322
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios
In Parkari, as in Greek, scenarios affect lexical collocations as well as grammar. This chapter shows how scenario structure provides the conceptual basis for understanding
lexical cohesion and lexical reference in contemporary Parkari texts. I give evidence that the co-occurrence of vocabulary in Parkari reflects the scenarios open in the speaker’s
mind, and hence indicates to the audience which scenarios are currently open in the dis- course. I also show how scenario theory explains certain lexical patterns in Parkari: the
•
conjoining of lexical items to form lexical doublets
•
use and omission of lexical marking for contraexpectation, and
•
use of causative verbs without making all the participants explicit.
13.1. Lexical cohesion and scenarios
Lexical cohesion “refers to the role played by the selection of vocabulary in organizing relations within a text” and includes both reiteration and collocation
Baker 1992
:203. The cohesion which depends on reiteration is achieved by coreferential marking, whether noun, pronoun, or zero anaphora, whereas the cohesion which depends
on collocation is achieved by the use of vocabulary which belongs together in organized relationships. On the face of it, one would assume that this would be vocabulary from a
single semantic domain, but this is not true if we restrict semantic domain in the way Louw and Nida
1988 have for New Testament Greek. In order to have a role in “organ-
izing relations within a text”, vocabulary must belong within a single scenario, where the semantic relationships are already prototypically present.
For ease of reference I give lexical examples from the English gloss. The Parkari text can be found in appendix
O .
Clear examples of lexical cohesion occur in the text “Michael”, where the use of vocabulary from a specific scenario helps the audience to recognise which scenario is
open, thus allowing accurate identification of reference, and the switch to lexical items of a different scenario not only opens a new scenario but corresponds to a development of
the narrative, usually marking the beginning of a new semantic paragraph, for example reiteration underlined, collocation bolded:
The “boy” scenario
1
Once there was a boy.
2 His name was Michael.
3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
The “train” scenario
4 But he used to go to school on the train.
5 But he always used to travel without paying his fare.
6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets,
7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 323
The “inspector” scenario
6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets, 7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat.
8 One day the inspector caught hold of him. 9 When he checked his pockets
10 he found [his] Identity Card in his pocket.
The “identity” scenario
10 he found his Identity Card in his pocket.
11 and on the card was written “Michael Christian”.
13 “You have become a Christian, but do what’s wrong.
14
Christian people don’t behave like this.”
The “morality” scenario
5 But he always used to travel without paying his fare. 7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat.
13 “You have become a Christian, but do what’s wrong. 14 Christian people don’t behave like this.
15 So why are you doing wrong like this?” 16 Then this boy became very ashamed,
17 and became very embarrassed. 18 Then Michael became a good Christian.
19 We should all 20 give up our bad deeds and do good deeds,
21 just as this boy became a good Christian.
It can be readily seen in the examples above that throughout the text lexical cohesion is achieved by reiteration of Michael as the main narrative character, using
•
his name
•
a noun with demonstrative adjective, or
•
a pronoun. In lines 4, 5, and 15, where the English gloss has a lexical pronoun, the Parkari text has a
null pronoun zero. It can also be seen that cohesion is achieved by the collocation of specific lexical items which belong in the same scenario and which have a prototypical
semantic relationship one to the other, which may or may not be explicit in the text.
Lexical cohesion in terms of organizing relations within sections of the text is achieved by the lexical items opening a specific scenario in which the prototypical
semantic relationships between concepts help the audience interpret relationships left implicit in the text. For example, line 4 opens the “train” scenario, in which
•
“fare” line 5 means “train fare”
•
“inspector” and “tickets” line 6 mean “ticket inspector” and “train tickets”, and
•
“toilet” and “seat” line 7 mean “toilet at the end of the railway carriage” and “seat in the railway carriage”.
324 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
Lexical cohesion in terms of organizing relations between different sections of the text is achieved by the interlinking or chaining of related scenarios. Typically one
element of an open scenario becomes the core element of a new scenario in the text. Hence the
•
“boy” scenario in line 1 leads to “school” in line 3
•
“school” scenario leads, somewhat untypically note “But” to “train” in line 4
•
“train” scenario leads to “inspector” in line 6, and foreshadows the “morality” scenario by ticketless travel and hiding in lines 5 and 7
•
“inspector” scenario leads to “identity” in line 10
•
“identity” scenario leads to “Christian” in lines 11, 13, and 14, and
•
“Christian” opens the “morality” scenario which dominates the final part of the story.
Interestingly, the “morality” scenario is foreshadowed way back in line 2 for the Parkari audience by the name “Michael”, which is postposed for emphasis:
2 u- ɑ ɾ-o nom ɦət-o mɑekəl.
that-G of-G name was-G Michael His name was Michael.
Among Parkaris, “Michael” is a name used only by Christians, whereas the majority of Parkaris are Hinduanimist. So the boy’s name itself opens the “Christian” scenario
which has “morality” as a central element.
Another example of lexical cohesion, both between the lexical items within individ- ual sections of the text, and between the different sections of the text, comes in the text
“My farmwork”. In this procedural text, reiteration is shown by the frequent use of Nonfinal forms to refer back to the preceding Main Verb as the time setting for the next
set of events, and by use of the first person throughout either as an independent pronoun or verbal suffix in the Parkari. To achieve lexical collocation, as in the text “Michael”,
lexical items within each section are related to a single scenario, and successive sections of text are closed and opened by the interlinking or chaining of scenarios. However, in
this procedural text, the change between scenarios is not plot driven, but time driven, for example reiteration using Parkari Nonfinal forms underlined, collocation bolded.
The “morning” scenario
1a Having got up early in the morning
The “field tour” scenario also in lines 13 and 16
1b I will go to take a walk round the land.
2 After taking a walk round I come back home again.
The “ploughing” scenario
3 After coming home, I will drive the oxen and go to yoke the ox-team.
4 The ox-team goes.
N.B. This is reiterated in 5a with explicit ploughing vocabulary “After ploughing the land”.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 325
The “planting sugarcane” scenario
5 After ploughing the land then I go and cut the sugarcane.
6 After cutting the sugarcane then having chopped it into sections
7 then again, back on the land, having made trenches
8 I plant sugarcane in the trenches.
9 After planting the sugarcane
10 then I fill it in, fill the trenches in.
The “watering the crop” scenario
11 After filling them in then I let the water into it.
12 After letting in the water, after it has filled, then I close the channel.
13
After closing it then I er take another walk round the land.
14 Then I close off the channel from the upper mouth.
15
After closing the channel I come back
16 and take a tour round the land.
The “keeping the fields neat” scenario
17 Then if there are field-walls I trim the walls.
18 After trimming the walls I keep the walls straight.
19 If there is a mound, then I dig away the mound and level it up.
20 And I do fields in turn, trimming them well.
21 I make all the fields level,
22 in which the water may come really evenly
23 and the water may lie in the field just the same amount all over.
The “evaluative” scenario
24
So in this way according to my own plan
25 I do my work in a good manner.
The use of vocabulary from a single scenario produces lexical cohesion, and such vocabulary, by opening a specific scenario allows the audience to interpret implicit
semantic relationships between explicit items. For example, in 11–16 “let in the water”, “channel”, “open”, and “close” are lexically cohesive, as they all belong in the same
“irrigation” scenario. These lexically cohesive vocabulary items show that the “irrigation” scenario is open, and this scenario allows the hearer to understand “it has
filled” as “the field has been filled to a level of a few inches”, to understand “channel” as the “water channel for irrigating the fields” and to understand “upper mouth” as the
“upper mouth of the irrigation channel where it joins to the irrigation canal”.
Such lexically cohesive items do not necessarily belong in the same semantic domain. For example, “water”, “field”, and “field-wall” are not in the same semantic
domain as “trimming”, “straight”, “level”, and “evenly”, but they all belong in the one scenario of “keeping the fields neat”. These scenarios are clearly experiential. The dif-
ference in agriculture between Parkaris and Westerners make the contents of several Parkari scenarios appear unusual. For example, “field-walls” are not stone boundary
markers but earth banks around each field which allow irrigation water to flood the field evenly without flowing away. Thus lexical cohesion through collocation is achieved by
326 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
the juxtaposition of vocabulary items which refer to concepts stored in the same mental scenario, since they co-occur in real life as culturally related concepts.
The lexical collocations in a text enable the audience to identify which scenarios are open, and this enables them to link the vocabulary to semantically interrelated concepts
in their own mental scenarios. This conceptual relationship between lexical items is what produces lexical cohesion throughout a text. This is clearly shown in “Mongoose”, for
example collocations bolded:
The “town” scenario
2 In a certain town there was a house.
The “household” scenario
3 And that house-holder’s name was Premo.
4 Premo’s son was one Konji.
9 When he came home his mother said
17 And all the members of the family,
20 his baby brother was born,
The “baby mongoose” scenario
6
and he caught a mongoose
7 and he took the baby mongoose
10
Child, this baby mongoose
11 you take back to its own mother.
13 and kept that baby mongoose in his own home
14 and looked after it.
15
The mongoose kept gradually growing bigger
16 and began to live in that house.
Here again, in the “baby mongoose” scenario, the vocabulary items such as “mon- goose”, “look after”, and “house” do not belong to the same semantic domains, but they
do belong conceptually in a single scenario, that of a “pet”, and it is this scenario which provides lexical cohesion. In other words, lexical cohesion is simply the natural by-
product of conceptual coherence, and conceptual coherence is based on repeated reference to the same mental scenario, since that is where conceptually related concepts
are stored in the brain.
So the content of scenarios cannot be limited to a small number of items with fixed culturally independent relationships, since the scenario is an idealized conceptual repre-
sentation of real-life relationships. Nevertheless there are certain conceptual relationships typically found within scenarios, and these are reflected in the semantic relationships
between words which regularly co-occur in discourse. This means that there are two categories of lexical collocation: lexical items which
•
belong in the same semantic domain and are related by a limited number of fixed semantic relationships, and
•
do not belong in the same semantic domain and are related by whatever semantic relationships occur in real life experiences.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 327
These will be illustrated in turn with Parkari examples.
13.1.1. Semantic relationships within the same semantic domain
Relevant items are shown bolded. With specific-generic relations the generic is underlined, and with part-whole relations the whole is underlined.
Specific-specific specifics belonging to the same generic class
“Mongoose”—family members 3
And that house-holder’s name was Premo.
4 Premo’s son was one Konji.
9 When he came home his mother said
“Malo’s wedding”—foodstuffs
10 Then we got rice. We got three maunds 120 kg. of rice. 11 We got some spices.
12 However we didn’t get a buffalo, we got half a maund of potatoes.
Specific-generic specifics referred back to by a generic term
“Mongoose” 3
And that house-holder’s name was Premo.
4 Premo’s son was one Konji.
9 When he came home his mother said
17 And all the members of the family.
“Malo’s wedding”
10 Then we got rice. We got three maunds 120 kg. of rice. 11 We got some spices.
12 However we didn’t get a buffalo, we got half a maund of potatoes. 19 Then when they had come we cooked the rice and held the wedding.
N.B. The Parkari word for “rice” in line 10 means ‘uncooked rice grains’. The different word in line 19 means ‘cooked rice’ and is used in the sense of the whole meal, including the potatoes and spices, which
are mixed in with it.
“The lame man and the blind man”
56 He had opened it, and having opened the pan and the pot he was looking in it. N.B. The word for “pan” in 56 means ‘a small pan for cooking curry or rice’ whereas the word
glossed ‘pot’ is generic for any kind of vessel.
Generic-specific generic followed by specifics of that class
“Malo’s wedding”
3 When we held the wedding we had no money at all. 4 There was not even five rupees in the house.
328 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
“Malo’s wedding”
20 In the evening the wedding money was raised, they stayed the night. 22 and in Richard’s house here only the women stayed.
23 The men stayed in the tent.
Part-whole parts belonging to the same whole
“Michael”
4 But he used to go to school on the train. 7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat.
“Mongoose”
2 In a certain town there was a house.
“Mongoose”
26 a cobra came into the house, 28 it came there and raised its hood.
“Malo’s wedding”
19 Then when they had come we cooked the rice and held the wedding. 20 In the evening the wedding money was raised, they stayed the night.
26 Then we gave the bridegroom the ritual showing. 28 Then the drum went and got forgotten.
29 Then having taken the Datsun we went anyway straight to the church. 34 and then we held the wedding, read the marriage.
N.B. In line 19 “wedding” is used in the generic sense of all the activities involved, i.e. the whole script from the “wedding” scenario. In line 34 “wedding” is clarified by the loan word
n ɪkɑ glossed ‘marriage’,
i.e. the formal legal and religious ceremony as performed by the Church.
Synonyms
“Michael”
16 Then this boy became very ashamed, 17 and became very embarrassed.
“My farmwork”
1b I will go to take a walk round the land. 16 and take a tour round the land.
“My farmwork”
20 And I do fields in turn, trimming them well. 25 I do my work in a good manner.
Coreferential nouns or noun phrases
“Michael”
1 Once there was a boy. 12 Then the inspector said to Michael
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 329
“Mongoose”
6 and he caught a mongoose 7 and he took the baby mongoose
“Mongoose”
41 A little while later, the boy’s mother came. 45 The lady thought in her heart that this mongoose
“Mongoose”
4 Premo’s son was one Konji. 10 Child, this baby mongoose
Note that the same noun used in line 10 for Konji is used again in line 53 to refer to his baby brother:
“Mongoose”
10 Child, this baby mongoose 53 and the child is there playing.
This shows that the assignment of reference must be made not at word level, but at scenario level. The same lexical item in the same text may have different referents,
depending on the scenario currently open, which is determined from the events and items mentioned in the text. Since the audience relies on the scenario in order to identify
reiteration, achieving lexical cohesion by reiteration also depends on the scenario.
Antonyms
“Michael”
20 give up our bad deeds and do good deeds,
“My farmwork”
1b I will go to take a walk round the land. 2 After taking a walk round I come back home again.
It is of interest that Parkari has several pairs of rhyming antonyms, where the “positive” one of the pair has the initial consonant
ħ possibly related historically to the Sanskrit prefix
su ‘good’, thus resulting in the lexical cohesion being paralleled by phonological similarity, for example:
Negative Positive
ɗəkʰ grief
ħəkʰ happiness
ɗoɾo difficult
ħoɾo easy
ɑʋo left
ħɑʋo right
o ɭo
wrong way round ħoɭo
right way round mõ
ɡʰo expensive
ħõɡʰo inexpensive, cheap
k əputəɾ
disobedient, naughty ħəputeɾ
obedient, well behaved
330 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
Corollaries
“Mongoose”
36 Finally the mongoose killed the snake. 52 there is a snake lying dead at the side of the cot.
“Mongoose”
10 Child, this baby mongoose 11 you take back to its own mother.
13.1.2. Semantic relationships in the same scenario but not in the same semantic domain
Vocabulary belonging to the same time-space-activity frame Times and related events
“Michael”
3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
“My farmwork”
1 Having got up early in the morning
“Malo’s wedding”
20 In the evening the wedding money was raised, they stayed the night. N.B. In Parkari culture, the bridegroom’s guests arrive at his village in the evening, and give wedding
money to the groom’s father to help cover the wedding costs.
Places and related events
“Michael”
3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
“Michael”
4 But he used to go to school on the train. 6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets,
Places and related participants
“Michael”
3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
“Michael”
4 But he used to go to school on the train. 6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets,
Participants and related events
“Michael”
3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 331
“Michael”
6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets,
Vocabulary belonging to the sequential development of time-space-activity
“Malo’s wedding” time
20 In the evening the wedding money was raised, they stayed the night. 25 Then early in the morning at eight o’clock the Datsun came.
“Mongoose” space
23 went outside to fetch water. [i.e. to a well]
41 A little while later, the boy’s mother came.
42 And she came to the doorway and saw … 50 After she had killed it, when she went inside the house
“My farmwork” activity
12 After letting in the water, after it has filled, then I close the channel.
Vocabulary belonging to sequential stages of a script
“My farmwork”
6 After cutting the sugarcane then having chopped it into sections
“Mongoose”
13 and kept that baby mongoose in his own home 14 and looked after it.
Vocabulary belonging to the sequential development of cause and effect
“Michael”
6 And when the inspector used to come to check the tickets, 7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat.
“Michael”
9 When he checked his pockets 10 he found his Identity Card in his pocket.
Vocabulary belonging to the sequential development of plot, i.e. problem and resolution
“Michael”
7 then this boy used to hide in the toilet or under the seat. 8 One day the inspector caught hold of him.
“Michael”
15 “So why are you doing wrong like this?” 18 Then Michael became a good Christian.
332 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
Vocabulary related metaphorically
“Mongoose”
66 One should not act like this. [literally, do such work] 67 One should always be patient.
68 since the fruit of patience is always sweet.
The word “fruit” is linked metaphorically with the word “work” in the “patience” scenario, as is shown by the Parkari saying “The fruit of patience is sweet”. Here, the
“work” of killing the innocent mongoose is the “fruit”, i.e. result, of lack of patience. Had the woman first patiently checked the facts, she would not have done this evil deed, and
the “fruit” of her patience would have been “sweet fruit”, i.e. a good response to the situation.
13.1.3. Textual coherence and scenario mismatch
Research into human cognition has shown that the time taken to verify the semantic relationship between two lexical items depends on the strength of the experiential link
between the concepts those lexical items refer to, and this suggests that concepts are stored in semantically and hierarchically structured mental networks which consequently
link the lexical items tagged to those concepts
Collins and Quillian 1972 ;
Collins and Loftus 1975
. This evidence suggests that the link between lexical cohesion and scenarios is part of all human cognition.
However, the specific concepts which are related within a given scenario vary from culture to culture. Many scenarios include elements common to all humanity, e.g. the
“childbirth” scenario must include a mother, a child, and an umbilical cord. Yet even this scenario has elements which are culturally determined, e.g. probable age of mother, place
and mode of delivery, presence or absence of a professional medical person, etc. Conse- quently, where the audience does not share the scenarios of the writer, for example non-
Parkaris hearing a Parkari text, the speaker’s lexical cohesion is not perceived by the audience, but rather they see the lexicon as random, and both lexical cohesion and
semantic coherence is lost.
A clear example of this is in the “wedding” scenario, which is very different for English and Parkari people, due to different cultural backgrounds items in both Parkari
and English “wedding” scenarios are underlined, items not in the English “wedding” scenario are bolded, for example:
“Malo’s wedding” 2 and then we held Malo’s wedding.
10 Then we got rice. We got three maunds 120 kg. of rice. 11 We got some spices.
12 However we didn’t get a buffalo, we got half a maund of potatoes. 14 The feeding of the groom at different houses went on for eight days.
20 In the evening the wedding money was raised, they stayed the night. 21 The tent was pitched
25 Then early in the morning at eight o’clock the Datsun came. 26 Then we gave the bridegroom the ritual showing.
28 Then the drum went and got forgotten.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 333
29 Then having taken the Datsun we went anyway straight to the church. 31 one
bridegroom came there from Matli.
32 My son Malo’s wedding party went.
34 and then we held the wedding, read the marriage. 35 The
vicar came, Bashir Din from Hyderabad.
The marriage, church, bridegroom, and vicar are part of the “wedding” scenario in both Parkari Christian culture and English culture though the detailed scenario for each
element is by no means identical. However, rice, spices, buffalo meat, or potatoes are not in the “wedding meal” section of an English “wedding” scenario. Nor does an
English “wedding” scenario include
•
prewedding meals for the groom throughout the neighbourhood
•
wedding money
•
tents for the guests
•
open-backed Datsun vans to take the guests to the wedding,
•
ritual “showings” of the groom
•
drums for the dancing, or
•
groom’s wedding parties travelling to the wedding en masse. Yet all these items are prototypically present in the Parkari wedding scenario. Indeed,
most of the similar elements, such as reading the marriage ceremony, churches, and vicars, are only part of the “wedding” scenario for the minority of Parkaris who are
Christians.
It is, of course, possible to change the audience’s scenarios by the lexical collocations within the text. No doubt, as you read this, your scenario for “weddings” is
being altered by the addition of a Parkari subsection, containing new conceptual links and lexical collocations. However, when a speaker is trying to create a new scenario or alter
an existing one, he cannot assume that the audience is able to correctly infer implicit information or implicit semantic links between explicit items. Consequently, he must be
more explicit than when he and his audience share scenarios, e.g. instead of “The tent was pitched” he may say “The tent was pitched for accommodating the wedding guests
overnight”.
As with the “wedding” scenario, the Parkari “farming” scenario contains not only elements common to the English scenario underlined but also elements which are
clearly different bolded, for example:
“My farmwork” 1 Having
got up early in the morning I will go to take a walk round the land.
3 After coming home, I will drive the oxen and go to yoke the ox-team. 4 The ox-team goes.
5 After ploughing the land then I go and cut the sugarcane. 8 I plant sugarcane in the trenches.
334 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
12 After letting in the water, after it has filled, then I close the channel. 17 Then if there are field-walls I trim the walls.
19 If there is a mound, then I dig away the mound and level it up.
Getting up early, looking round the fields, and ploughing belong in the “farming” scenario of both languages and cultures, but in the English scenario
•
oxen are not used for ploughing
•
sugarcane is not a crop planted, and
•
the whole planting method is different. The Parkari scenario for watering crops is by irrigation, so fields have earthen walls
surrounding them, trenches are made in the fields, and after planting, water is run from irrigation channels into the fields to fill the bottom of the trenches. If the fields have
humps and hollows, the water will not flow everywhere. Even the word for “plant” in line 8 refers only to the transplanting of a crop, such as rice seedlings or sugarcane sections,
into a field which is or will be flooded.
Such scenario mismatch makes the flow of discourse unpredictable for a foreign reader. The unusual may seem normal, for example:
“Michael” 3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
4 But he used to go to school on the train.
Michael’s travelling to school by train is marked as contrary to expectation, but this is not an uncommon way to travel to school in the South of England. For Parkaris, however,
this is very unusual, since almost all live in rural areas, away from roads and railways, and most children must walk to school if they go at all.
And again the normal may seem unusual:
“Michael”
10 he found his Identity Card in his pocket.
Parkaris would expect a schoolchild of secondary age to carry an Identity Card, as legally required. But Identity Cards are not part of a UK schoolboy scenario, but belong to a
police or military scenario. Someone may use a student card or driver’s licence to prove identity, but they would not carry an “identity card” in their pocket.
Some Parkari texts seem to Westerners to lack lexical cohesion altogether, e.g. the opening of “The lame man and the blind man”:
2 The lame man says to the blind man “Let’s go and steal something”.
3 So the blind man says “Do you know where something is then?” 4 So the lame man says “Yes”.
5 The blind man says “We won’t go stealing just like that.
6 Go over there where that bird is singing and put a broken pot rim there.
7 Just keep looking whether the bird goes through the broken pot rim or not”.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 335
8 So he says “Blind man”, its the lame man talking,
“Blind man, the bird did go through the pot rim.” 9 So he says “Now, when night falls, then we will go stealing”.
Here, the lame man suggests going to steal something, but the blind man refuses to go “just like that” and tells the lame man to see whether a bird flies through a broken pot
rim. Once assured that the bird does, the blind man agrees that “now” they will go stealing. Parkari has two words for “now”,
ɦəmɳɛ meaning ‘at this time’ and ɦəʋɛ meaning ‘in this situation’. The use of
ɦəʋɛ ‘now’ in line 9 indicates that the situation has been changed by the bird’s action.
These diverse elements do not belong together in any English scenario, so the text seems to lack lexical cohesion. However, Parkari Hindus do not start any activity without
first consulting the omens, and the behaviour of birds is a typical omen. Thus these words all fit naturally into the Parkari “omen” scenario providing lexical cohesion.
In this story, the bird’s flying through the pot rim is a good omen for the central characters, and thereafter, every time they meet an obstacle, the blind man reminds the
lame man of this good omen, and they carry on undaunted. These opening lines, then, provide the setting of an auspicious omen which is a recurring theme throughout the
story. Yet the word “omen” is never explicitly mentioned. Consequently, the story is hard for a Westerner to make sense of, since textual coherence relies heavily on lexical
cohesion to indicate which scenarios are open.
In translation, where there is scenario mismatch, it will often be necessary to make explicit the relationship between lexical items and the scenario they are part of, for
example:
“Malo’s wedding”
28 Then the drum went and got forgotten.
A meaning-based translation might well say: “Then we forgot the drum, which we needed for accompanying the traditional wedding dances.”
Similarly:
“The lame man and the blind man”
5 The blind man says “We won’t go stealing just like that”.
A meaning-based translation might well say “We won’t go stealing just like that, without checking the omens”.
Such adjustments in the form of the text do not alter the meaning or cohesion of the original text. Rather they are compensating for the mismatch of scenarios between the
original speaker and the new audience, by making explicit in the translation the same cohesion which was implicit in the original text.
13.1.4. Textual coherence and metaphorically linked scenarios
Parkari discourse containing metaphorical language may seem to lack lexical cohe- sion to an English audience, since Parkari metaphorical links are not the same as English
336 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
metaphorical links. Metaphors are not usually individual creative linkings of different items, but whole scenarios are linked by a central metaphorical link, and this spawns
whole clusters of related metaphors Lakoff and Johnson 1980
. So in a Parkari text, vocabulary from a metaphorical scenario would be automatically linked to a literal
scenario for the author and for a Parkari audience, but to a Western reader this vocabulary may appear unrelated.
For example, Parkari sayings frequently contain metaphors. Parkari has a common metaphorical link between people and their actions and trees and their fruit, for example:
“Tree” scenario a
tree produces
fruit a good tree
produces sweet fruit
a bad tree produces
sour fruit “Person” scenario
a person
produces actions
a good person produces
good actions a bad person
produces bad actions
This connection is shown in the common saying:
ʤ̑eʋ-o ʋəɳ teʋ-o meʋ-o. as-G tree so-G fruit-G
As the tree, so the fruit. = As the person, so the deed, i.e. a person’s actions reveal their nature.
New Testament Greek also uses this “tree and fruit” metaphor, though typically it uses specific terms from a Palestinian setting, rather than generic terms. The Parkari
saying can be used in translation to clarify the New Testament metaphor, ensuring that it is understood metaphorically not literally, for example:
James 3:12
συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; fig-tree olives will-produce or grape-vine figs
Parkari: As the tree, so the fruit. Can the fruits of olive occur on the tree of fig? Or can can the fruits of fig occur on the vine of grapes?
As noted above, there is a similar saying which uses another word for fruit as a metaphor:
s əbʰəɾ ɾ-o pʰəl mɪʈʰ-o s-ɛ.
patience of-G fruit sweet-G be-P The fruit of patience is sweet.
= The result of patience is good, i.e. a patient person does good actions and receives good rewards.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 337
This saying is the basis for the “fruit” metaphor in the “Mongoose” text:
“Mongoose” 56 I have killed an innocent sinless creature.
62 Why was I not patient?
63 Why did I not first look inside the house?
64 What, what, what sort of deed is this?
65 But then she thought in her heart
66 One should not act like this. 67 One should always be patient.
68 t ɑke səbʰəɾ ɾ-o pʰəl ɦəmeʃɑ̃ mɪʈʰ-o s-ɛ.
so.that patience of-G fruit always sweet-G be-P since the fruit of patience is always sweet.
Note that the act of killing the innocent mongoose is the result or “fruit” of lack of patience. Had the woman first patiently checked the facts, she would not have done this
evil deed, and the result or “fruit” of her patience would have been “sweet fruit”, i.e. a good response to the situation. The two Parkari sayings above show that “patience” is
metaphorically regarded as a “good tree”. These metaphorically related scenarios are charted below in parallel, with the explicit references bold:
“Tree” scenario a good tree
produces
sweet fruit 68
a bad tree produces
sour fruit “Patience” scenario
patience 62, 68
produces good actions
impatience produces bad actions 56, 64, 66
That is
a good tree = patience produces
sweet fruit = good actions
a bad tree = impatience produces
sour fruit = bad actions
Lakoff and Johnson 1980
also point out that scenarios are linked metaphorically due to a perceived similarity, and some of these perceived similarities are rooted in phys-
iological realities, such as anger increasing the blood supply near the skin’s surface, so creating extra surface heat. This metaphorical connection of anger and heat also occurs in
Parkari, though not in the texts quoted here:
“heat” scenario “anger” scenario
ɓəɭʋo to burn
to be angry ɠəɾəm
hot angry ʈʰəɾʋo
to cool down to calm down
338 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
The parallel scenarios may be charted as follows:
“heat” scenario burning
makes things
hot time
makes things cool down
“anger” scenario becoming angry makes people
angry time
makes people calm down
Similarly, there is a metaphorical connection in both English and Parkari between death and shame, based no doubt on physical feelings. The English phrase “die of
embarrassment” is exactly paralleled in Parkari, for example:
“Michael” 16 Then this boy became very ashamed,
17 ən lɑɗ͡ʒ-e məɾ-i-o.
and embarrassment-loc die-pf-G and became very embarrassed literally, ‘died in embarrassment’.
This is just one example of a metaphorical connection between death and negative feelings, physical or emotional, in both English and Parkari, for example:
Literal Metaphorical m
əɾʋo to die
to be strongly affected by a negative feeling l
ɑɗ͡ʒe məɾʋo to die in embarrassment
to be very embarrassed and ashamed b
ʰuke məɾʋo to die in hunger
to be very hungry t
əɾɦe məɾʋo to die in thirst
to be very thirsty
Although some metaphors are common to many languages, metaphorical links between scenarios are not universal. The same metaphorical form does not necessarily
have the same meaning across languages, so metaphors must be recognized as such, and translated according to their meaning, for example:
Parkari Literal translation
Meaning u-
ɑ ɾ-o ħɑɗ pəɽ-e ɠ-i-o. His voice dropped.
He lost his voice.
13.2. Lexical doublets and scenarios
Parkari, like Greek, has lexical doublets. Indeed the use of doublets is a very noticeable characteristic of Parkari, along with Urdu and several other Indo-Iranian
languages see appendix P
. These doublets consist of two words, at least one of which is an independent word, combined in a set order. I argue that such doublets, as in Greek,
refer not simply to the referents of the individual words, but to the whole scenario to which those referents belong.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 339
13.2.1. Urdu doublets
Barker 1967
:Volume 1:474 comments on the form and derivation of doublets in Urdu. He notes the fixed order of elements, and the irregular conjoining, where instead
of the regular Urdu copula əʊɾ ‘and’ doublets derived from Persian have an explicit
copula o and Urdu doublets have no copula at all. Barker lists three types with examples here transcribed in
IPA
. “Persian Copulative Compounds”
Some are written as single words in Urdu, functioning “as a unitary word in the intonation pattern”
ibid. , for example:
ɑboɦəʋɑ F1 [np] climate.
[Two nouns: ɑb ‘water’ which does not occur independently in Urdu with this meaning
+ ɦəʋɑ ‘air, wind’, which does occur as a separate Urdu word.]
ɑmədoɾəft F1 [np] communication, transportation. [Two past stems:
ɑməd from the root ɑmə ‘come’ and ɾəft from ɾəf ‘go’.] b
əndobəst M1 [np] arrangement, management. [Present and past stem of the same verb root
b əs ‘tie, bind’ …]
Others are written as separate words, for example:
d əɾd o ɣəm ‘pain and grief’ dəɾd M1 ‘pain’ and ɣəm ‘grief, sorrow’
Urdu doublets These conjoin two nouns with no copula, for example:
ʧ̑ʰʊɾi kɑ̃ʈɑ ‘knife [and] fork’ d
ɪn ɾɑt ‘day [and] night’
k ʰɑnɑ pinɑ ‘food [and] drink’
“Echo compounds” These “consist of a word preceded or followed by a jingling, rhyming repetition of
itself. The repeated portion is always modified in some fashion: the first consonant may be replaced by another, the first vowel of the word may be substituted by another, or the
whole stem may be altered in some manner” ibid.
, for example:
ʧ̑ɑe ʋɑe ‘tea and things, tea and all that goes with it, tea, etc., etc.’
Barker comments briefly on the semantic aspects of these doublets. He notes that conjoined items “are almost synonymous” or “share some common semantic feature” and
that “echo compounds” signify “vague inclusiveness”. I would go further, and say that the conjoined items in Urdu doublets always belong in a single scenario, and doublets
always refer to that whole scenario. This is especially clear in Barker’s example
ɑboɦəʋɑ ‘climate’ which literally means ‘water and air’.
340 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
Reference of Indo-Iranian doublets to a single scenario is beautifully illustrated by the following example from Pashtu:
ɣɾe o ʋɾe ‘mountains and doors’ = variety of topics, no particular topic
At first glance, this doublet seems to disprove my hypothesis, since there is no single prototypical scenario where mountains and doors belong. However, the meaning of the
doublet reflects this fact, since it means ‘miscellaneous, anything at all’, i.e. it refers to a scenario in which anything at all may fit.
Barker’s definition of the compound ʧ̑ɑe ʋɑe from ʧ̑ɑe ‘tea’ as “tea and things,
tea and all that goes with it, tea, etc., etc.” comes close to my own definition of its mean- ing as ‘the tea scenario’. He recognizes that
ʧ̑ɑe ʋɑe means more than just ‘tea’, but assumes tea must be included. However, I am informed by mother tongue Urdu speakers,
that ʧ̑ɑe ʋɑe need not include tea at all, since one can accept the offer of ʧ̑ɑe ʋɑe and
then request a cold drink. This proves that the meaning is not “tea, etc.” but “anything which is prototypical within the tea scenario”. Similarly, the couplet
k ʰɑnɑ ʋɑnɑ from
k ʰɑnɑ ‘food’ can refer to snacks like samosas. Such snacks cannot be referred to as
k ʰɑnɑ ‘food’ since they are not a proper meal. So kʰɑnɑ ʋɑnɑ does not mean “food,
etc.” but “whatever belongs in the food scenario”, including light snacks.
13.2.2. Parkari doublets
I argue that the function of doublets in Parkari, as in Urdu, is to lexicalize the scenarios in which the discrete items naturally belong, rather than to refer to the discrete
items themselves. This parallels the use of lexical doublets in New Testament Greek. In Parkari, as in Urdu and Greek, doublets are formed from two independent words
which belong in a single scenario usually nouns, but also verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. These words occur in a fixed order with no copula, and the resulting doublet does not
simply refer to those two words combined, but to the whole scenario they belong to, for example:
m ɑl
= ‘livestock, domestic animals’ m
ɪlɠət = ‘wealth, money’
m ɑl mɪlɠət
= ‘property, possessions, cash, clothes, houses, cars’ Clothes, houses and cars are not part of either
m ɑl or mɪlɠət.
nom = ‘name’
n ɪʃon
= ‘sign’ nom n
ɪʃon = ‘any trace’ e.g. re. a town, no memory or trace of it will remain
ɑz = ‘today’
k ɑl
= ‘yesterday’ ɑz kɑl
= ‘nowadays’
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 341
However, in Parkari, as in Urdu, doublets may also be formed in which only the first word exists independently, and the second part is a nonsense element. Such doublets
refer not to the first noun alone, but to the whole scenario of which the first noun is the title, or prototypical element.
This nonsense element is characterized by either alliteration or rhyme, for example: Doublets with alliteration
p əiɦo
= ‘paisa’ a coin, now no longer in use p
əiɦo pẽʤ̑əɾ = ‘money’ including coins and notes b
ʰopo = ‘shaman’
b ʰopo bʰəɾɽo = ‘shaman, magician, etc.’
Doublets with rhyme In these doublets the independent word is repeated, with a different initial consonant
substituted, to make a reduplicated nonsense word. This reduplication can occur with any noun, and also with verbs, though less frequently. In Parkari, the normal reduplicative
consonant is an implosive b ɓ. Again, the effect of this kind of reduplication is to make
clear lexically that the reference is not to an individual item, but to the scenario of which it could be considered a title, for example:
ʧõ̑ɦ = ‘tea’
ʧõ̑ɦ ɓõɦ = the whole scenario of ‘drinking tea’, including whatever else prototypically is related to that
This allows the following conversations: “Will you drink
ʧõ̑ɦ tea?” “No, I’ll have a cold drink.” “Will you drink
ʧõ̑ɦ ɓõɦ tea reduplicated?” “Yes, I’ll have a cold drink.” Other examples include:
lu ɡʰɽɑ
= ‘clothes’ lu
ɡʰɽɑ ɓuɡʰɽɑ = ‘clothes and other items of apparel’, such as shoes, hats, etc.
ɠɑeɳ = ‘singing’
ɠɑeɳ ɓɑeɳ = ‘singing andor other entertainment’
ʤ̑o = ‘Joe’
ʤ̑o ɓo = ‘Joe and other like minded people’
up ɑɽiɑ mẽ
= ‘in lifting’ up
ɑɽiɑ ɓupɑɽiɑ mẽ = ‘in lifting or any similar physical activity’
A few common nouns have different fixed forms or reduplication, but the function is still to refer not to the independent noun, but to the wider scenario of which it is the
prototypical element, for example:
342 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
b ʰimɑɾəi
= ‘illness, disease’ b
ʰimɑɾəi ʃimɑɾəi = ‘illness, disease, or similar catastrophe’
z ɑt
= ‘caste, ethnic group’ z
ɑt pɑt =’ the caste system, racial discrimination’
Examples of doublets from Parkari texts:
“Mongoose” 14 u-
ɑ ɾ-əi pɑləɳ poʃ kəɾ-əi.
that-G of-G tending nourishing do-G and looked after it.
69 pe ɾɦĩ soʧ̑-ʋ-o ʋiʧ̑ɑɾ-ʋ-o,
first think-inf-G ponder-inf-G First one should think carefully,
Also from texts not included in appendix O
:
“Devu’s TB” 17
ən pɑɦ-ɑ ɓɑɦ-ɑ zo-i-ɑ,
and side-G rhyme-G look-pf-G and looked at her sides and so forth,
Here a doctor was checking a girl over for signs of TB, including listening to her rib cage with a stethoscope. “Devu’s TB”
100 ɦəʋɛ sokɾ-əi mɑɾ-əi ħɑz-əi ħoɾ-əi s-ɛ.
now child-G my-G complete-G easy-G be-P Now my daughter is fit and well.
“Why I’m a Christian” 69
əm-õ nɛ sokɾ-o to əm-õ nɛ ʈʰɑuk-o ʈʰik lɑɠ-ɛ-ɦ.
us-G to child-G emph us-G to good-G fine seem-P-pres Our boy seems good and fine to us.
There are some doublets which might appear to refer simply to the two discrete named items, rather than to a single scenario. These doublets consist of two meaningful
words referring to items that prototypically belong together, for example:
Urdu ti
ɾ kəmɑn ‘arrow bow’ = ‘bow and arrow’
ʃəlʋɑɾ qəmis ‘baggy-trousers long-shirt’ = ‘shalwaar qameez’, traditional Pakistani wear of baggy
trousers and long shirt
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 343
Parkari ħəɾ dʰənoɽ
‘arrow bow’ = ‘bow and arrow’ ħutʰəɳ kʰəmis ‘baggy-trousers long-shirt’ = ‘shalwaar qameez’,
There is, however, evidence that these are indeed couplets signifying a single scenario, rather than simply the conjoining of two items, that is:
Grammatical form: there is no copula between the nouns
Syntactic order: the word order of the two lexical items is fixed
Semantic clues: in some contexts more than the two individual items is indicate
For example, in both Urdu and Parkari, using the above doublets, “He killed his enemies with bow and arrow” would not imply that only a single arrow was used.
Similarly, although “He is wearing shalwar qameez” means he is wearing baggy trousers and a long loose shirt, “She is wearing shalwaar qameez” means she is wearing baggy
trousers, a long loose shirt, and a “dupatta” or headcloth, i.e. traditional women’s clothing for the majority community in Pakistan.
The appropriate use of doublets in translation not only makes the translation more natural, but can be used to alert the target audience to important scenarios in the text.
See also: Appendix
P . Types of Doublet Used to Lexicalize Scenarios
13.3. Contraexpectation markers and scenarios
Contraexpectation markers are clear pointers to mental scenarios, since the contra- expectation clause is contrasted with the hearer’s expectation, i.e. the prototypical item in
the hearer’s preexisting mental scenario, for example:
“Michael” 3 This boy used to go every day to study in school.
4 p əɳ ɾel ɠɑ-i mẽ səɽ-en ɪskul zɑ-t-o.
but rail cart-G in climb-nonf school go-impf-G But he used to go to school on the train.
5 p əɳ ɦəmeʃ ʋəɠəɾ bʰɑɽ-ɛ zɑ-t-o.
but always without fare-loc go-impf-G But he always used to travel without paying his fare.
As already noted, the “but” in line 4 shows that travelling by train is not prototypical in the Parkari scenario “going to school”. Travelling to school by train presupposes that
both village and school are near a railway station, and that the parents have enough mon- ey to pay the fares. Since most Parkari children live out in rural areas, far from roads and
railway lines, those that go to school usually walk. Due to poverty, few could afford to use public transport to get to school, even if it were available. Clearly then, travelling by
train is not a prototypical element of the “going to school” scenario in the Parkari context, hence the speaker marks the contraexpectation lexically. Similarly, the “but” in
line 5 shows that “travel without paying” is contraexpectation to the scenario of line 4
344 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
“travel by train”. Again “but” marks lexically that this element is not prototypical in the open scenario. Often, as in this story, it is these nonprototypical elements of a narrative
which give clues to the development of the plot.
To an English audience, “but” in line 5 seems natural. However, “but” in line 4 seems awkward, since the English “going to school” scenario includes travel by train as
one of several options, and is not markedly unusual.
So contraexpectation is in light of the speaker’s and audience’s mental scenarios, which are based on their cultural experiences. The following example concerns prep-
arations for a prewedding-feast for the speaker’s son:
“Malo’s wedding” 12 p
ɑ-o to nə lidʰ-o, ədʰ məɳ pəʈɑʈ-ɑ lidʰ-ɑ.
buffalo-G contraexp not took-G half maund potato-G took-G However we didn’t get a buffalo, we got half a maund of potatoes.
To understand the contraexpectation marker here, one needs to know that in Parkari culture, a young male water buffalo is the ideal food for a big feast such as this—if you
can afford it. Unfortunately, the speaker could not.
The word “to”, glossed as contraexpectation, and translated here as ‘however’, never occurs clause-initial since it marks that the preceding word is unexpected in relationship
to the co-text or situational context. Line 12 could be overtranslated as ‘Although you would have expected us to get a buffalo, we didn’t. We got half a maund of potatoes
instead’. In contrast, the word
p əɳ ‘but’, as in “Michael” lines 4 and 5 above, always
occurs clause initial and marks that the following clause is unexpected in relationship to the preceding clause or sentence.
Another common marker of contraexpectation is the use of the question word k
əm ‘why?’ in rhetorical questions, showing the speaker’s surprise at the situation, and
implying rebuke, for example:
“Michael” 14
Christian people don’t behave like this. 15 to
k əm ɦeɽ-ɑ ɠələt kom kəɾ-ɛ-ɦ ɾ-i-o.
soresult why like.this-G wrong work do-P-pres stay-pf-G So why are you doing wrong like this?
Here the contraexpectation marking shows that the speaker the ticket-collector expects Christians to live up to their beliefs.
Compare:
“Mongoose” 61
She thought in her mind
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 345
62 m ɛ̃ kəm nə səbʰəɾ kəɾ-i-o?
I.erg why not patience do-pf-G Why was I not patient?
63 k əm nə mɛ̃ peɾɦĩ zɑ-en ɡʰəɾ mẽ zo-i-o?
why not I.erg first go-nonf house in see-pf-G Why did I not first look inside the house?
Here the contraexpectation marking shows that the speaker expects people, including herself, to be patient and find out the facts before acting, rather than acting rashly.
Although contraexpectation is often lexically marked, the phenomenon of contraexpectation can exist without formal markers, since contrast between the current
event and the prototypical contents of the open scenario itself can provide the semantic element of contraexpectation, for example Hearer-old open scenario underlined:
“Michael” 11
and on the card was written “Michael Christian”.
12 Then the inspector said to Michael
13 “t ũ ʋɪʃʋɑʃi tʰ-en ɠələt kom kəɾ-ɛ-ɦ …”.
yous Christian become-nonf wrong work do-P-pres … “You have become a Christian, but do what’s wrong.
14 Christian people don’t behave like this.
15 So why are you doing wrong like this?”
In line 13 Michael’s being a Christian is presented as Hearer-old, since the inspector discovered this in line 11, and Michael knew it all along. Why then is this Hearer-old
information introduced in line 13 as part of the scenario “doing wrong”? Lines 14 and 15 make it quite clear that Michael’s actions are wrong, and the kind of behaviour which
Christians do not prototypically do. Clearly then, the collocation of “Christian” and “wrong” in line 13 is intended to show contraexpectation implicitly, due to the
incompatibility between what is actually happening and the audience’s culturally conditioned scenario of a “Christian”.
As argued above, Nonfinal forms in Parkari, like Participles in Greek, refer to Hearer-old information in the nuclear scenario. Where these devices are used to mark
contraexpectation, the lexical items do belong in the nuclear scenario, but the prototypical relationship is marked as negative, i.e. “Christians do not do wrong”. This
parallels the Greek usage in John 9:25: “being blind, now I see” where the mere juxtaposition of contradictory elements provides implicit contraexpectation.
13.4. Causatives and scenarios
Causative verb forms lexicalize the fact that the causal agent, or Causer, is distinct from the actual doer of the action. Although New Testament Greek and modern English
regularly use the same verbal form for both direct action and causation, Parkari regularly
346 Section 3. Scenarios and Parkari
marks semantic causatives in the lexicon, by using a verb form with a causative morpheme. This shows up clearly in translation:
Matthew 27:60b μνημείЎ ὃ
ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρώ
NIV tomb that he had cut out of the rock
Parkari m
əkom … ʤ̑j-ɑ nɛ u-ɛ … ũɠəɾ mẽ kʰotəɾ-ɑ-i-o t-o.
tomb … which-G to he-erg … mountain in dig-caus-pf-G tomb which he had caused to be dug in the mountain
However, it is not sentence-level grammar which enables the translator to interpret whether a Greek verb form has causative meaning, rather it is the scenario in which the
grammatically marked agent and the verb belong. In the above reference, it is the fact that Joseph of Arimathea is a rich man Matthew 27:57 which enables the audience to disam-
biguate the meaning of dig. In a rich man’s scenario, unless there were other factors such as secrecy involved, dig prototypically means command and pay others to dig. Similar-
ly, it is by reference to the scenario that the Parkari audience must fill in the missing participants, the active agents of the digging. These will be correctly interpreted by
Parkaris as the slaves, servants, or employees of the rich man, due to the similarity here between the source text scenario and their own.
Causatives are frequently found in Parkari texts, lexicalizing the semantic relation- ship appropriate to the open scenario. The active participants, however, are often not
explicit in the text, but must be supplied from information stored in long-term memory in the open scenario, for example:
“Malo’s wedding” 39
ən pəsɛ əme zon ɑʋ-əi ɾ-əi ɡʰəɾ-e pəɾɳ-ɑʋ-enɛ.
and then we wedding.party come-G result-G house-loc wed-caus-nonf and then we the wedding party came home after marrying them.
In Parkari, the bride and groom ‘marry’ p
əɾɳ, the parents ‘cause the bride and groom to marry’
p əɾɳ-ɑʋ, so the verb form makes explicit that there are two participant
roles in this event. The subjects of the causative verb “marry” are referred to in the text by the exclusive first person plural pronoun
əme, which means the speaker, plus one or more others, but not the addressees. The identity of the speaker, the groom’s mother
Shomu, was obvious from the original real life communicative situation
GIVEN
situational, but the identity of the other participants included in “we”, here the groom’s father, must be retrieved from the hearer’s “wedding” scenario
KNOWN
inferrable. The direct objects of the causative verb “marry”, the bride and groom, are also
KNOWN
inferrable. They are not lexicalized at all in this sentence. Indeed, the bride is not mentioned at all in the text, and the groom was last mentioned in line 32, inferrable from
his relationship to “wedding-party”:
32 m
ɑɾ-ɑ ɗikɾ-ɑ ɾ-əi zon mɑl-ɑ ɾ-əi ɠ-əi.
my-G son-G of-G wedding.party Malo-G of-G went-G My son Malo’s wedding party went.
13. Parkari Lexicon and Scenarios 347
So here again, it is the hearer’s mental scenario for “wedding”, not the explicit references in the text, which allow the hearer to fill in the actual participants.
Some Parkari causatives are formed from transitive verbs, so that there are three or more participant slots in the event. Examples are from “Dewu’s TB”, a text not included
in the appendix:
20
“But now” he said “go and get her treatment
21 z ɑ-e mɑʈl-i kəɾ-ɑʋ-o, zõ ɓizel teɽ-e zɑ-o.
go-nonf Matli-G do-caus-P or elsewhere bring-nonf go-G go and get it done at Matli, or take her somewhere else.”
Here the causative agents are explicit, viz., “you plural” as shown by the -P suffix which is 2nd person plural, “her” marks the beneficiary, and “treatment” is the explicit
direct object, but the active agents, the people who will actually give the treatment, are implicit, and must be understood by the hearer referring to their mental scenario of
“treatment”, especially as it links to their mental scenario for Matli. “Matli” is a small town with various small clinics, “treatment” is medical treatment, so the active agent, the
one who actually “does the treatment”, will be a doctor. Again, it is the mental scenario not the text which provides information about the missing participants.
Later in the same text, both the causative agent and the active agent of the verb “cause to drink” are left implicit, but again both are retrievable from the open “treatment”
scenario, since prototypically it is the relatives who give the medicine, and the sick person who drinks it:
32 ən u dʰəʋɑ ɗidʰ-əi, pi-ɑɾ-əi,
and that medicine gave-G drink-caus-G and the medicine they gave, [we] had [her] drink [it],
13.5. Chapter summary
In Parkari texts, the co-occurrence of vocabulary reflects the culturally conditioned scenarios in the speaker’s mind, and hence indicates to a Parkari audience which sce-
narios are currently open in the discourse. Lexical cohesion is achieved by patterns of reiteration, using nouns, pronouns, zero anaphora, verbal suffixes, and Nonfinal forms.
Lexical cohesion is also achieved by patterns of collocation. However, lexical cohesion relies on the audience correctly identifying referents and interpreting lexical collocations
as semantically coherent, which itself is dependent on recognizing the prototypical contents and relationships within Parkari scenarios. Consequently, some Parkari texts
may appear to Western readers to lack lexical cohesion, due to a mismatch of source culture and target culture scenarios, and this results in the loss of semantic coherence.
Parkari can refer explicitly to scenarios, as opposed to concepts, by forming lexical doublets either from two independent words or by using a single word with reduplication.
The Parkari lexicon also includes contraexpectation markers and causative verbs, but contraexpectation markers and participants in the causative chain are often left implicit in
a text, since the relevant information can be retrieved from the prototypical contents of Parkari scenarios.
348
14. Parkari Discourse and Scenarios
Kategori