Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:30:01.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Sources of Person Hierarchy Effects in Halkomelem Salish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Martina Wiltschko  and
Strang Burton
Martina Wiltschko
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Strang Burton
Affiliation:
Sto:lo Shxweli Halq’emeylem Language Program
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Like many other Salish languages, in Halkomelem Salish, with transitive verbs, it is not possible to combine a 3rd person with a 2nd person. We propose that this *3/2 constraint is morphological in nature. This departs from previous analyses which have taken the *3/2 constraint to be the effect of a hierarchy of [person] and/or [animate] features. One consequence of analysing the *3/2 constraint as morphologically based is that person/animacy hierarchies are not primitives in the grammar. In particular, we show that person-based gaps in transitive verb paradigms receive a morpho-syntactic explanation, and that apparent restrictions on the distribution of the [animate] feature actually reflect the lexical semantics of the predicate.

Résumé

Résumé

Comme dans plusieurs langues Salishennes, en Halkomelem Salish il n’est pas possible, avec un verbe transitif, de combiner une 3ième personne avec une 2ième personne. Nous proposons que cette contrainte *3/2 est de nature morphologique. Cette approche se distinguent des analyses antérieures qui traitaient la contrainte *3/2 comme étant l’effet d’une hiérarchie de traits de [personne] et/ou de traits d’[animé]. L’analyse de la contrainte *3/2 en termes morphologiques a comme conséquence que les hiérarchies de traits de [personne] ou [animé] ne sont pas des éléments primitifs dans la grammaire. En particulier, nous démontrons que les trous dans les paradigmes des verbes transitifs reçoivent une explication morphosyntaxique, et que les restrictions apparentes sur la distribution du trait [animé] sont en réalité l’effet de la sémantique lexicale du prédicat.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 51 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2004 

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

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673–711.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Branigan, Phil. 2002. Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. Talk presented at the Ergativity Workshop, University of Toronto, October 2002.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2000. Remarks on Proto-Salish subject inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 66:499–520.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2001. On negation in Salish. Paper presented at the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Chilliwack, BC, August 8–10.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59–138.Google Scholar
Galloway, Brent. 1980. The structure of Upriver Halkomelem: A grammatical sketch and classified word list for Upriver Halkomelem. Sardis, BC: Coqualeetza Education Training Center, Sardis, BC.Google Scholar
Galloway, Brent. 1993. A grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. A nominal hierarchy in Halkomelem clausal organization. Anthropological Linguistics 30:20–36.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1989. Object agreement in the Halkomelem Salish passive: A morphological explanation. In General and Amerindian ethnolinguistics, ed. Key, Mary Ritchie and Hoenigswald, Henry, 185–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas. 1973. Agent in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 39:89–94.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas. 1980. Subjects and objects in Cowichan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Vancouver, BC, August 8–10.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard. 1983. An agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167–185.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Carnie, Andrew. 2003. Argument hierarchies and the mapping principle. In Formal approaches to function: In honor of Eloise Jelinek, ed. Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Willie, Mary Ann, 265–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish language family: Reconstructing syntax. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, in cooperation with the American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Aert. 1967. The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Martin. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. Dixon, R.M.W., 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2000. Agreement morphology in Chukotkan. In Morphological analysis in comparison, ed. Dressier, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., Pöchtrager, Markus A., and Rennison, John R., 191–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Suttles, Wayne. To appear. Reference Grammar for Musqueam. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Lawrence, and Thompson, Terry. 1971. Clallam: A preview. In Studies in American Indian languages, ed. Sawyer, Jesse. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2001. Passive in Halkomelem and Squamish. Paper presented at the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Chilliwack, BC, August 8–10.Google Scholar