Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:11:00.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What to do to ‘do-to . . .’: Notes on an Object Marker in Nuu-chah-nulth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Florence Woo*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz

Abstract

The syntactic behaviour of the object marker ?uukw in Nuu-chah-nulth is documented based on fieldwork data that illustrate patterns not previously discussed in the literature. A Minimalist-type analysis is presented, in which ?uukw is a light verb of the category v and is generated in the complement position of the main verb. This captures certain traits of ?uukw that have hitherto not been unified under a single analysis: its morphological and syntactic autonomy, its semantic dependence on another predicate for argument structure, its link to discourse saliency, and its use as an auxiliary item in A′-raising constructions.

Résumé

Résumé

Le comportement syntaxique du marqueur d’objet ?uukw en nuu-chah-nulth est ici documenté sur la base de données de terrain illustrant des propriétés qui n’ont pas été traités antérieurement dans la littérature. Une analyse de type minimaliste est présentée, dans laquelle ?uukw est un verbe léger de catégorie v généré dans la position de complément du verbe principal. Ceci rends compte de certains traits de ?uukw qui demeurent sans analyse unifiée, soit : son autonomie morphologique et syntaxique, sa dépendance sémantique à autre prédicat pour sa structure d’argument, son rapport à la mise-en-relief discursive et son emploi comme auxiliaire dans les constructions impliquant le déplacement A′.

Type
Part III: Morpho-Syntactic and Syntactic Properties
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2007

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. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Paper read at the Joint Stanford-UCSC Workshop on Optimal Typology, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20:219252.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Carnie, Andrew. 1996. A minimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 223240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and Geuder, Wilhelm. 2001. On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words, ed. Corver, Norbert and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 323370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89153. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, and Sawai, Naomi. 2001. Wh-movement as noun incorporation in Nuu-chah-nulth. In WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Megerdoomian, Karine and Bar-el, Leora Anne, 123136. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Emanatian, Michele. 1988. The Nootka passive revisited. In In honor of Mary Haas, ed. Shipley, William, 265291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1980. Word order and Generative Grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1:3354.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D.. 1984. Functional syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groat, Eric, and O’Neil, John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in a minimalist framework, ed. Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel David, Thrainsson, Hoskuldur, and Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter, 113141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7:391128.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr., 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In The Victoria conference on Northwestern languages: Victoria, BC, November 4-5, 1976, ed. Efrat, Barbara S., 83155. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr., 1993. Subordination and cosubordination in Nootka: Clause combining in a polysynthetic verb-initial language. In Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 235274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun-Sook. 2000. The morphology and syntax of -ɔat in Nuu-chah-nulth. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Klokeid, Terry. 1978a. Surface structure constraints and Nitinaht enclitics. In Linguistic studies of Native Canada, ed. Cook, Eung-Do and Kaye, Jonathan, 157176. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Klokeid, Terry J. 1978b. Syntactic and conceptual relations in Nitinat. In Papers for the 12th International Conference on Salishan Languages, 168. Colville, WA: Colville Federated Tribes.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335391.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1991. Clause structure, ellipsis, and proper government in Irish. In Lingua Special Edition 85: The syntax of verb initial languages, 259302.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2005. Irish and the requirement of subjecthood. Paper read at the University of California, Santa Cruz Syntax Forum, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide. 1997a. Discourse-pragmatic dynamism in Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide. 1997b. Functions of the Nootka (Nuu-chah-nulth) “passive” suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 63:412431.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide. 2001. Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) morphosyntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2000. Hamkamer was! In Jorge Hankamer Webfest, ed. Chung, Sandy, McCloskey, Jim, and Sanders, Nathan. ling.ucsc.edu//Jorge/pullum.html (accessed 22 June, 2007).Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ravinski, Christine. 2005. Grammatical possession in Nuu-chah-nulth. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63120.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1998. Verb movement and Economy: Last resort. In Topics in South Slavic syntax and semantics, ed. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, D. and Hellan, L., 123. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Suzanne M. 1981. Kyuquot grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Rose, Suzanne M., and Carlson, Barry. 1984. The Nootka-Nitinaht passive. Anthropological Linguistics 26:112.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1924. The rival whalers, a Nitinat story (Nootka text with translation and grammatical analysis). International Journal of American Linguistics 3:76102.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka texts: Tales and ethnological narratives with grammatical notes and lexical materials. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Native accounts of Nootka ethnology. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(4).Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2004. Applicative morphemes in Nuuchahnulth. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka internal syntax. International Journal of American Linguistics 9:77102.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP. Cahiers de Linguistique de l’UQAM 1:132146.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, ed. Van Valin, Robert D., 1164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Whistler, Kenneth W. 1985. Focus, perspective, and inverse person marking in Nootkan. In Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, ed. Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony C., 222265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2000. Subject-object asymmetries in Nuuchahnulth relative clauses. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2005. The linearization of affixes: Evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Woo, Florence. 2000. Predicative governing suffixes and incorporation in Nuu-Chah-Nulth. Bachelor’s honours thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Woo, Florence. 2002. Quantifiers in Nuu-chah-nulth: Predicates or arguments? Paper read at the 7th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Yiu, Sze Man, and Stonham, John. 2000. ‘Good-stocked with mussels’: Incorporation on the edge. Paper read at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar