Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:15:07.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A participle account of Blackfoot relative clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Sara Johansson
Sara Johansson*
Affiliation:
Memorial University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Blackfoot verbs are marked with nominal agreement morphology in relative clauses, in place of verbal inflection. These relative clauses have previously been analyzed as nominalizations. The present study shows that a nominalization analysis makes incorrect predictions about the morphological composition of relative clauses, as well as the availability of non-agentive and possessive constructions, and adjectival modification. This study demonstrates that relative clauses can relativize subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects. Based on observations about obviation, recursion, long-distance extraction, inflection, and word order, I propose that relative clauses are participles: clausal entities with a nominal superstructure. This accounts for their mixed clausal and nominal properties, and provides an analysis of Blackfoot relative clauses similar to those proposed for related Algonquian languages.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans des propositions relatives, les verbes blackfoot sont marqués par une morphologie d’accord nominal plutôt que par une flexion verbale. Auparavant, on considérait ces propositions relatives comme des nominalisations. La présente étude montre qu’une analyse de nominalisation amène des prédictions incorrectes sur la composition morphologique des propositions relatives, aussi bien que sur la disponibilité de constructions sans agent et possessives et la modification adjectivale. Cette étude montre que les propositions relatives peuvent relativiser des sujets, et des compléments d’objet direct et indirect. Fondée sur des observations d’obviation, de récurrence, d’extraction à distance, de flexion et de l’ordre de mots, je propose que les propositions relatives sont des participes : des entités propositionnelles ayant une superstructure nominale. C’est ce qui explique le mélange de propriétés nominales et propositionnelles, et permet une analyse des propositions relatives blackfoot semblable à celle proposée pour d’autres langues algonquiennes proches.

Keywords

relative clauseparticiplenominalizationBlackfootAlgonquianproposition relativeparticipenominalisationblackfootalgonquien
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 217 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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.)

References

Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2010. The destiny of roots. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2011. Degrees of nominalization: Clause-like constituents in Sakha. Lingua 121:1164–1193.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. and Vinokurova, Nadya. 2009. On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85:517–556.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10:43–90.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2005. Formalizing point-of-view in Blackfoot. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2010. Argument structure, applicatives, and animacy in Blackfoot. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (UBCWPL) 26: The proceedings of Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 13 and 14, ed. Bliss, Heather and Girard, Raphael, 58–69. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2009. Speaker certainty, event realization, and epistemic modality in Siksiká Blackfoot. Ms., University of British Columbia and University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1946. Algonquian. In Linguistic structures of Native America, ed. Hoijer, Harry, 85–129. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Relativization in Tibetan. In Topics in Nepalese linguistics, ed. Yadava, Yogendra P. and Glover, Warren W., 231–249. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Dunham, Joel. 2007. The “durative” in Blackfoot: Understanding imperfectivity. In Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, ed. Deal, Amy Rose, 49–64. University of Massachussetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald. 2009. Blackfoot grammar. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald and Russell, Norma Jean. 1995. Blackfoot dictionary of stems, roots and affixes. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1987. Fox participles. In Native American languages and grammatical typology: Papers from a conference at the University of Chicago, April 22, 1987, ed. Kroeber, Paul D. and Moore, Robert E., 105–118. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Rebecca. 2011. A grammar of Yine (Piro). Doctoral Dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Johansson, Sara. 2008. Sentient and stem agreement in Blackfoot. In Papers of the 39th Algonquian Conference, ed. Darnell, Regna and Hele, Karl S., 358–377. London: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Johansson, Sara and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2012. Determinants of split intransitivity in Blackfoot: Evidence from verbs of emission. In Papers of the 40th Algonquian Conference, ed. Hele, Karl S. and Valentine, J.Randolph, 171–185. Albany. State University of New York. Press (SUNY) Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 2005. Agreement without A-Positions: Another look at Algonquian. Linguistic Inquiry 36:648–660.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 2010. Animacy in Blackfoot: Implications for event structure and clause structure. In Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure, ed. Hovav, Malka Rappaport, Doron, Edit, and Sichel, Ivy, 124–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth and Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Varieties of INFL: Tense, location, and person. In Alternatives to cartography, ed. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, 153–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114:255–276.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret and Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of Point of View roles. In Asymmetry in grammar, ed. Scuillo, Anna Maria Di, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius. 1938. A concise Blackfoot grammar based on material from the southern Peigans. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche uitgeversmaatschappij.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Wolfart, Hans Christoph. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 63, Part 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar