Biloxi Realis and Irrealis Particles

Realis and irrealis expressions are modal or pragmatic in nature. Realis and irrealis particles reflect “the grammaticization of speakers‟ (subjective) attitudes and opinions” (Bybee et al. 1994: 176). They reflect a speaker‟s attitude or level of certainty about the likelihood of a particular, usually past or future, action or occurrence. Among Indo-European languages, heavy focus is placed on grammar and syntax. However, in Siouan and other Native American languages, greater speaker-centered modal usage requires more focus on pragmatics and discourse. In this paper, I compare the use of two Biloxi (ISO 639-3 bll) particles and explore what their use tells us about Biloxi discourse and pragmatics. I examine various uses of these particles as they appear in Biloxi narratives. Biloxi is a dormant Siouan language, a member of the Ohio Valley branch of the Siouan language family.


Introduction
Realis and irrealis expressions are modal or pragmatic in nature.Realis and irrealis particles reflect "the grammaticization of speakers" (subjective) attitudes and opinions" (Bybee et al. 1994: 176).They reflect a speaker"s attitude or level of certainty about the likelihood of a particular, usually past or future, action or occurrence.Among Indo-European languages, heavy focus is placed on grammar and syntax.However, in Siouan and other Native American languages, greater speaker-centered modal usage requires more focus on pragmatics and discourse.
In this paper, I compare the use of two Biloxi  particles and explore what their use tells us about Biloxi discourse and pragmatics.I examine various uses of these particles as they appear in Biloxi narratives.Biloxi is a dormant Siouan language, a member of the Ohio Valley branch of the Siouan language family.

Realis and irrealis
The term "irrealis" is a modal distinction that refers to speech acts that are counterfactual, such as in conditional, hortative, and imperative utterances, or in utterances expressing obligation or future occurrences.That is, irrealis generally includes events still within the realm of thought or imagination, while realis normally includes events "actualized, actually occurring or having occurred" (Mithun 1995: 375).In some languages, irrealis can include past events as well as interrogatives and negatives.
The realis-irrealis modal distinction is grammatically indicated in different ways, including by the use of particles, clausal clitics, and verbal inflection.Due to such broad variation, "the utility of the labels "Irrealis" and "Realis" for cross-linguistic comparison is open to question" (Mithun 1995: 368).In fact, the conceptual distinction between the use of realis and irrealis marking is often a matter of pragmatics and discourse, and speakers of languages incorporating the realis versus irrealis distinction may do so "for expressive purposes" (ibid.: 385) or to display their own attitude or expectations about the possibility or probability of a particular occurrence.
The realis-irrealis distinction is reported in many languages worldwide, including in a number of Native American languages.The classification of certain speech acts to be in the realm of "irrealis" is crosslinguistically highly variable (Mithun 1995), and what is considered to be realis in one language may be considered irrealis in another (Bybee 1998: 267).
The typical scope of irrealis marking is over a clause.The two Biloxi particles are dąde and hi.

3.
The future particle dąde Dorsey and Swanton (1912) translate dąde as a future particle meaning "will" or "shall."Einaudi analyzes it as a type of "potential mode" marker (1974: 81), as she does hi.They are both correct to some degree, but neither of them explores the difference in usage between the two particles.
The particle dąde is likely a contraction of dê "go" (with ablaut to da, which happens before positional auxiliaries) + ąde "move," a verb + positional auxiliary construction indicating continuative or progressive aspect, which then became grammaticized to a future marker.
yesterday 1-come FUT "I was about to come yesterday."(Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 180) Examples ( 6)-( 7) below show dąde used in reply to a question, presumably: "What is that (animal)?"Although it appears that a future particle is being used in response, I suspect that, in fact, dąde here is used with its original ungrammaticized progressive meaning of "go (along) moving," since animals are often referred to in the Biloxi texts as being in motion.
(6) "That is a dog." (Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 160) Thus, except when retaining its ungrammaticized progressive meaning, dąde appears to be a grammaticized potential mode marker expressing a speaker"s stance of maximum certainty about a future event.
We can now turn to the particle hi.Unlike dąde, this particle expresses a speaker"s stance of minimum certainty about a potential occurrence.

3.
The irrealis particle hi Dorsey and Swanton (1912) were rather vague about the true nature and use of hi.Einaudi describes hi as a "hortatory" marker (1974: 80) and "potential mode" marker (ibid.: 92), as she does dąde.I agree with her analysis of hi as a marker of potential mode, although she did not clearly distinguish between the uses of the two markers dąde and hi.
Examples ( 8)-( 9) show the use of hi to express a future idea: (8) "They shall see you." (Dorsey andSwanton 1912: 88, cited in Einaudi 1974: 81) We can compare examples ( 8)-( 9) with examples (1)-(3) in which the speaker conveys an attitude of more certainty, or, in the case of ( 2) and (3), greater intentionality, about the future occurrence with the use of dąde than is implied in ( 8) and ( 9) with hi.
Examples ( 10)-( 11) demonstrate the use of hi with questions: (10) Cidike a-yaǫ hi i-nąki wo? "What will (we) wish to do?" (Dorsey andSwanton 1912: 113, cited in Einaudi 1974: 81) We can compare examples ( 10)-( 11) with example (4) in which the questioner appears to convey an attitude of more certainty about the listener"s past thought process through the use of dąde.

1-untie think
"He thought that I untied it."(Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 145) Hi, on the other hand, appears to mark an action that the speaker believes has not yet become or never became reality: (15) Duwa hi ax.ki.yê-di.
untie IRR 1.DAT.say-ASSERT"I told him to untie it."(Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 145) Similarly, in examples ( 16)-( 17), hi marks the speaker"s uncertainty about whether the action would be or had been accomplished: (16) u.to(ho) hi ki-yê-di LOC.lie IRR DAT-say-ASSERT "They told him to lie in it."(Dorsey andSwanton 1912: 113, cited in Einaudi 1974: 81) (17) u.toho dǫhi hi pąhį-ką kiya ki-yê LOC.lie see IRR sack-LOC again DAT-say "He told him to lie in it to see how it is (again)."(Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 27) Both hi and dąde can express future possibility, but there appears to be a pragmatic distinction between them: a distinction reflecting a speaker"s emotional state or attitude at the time of speaking.Similarly, in the unrelated Central Pomo (Hokan) language, two particles can be used to express a future idea, da and hla: (18) Ma-báya čá-•l yó-w=da ˀe mu•l maˀá chu-w=ˀkʰe.
POSS-man house=to go-PFV=DIFF.SIM.REALIS COP that food eat-PFV=FUT "When her husband gets home, she"ll eat." (Mithun 1995: 379) According to the Central Pomo consultant, the use of realis da indicates that the action will definitely be completed, whereas the irrealis counterpart hla would indicate some uncertainty.I propose that this difference between Pomo da and hla is equivalent to the difference between Biloxi dąde and hi.I agree with Payne in considering realis-irrealis to fall along a continuum (1997: 244).Viewing realis-irrealis as a gradual continuum rather than a duality, it appears that dąde is the "more realis" particle and indicates more certainty on the part of the speaker, while hi is the "more irrealis" form that demonstrates a higher level of doubt or uncertainty about the occurrence.
The distinction between dąde and hi may also sometimes be related to Biloxi male versus female speech patterns, respectively: (19) Yac ǫǫ-tu ąda dąde.
name make-PL move FUT DECL.f "They call him so, and he will be so."(female speaking) (Dorsey and Swanton 1912: 155) Since the man uses dąde while the woman uses hi for essentially the same utterance, this may show "native speaker metapragmatic judgments" (Trechter 1995: 5) possibly related to gendered speech patterns, or it may be related to the level of authority the speaker, regardless of gender, wishes to convey.
Overall, hi appears to be used where more uncertainty is involved, such as in questions and expressions of thinking or wishing.It is unclear, however, whether the term "irrealis" should be used to refer to all of the situations in which hi is used.The use of "broad terms such as "irrealis" unfortunately distracts the analyst from a more in-depth semantic analysis" (Bybee 1998: 266).The conceptual distinction between realis and irrealis marking is quite subjective and is often a matter of pragmatics and discourse that varies across languages, defying clear and rigid boundaries (Payne 1997).