
      Kaawin       mawi-n.
      NEG          cry.AI-IMP
      ‘Don’t cry!’ [observed]


iii. Existential negation makes use of negated indefinite pronouns kekoon ‘thing’ or
awiya ‘someone’, and may be non-verbal or include a verb of existence. If a verb of
existence is present it may use either ci- negation or hsii- negation.


(4)   ᑳᐏᐣ ᑫᑰᐣ ᓂᐱ (ᒋᐊᔮᐠ / ᐊᔮᓯᓅᐣ).
      Kaawin kekoon nipi ( ci-ayaa-k /                 ayaa-hsinoon ).
      NEG        thing    water SUB.IRR-be.there.II-CJ be.there.II-NEG
      ‘There’s no water.’


iv. Constituent negation similarly pairs kaawin with a nominal, and often takes the
form of a cleft construction.

(5)   ᑳᐏᓃᐣ ᒉᓯ (ᑳᐃᓇᐠ).
      Kaawin=iin Jessie ( kaa-in-ak ).
      NEG=but            Jessie    SUB.REL-mean.TA-CJ.1SG ⟶3SG
      ‘(It’s) not Jessie (that I mean).’


Oji-Cree also makes extensive use of the prefix onci- to indicate negative perfect aspect
(c.f. (12) below). While reported to occur infrequently in southern dialects of Ojibwe,
the form is more common in regions of close contact with Cree ohci- ‘negative past’
(Valentine 1994: 545). The major negation constructions of Oji-Cree are summarized
schematically in Table 3 in comparison with the better-documented dialect of Odawa
Ojibwe (based on Valentine 2001: 837-56).9 Unglossed forms are negators.
    Todd (1970: 73-80) contains a section on Oji-Cree negation with no mention of the
ci- negation construction, though Valentine (1994) provides one example (1994: 238)
and comments on the apparent lack of difference in meaning (1994: 763).




9
 Odawa standardly uses the southern “double vowel” orthography which represents lenis and fortis
consonants with voiced and voiceless symbols, corresponding to their pronunciation.



                                                                                            195
Windsor                                                              The rise of unemphatic negation



                  Oji-Cree                                    Odawa Ojibwe

 Standard         kaawin(iin) + VERB-NEG                      gaa wii + VERB-NEG
 Negation         kaawin(iin) + IRR-VERB-CJ

 Subordinate      ekaa + VERB-CJ                              initial vowel change\VERB-CJ.NEG
 Negation

 Negative         kaawin + VERB-IMPER                         gego + VERB-NEG.IMPER
 commands

 Existential      ‘no thing’ + nominal (+ VERB-NEG)           ‘no thing’ + nominal (+ VERB-NEG)
 negation                                 (+IRR-VERB-CJ)

 Constituent      kaawin + nominal (+ relative clause)        gaa + nominal (+ relative clause)
 negation
 (cleft)


           Table 3: Summary of basic negation constructions in Oji-Cree and Odawa Ojibwe


3. The two negation constructions


The remainder of this paper concerns the two SN constructions introduced at the
outset. I will show that these occur in contexts which differ subtly in the speaker’s
relative strength of assertion. This section classifies each construction by its structural
characteristics (§3.1), then provides some brief background on the pragmatics of
negation (§3.2) before describing their differences in usage with examples from
natural texts (§3.3). Section 3.4 describes a few further tense-related restrictions on
the use of ci- negation.


3.1 Structural classification


Hsii- negation (6b) is a symmetric construction in that it differs from its positive
counterpart in (6a) solely by markers of negation (Miestamo 2005). It is also an
example of double negation, with polarity being doubly expressed through both a
particle kaawin as well as verb morphology.10

10
     Valentine (1994: 238) includes an Oji-Cree example of a negative lacking the expected verb
morphology, and negation signalled only by the negator kaawin. I have informally observed instances
of this as well though there are no examples in the corpus.



                                                                                                196
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


(6)     a. ᒫᒋᐦᓭ.
           Maacihse.
           start.AI.3SG
           ‘S/he is starting.’
        b. ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒫᒋᐦᓭᓰᐣ.
           Kaawin=iin maacihse-hsiin.
           NEG=but        start.AI-NEG
           ‘S/he’s not starting.’ (may express stronger assertion)
        c. ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒋᒫᒋᐦᓭᐨ.
           Kaawin=iin ci-maacihse-c.
           NEG=but        start.AI-CJ.3SG
           ‘S/he’s not starting.’ (descriptive/non-emphatic)


The verbal negative paradigm however, is asymmetric in Miestamo’s terms, since it is
missing from the conjunct paradigm. A separate negation construction is instead used
for subordinate contexts (c.f. §2.3). Negative verbal endings involve an element -
(h)si(i) in an identifiable slot following the verb stem, yet the negative paradigm also
involves complex morphophonemics and a few idiosyncratic changes throughout the
suffix complex. Although the Algonquian verbal suffix complex is segmentable, some
of the resulting segments are opaque in meaning or only occur in a few of the expected
forms, meaning full paradigms always need to be listed. The ending -hsiin in (6b), for
example, is segmentable into -hsii ‘negative’ and -n ‘(negative) non-plural,’ the latter
of which only occurs in some singular forms.11
     The ci- negation construction (6c) is unique to Oji-Cree. It uses the same negative
particle kaawin plus irrealis prefix ci- on a conjunct-inflected verb. In Miestamo’s
terms, the construction is structurally asymmetric in that it differs from its positive
counterpart (6a) by features aside from negation markers – it also bears the markings
of a subordinate irrealis clause.
     Outside of negative contexts, the irrealis subordinator ci- expresses a range of
meanings from the domain of non-reality, including potentiality and purpose. It
typically occurs in subordinate clauses, but can be extended for independent use in
certain     pragmatic      contexts    such    as    suggesting     a   course     of   action     (ci-

11
     For analysis of Ojibwe negative forms see Nichols (1980: 209-220); for useful templates and
discussion see Valentine (2001: chapters 5-8). Valentine (1994: 554) maps the dialectal distribution of
this final -n segment.



                                                                                                   197
Windsor                                                                    The rise of unemphatic negation


amihtamawininaan? ‘Could I read it to you?’). Historically, it originated as a future
marker (cf. Valentine 2001: 759), though in its current negative use it is restricted
from future contexts. Negated subordinate clauses with ci- are distinguishable from
the ci- SN negation by the use of subordinate negator ekaa.


3.1 Prerequisites: The pragmatics of negation


Givón (2001) characterizes the pragmatic nature of negation in this way: “Negative
assertions are typically made on the tacit assumption that the hearer either has heard
about, believes in, is likely to take for granted, or is at least familiar with the
corresponding affirmative” (Givón 2001: 370-71).12
      In (7), for example, the first clause introduces a background proposition and the
second clause negates it.

(7)      Background: Bill told me he won the lottery,
         Neg-assertion: though later I found out he didn’t. (Givón 2001: 371)


The background proposition can become salient in any number of ways, from an
earlier mention in conversation or from the shared experience between speakers. Most
of the functions of hsii- negation discussed below involve negative assertions which
express contrast with some background proposition present in context.
      In milder cases, a negative assertion simply contrasts with generic shared
information.

(8)      a. There once was a man who didn’t have a head.
         b. ?There once was a man who didn’t look like a frog. (Givón 2001: 371)


Sentence (8a) is easily processed because the fact that people normally have heads is
generic shared information. Sentence (8b), on the other hand, sounds questionable
without some further creative background, because it cannot normally be assumed
that people look like frogs. Most examples of ci- negation discussed below involve


12
     See Horn (2001: 3,63) for the history of this idea, which traces as far back as the 8th century Indian
logician Sankara. Also compare Jespersen (1917: 4-5): “the chief use of a negative sentence [is] to
contradict and to point a contrast.” Criticisms of Givón’s approach to negation are addressed in
Miestamo (2005: 197-199).



                                                                                                       198
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


negative assertions which negate only generic information. Between these two
extremes, the background to any given negative assertion can have a greater or lesser
strength of activation in a speaker’s mind.
   The literature on negation has identified a number of useful semantic distinctions.
Building on the work of Ducrot (1972) and others, Horn (2001: 363), distinguished
descriptive negation, which simply negates a proposition, from metalinguistic (or
polemic) negation, which specifically objects to a speaker’s previous utterance
(whether on the basis of the utterance itself or related presuppositions or
implicatures), and is said to express an attitude of disapproval. Gross (1977) had
termed this contrastive negation, though the term now typically refers to expressions
which very explicitly contrast a negative state of affairs with the corresponding
affirmative (see for example Silvennoinen 2019). Understood this way, contrastive
structures can express either metalinguistic or descriptive negation (Martins 2020).
The term denial in this paper will refer to any non-agreeing response to an assertion,
where phrased as a negative or affirmative.
   The subtle contrast between ci- negation and hsii- negation loosely corresponds to
that between descriptive vs. polemic negation, though the distinction is not so clear
cut that it can be easily elicited. Speakers do not identify hsii- negation as more
emphatic per se, though ci- negation appears limited to neutral descriptive contexts
in natural speech. Either construction can be used to express contrastive negation,
though I will use the term contrast in describing polemical negatives which may
“contrast” with an anticipated inference, for example.
   In many contexts a negative assertion can be construed alternately as a response
to some background, or merely as a neutral description. Rather than coding an
obligatory grammatical contrast, ci- negation and hsii- negation relate to differences
in pragmatic stance – how a speaker is choosing to position themselves at a particular
moment in interaction (Heritage 2012). In isolated elicitation, speakers typically offer
ci- negation as default, since in an elicitation setting a speaker usually has no reason
to be asserting the content of what they are saying. If I then suggest the alternative
hsii- negation form, I frequently receive a response such as “yes, that’s the other way
of saying it.” Differences in use only become apparent in the analysis of natural speech
(§3.2-3) or occasionally when a good context is described (§5.1). I use the term




                                                                                    199
Windsor                                                                  The rise of unemphatic negation


strength of assertion as a way of characterizing the pragmatic contrast conveyed,
loosely based on Givón’s use of the term.13
      The following sections illustrate the nonfuture functions of ci- negation and hsii-
negation in natural texts. It will be shown that ci- negation is limited to descriptive
contexts, while hsii- negation most often occurs in polemic contexts, associated with
assertiveness and an authoritative stance.


3.2 Ci- negation: contexts of use


The ci- negative construction is used for descriptive negation – the neutral (non-
emphatic) negation of a proposition without contrast against any salient background.
In the corpus it is used:
      • to make observations about present circumstances (including directing a
         hearer’s attention to something observable or revealing an internal state)
         (example (9))
      • to describe narrative setting (example (10))
      • to describe generic past habitual events (example (11))
      • to elaborate on specific narrative events (examples (12))


One evening I was sitting with a friend, and the community radio station was airing
music in the background. After a period of silence in our conversation, he voiced the
observation in (9).


(9)      ᑳᐃᐧᐣ ᐊᐃᐧᔭ ᒋᒪᑌᐊᐱᐨ.
         Kaawin awiya             ci-mate-api-c.
         NEG      INDEF.PRON      SUB.IRR-INDR-sit.AI-CJ.3SG

         ‘There’s no one at the radio.’ (lit. ‘there’s no one audibly sitting”) [observed]


Our shared background was the knowledge that it was the time of evening when
someone usually sits at the community radio to give an update. But this expectation
was not previously salient in our conversation, and my friend was not asserting any



13
     Givón (2001) discusses four broad “propositional modalities” he terms “realis assertion,” “negative
assertion,” “irrealis assertion” and “presupposition”. In his chapter on negation, he arranges these by
“strength of assertion,” which he associates with contexts having a high degree of certainty.



                                                                                                    200
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


knowledge he had that I did not. He was simply directing my attention to a fact we
could both perceive.
   In narrative, ci- negation is used for descriptions of narrative setting. In (10), the
speaker is recounting an early memory from when he first arrived in Kingfisher Lake
with his family. He describes the sight of the shoreline when it first came into view.


(10) We were just coming around the point here across the lake, and it was a little
      bit rainy. We were covered, being just kids, with some kind of canvas. There
      were just a few overturned canoes barely visible here along the shore.
      ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒋᐸᓑᑳᐧᑭᐸᐣ ᐃᐦᐃᒫ,
      Kaawiniin ci-pashkwaakipan ihimaa.
      kaawin=iin ci-pashkwaa-kipan                     ihimaa
      NEG=but         SUB.IRR-be.clear.II-CJ.PRET      there
      ‘It wasn’t cleared there.’ (Only the canoes were visible) [JM01.50]


The negated information in this case is the generic knowledge that boat landings are
typically cleared of brush, reinforced by shared familiarity with the spot he was
referring to (now clear). The description was not in contrast to anything particularly
salient in the narrative or speech situation.
   A similar use is in neutral descriptions of past generic events. The following
example comes from a text in which the speaker, Moses Mamakwa, describes learning
to trap from an older man who used unorthodox methods. When the man trapped for
otter, he would place the traps in water that was really too deep to see through clearly.


(11) And when he trapped for otter...
      ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐃᑯ ᒋᐹᑳᐧᓂᐠ. | Kaawiniin iko ci-paakwaanik.
      kaawin=iin=iko ci-paakwaan-nik
      NEG=but=EMPH           SUB.IRR-be.shallow.II-CJ.SG.OBV

      ‘it [the water] wasn’t shallow.’ (It was maybe three feet deep) [MM01.45]


Ci- negation is also used in the elaboration of specific events in narrative. In (16), the
speaker, Martha Winter, is telling a story from when she first arrived in Kingfisher
Lake as a girl and her father sent her to the new trading post with her sister to buy
some tea.




                                                                                      201
Windsor                                                     The rise of unemphatic negation


(12) ᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐃᑯ ᒋᐅᐣᒋ ᑭᐦᒋ ᐅᑖᐦᐱᓂᑫᔮᐣᐠ.
     Kaawiniin iko ci-onci-kihci-otaahpinikeyaank.
     kaawin=iin=iko ci-onci-kihci-otaahpin-ike-yaank
     NEG=but =EMPH SUB.IRR-NEG.PERF-DEGREE-take.TA-DETRANS-CJ.1PE

     ‘And so we hadn’t taken [bought] a lot of stuff.’ (We only bought tea)
     [MW01.46]


On her way home, she becomes separated from her sister and is lost in the woods.
She says,


(13) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐃᑯ ᒋᒫᒌᔦᐣᑕᒫᐣ ᐋᐣᑎ ᑫᐃᔖᔮᐣ.
     Kaawiniin iko cimaaciiyentamaan aanti ke-ishaayaan.
     kaawin=iin=iko ci-maacii-yentam-aan
     NEG=but=EMPH       SUB.IRR-begin-think.TI-CJ.1SG

     aanti   ke-ishaa-yaan
     where SUB.IRR2-go.there.AI-CJ.1SG
     ‘I had no idea where to go.’ [MW01.64]


These lines occur at key points in the narrative, and both contain the emphatic
particle iko. But within the storytelling situation – a room full of community members
– neither line functions to deny any strong supposition shared with the audience.


3.3 Hsii- negation: contexts of use


Although hsii- negation is also frequently offered in neutral contexts, examination of
natural speech shows that it frequently contrasts with information already salient in
communicative context. In textual examples it is employed:
  • to contrast with explicit background information from a previous clause or
     earlier in discourse (example (14))
  • to contrast with another’s implicature (15)
  • to contrast to an anticipated inference (16)
  • to speak from a position of knowledge or emphasize a “main point” (18)-(19).


The countering function of hsii- negation is best shown in examples where the
negation explicitly contrasts with a previous clause.


                                                                                       202
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


(14) ᓂᓅᐣᑖᐣ ᔕ ᐄᐧᓂᑯ ᐁᑲᑭᑎᓈᓂᐊᐧᐣᐠ, ᑳᐣ ᑕᓑ ᐃᑯ ᓂᑖᐁᐧᐦᑖᓰᐣ.
      Ninoontaan         hsha     wiiniko        e-kakitinaaniwank,     kaawin   tahsh   iko
      nitaawehtaahsiin.
      ni-noontam-n hsha=wiin=iko                 e-kakito-naaniwank,
      1-hear.TI-1SG ASS=EMPH=EMPH                SUB-talk.AI-CJ.NONSPEC.ACT

      kaawin=tahsh=iko nit-aawehtam-hsiin
      NEG=but=EMPH              1-understand.TI-NEG
      ‘I hear talking, but I can’t understand it.’ [BM01.04]


Example (14) comes from the opening of the speaker’s talk, where she explains that
she cannot really hear the others’ stories because she is very hard of hearing. The
initial clause “I hear talking” gives rise to an expected inference ‘she understands
what is being said’. The second clause negates it with hsii- negation.
   The construction is also used to disagree with an implicature. In (15) the speaker
begins her talk in the same vein as the elders before her, saying, “OK – my turn – I
will tell a story of long ago. A story of long ago.” But in the next line she adjusts her
stance.


(15) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐃᑯ ᐁᐧᓑᑲᐨ ᓃᐣ ᓂᑎᓀᐣᑖᐦᓰᐣ ᐅᐦᐅᒫ ᐃᓂᑯᕽ ᑳᐅᐣᒋᐊᔮᓂᐊᐧᐣᐠ.
      Kaawiniin iko weshkac niin nitinentaahsiin ohomaa inikohk kaa-onci-
      ayaaniwank.
      kaawin=iin=iko weshkac              niin      nit-inentam-hsiin
      NEG=but=EMPH           long.ago 1.PRON 1-think.AI-NEG
      ohomaa       inikohk kaa-onci-ayaa-aaniwank
      here         much      SUB.PST-since-be.there.AI-CJ.NONSPEC.ACT

      ‘Though I don’t think/agree it’s been all that long, myself, since we started living
      here.’ (We’ve been here since about 1965) [MW01.03]


Here she disaffiliates with the angle of the other storytellers and asserts her own
opinion: 1965 was not all that long ago, after all. A few paragraphs later, she uses
hsii- negation in anticipation of an expected inference. She starts by telling her
audience, a room-full of community members, how she has been based at Kingfisher
Lake her whole life, from a time predating the relocation of the settlement. The
audience could reasonably expect that she would remember the other families who




                                                                                         203
Windsor                                                        The rise of unemphatic negation


also lived here – a matter of key interest. In anticipation of this, she asserts that, in
fact, she does not remember who those individuals were.


(16) This is where I was born, here in Kingfisher Lake. I’ve been here ever since I was
     a child.
     ᔖᑰᐨ ᑳᐃᐧᐣ ᑌᐯᐧ ᓂᑲᓅᐦᑫᐦᓰᐣ ᐁᐧᑎ ᐄᐧᐣ ᐁᐧᓑᑲᐨ ᑳᑮᐊᔮᐋᐧᑯᐸᓀᐣ.
     shaakooc kaawin tepwe nikanoohkehsiin weti wiin weshkac kaa-kii-
     ayaawaakopanen.
     Shaakooc      kaawin tepwe       ni-kanoohke-hsiin
     nevertheless NEG       really    1-remember.AI-NEG
     weti        wiin       weshkac     kaa-kii-ayaa-waakopanen
     over.there PRON.3SG long.ago SUB.REL-PST-be.there.AI-CJ.3PL:PRET:DUB
     ‘Nevertheless I cannot really remember those who would have stayed over there
     back then.’
     Those who used to go to the north side. I can only remember them a little bit.
     [MW01.32]


The particle shaakooc "nevertheless" here introduces a contra-expectation. Compare
the parallel example in (17) using ci- negation, which shows how a speaker can
construe the same information in different ways. This was given by the hard-of-
hearing elder, who frequently paused to think between thematic units, and several
times softly remarked:


(17) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᑌᐯᐧ ᒋᑲᓅᐦᑫᔮᐣ | kaawiniin tepwe ci-kanoohkeyaan
     kaawin=iin tepwe       ci-kanoohke-yaan
     NEG=but       really   SUB.IRR-remember.AI-CJ.1SG

     ‘I don’t really remember’ [BM01.26]


In this case the phrase ‘I don’t remember’ is used neutrally as a hesitation strategy,
said in isolation outside of the narrative, and she is not asserting it in contrast to any
salient background.
  Examples of hsii- negation have so far involved speakers making negative assertions
in contexts where the corresponding affirmative is somehow salient, whether as a
result of previous discourse or otherwise. But hsii- negation is also often used when a




                                                                                          204
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


speaker has a high level of confidence in the content of what they are saying, and
wishes to assert something from a position of personal knowledge on the topic.
      In (18), the speaker has just finished describing the method his mother taught him
for setting a rabbit snare. He explains the importance of placing birch tips on either
side to attract the rabbit into the snare – a method apparently not in wide use today.
“And that’s how he will be snared,” he assures his audience:


(18) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐃᑯ ᐅᐱᒣᐣᑕᐦᓰᐣ ᒦᓇ ᐁᑳ ᐅᑕ ᑫᑰᓂ ᑳᒦᒋᐨ.
         Kaawiniin iko opimentahsiin, miina ekaa ota kekoonini kaa-miicic.
         Kaawin=iin=iko ohpimentam-hsiin
         NEG=but=EMPH           bother.TI-NEG
         miina     ekaa ota     kekoon-ini kaa-miici-c
         CONN      NEG PRT      thing-OBV SUB.REL-eat.TI-CJ.3SG
         ‘He doesn’t bother with it if there’s no bait.’ (lit. ‘there being nothing to eat.’)
         [MM01.70]


This is an assertion about the way rabbits behave based on the authority of the
speaker’s experience. He is teaching, and projecting knowledge of what will happen
in a given situation. Even though examples like (18) carry no tense marking, they are
often translated into English future tense “he won’t bother it,” showing they can carry
the strong assertive quality of a prediction.14
      Another example comes from an elder teaching about the uses of medicinal plants.


(19) And then you put that thing over where the person chopped himself… that thing
         that was chewed.
         ᒦᔕ ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒦᓇᐋᐧ ᐹᐢᑳᑫᐧᓰᓂ.
         Mii hsha kaawiniin miinawaa paashkaakwehsiini.
         Mii hsha kaawin=iin miinawaa paashkaakwe-hsiin
         FOC     ASS   NEG=but         again        bleed.AI-NEG
         ‘and it won’t bleed again’ (lit. ‘and it doesn’t bleed again’) [IM01.217]

14
     This use of hsii- negation relates to a stance of epistemic authority, which refers to the way a speaker
positions themselves as more knowledgeable (and assumes the addressee is less knowledgeable)
(Stivers et al. 2011). This concept grew up in the field of conversation analysis and has recently proved
fruitful in the description of indigenous languages. See, for example, Grzech (2020) for discussion of
clitics in Upper Napo Kichwa which express epistemic authority; also Mansfield (2019) for a
Murrinhpatha verbal distinction which is related to culturally defined notions of epistemic authority.



                                                                                                         205
Windsor                                                       The rise of unemphatic negation


The speaker here makes a prediction based on her experiential knowledge of treating
wounds. Although the corpus only contains a few didactic texts, my impression is that
hsii- negation occurs more frequently in sermons, and in the speech of elders, who
carry a certain cultural authority by virtue of their lifetime of accumulated
experience.
  A different type of example comes from a translated text, where the translator
looked at an existing draft using ci- negation and amended it to hsii- negation to make
it more natural in Oji-Cree. Both versions were grammatical, but hsii- negation was
judged to better fit the context of contrastive negation.


(20) That anointing is real,
     ᑳᐃᐧᐣ ᑲᑮᓇᐃᐧᓑᑭᒪᑲᓯᓅᐣ.
     kaawin kakiinawishkimakan-hsinoon.
     NEG      be.false.II-NEG
     ‘it is not false’ [1John 2:27]


Overall, the patterns of use for hsii- negation show a clear association with polemic
contexts not observed with ci- negation.


3.4 Tense restrictions


While ci- negation and hsii- negation overlap in most contexts, there are a few
grammatical restrictions on ci- negation related to tense. Miestamo’s (2005)
typological study of standard negation identifies many languages with multiple SN
constructions split along TAM categories. For example, the Meithei language displays
a future/nonfuture split (2005: 10) and Brahui contains separate SN constructions for
four different tense-aspect categories (2005: 264-265).
   In Oji-Cree, ci- negation is restricted to non-future contexts; only hsii- negation is
felicitous in (21).


(21) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᑕᐲᔖᐦᓰᐣ.
     Kaawin=iin ta-piishaa-hsiin.
     NEG=CONN      3.FUT-come.AI-NEG
     ‘He’s not going to come.’ [observed]




                                                                                         206
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


Formal equivalents with ci- negation do not exist, either as *kaawiniin ke-piishaac (with
future/irrealis2 subordinator ke-) nor with any combination of ci- followed by future
prefixes.15 It also cannot occur in future contexts without tense marking.
      Even though hsii- negation is the sole strategy for expressing SN in the future, the
negative future context itself shows associations with strong assertion in Oji-Cree.
Future-tense statements are a frequent strategy for giving polite commands in Ojibwe,
independent of the dedicated set of imperative forms (Rhodes 1988). The illustrative
command in (22) was observed at a community event, as the building was reaching
capacity. Newcomers were still arriving, and there was an air of uncertainty as to
whether some people should leave. An elder stood up and addressed the room in a
loud voice:


(22) ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᐊᐏᔭ ᑕᒫᒑᐦᓰᐣ.
         Kaawin awiya          ta-maacaa-hsiin.
         NEG      someone 3.FUT-leave.AI-NEG
         ‘Nobody is going to leave.’ [observed]


Here the future negative is clearly associated with strength of assertion and the
respected social position of the speaker. The expression is still polite however,
reinforcing the assumption of group cooperation (Rhodes 1988).
      In the past tense, ci- negation is also blocked from taking the simple past marker
kii-, since the special combination of ci- + kii- expresses ability.16


(23) ᑳᐃᐧᐣ ᒋᑮᐴᑕᐁᐧᐋᐧᐨ.
         Kaawin ci-kii-pootawe-c.
         NEG      SUB.IRR-ABLE-make.fire.AI-CJ:3

         ‘He can’t make a fire.’ (NOT: ‘He didn’t make a fire.’)


Ci- negation regularly occurs in past tense contexts though as seen above, either
without explicit tense marking (11) or with preterite inflection (c.f. example 10).

15
     The closest communicative equivalent would be Kaawiniin ci-wii-piishaac ‘He doesn’t want to come.’
16
     The full pattern consists of any future/irrealis marker (ta-/ka-, ke-, ci-) followed by ‘past’ kii-.
Apparently this is an older pattern remaining from when ci- was itself a future prefix. See Rhodes
(1985) for discussion of the historical development of future prefixes in Ojibwe and Cree from Proto
Algonquian *kataw (which has reflexes in multiple languages associated with ‘ability’).



                                                                                                     207
Windsor                                                             The rise of unemphatic negation


3.5 Summary


The grammatical/pragmatic contexts of ci- negation and hsii- negation are
summarized in Table 4. The following section will consider the diachronic
development of this system. I show that as the newer construction, ci- negation has
extended its range to to overlap with hsii- negation in all environments except future
tense and emphatic/polemic contexts.


               ci- negation




           past                  present              future                    hsii- negation



    neutral/descriptive                         emphatic/polemic




            Table 4: The distribution of standard negation constructions in Oji-Cree


4. The rise of descriptive negation


This section demonstrates that ci- negation is the newer construction and identifies
potential steps in its development from subordinate potential/irrealis clauses. The
development of this negation system also shows some evidence of contact-induced
change from Cree.


4.1 Diachronic pathways


The clearest evidence that ci- negation is the newer SN construction comes from the
fact that the hsii- negative paradigm is common to all the sprawling dialects of Ojibwe
while ci- negation is unique to Oji-Cree (Valentine 1994: 237-8). As the standard
method of negation across Ojibwe, hsii- negation dates to at least “Proto-Ojibwe.”
  The affirmative uses of ci- as a future/potential subordinator are also common to
all dialects – it is only in Oji-Cree where it has been combined with a main clause
negator and extended into the domain of standard negation. Miestamo (2005: 208-
209) discusses languages in his study which show a structural association between


                                                                                                 208
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


negation and some irrealis category, grouping negation semantically along with other
kinds of non-realized events. Oji-Cree ci- negation shows this type of structural
parallel, being an innovative extension of the irrealis prefix and retaining some
residual pragmatic meaning of indirectness (in Givón’s terms, irrealis assertions are
only “weakly asserted”).
   The connection between negation and expressions of indirectness is explored in
Jespersen (1917: 22-38). For example, a hanging hypothetical ‘if I were rich’ can be
used to “express by tense and mood something that is irreal, implying ‘I am not rich’”
(1917: 36). The following example pairs demonstrate irrealis ci- used in several
environments associated with diachronic sources of negation: an indirect suggestion
in the form of a subordinate clause (24), a negatively phrased question (25) and a
negative purpose clause (using subordinate negator ekaa and irrealis ci- expressing
purpose) (26).


(24) a. ᒋᒪᐣᑭᐲᐦᐃᑳᑌᐠ.
         Ci-mankipiihikaate-k.
         SUB.IRR-be.written.large-CJ

         ‘should it be/maybe it could be written large?’ (tentative suggestion)
         [observed]
      b. ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒋᒪᐣᑭᐲᐦᐃᑳᑌᐠ.
         Kaawin=iin ci-mankipiihikaate-k.
         NEG=but          SUB.IRR-be.written.large-CJ

         ‘It’s not written large.’


(25) a. ᑳᐃᐧᓇᐄᐧᐣ ᒋᒫᒌᑰᒋᐣᐠ?
         Kaawin=na=wiin            ci-maaciikoocin-k?
         NEG=Q=but                 SUB.IRR-fly.off.AI-CJ.3SG

         ‘Isn’t he flying out?’ (negative request for confirmation)
      b. ᑳᐃᐧᐣ ᒋᒫᒌᑰᒋᐣᐠ.
         Kaawin=iin ci-maaciikoocin-k.
         NEG=but          SUB.IRR-fly.off.AI-CJ.3SG

         ‘He isn’t flying out.’


(26) a. They tied it around here [gesture to arm] with rabbit hide,
        ᐁᑳ ᐅᐦᐅᒫ ᒋᑲᐘᒋᐨ,



                                                                                  209
Windsor                                                     The rise of unemphatic negation


          Ekaa    ohomaa ci-kawaci-c.
          NEG.SUB here     SUB.IRR-feel.cold.AI-CJ.3SG

          ‘so that she wouldn’t feel cold here,’ here [gesture to arm] where the snow
          enters. [BM03A.122]
     b. ᑳᐏᐣ ᐅᐦᐅᒫ ᒋᑲᐘᒋᐨ.
          Kaawin ci-kawaci-c.
          NEG     SUB.IRR-feel.cold.AI-CJ.3SG

          ‘She doesn’t feel cold.’


These environments represent possible intermediate steps along a pathway of
development whereby irrealis ci- was extended to the domain of negation. The
diachronic connections between ci- negation and indirectness show that its
association with weakly-asserted denials is related to the residual semantics of its
source construction.
  In the terminology of grammaticalization theory, the rise of ci- negation has led to
layering, which occurs when older constructions (hsii- negation) persist alongside
newer ones (ci- negation) with the same or similar meaning (Hopper & Traugott 2003:
124). Frequently this leads to specialization, which “may be manifested simply as
textual preferences, conditioned by semantic types, sociolinguistic contexts, discourse
genres, and other factors” (2003: 116). Hopper & Traugott (2003) go on to say that
“during any phase of coexistence there are some contexts in which the two (or more)
types in question involve a clear pragmatic difference. There are other contexts in
which the choice between them is less clear” (2003: 126). The domain of standard
negation in Oji-Cree contains just this type of subtle pragmatic difference due to
layering between an old negation construction and an emergent one.


4.2 Language contact


A second factor which may have had indirect influence on the rise of ci- negation is
language contact. Like Oji-Cree, neighbouring dialects of Cree have multiple negation
constructions which express pragmatic contrasts, including one that functions as the
default for (descriptive) past narrative.
  Woods Cree and Swampy Cree, located north of Oji-Cree territory, maintain a
complex system of negators. Woods Cree boasts five separate negators, a few of which
are associated with distinct pragmatic contexts. These include mwāc (general/factive


                                                                                       210
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


negator), mwā (negative opinion or ability), mōða (restrictive/contrastive including
acts of correcting and contradicting), īkā (general subordinate negation) and kāða
(negative imperative and jussive) (Starks 1987). It is likely that the number of
pragmatic distinctions in the Cree negation system influenced the rise of a new
construction in Oji-Cree to meet a perceived communicative need.
      Swampy and Woods Cree also share a past tense negator, ohci-, cognate with Oji-
Cree onci- (a form with several grammatical uses including negative perfect). Cree ohci-
and Oji-Cree irrealis ci- are not cognate and express different meanings, yet they each
represent the development of a separate negation construction which acts as the
default way to negate main events in running narrative.17 Although neither of these
influences from Cree involves the borrowing of forms, we know that neighbouring
languages often influence the number of grammatical distinctions they make within
a system and the meanings they express.18
      Although contact with Cree led to the morphological simplification of the negation
system – the loss of the conjunct negative paradigm and prohibitive inflection, for
example – it likely also played a role in the addition of a second standard negation
construction and its patterns of use in narrative.


5. Social-pragmatic motivation


What is interesting about the Oji-Cree system is that it is not the newer construction
which is associated with emphasis, but the older one. This section will explore the
social pragmatic factors motivating the rise of a neutral, descriptive negation
construction. §5.1 demonstrates how speakers can use ci- negation to express denial
in an ostensively neutral (unemphatic) way. §5.2 connects this pattern with the
conversational norms of Ojibwe culture, particularly those associated with the desire
to reinforce social solidarity and downplay tension through indirectness.


5.1 Ci- negation in interaction


The interactional function of ci- negation is best illustrated with examples of
dispreferred response types such as disagreeing, refusing a request, rejecting an offer,

17
     This can be confirmed with a perusal of Ellis (1995), a collection of Swampy Cree narratives.
18
     See, for example, Aikhenvald (2007). Mithun (2021) similarly outlines parallel pathways of
development for negation constructions across several language families of Northern California.



                                                                                                     211
Windsor                                                                     The rise of unemphatic negation


denying a question, and so on. These tend to occur in disaffiliative contexts, those
which create social tension rather than solidarity (Couper-Kuhn & Selting 2018).19
      Example (27) contrasts each construction in the context of disagreeing with an
assessment about the weather (normally a safe, pragmatically neutral topic). Speaker
A remarks ‘it’s very cold out!’, but speaker B explicitly disagrees ‘it’s not cold’.


(27) A: ᒫᐊᐧᐨ ᑕᐦᑳᔮ.
            Maawac tahkaayaa.
            Maawac      tahkaayaa.
            very        be.cold.II
            ‘It’s very cold out.’
         B: i. ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᑕᐦᑳᔮᐦᓰᐣ.
               Kaawiniin tahkaayaahsinoon.
               Kaawin=iin tahkaayaa-hsinoon.
               NEG=but         be.cold.II-NEG
               ‘It’s not cold out.’ (interpretable as emphatic)
            ii. ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒋᑕᐦᑳᔮᐠ.
               Kaawiniin ci-tahkaayaahk.
               Kaawin=iin ci-tahkaayaa-hk.
               NEG=but         SUB.IRR-be.cold.II-CJ

               ‘It’s not cold out.’ (neutral)


The expression using hsii- negation in (i) could be interpreted neutrally, but would
also be the strategy used if speaker B wanted to forcefully disagree with a person who
enters a room and loudly complains ‘it’s very cold!’. Such a response might be given,
for example, by an elder who grew up living on the land through intense winters, and
who could take the position of having more experience than the complainer about
weather conditions. The response with hsii- negation can convey the evaluative
attitude associated with polemic negation: “oh, that’s nothing – I know what real cold
feels like.” In (ii), speaker B’s response using ci- negation merely informs in a neutral
way, as if speaker A simply misspoke.

19
     Pomerantz (1984) first developed the idea of dispreferred response types, which fall more broadly
under the umbrella of disaffiliative social actions as summarized in chapter four of Couper-Kuhn &
Selting (2018). Within the conversation analysis literature, Ford (2001) has begun to explore this
affiliative/disaffiliative distinction specifically as it relates to the domain of negation.



                                                                                                       212
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


      Consider another typically disaffiliative context: the act of refusing a request. The
responses in (28) were constructed in response to a situation in which a relative calls
to ask a ride using the speaker’s truck. (Note that otaapaan ‘truck’ is grammatically
animate, indexed by an AI verb.)


(28) a. Direct refusal using hsii- negation, subordinate negation
        ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᑕᑮ ᐃᓯᐦᓭᐦᓯᓅᐣ, ᐁᑳ ᐁᐱᒥᐱᓱᐨ.
        Kaawiniin takii-isihsehsinoon, ekaa e-pimipisoc.
            Kaawin=iin ta-kii-isihse-hsinoon
            NEG=BUT         3.FUT-ABLE-happen.II-NEG
            ekaa         e-pimipiso-c.
            NEG.SUB      SUB-drive.AI-CJ.3SG

            ‘No it’s not possible; it’s not running.’ (Lit. ‘it won’t be able to happen, she’s
            not driving’)
         b. Indirect refusal using ci- negation
            ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒋᒫᒋᐦᓭᐨ.
            Kaawiniin ci-maacihsec.
            Kaawin=iin ci-maacihse-c.
            NEG=but         starts.AI-CJ.3SG
            ‘It’s not starting.’
         c. Indirect refusal using -hsii negation
            ᑳᐃᐧᓃᐣ ᒫᒋᐦᓭᐦᓰᐣ.
            Kaawiniin maacihsehsiin.
            Kaawin=iin maacihse-hsiin.
            NEG=but         starts.AI-NEG
            ‘It’s not starting.’ (stronger assertion)


The response in (28a) would represent an extremely direct, explicit refusal.
Alternately, the refuser can take a more indirect strategy, by reporting some
circumstance in a way which implies refusal (28b-c). 20 (28b) represents a way of
accomplishing this using ci- negation to take a normative cooperative stance. The




20
     Indirect refusal strategies such as this are well-known from languages studied from an interactional
approach (Couper-Kuhn & Selting 2018), and have been reported as normative for northern dialects of
Ojibwe. See, for example, Chief & Spielmann (1986); Spielmann (1987).



                                                                                                     213
Windsor                                                                  The rise of unemphatic negation


information is described neutrally at face value, and the requester is invited to
cooperatively come to the expected conclusion: she cannot get a ride.
      However, the corresponding hsii- negation construction (28c) would allow for a
more emphatic reading, for example if the speaker’s relative is always calling for
rides. Here she is asserting the circumstance more strongly: “actually, it’s not starting
today”.21 The refusal is still reporting a circumstance, but the speaker is positioning
herself in contrast to the ongoing assumption that her truck is available. The two
constructions allow the speaker to communicate the refusal in a way that is somewhat
more explicit and direct versus one that is more indirect or non-assertive.
      These two examples have relied on discussing hypothetical contexts with speakers,
who give judgements with differing degrees of confidence. Undoubtedly we will
continue to better understand the interactional meaning of these constructions once
a fuller corpus of conversational materials has been transcribed. Yet the functions
illustrated in this section are clearly identifiable across corpora under this broad
distinction I have provisionally characterized as “strength of assertion.” It is likely
that ci- negation arose as an indirectness strategy, motivated from the desire to
mitigate these kinds of disaffiliative actions which create social tension rather than
solidarity. It has come to represent the default cooperative stance taken in normative
Oji-Cree interaction.


5.2 Social solidarity in Ojibwe conversational norms


The motivation of downplaying tension and reinforcing cooperation is consistent with
known conversational norms in northern varieties of Ojibwe. Ojibwe society was
traditionally organized into small intimate family groups, and the language continues
to be spoken in small communities where the amount of shared context is very high.
Rhodes (1988: 171-172) explains patterns of Ojibwe politeness and request-making
in terms of “the cultural assumption that Ojibwa speakers form a single, cooperative
in-group” and that “the speaker and hearer are cooperators.” He shows that speakers
assume and reinforce this sense of social solidarity in their politeness strategies.
Requests which are understood to require little effort are carried out with a simple
imperative (‘Give me a cigarette’). For more significant requests, avoidance strategies


21
     English ‘actually’ has been analyzed as expressing similar types of contrast in speaker interaction
(Couper-Kuhlen & Selting 2018: 321-323) and fits many translations of hsii- negation.



                                                                                                    214
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


are the norm. Chief & Spielmann (1986: 319), for example, record an Algonquin
(Ojibwe) conversation in which a successful request for help is achieved without an
explicit ask or explicit acceptance. They similarly note that the rejection of a request
is often accomplished with an indirect “I don’t know,” which is contextually
understood to mean ‘no’ (1986: 85).22
      The indirect nature of ci- negation also relates to the Oji-Cree norm that speakers
only assert information they have a reliable degree of certainty about. This typically
includes information that was witnessed or gained from a reliable second-hand
source, but excludes information merely inferred by reasoning, such as knowledge of
community patterns, etc. A question like ‘did the freight plane arrive?’ is unlikely to
receive an informative answer if the addressee has not had reliable confirmation, even
if the addressee knows the plane schedule, for example.23 This value on identifying
level of certainty shows up in other areas of the grammar such as verbal dubitative
inflection, which marks “the inability or unwillingness of the speaker to vouch for the
certainty of the occurrence of the event of the verb. This may be due to lack of
personal observation, supposition or inference, forgetfulness or traditional nature of
the speaker's knowledge” (Nichols 1980: 124). Social role is also a factor, since elders
fill the role of teachers and are more likely to make assertions solely based on their
own experience. It is possible that social factors like this play a role in the use of ci-
vs. hsii- negation, but without further study it is hard to distinguish this factor from
age-based variation in the language.
      Overall, the underlying assumption of cooperation in Oji-Cree culture and the
corresponding indirectness around disaffiliative situations likely provided a
favourable social context for the emergence of ci- negation from an indirect irrealis
expression to an ostensively neutral, descriptive way to make denials.

6. Conclusion


In sum, the descriptive nature of ci- negation appears to serve a pragmatic function,
allowing speakers to negate in an indirect way, avoiding some of the abruptness

22
     I can attest that this is often a source of misunderstanding for visitors to Kingfisher Lake, even in
English. A visitor to the community once barged into a workplace and brashly demanded “Hey, can I
take this T.V.?” The strongest refusal his addressee could muster was “I don’t know”. He walked out
with the T.V., which had to be retrieved later.
23
     In addition to my own observations, the cultural orientation package for the regional health
authority contains several examples along these lines, provided by an Oji-Cree speaker.



                                                                                                      215
Windsor                                                                The rise of unemphatic negation


inherent to acts of denial and instead projecting a stance of cooperation. It has
extended from subordinate irrealis into negative contexts where the speaker does not
need to make a particularly strong assertion, but has not spread into
emphatic/polemic contexts or into the domain of future tense. At the same time, hsii-
negation (historically the rule) is increasingly associated with stronger, more
emphatic, assertions, though it has no overt markers of emphasis and remains
grammatical in all contexts.
  Table 5 visualizes the cross-linguistic functional connections between negation,
non-reality, and strength of assertion, based on an elaboration of Givón (2001). The
language-specific constructions hsii- negation and ci- negation are positioned in
relation to one another according to strength of assertion, spatially illustrating the
proximity between ci- negation, irrealis statements and weak strength of assertion.


                   ← Stronger assertion                               Weaker assertion →

                       emphatic
 realized                                   realis assertion
                       assertion

 non-realized                             negative assertion           irrealis assertion



                        Oji-Cree hsii- negation         Oji-Cree ci- negation


            Table 5: Relationship between negation, non-reality, and strength of assertion


In this way, Oji-Cree divides negative assertions between those which are more versus
less abrupt.
  Cross-linguistically the sources of negation are varied. Much of the discussion in
the typological literature has centred around general pathways such as Jespersen’s
Cycle (Dahl 1979) and the Negative Existential Cycle (Croft 1991; Veselinova 2014).
The most striking aspect of Oji-Cree ci- negation is that it arose not from the desire to
emphasize negative assertions, but from the desire to downplay them. This pattern
represents an interesting alternative to Jespersen’s Cycle, wherein an emphatic
expression is added to an existing negation construction and subsequently becomes




                                                                                                  216
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161


bleached into a new negation marker itself.24 Instead, the case of Oji-Cree points to
the functional utility of an unemphatic negative – one limited to contexts of neutral,
descriptive negation. It also suggests that cultural factors such as the avoidance of
social tension may be associated with this type, perhaps connected to the kind of
social characteristics associated with small, intimate in-groups.
      Within Algonquian linguistics, much of the detailed comparative work has focussed
on formal comparison between languages. The approach taken here highlights the
importance of also comparing the underlying functions of each construction. The
results give insight into the way each language continues to develop in relation to
culture, and provide insights to community professionals working to revitalize their
languages.



Acknowledgements


I am continually grateful to my colleagues at Mishamikoweesh corp. for their daily
help in learning about the nuances of Oji-Cree. Lydia Mamakwa, Sheba Mckay, Jessie
Atlookan and Yvonne Winter provided particular help on the topic of this paper. The
elders quoted throughout the paper have been generous in sharing their knowledge
with us. I also wish to thank participants of the 52nd Algonquin Conference, the 2020
SSILA meeting and a CanIL colloquium for comments during the early development
of this paper, as well as two anonymous reviewers.


Abbreviations

 ⟶ = separates agent-like from patient-like argument
 1, 2, 3 = 1st, 2nd, 3rd person                           NEG   = negative
 ABLE   = ability                                         NONSPEC.ACT     = nonspecific actor
 AI =    animate intransitive verb                        OBV   = obviative
 ASS   = assertive clitic                                 PERF   = perfect
 CJ   = conjunct verb form                                PL   = plural
 CONN    = connective                                     PST   = past
 DETRANS    = detransitive                                PE   = plural exclusive
 DUB    = dubitative                                      PRET   = preterite
 EMPH    = emphatic clitic                                PRT   = particle


24
     Dahl (1979) dubbed this “Jespersen’s cycle” after Jespersen’s (1917:4) initial characterization; see
Breitbarth (2020) for an overview of the subsequent literature.



                                                                                                     217
Windsor                                                                 The rise of unemphatic negation


 FOC   = focus particle                               PRON    = pronoun
 FUT   = predictive future                            REL   = relativizer
 II =   intransitive inanimate verb                   SG   = singular
 INDEF =    indefinite                                SUB   = subordinator
 INDR   = indirect evidential                         TA   = transitive animate verb
 IMPER   = imperative                                 TI   = transitive inanimate
 IRR   = irrealis (potential, purpose, negative)      Q    = yes/no question particle
 IRR2 =   irrealis2 (future, counterfactual, modal)




References


Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2007. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In
   Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact: A cross-
   linguistic typology, 1-66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1946. Algonquian. In Harry Hoijer (ed.), Linguistic structures of
   Native America, 85-129. New York: Viking Fund.
Breitbarth, Anne. 2020. The negative cycle and beyond. In Viviane Déprez & M.
   Teresa Espinal (eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation, 530-545. Oxford: Oxford
   University Press.
Chief, Bertha & Roger Spielmann. 1986. Requesting and rejecting in Algonquin: Notes
   on a conversation. In William Cowan (ed.), Papers of the 17th Algonquian
   Conference, 313-326. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Couper-Kuhn, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics: Studying
   language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 1-27.
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012391
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79-106.
Drapeau, Lynn & Renee Lambert-Bretiere. 2014. Insubordination in Innu. In Monica
   Macaulay & Margaret Noodin & J. Randolph Valentine (eds.), Papers of the 44th
   Algonquian Conference, 197-210. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.
Ellis, Douglas (ed.). 1995. Cree legends and narratives from the west coast of James Bay.
   Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.




                                                                                                   218
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161



Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.),
   Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 102-119. Albany, New York: SUNY
   Press.
Ford, Cecilia. 2001. At the intersections of turn and sequence: Negation and what
   comes next. In Margret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in
   Interactional        Linguistics,      51-79.            Amsterdam:       John      Benjamins.
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.05for
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gross, Maurice. 1977. Une analyse non présuppositionnelle de l’effet contrastif:
   L'extraction dans C'est ... Qu et la negation. Lingvisticae Investigationes 1(1). 39-62.
Grzech, Karolina. 2020. Managing common ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evi-
   dential' markers in Upper Napo Kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal
   of Pragmatics 168. 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.013
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of
   knowledge.       Research     on    Language      and      Social   Interaction   45(1).   1-29.
   https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cam-bridge
   University Press.
Horn, Laurence. 2001. A natural history of negation [reprint of 1989 edition]. Stanford:
   CSLI Publications.
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Høst.
Mamakwa, Lydia & Matthew Windsor (eds.). 2021. ᑳᐱᒫᒌᑯᓯᔮᐣᑭᐸᐣ | When we moved:
   Memories of Mishamikoweesh. Kingfisher Lake: Lulu Press.
Mansfield, John. 2019. Epistemic authority and sociolinguistic stance in an Australian
   Aboriginal language. Open Linguistics 5(1). 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-
   2019-0002
Martins, Ana Maria. 2020. Metalinguistic negation. In Viviane Déprez & M. Teresa
   Espinal (eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation, 349-368. Oxford: Oxford University
   Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830528.013.20
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main
   clauses in typological perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The Extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language
   1(84). 69-119.




                                                                                               219
Windsor                                                       The rise of unemphatic negation



Mithun, Marianne. 2021. Stories behind post-verbal negation clustering. Studies in
  Language 3(45). 684-706.
Nichols, John. 1980. Ojibwe morphology. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.
Nichols, John (ed.). 2014. Anihshininiimowin Oji-Cree dictionary (Severn River and
  Winisk River). Sioux Lookout: Kwayaciiwin Education Resource Centre.
Payne, John. 1985. Negation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic
  description: Vol I, Clause structure, 197-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University
  Press.
Plungian, Vladimir A. & Johan van der Auwera. 2006. Towards a typology of
  discontinuous past marking. Language typology and universals 59(4). 317-349.
  https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.4.317
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of
  preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.),
  Structures of social action, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, Richard. 1985. The consequential future in Cree and Ojibwa. International
  Journal of American Linguistics 51(4). 547-549. https://doi.org/10.1086/689851
Rhodes, Richard. 1988. Ojibwa politeness and social structure. In William Cowan
  (ed.), Papers of the Nineteenth Algonquian Conference, 165-174. Ottawa: Carleton
  University.
Rhodes, Richard. 2011. Instrumentality and frames in Ojibwe. In Randolph Valentine
  & Monica Macaulay (eds.), Papers of the Forty-third Algonquian Conference, 195-206.
  Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schwenter, Scott A. 2005. The pragmatics of negation in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua
  115(10). 1427-1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.006
Silvennoinen, Olli. 2019. Contrastive negation within and across languages. PhD
  Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Spielmann, Roger. 1987. Preference and sequential organization in Algonquin. In
  William Cowan & José Mailhot (eds.), Papers of the Eighteenth Algonquian
  Conference, 321-333. Ottawa: Carleton University.
Starks, Donna. 1987. Negation: An insight into the structure of main clauses in Woods
  Cree. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistics Association 9. 21-42.
Stivers, Tanya & Lorenza Mondada, & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and
  affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers & Lorenza Mondada & Jakob




                                                                                         220
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 127-161



   Steensig (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 3-24. Cambridge:
   Cambridge University Press.
Todd, Evelyn. 1970. A grammar of the Ojibwa language: The Severn dialect. PhD
   Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Valentine, Lisa Philips. 1995. Making it their own: Severn Ojibwe communicative
   practices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Valentine, Rand. 1994. Ojibwe dialect relationships. PhD Dissertation, University of
   Texas at Austin.
Valentine, Rand. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar. Toronto: University of
   Toronto Press.
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2014. The negative existential cycle revisited. Linguistics 52. 1327-
   1369. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling‐2014‐0021
Windsor, Matthew. 2021. Oji-Cree language vitality in a community of North-western
   Ontario. In David Eberhard & Scott Smith (eds.), Planning language use: Case studies
   in community-based language development, 11-54. SIL International.


CONTACT
matthew_windsor@sil.org




                                                                                    221
