Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-08T03:12:25.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choice and balance in Michif negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

H.C. Wolfart
H.C. Wolfart*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Michif language, while distinct from both Cree and French, combines a largelyFrench-based nominal complex with a largely Cree-based verbal system. The syntaxof negation cuts across these dimensions. Declarative sentences in Michif showthe Cree-based negator namô and the French-basednô interchangeably. (This is also the only contextfor pas.) Imperatives, by contrast, demand the Cree-basedêkâ (ya) exclusively.

In subordinate clauses, Michif permits either êkâor nô. In Cree, all such constructions require thedeontic negator êkâ. The integration of the twoCree-based negation types and the French-based no andpas into a single new system in Michif poses not onlyproblems of constituency and syntactic analysis. It also raises once again thethorny question of balance: Is the imbrication of Cree and French symmetrical,or is one of the two languages dominant?

Résumé

Résumé

La langue michif, bien que distincte à la fois du cri et dufrançais, réunit dans ses structures grammaticales un complexenominal s’inspirant en grande partie du français et un complexeverbal principalement d’inspiration crie. La syntaxe de lanégation du michif touche aux deux dimensions. Dans les phrasesdéclaratives en michif, on trouve de façon interchangeable lesparticules de négation namô, qui vient du cri, etnô, qui vient du français. (C’estaussi le seul contexte où l’on trouve pas). Par contre, lesimpératifs exigent exclusivement le mot criêkâ(ya). Dans les subordonnées, lemichif permet êka ou nô. En cri,toutes les constructions de ce type exigent la particule de négationdéontique êkâ. L’intégrationdes deux types de négation cris et ceux du françaisnô et pas dans un nouveausystème unique en michif pose des problèmes d’analysesyntaxique et des constituents. Cette intégration soulèveégalement à nouveau la question épineuse del’équilibre: l’imbrication du cri et du français,est-elle symétrique, ou y a-t-il domination de la part de l’une oude l’autre?

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 115 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blain, Eleanor M. 1989. The Bungee dialect of the Red River settlement. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wolfart, H.C.. 1998. Towards a syntax of negation in Plains Cree. Paper presented at the 13th Algonquian Conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wolfart, H.C.. 2000. La négation comme indice de structure syntaxique dans le cri des plaines. Paper presented at the 32e Congrès des algonquinistes, Montréal.Google Scholar
Hogman, Wesley L. 1981. Agreement for animacy and gender in the Buffalo Narrows dialect of French-Cree. MASA: Journal of the University of Manitoba Anthropology Students’ Association 7:81–94.Google Scholar
Lacombe, Albert. 1874. Dictionnaire de la langue des Cris. Montréal: Beauchemin et Valois.Google Scholar
Laverdure, Patline and Rose Allard, Ida. 1983. The Michif dictionary: Turtle Mountain Chippewa Cree, ed. Crawford, John C.. Winnipeg: Pemmican Publications.Google Scholar
Nichols, John D. 2003. Is Anihsininiimowin (Severn Ojibwe) Ojicree? Paper presented at the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas 8, Brandon, MB.Google Scholar
Pentland, David H. 2003. Interaction between Cree and Ojibwe: A historical perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas 8, Brandon, MB.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard A. 1977. French Cree — A case of borrowing. Dans Actes du huitième congrès des algonquinistes, dir. William Cowan, 6–25. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Roy, Gabrielle. La route d’Altamont. Montreal: HMH.Google Scholar
Sprague, Douglas N. 1988. Canada and the Métis, 1869–1885. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, Deborah. 1982. Obviation in Michif. Work Papers, Summer Institute of Linguistics—University of North Dakota Session 26:174–262.Google Scholar
Whitecalf, Sarah. 1992. Kinêhiyâwiwininaw nêhiyawêwin/The Cree language is our identity: The LaRonge Lectures of Sarah Whitecalf. Edited, translated and with a glossary by Wolfart, H.C. and Ahenakew, Freda. Publications of the Algonquian Text Society/Collection de la Société d’édition de textes algonquiennes. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
Wolfart, H.C. 1973. Boundary maintenance in Algonquian: A linguistic study of Island Lake, Manitoba. American Anthropologist 75:1305–1323.Google Scholar
Wolfart, H.C. 1977. Les paradigmes verbaux ojibwa et la position du dialecte de Severn. Dans Actes du huitième congrès des algonquinistes, dir. Cowan, William, 188–206. Ottawa: Carleton UniversityGoogle Scholar
Wolfart, H.C. 1979. Marginalia aquilonia. Algonquian Linguistics 5:7–13.Google Scholar
Wolfart, H.C. 1996. Negation and volition. Paper presented at the Linguistics Colloquium, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar