Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T01:48:53.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specialized-domain grammars and the architecture of grammars: Possession in Oneida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2020

JEAN-PIERRE KOENIG  and
KARIN MICHELSON
JEAN-PIERRE KOENIG
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, Department of Linguistics, 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260, [email protected]@buffalo.edu
KARIN MICHELSON
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, Department of Linguistics, 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260, [email protected]@buffalo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes the grammar of possession in Oneida (Northern Iroquoian), a case where domain-specific syntax permeates disparate areas of the grammar (referencing of semantic arguments, noun incorporation, expression of quantity, and negation). In each of these other areas, something unique must be stated, but some of what is special to possession is also shared across two or more of these areas. We describe this interesting mix of general and specific constraints in terms of a metaphor originally applied by Lévi-Strauss to the construction of myths, ‘bricolage’ (tinkering). We suggest the notion of bricolage aptly captures the properties of Oneida words that include a relation of possession. This novel way of conceiving of grammar of specialized domains is an alternative to the view where only general/universal, possibly parametrized, principles are countenanced.

Keywords

grammar designhead-driven phrase-structure grammarIroquoianOneidapossession
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 635 - 674
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

As with all of our collaborative work, the order of authors is alphabetical. We acknowledge with gratitude the late Mercy Doxtator, the late Norma Kennedy, and Olive Elm, with whom Michelson had discussed some of the issues presented in this paper and who provided some of the examples. We are also grateful to Cliff Abbott, Samantha Cornelius, and Hanni Woodbury for comments on an earlier version of the paper, to the audience of the workshop The Grammar of Regularity and Idiosyncrasy for comments and suggestions, to three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments, and especially to Penelope Eckert and Brian Joseph for pointing out intriguing parallels between our use of ‘bricolage’ in morphosyntax and similar concepts in sociolinguistics and historical linguistics.

References

Abbott, C. 2000. Languages of the world/materials 301: Oneida. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A., Dalrymple, M. & Toivonen, I.. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon-syntax interface. In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 conference, 68–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1999. Conditions on external possession in Mohawk. In Payne, D. & Barsh, I. (eds.), External possession, 293–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Kaplan, R.. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations (Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 2012. Are adjectives universal? Linguistic Typology 16, 1–39.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 2015. A grammar of the Seneca language (UC Publications in Linguistics 149). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49.Google Scholar
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3, 281–332.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. & Bonami, O.. 2016. Variable morphotactics and Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52, 311–374.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R.. 2005. Simpler syntax (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diaz, T., Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2019. Oneida prepronominal prefixes in Information-based Morphology. Morphology 29, 431–473.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 453–476.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2019. The individual in the semiotic landscape. Glossa 4, 1–15.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O’Connor, C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of Let alone. Language 64, 501–538.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I.. 2001. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives (Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture Series). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. 1995. Une grammaire locale de l’expression des sentiments. Langue française 105, 70–87.Google Scholar
Gross, M. 2002. Les déterminants numéraux, un exemple: les dates horaires. Langages 145, 21–37.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The meaning of style. New Accents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar
Iordǎchioaia, G. & Richter, F.. 2015. Negative concord with polyadic quantifiers: The case of Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, 607–658.Google Scholar
Janda, R. & Joseph, B.. 1986. One rule or many? Sanskrit reduplication as fragmented affixation. Proceedings of the second eastern states conference on linguistics, 84–107. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. & Janda, R.. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Hammond, M. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 193–210. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U.. 1993. From discourse to logic (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical relations (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Davis, A.. 2006. The key to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics 42, 71–108.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2010. Argument structure of Oneida kinship terms. International Journal of American Linguistics 76, 169–205.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2012. The (non)universality of syntactic selection and functional application. In Piñón, C. (ed.), Empirical studies in syntax and semantics, vol. 9, 185–205. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2014. Deconstructing syntax. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference on Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar, 114–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2015a. Invariance in argument realization: The case of Iroquoian. Language 91, 1–47.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. 2015b. Morphological complexity à la Oneida. In Baerman, M. & Corbett, G. (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 69–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Michelson, K.. to appear. Quantification in Oneida. In Abeillé, A. & Bonami, O. (eds.), Constraint-based syntax and semantics (CSLI Lecture Notes 223), Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. & Copestake, A.. 1999. Default representation in constraint-based frameworks. Computational Linguistics 25, 55–105.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.. 2005. Argument realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida verb morphology (Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Marcoux, J.1828. Grammaire Iroquoise ou la langue Iroquoise réduite en principes fixes. Kahnawake, Québec: Manuscript housed in the St. Francis Xavier Mission Catholic Church.Google Scholar
Martin, A. 2016. Iekawennahsonterónnion, Kanien’kéha morphology. Kahnawake, Quebec: Kanien’kéha Onkwawén:na Raotitióhkwa.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. 2012. Making the case for construction grammar. In Boas, H. & Sag, I. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (Lecture Notes 193), 31–69. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michelson, K. 1991. Semantic features of agent and patient core case marking in Oneida. In Van Valin, R. (ed.), Buffalo papers in linguistics, vol. 091‐II, 114–146. Buffalo, NY: Linguistics Department, University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Michelson, K. 2015. Gender in Oneida. In Hellinger, M. & Motschenbacher, H. (eds.), Gender across languages (IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society 36), 277–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Michelson, K. & Doxtator, M.. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida dictionary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Michelson, K., Kennedy, N. & Doxtator, M.. 2016. Glimpses of Oneida life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. How to avoid subordination. In Dahlstrom, A. & Macauley, M. (eds.), Proceedings of 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 493–509. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1996. Multiple reflections of inalienability in Mohawk. In Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (eds.), The grammar of inalienability, 633–649. Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2013. Unifying everything: Some remarks on simpler syntax, construction grammar, minimalism, and HPSG. Language 89, 920–950.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2016. Grammatical theory: from transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches (Textbooks in Language Sciences). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Payne, D. & Barshi, I.. 1999. External possession: What, where, how, and why. In Payne, D. & Barshi, I. (eds.), External possession (Typological Studies in Language 39), 3–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R.. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 95, 201–236.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics (Lecture Notes 13). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17, 409–441.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77.Google Scholar
Sag, I. 1997. English relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–483.Google Scholar
Sag, I. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. & Sag, I. (eds.), Signed-based construction grammar, 69–202. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sandra, D. & Rice, S.. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6, 89–130.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 1999. English number names in HPSG. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P. & Kathol, A. (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism), 145–160. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. 2000. The syntactic process (Language, Speech, and Communication). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. J. & Lapolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Form, meaning, and function (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodbury, H.1975. Noun incorporation in Onondaga. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Woodbury, H. 2018. A reference grammar of Onondaga. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar