Noun–Verb Relationships in Arikara Syntax

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This mated was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technologicaC mans to phoboga* and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterm which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "taqet" far pages apparently lacking from the document photogaphed is "Misskg Pm(s)". If it was possible t o obtain the missing page(s) or section, they am @iced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have neca#itadedcutting thru an image and duplicatingadjacent pages to insure you corn@- continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during expasure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

a

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in the material. It is customary to begin photoing a t the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small averlap. If necassary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual contemt is of gmatest value, howwet, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understaxling of the discertation. Silver prints of "photogmphf may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Deparbnent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct pint. Filmed as received.

Xerox Univetsity Miiofilms 300 North a& Rod Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108

-

--_-

-'2 -zx b .,-

_.A-

--

---_ I. I

75028,686 s ~XESX

m

~*~~

Cdelb, 1949. I N A R I ~ ~ A R A ~ .

, )

:

The WmiCj of New Mexico, Ph.D., Lansuage and Literatm,

Xerox University Microfilms, Ann AWC

-----

1975

Michigan 48106

-

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MlCROFllMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.

NOUN-VERB RELATIONSHIPS IN A R m u A SYNTAX

B.A., M.A.,

BY FRANCESCA C. MWLAN San Francisco State College, 1967 University of New Mexico, 1970

DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology

C

in the Graduate School of The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico May, 1975

This dissertation, directed and approved by the candidate's committee, has been accepted by the Graduate Committee of The University of New Mexico in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Noun-Verb Relationships in Arikara Syntax Titk

Francesca C. Merlan Candrdate

Anthropology Department

Mqy

?, O7J; Dote

Committee

chainnan

\

-

NOUN-VERB RELATIONSHIPS IN ARIKARA SYNTAX

BY Francesca C . Merlan

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor o f Philosophy i n Anthropology in the Graduate School of The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico

Kay, 1975

NOUN-VERB RELATIONSHIPS I N ARIKARA SYNTAX

Francesca C. Merlan Department of Anthropology The University of New M h c o , 1974 A p a r t i a l s y n t a c t h d e s c r i p t i o n of Arikara is presented,

with primary emphasis on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s of nouns t o verbs in t h e language.

Major types of surface i n t r a n s i t i v e and t r a n s i t i v e

constructions are described.

A transformational d e s c r i p t i o n of

person agreement in t h e verb is presented. s e s s i v e constructions a r e eJr;lmined.

Major types of pos-

Finally, t h e process of noun

incorporation, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e Caddoan language family generally, is examined, and evidence i s presented f o r t h e d i r e c t r o l e played by nominal f e a t u r e s i n Arikara syntax. The discussion of problems in syntax is preceded by a b r i e f o u t l i n e of Arikara phonology, which, although n e i t h e r exhaustive nor d e f i n i t i v e , shows that t h e language has r e l a t i v e l y complex and deep phonology, i n t h a t t h e a b s t r a c t representations of formatives a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r s u r f a c e counterparts. On t h e b a s i s of t h e examination of noun-verb r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

it is shorn t h a t Arikara is not a language of t h e e r g a t i v e type, a s has been suggested f o r other c l o s e l y a f f i l i a t e d members of t h e Caddoan language family, but r a t h e r is a language e x h i b i t i n g a s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e verb system.

-

Tentative suggestions are made

regarding t h e semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s p l i t i n t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm.

CONTENTS Page

................................................ C h a p t e r 1 . I n t r o d m t i o n ............................... 1.1 Theoretical Assumptions ...................... 1.2 Method of Description ........................ 1.3 Grnmnntical Concepts of t h e Arikara Verb ..... 1.4 Outline of Grannnatical Categories i n Arikara ..

Preface

1.5

.................................

2.3

....................... Basic Generalizations ........................ Phonetic Representations ..................... Distribution of Single Segments ..............

2.4

Morpheme Structure Conditions: Segmental

.

Chapter I1

2.2

5

5

5 12 15

Positional Summary of Elements i n the Arikara Verb

2.1

1

Phonological Sketch

23 26 26 26 29

................................... 31 2.5 Intrimorpheme Consonant Clusters ............. 35 2.6 Vowel Clusters ............................... 39 2.7 Readjustment R u l e s ........................... 4 1 2.8 Phonological Rules ............................ 44 2.9 Problems ..................................... 57 2.10 Boundaries and Notation ..................... 59 Redundancy

.

Chapter I11 Person Agreement i n t h e Arikara Verb:

.......................... 61 Zntroduction.. ................................ 61 Active I n t r a n s i t i v e s .......................... 62 Surface Description

3;1 3.2

Page

..................*....

3.3

Stative Intransitives

3.4

Ilachoative Aspect of Descriptive Verb

..................................... Person Agreement in Transitive Verbs ....... Reflexive Constructions .................... Reciprocal Construction .................... Ditransitive Constructions................... Benefactive Constructions ................... Themes

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Chapter IV

.

................................... Introduction ...............................

4.3

....................... Phrase Structure Rules .....................

4.4

Subject Agreement in Active Intransitive

4.2

Independent Pronouns

4.5

.................................... Subject Agreement in Stative Clauses .......

4.6

Person Agreement in the Inchoative Aspect

Clauses

of Descriptive Verbs

72 82

84 86 90

97

98 100

110 123

131

.....................

134

.....

136

Modal Prefix Agreement

4.8

Person Agreement in Transitive' Clauses

............................ 4-10 Reciprocals .............................. 4.11 Ditransitive Constructions ................ 4-12 Benefactives .............................. Chapter V . Arikara Syntactic Type .................... Reflexivization

97

........................

4.7

4.9

70

Person Agreement in the Arikara Verb:

Analysis 4.1

67

147 151 fi3 156 159

Page 5.1

Ergative-Accusative Syntactic Typology

5.2

Markedness of Functions in Ergative and

.......

159

.......................... 161 5.3 Split-Ergative Systems ....................... 163 5.4 Caddoan: Ergative o r Accusative? ............. 168 5.5 S p l i t - I n t r a n s i t i v i t y i n Arikara .............. 175 Chapter V I . Possession ................................. 180 6.1 Introduction ................................. 180 6.2 Predication of 'kaving" ...................... 180 6.3 Predication of Ownership ...................... 183 6.4 Subject Possession ............................ 186 Accusative Systems

6.5 6.6 6.7

............................. Possession of Body P a r t s ...................... Analysis of the Predication of "Having" ........ Object Possession

194

197 200

....... 202 6.9 Analysis of Subject Possession ................ 205 6.10 Analysis of Object Possession ................. 209 6.11 Analysis of Body P a r t Possession .............. 210 6.12 Kinship Terminology .......................... 212 Chapter VII . Noun Incorporation ......................... 216 216 7.1 Introduction ............................... 6.8

Analysis of t h e Predication of Ownership

7.2

S t u Z i a of Noun Incorporation i n North

7.3

............................ 216 Noun Incorporation i n Arikara ................. 222

7.4

The Role of Nominal Features in Noun

American Languages

Incorporation

................................. 224

viii

Page

........ 230 7.6 Obligatory and Optional Deletion ............. 231 7.7 R u l e s of Noun Incorporation .................. 237 .. 246 Chapter VIII . Summary ............................. , . 8.1 Conclusions .................................. 246 .

7 S Obligatory and Optional Incorporation

Bibliography

............................................ 253

LIST OF TABLES Table .

Page

2.2

...... Arikara Phonetic Segments ....................... Initial Intranmrpheme Consonant Clusters ........

2.3

Medial Intramorpheme Consonant Clusters

1.1 2.1

2.4 2.5

ramm ma tical' Categories

of t h e Arikara Verb

......... Final Intramorpheme Consonant Clusters .......... Vowel Clusters ..................................

3.1 Active I n t r a n s i t i v e Paradigm. waowaa 3.2

...he*r "to be Suppletive P l u r a l Number Form ............

........................................

38 39 40 65 .

66

69

Subject-Object Pronominal Combinations i n Transitive Paradigms: Singular Subject

3.5

37

S t a t i v e I n t r a n s i t i v e Paradigm. hisf-taghi.?! "to be thirsty"

3.4

t o eatt1

28

Active I n t r a n s i t i v e Paradigm. un good";

3.3

'I

24

..........

76

Subj ec t-Ob j e c t Pronominal Combinations i n

....... 77 Transitive Paradigm. un ...nino "to fear" ........79-80 I r r e g u l a r Transitive Paradigm. u t ...t e "to like" .. 81 Reflexive Paradigm. ut ...naoni whitk "to smudge r i t u a l l y n ..........................................85 D i t r a n s i t i v e Paradigm. & "to give" .............. 88 Transitive Paradigms: Nonsingular Subject

3.6 3.7

3.8

3.9 3.10

D i t r a n s i t i v e Paradigm

3.ll

Benefactive Paradigm.

3.12

Benefactive Paradigm.

........................... 89 t a u - t "to steal" .........92-93 "to bring" ..............94

.

Page Table . .

...a an "to do" ................ 95-96

3.13

Benefactive Paradigm. ut

4.1

Pronominal Feature Analysis

4.2

.............................I08 Surface Morphology of the Personal Pronouns ............. 109

Structural Changes Effected by T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT

...................... 113-115 Ambiguous Pronoun Sequences in Transitive Clauses .... 142-146 Independent Possessive Predication of "Having" ........... 181 Independent Possessive Predication of "Having" ........... 182 Possessive Construction of Ownership .................... 185 Independent Possessive Pronouns ........................ 187 in Active Intransitive Clauses

.......................... 190-191 Prefixal Subject Possession ............................ 193 Object Possession ................................... 195196 Possession of Body Parts ................................ 199 Inalienably Possessed Kin Terms .......................... 214 Prefixal Subject Possession

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS acc

accusative

adv proc

adverbial p r o c l i t i c

anim

aninrate

ant

anterior

ASP

aspect

assert

assertative

bck

back

ben

benefactive

bp

body p a r t

cnt

continuant

con

consonantal

COT

coronal

DET

determiner

d i r obj

d i r e c t obj ec t

dis

distributive

du

dual

erg

erga t i v e

evi

evidential

excl

exclusive

hab asp

habitual aspect

hsh

high

i m p asp

imperfective aspect

impv

imperative inanimate

inc

incorporated noun stem

inch

inchoative

incl

inclusive

ind

indicative

ind ntrm

indirect object number

ind obj

indirect obj ect

ind poss pro

independent possessive pronoun

inf

infinitive

int

intentive

intrans

intransitive

h g

long

loc

locative stem

MSC

morpheme structure condition

nas

nasal

neg

negative

nom

nominative

non-p as

non-pas t

num

number

OB

obligatory

obj

object

obj num

d i r e c t object number

obj poss

object possessor

obj pfx

object prefix

OP

optional

obv

obvia t ive Past

xiii

pfx

prefix

PI

plural

poss

possessor

poss pfx

possessive p r e f i x

poss proc

possessive p r o c l i t i c

Pot

potential

p f x poss

p r e f i x a l possession

PR

phonological r u l e

p r f asp

perfective aspect

PRO

pronoun

Proc

proclitic

PS

phrase s t r u c t u r e r u l e

PV

preverb

ref1

reflexive

re1

relativizer

res

restricted

rnd

round

RR

readjustment r u l e

sbj

subject

s b j num

subject number

s b j poss

subject possessor

sg

singular

son

sonorant

sub p f x

subordinating p r e f i x

sub suf

subordinating s u f f i x

.

sgl

syllabic

ms

tense (verbal category)

tns

tense (phonetic feature)

trans

transitive

voi

voiced

VS

verb stem

VT

verb theme

PREFACE

Arikara is the northernmost d i a l e c t of what is c o l l e c t i v e l y termed Pawnee, a member of t h e northern branch of t h e Caddoan family.

Arikara is presently spoken, i n one degree o r another, by a small number of persons, probably not exceeding t h i r t y , on the F t . Berthold Reservation i n west-central North Dakota.

Hidatsa, a language of

t h e Sfouan family, is a l s o spoken a t F t . Berthold, and some e l d e r l y individuals claim varying degrees of proficiency in Mandan, a l s o of Siouan a f f i l i a t i o n . The Caddoan language family is composed of four language-

units: Pawnee, Wichita, Kitsai, and Caddo.

The preliminary study of

Lesser and Weltfish (Lesser and Weltfish 1932) indicated t h a t Pawnee, Wichita, and K i t s a i together form a northern branch of t h e Caddoan family, while Caddo by i t s e l f forms a divergent southern branch.

K i t s a i became e x t i n c t i n t h i s century, and is preserved i n

t h e f i e l d manuscripts of D r . Alewnder Lesser; Caddo, Wichita, and Pawnee a r e still spoken by small numbers of individuals.

There a r e

t h r e e d i a l e c t divisions within Pawnee: South Band, S k i r i , and Arikara.

South Band was spoken by t h r e e southern bands of Pawnee,

the Chawi, Kitkehahki, and the Pitahawirata.

Skiri constitutes

another d i a l e c t division, and w a s spoken by a fourth band of Pawnee.

Arikara, which forms the t h i r d d i a l e c t division, is

spoken today only at Ft. Berthold.

Of the relationships among t h e d i a l e c t divisions of Pawnee, Lesser and Weltfish (1932: 3) reported:

-

-

While it may be t r u e that h i s t o r i c a l l y a s t r a d i t i o n claims t h e Arikara d i a l e c t diverged from a root which w a s once comnon t o Arikara and S k i r i , nevertheless on t h e b a s i s of a comparison . of the t h r e e Pawnee d i a l e c t s a s spoken today, t h e Arikara divergences should be t r e a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e Pawnee proper o r South Band d i a l e c t , r a t h e r than in r e l a t i o n t o t h e speech of t h e Skiri. This observation is corroborated by Taylor's more recent study (1963a) of comparative Caddoan phonology.

A l l t h e evidence t o date

points t o the conclusion that Arikara is the f i r s t division which occurred i n Pawnee a f t e r Pawnee d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from t h e other branches of North Caddoan. The non-linguistic s i m i l a r i t i e s between S k i r i and Arikara, so convincing t o Dorsey, must date from r e l a t i v e l y recent times (probably no e a r l i e r than the a r r i v a l of t h e Dakotas on the Missouri), a f a c t moreover suggested by the strong t r a d i t i o n (Taylor 1963a:131). The present study examines t h e relationships of nouns t o verbs i n Arikara.

From t h i s examination, conclusions a r e drawn

concerning the syntactic type of Arikara.

Different conclusions

have been drawn by other investigators concerning the s y n t a c t i c type of closely related languages.

Specifically, i t has been

suggested t h a t South Band (Parks 1972) and Wichita (Rood 1969) a r e languages of the ergative type.

Although a l l three languages,

Arikara, South Band, and Wichita exhibit g r e a t s i m i l a r i t y of grammatical features and processes, i t must be emphasized t h a t t h e description which follows is based on Arikara evidence only.

No

claim is made t h a t t h e analysis is correct f o r any o t h e r of t h e

Caddoan languages.

However, the c l o s e relationship among these

three languages demands t h a t the motivation f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e

a n a l y s i s of South Band and Wichita be examined and shown t o b e e i t h e r applicable o r inapplicable t o t h e Arikara case.

In t h e p a s t few years t h e r e have been s i g n i f i c a n t a d d i t i o n s t o t h e amount of l i n g u i s t i c material a v a i l a b l e on t h e Caddoan"lan: guages.

However, t h e r e is still comparatively l i t t l e s y n t a c t i c

d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s of any of t h e Caddoan languages.

Nineteenth

century m a t e r i a l on Caddoan languages c o n s i s t s primarily of vocabu-

laries c o l l e c t e d by t r a v e l e r s , missionaries, and anthropologists, with t h e notable exception of John B. Dunbar's (1890) b r i e f sketch of Pawnee, s t i l l useful today a s a n introduction t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of Pawnee.

Gene Weltfish's ethnographic s t u d i e s of the Pawnee,

conducted i n t h e l a t e 1920's and e a r l y 19301s, produced a f a i r amount of l i n g u i s t i c material, including a s h o r t text together with morphological a n a l y s i s and a sketch of phonetics and morphology (Weltfish 1937), and a longer study of Pawnee morphology (Weltf i s h n.d.),

never brought t o completion and a v a i l a b l e only i n

unpublished manuscript form.

The most recent and extensive account

of South Band Pawnee phonology and morphology is t h e d e s c r i p t i v e

grammar presented as a doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n by Douglas R. Parks (1972). The only syntactically-oriented s t u d i e s of Wichita a r e those of David S. Rood, including a grammatical description present e d as a doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n (Rood 1969) and a later a r t i c l e (Rood 1971) examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of nouns t o verbs i n Wichita. This study is based on d a t a collected during several

periods of f i e l d research conducted i n the smmers of 1971, 1972,

and t h e stnmer and f a l l of 1973. months was spent i n the f i e l d .

A t o t a l of approximately e i g h t

The Arikara informants with whom

I worked l i v e in the southern p a r t of t h e Ft. Berthold Reserva-

t i o n in the a r e a near Garrison and White Shield, North Dakota. I would l i k e t o acknowledge my debt t o them, e s p e c i a l l y t o Mrs. E l l a P. Waters, Mrs. Mary Gillette, M r . Dan Howling Wolf, M r s . Lizzie P a i n t , and Mr. and Mrs. Matthew White Bear, f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and g r e a t patience.

Chapter I

1.1

Theoretical Assumptions This study presents a partial description of the syntax of

Arikara.

Specifically, it examines the relationships of nouns to

verbs in a variety of constructions.

It describes the types of

relationships that nouns may bear to verbs in simple transitive and intransitive clauses; it examines basic possessive constructions; and finally, it examines the process of noun incorporation, in which nouns are compounded with verbs to form tightly-knit morphological

units. There are twtipurposes that unite the various aspects of the investigation. First, the description sets out to specify the structural principles, or rules of concatenation, according to which grammatical elements are combined to create well-formed sentences in Arikara.

A seco~d,and equally important purpose of the study, is

to show the inseparability of these rules of concatenation from a description of the semantic information conveyed by the grammatical elements that combine to form sentences.

The claim is made that the

investigation of syntax is co-extensive with the investigation of semantics in language. 1.2

Method of Description This study is presented as a transformational description

of Arikara.

I wish to explain and justify the sense in which the

tern "transformational" is used. Transformational generative grammar is the name applied to

a linguistic metatheory which assumes that the sentences of natural languages can be produced by a set of rules, at least partially ordered, which can generate all the grammatical sentences of a languages and no ungrammatical ones. Although the number of sentences

in natural languages has nq upper limit, the set of instructions, or rules, which generate these sentences is assumed to be finite, and thus capable of being specified in some explicit fashion.

These

rules constitute the grammar of a language. The standard version of transformational generative grammar

--

as outlined by Chamsky (1965) in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax further assumes that a grammar contains four components: a phonological component, a syntactic component, a semantic component, and a lexicon. Within the standard theory, these components of a

grammar define three significant levels of linguistic structure: a level of semantic represeatation, a level of syntactic representation, and a level of phonetic representation. The semantic component of a gramnar thus conceived is said to be strictly interpretive of syntactic.structures. That is, phrase structure rules in the syntactic component of the grammar generate an infinite set of deep structures.

These deep syntactic

structures, containing all, or nearly all, information relevant to semantic interpretation, are projected onto semantic representations. The syntactic representation of a sentence is considered to be a set of lexical formatives whose boundaries are appropriately indicated, partitioned into sub-strings by labeled brackets o r the notationally

equivalent tree-representations known a s phrase-markers,

Deep

s t r u c t u r e s y n t a c t i c representations are successively converted i n t o intermediate and surface s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s by a series of transformational r u l e s .

The s u r f a c e s y n t a c t i c representation of

a sentence serves a s t h e input t o t h e rules of t h e phonological component; in those cases in which t h e bracketed s y n t a c t i c repres e n t a t i o n is inappropriate f o r t h e imnediate application of phonol o g i c a l r u l e s , a s p e c i a l sub-set of rules of t h e phonological component, called readjustment rules, modify t h e surface s y n t a c t i c representation t o prepare it f o r application of t h e phonological rules.

Phonological r u l e s operate t o map s y n t a c t i c representations

onto phonetic representations.

Thus, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of meanings

t o sound sequences is i n d i r e c t l y s p e c i f i e d by the a p p l i c a t i o n of rule-sets within t h e various components of t h e grammar. Since t h i s study focuses primarily on some aspects of sentence construction i n Arikara, our main concern is with definit i o n of t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of semantics and syntax, considered t o be independent components of t h e grammars of n a t u r a l languages in t h e metatheory sketched b r i e f l y above.

The assumptions made i n

t h e present study d i f f e r i n t h i s regard from those of t h e standard theory. The present d e s c r i p t i o n is transformational in t h e following sense:

it too assumes two s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s of sentence description,

a deep s t r u c t u r e l e v e l q u i t e removed from t h e a c t u a l forms of sentences i n the language, and a surface s t r u c t u r e l e v e l , much c l o s e r

t o the forms of sentences as they are a c t u a l l y spoken.

It f u r t h e r

assumes a s e t of ordered transformational r u l e s which convert the more a b s t r a c t deep s t r u c t u r e s i n t o grammatical surface sentences.

It

claims d t h t h e standard theory' t h a t the r u l e s connecting these two l e v e l s of sentence description form a p a r t of the ( t a c i t ) knowledge t h a t each speaker of Arikara has about h i s language.

Obviously,

speakers untrained in the analysis of languages would be unable t o

enunciate these rules in any c l e a r fashion.

In p r a c t i c a l terms, t h e

n a t i v e speaker's l i n g u i s t i c knowledge is r e f l e c t e d in h i s a b i l i t y t o provide judgments about the gramuaticality of sentences presented t o him, and h i s a b i l i t y t o construct an i n f i n i t e number of new and meaningful sentences.

The r u l e s formulated by the l i n g u i s t , i f they

a r e accurate, a r e simply an e x p l i c i t and painstaking s e t t i n g f o r t h of the knowledge which the n a t i v e speaker applies so e a s i l y , and s o unconsciously, i n speaking. Standard generative transformational theory is characterizable by its overriding concern with the notion of grammaticality i n language (for more extensive discussion of the philosophical and e a p i r i c a l foundations of the theory than those presented here,

Chomsky 1957, 1965).

cf.

That is, the theory -claims t h a t each language

contains an irreducible s e t of construction types describable by t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s called rules.

The f a c t t h a t these rules a r e capable of

repeated application (i.e.,

a r e recursive) accounts f o r a t l e a s t one

aspect of t h e l i n g u i s t i c productivity exhibited by speakers of n a t u r a l languages.

Grammars are intended t o be precise fotmalizations of

these rules.

Only secondarily has generative transformational theory

been concerned with the interpretation of the sets of instructions

-

(for developments of interpretation within the standard theory, cf. Chamsky 1965, Katz and Fodor 1963, 1964).

Standard generative

transformational granrmar represents an attempt to construct a theory of gramaatical structure in which the syntactic and semantic levels of language are carefully distinguished. The insistence on the separation of syntax and semantics in granrmar is fundamental within the metatheory, despite the fact that many of the phenomena that it purports to explain, such as the ambiguity of some sentences or the synonymy relations between sentences depend essentially for their recognition and analysis upon substitution relations between sentences, and as such must be dealt with as semantic relations in language. The substitutability of sentences for other sentences falls outside the exclusive realm of rules of concatenation, or syntax. Our claim is that the investigation of grammatical structures

and processes is co-extensive with the investigation of semantics in language.

Obviously, the description of a language must begin with

the discrimination of units of structure in souad systems, as well as in grammatical systems.

The native speaker of a language may be

unable to distinguish units of structure in a way that would be satisfactory to the linguist, but he is aware how units of sound must be combined to form words, as well as how gramtical elements must be combined to form sentences and discourses. He is aware that certain combinations of units express certain meanings, and that

d i f f e r e n t grammatical elements c h s e n t o form sentences w i l l carry d i f f e r e n t semantic information.

G r a m m a t i c a l categories, in other

words, convey meaning, and t h e investigation of grammatical categories independent of the conceptual information they represent is impossible,

as w e l l as f r u i t l e s s .

Thus, when w e say t h a t a given sequence of

sound segments i n a language represents t h e grammatical category of tense, w e are merely saying t h a t t h e language p r w i d e s overt means f o r placing a reported event in time perspective with reference t o t h e speech w e n t . The grammatical categories, equivalent t o t h e kinds of semantic information, which must be o b l i g a t o r i l y expressed i f an utterance is t o be meaningful

d i f f e r from language t o language.

Some categories, such a s those expressing infonnation of person and number, a r e universal in language. categories may vary greatly:

The overt expression of these

i n some languages number d i s t i n c t i o n s

may be marked i n t h e noun a s w e l l a s t h e verb, while i n other languages t h e verb alone may index nominal number. matical categories a r e not universally found.

Certain other gramConcepts such as

definiteness of noun phrases, and location and position of t h e reported event o r object with respect t o the speaker, are not obligatory in a l l languages.

J u s t a s phonological description of a language must provide

a statement of the s i g n i f i c a n t sound u n i t s and an account of t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n (including r e s t r i c t i o n s on sequences of segments, and

structural r e l a t i o n s h i p s holding among t h e u n i t s i n t h e sound system),

a grammatical description must p r o d d e an account of t h e semantic units represented by grammatical categories and a statement of t h e r u l e s which determine t h e i r concatenation.

Clearly t h e ordering

of conceptual information expressed by grammatical categories i n n a t u r a l languages i s non-random, j u s t a s t h e sequencing of sound elements is patterned.

Thus, t h e study of syntax is inseparable from t h e study of semantics.

Although a universal approach t o the description of

s i g n i f i c a n t components of sound systems (the d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s of Jakobson and others) is much f u r t h e r advanced, Boas (1911:24) long ago i n v i t e d the cross-linguistic investigation of semantic u n i t s when he observed t h a t "Languages d i f f e r not only i n the chara c t e r of t h e i r constituent phonetic elements and sound-clusters, but a l s o i n t h e groups of ideas t h a t find expression i n fixed phonetic groups,"

H e opposed t h e imposition of grammatical descrip-

t i o n of Indo-European languages upon others which d i f f e r fundament a l l y from them i n the kinds of conceptual information conveyed: Grammarians who have studied t h e languages of Europe and western Asia have developed a system of categories which we a r e inclined t o look f o r i n every language. It seems desirable t o show here in how f a r the system with which we a r e f a m i l i a r i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c only of c e r t a i n groups of languages, and i n h ~ wf a r other systems may s u b s t i t u t e f o r i t (Boas 1911:35). Following t h e Boasian t r a d i t i o n , t h e present study r e j e c t s the asemantic study of grammar.

It should be clear from t h e preced-

ing remarks t h a t grammaticalness and meaningfulness a r e c l o s e l y

r e l a t e d , i f n o t equivalent notions.

I n keeping with t h i s idea,

t h e i n t e n t of the present description, although limited i n t h e range

of phenomena with w h i c h i t deals, is t o characterize as simply and c l e a r l y as possible the kinds of semantic information conveyed by obligatory grammatical categories i n Arikara, and the p r i n c i p l e s

which determine t h e i r combination i n sentence formation. 1.3 Grammatical Concepts of the Arikara Verb Typologically, Arikara i s a polysynthetic incorporating language, very s i m i l a r i n its obligatory grammatical c a t e g o r i e s and processes t o Wichita and South Band Pawnee, the other Caddoan languages f o r which documentation i s available.

Arikara employs exten-

s i v e l y t h e grammaticdl. processes of prefixation, s u f f i x a t i o n , and compounding; the f i r s t process accounts f o r the l a r g e s t number of grammatical categories within t h e verb. To introduce a discussion of the general s t r u c t u r e of the language, several sample sentences a r e presented and analyzed.

The

f i n a l phonetic form of sentences is indicated i n brackets; s l a s h e s mark phonemic representation. Iwi-naxv

.

t i k u nahnino? 1

ind-sbj-dir-pv-obj-vs-prf ob3

asp

The boy f e a r s u s (excl p l )

.

The sentence constituents a r e f u r t h e r analyzed as:

an independent noun ,'boy, " the..subj e c t nominal of t h e t r a n s i t i v e verb theme

wi-naxE

.

ti -

t h i r d person subject form of t h e indicative modal prefix third person singular subject pronoun; cross-references the independent noun den-; receives no concrete phonological representation

.

ku un

-

.

..

f i r s t person pronominal form of the d i r e c t

obj ect separable prwerb; the preverb plus verb stem un...nino c o n s t i t u t e the t r a n s i t i v e verb theme "to fear"

nak -

p l u r a l number marker of the f i r s t person d i r e c t object

nino -

verb stem

0 -

perfective aspect, represented here by zero This sentence i l l u s t r a t e s several f a c t s of Arikara grammar.

F i r s t , many verb themes consist of separable preverb and verb stem. Both t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes may have separable preverbs.

The majority of t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes,

however, consist only of a verb stem.

Second, both subject and

object nominals a r e obligatorily cross-referenced i n t h e verb by prefixes introduced before t h e verb stem.

A s i n many languages,

third person singular subjects a r e not represented by overt phonol o g i c a l material.

Finally, the shape of the modal p r e f i x is deter-

mined by person of the subject.

Third po,rson subjects co-occur with

t h e i n d i c a t i v e modal p r e f i x

ti-, while

first and second person

s u b j e c t s co-occur with an alternative form of t h e i n d i c a t i v e modal prefix

E-. In t h e sample sentence, p e r f e c t i v e aspect is represented We now consider two more sentences i n order t o bring out

by zero,

another s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e of Arikara s t r u c t u r e .

/ta+t+$ht+e*rik-t$ d o t a l ind-sbj-dir-pv-vs-prf obj asp

I see/saw t h e man,

dir obj

w i * ta1

Ctatu*te-rit

Its sentence-constituents are: ta -

:

non-third subject form of t h e i n d i c a t i v e modal prefix.

t

:

f i r s t person singular pronominal subject form

:

t h i r d person pronominal d i r e c t object form

:

separable preverb of the t r a n s i t i v e verb theme

e*rik

:

verb stem "see"

-0

:

perfective aspect

wi*t a

:

independent n o w "man"; d i r e c t object nominal

-0 ut -

Cumpare t h e preceding sentence with t h e following one: /ta+t+$+ut+e*rik+hu

w i * ta/

ind-sb j dir-pv-vs-imp obj asp C t a t u - te0riku?

I see(am seeing) t h e man,

dir obj

wi-tal

The second sentence d i f f e r s in only one respect:

imperfective

aspect is overtly realized by t h e s u f f i x -hh. While a number of

aspectual d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e made i n Arikara, t h e category of tense is

q u i t e undeveloped.

The concern of Arikara s t r u c t u r e with aspect,

and the lack of concern with tense, does not imply any lack of c l a r i t y Tense distinctions t h a t may be indicated morphologically

in speech.

i n other languages are made l d c a l l y in Arikara by independent time-adverbs.

1.4

Outline of Gramnatical Categories in Arikara Jakobson (1971:130-147)

presents a useful and i n s i g h t f u l

scheme f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of verbal categories in Russian.

The

scheme is adapted here t o the description of verbal categories i n Arikara

. Jakobson notes two basic d i s t i n c t i o n s in classifying verbal

categories:

1. speech i t s e l f (S), and its topic, the narrated matter 2.

e)

the event i t s e l f (E), and any of i t s participants (P) On the basis of these d i s t i n c t i o n s , four items a r e d i s t i n -

guished: the narrated event

(P), the

speech event ( E ~ ) ,the par-

t i c i p a n t s of the narrated event (Pn), and participants of the speech event (pS)

.

Jakobson (1971: 133-134) f u r t h e r observes:

Any verb i s concerned with a narrated event. Verbal categories may be subdivided i n t o - t h o s e which do and do not involve the participants of the event. Categories involving the participants may characterize e i t h e r the participants themselves (Pn) o r t h e i r r e l a t i o n s t o the narrated event (PnP). Categories abstracting from the participants characterize e i t h e r the narrated event i t s e l f (En) o r its r e l a t i o n s t o another narrated event (EnEn). For categories characterizing only one narrated item--either the event (m) i t s e l f or its participants (Pn) themselves--the term DESIGNATORS w i l l be used, while those categories which characterize a narrated (EnEn o r PnEn) with respect t o another narrated item (WEn o r PnW) w i l l be termed

C O ~ O R S ~ Designators indicate e i t h e r the q u a l i t y o r the quantity of t h e narrated item and may be termed QUALIFIERS and QUANTIFIERS respectively. Both designators and connectors may characterize the narrated event (procss de l ' h o n c e ) and/or its p a r t i c i p a n t s e i t h e r without o r with reference t o the speech event (proc3s de 1'&onciation) (. /ES o r its p a r t i c i p a n t s (..Ps). Categories implying such a reference a r e t o be termed SHIFTERS; those without such a reference are NON-SHIFTERS. With regard t o these b a s i c dichotomies any generic verbal category can be defined.

.

W e may now list and characterize the concepts expressed i n

Arikara verbal forms.

This description w i l l serve t o i n d i c a t e the

l i m i t s of the present study, An Arikara verb form, t o be grammatically complete, must be marked f o r t h e categories of mode, person, number and aspect,

i n t h a t surface s t r u c t u r a l order.

In the following discussion,

however, the P-designators a r e summarized f i r s t

-

person and

number; then t h e connectors i n which P is involved

- mode

voice; then designators i n which P is not involved

-

f i n a l l y , connectors i n which P is not involved subordination.

-

and

tense and aspect;

e v i d e n t i a l and

S h i f t e r s a r e t r e a t e d before corresponding non-shifters.

Marked categories a r e l i s t e d f i r s t , and a r e opposed t o mnarkecl ones.

1.

PERSON (PnPs) : characterizes the p a r t i c i p a n t s of the

narrated event with respect t o the p a r t i c i p a n t s of t h e speech event. Person is therefore a s h i f t e r ; t h e meaning of a s h i f t e r must be defined with respect t o the context of t h e speech event. "Thus f i r s t person s i g n a l s the i d e n t i t y of a p a r t i c i p a n t of the narrated event with t h e performer of t h e speech event, and t h e second person,

the i d e n t i t y with the a c t u a l o r p o t e n t i a l undergoer of t h e speech

event1' (~akobson1971:134).

Arikara c o n t r a s t s personal forms ( P n = ~ s )

with impersonal fonns, t h a t is, first and second vs. t h i r d person forms.

Within the personal forms, t h e r e is a d i s t i n c t i o n i n the

f i r s t person between i n c l u s i v e forms (signaling p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t h e addressee) and exclusive fonns (signaling l a c k of p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t h e addressee).

2.

NUMBER (Pn):

characterizes t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s of t h e

narrated event without reference t o t h e speech event. therefore a non-shifter.

Number is

In Arikara, dual forms i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e

membership i n t h e Pn is r e s t r i c t e d t o two; p l u r a l (signaling p l u r a l i t y of Pn) i s opposed t o singular.

3.

M3OD (PnEP/ps):

"characterizes t h e r e l a t i o n between

the narrated event and i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s with reference t o t h e part i c i p a n t s of t h e speech event" (Jakobson 1971: 135)

.

Major modal oppositions i n Arikara are: (a)

subjunctive vs. indicative.

Subjunctives (designated

-

by t h e prefixes E- and i.- f o r personal and impersonal forms, respectively) i n d i c a t e actions o r events n o t r e a l i z e d a s f a c t a

(whether they be wishes, or hypothetical o r counterfactual statements) ; i n d i c a t i v e forms a r e indicated by p r e f i x e s &- and ti- f o r personal and impersonal forms, respectively.

Negative i n d i c a t i v e

statements a r e designated by the p r e f i x e s ka=ka*-and ka.ki=- f o r personal and impersonal forms, respectively.

(b)

potential vs. indicative.

by t h e discontinuous prefixes pronoun.

&...&,

Potential forms a r e marked

-

where i follows the subject

Thus:

I w i l l go.

C~OX~~?A~I /kolcn+i+at+$/

.

pot-sb j -vs-prf asp The potential designates simple f u t u r e intended actions, possible

and probable actions.

It is a l s o used a s a hortative, somewhat

less cammanding than t h e regular h p e r a t i v e .

The hortative c a r r i e s

a note of certainty t h a t the action imposed on the addressee w i l l indeed take place. (c)

imperative vs. indicative.

Imperative forms signal

t h a t the En is imposed upon the addressee. Arikara by the prefix

It i s indicated i n

-=-which immediately precedes the verb stem.

Distinctions of number and person a r e maintained i n the imperative. Thus : xou(sg) sit down!

C b t w i *tIt3

fiiux+ui* tikt01

you(du) sit down!

du-sb j -impv-vs-prf asp (d)

interrogative vs. indicative.

indicated by t h e prefix E-

The interrogative is

(many other g r k t i c a l functions a r e

served by prefixes of the same shape). interrogative words and prefixes.

This prefix co-occurs with

Thus:

C tize-nxta-nu?]

What a r e you(sg) doing?

/tiEe-nu na-ffa-*hu/ What sub-sb j -pv-vs-imp pfx asp (e)

a s s e r t i v e vs. indicative.

Assertive forms add emphasis

t o the E ~ . They are marked by prefixes ne*ne0- and ne0n.i.- f o r personal and impersonal forms respectively.

Thus, t h e contrast:

I s t o l e it.

ind-sb j -dir-vs-prf obj asp Cne-ne*titaPut3

I stole it,

/ne0ne*+t+i+tauW t+$/ assert-sbj-vs-prf asp

'4.

VOICE

(PnEn):

"characterizes the r e l a t i o n between t h e

narrated event and its participants without reference t o the speech event o r t o the speaker" (Jakobson 1971: 135).

The s o l e voice dis-

t i n c t i o n is of reflexive vs. non-reflexive.

Reflexive forms i n

Arikara are marked by t h e p r e f i x witi-,which

precedes the modal

prefix.

Transitive verbs i n Arikara permit two primary Pn, subject

and d i r e c t object.

Reflexive f o r m exclude t h e d i r e c t object, thus

r e s t r i c t i n g participation i n the narrated w e n t t o t h e grammatical subject, and thus they a r e i n t r a n s i t i v e .

.

.

I am r i t u a l l y smudging myself,

~wititatuhna-ni-hitku?3

refl-ind-sbj-pv-vs-imp asp

5.

TENSE

( E ~ E ~ ) characterizes : t h e narrated w e n t with

reference t o t h e time of utterance, and is thus a s h i f t e r .

tense c o n t r a s t i n Arikara is t h a t of past vs. non-past.

The s o l e

The marked

-

p a s t is indicated by t h e prefix -ux- which immediately precedes t h e verb stem.

Campare: I eat.

ind-sb j -vs-prf asp I ate *.

ind-sb j -pas-vs-pr f asp

6.

ASPECT

(En):

characterizes t h e temporal contour of t h e

narrated event without involving t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s and without r e f e r ence t o the speech event; aspect is therefore a non-shifter.

The

primary aspectual contrast i n Arikara is of perfective vs. imperf e c t i v e while t h e secondary c o n t r a s t s include habitual and inchoative notions

.

(a)

Perfective forms s i g n i f y t h e completion of E~ as opposed

t o imperfective forms, which s i g n i f y action i n progress o r repeated action.

Perfective aspect may be marked by zero, o r by t h e s u f f i x

-

Perfective intentive a c t i v i t y is designated by the perfective

-is.

suffix -3and the intentive s u f f i x -&. koxiko t i g t a I

Be w i l l k i l l it. ,

. jko&-@+i+ku. tiwisl-ta/

po t-sb j-vs-prf-int =P

-

The marker of the imperfective is the s u f f i x -hu; i t may

(b)

precede the habitual imperfective marker -u-ku. Itatu*tee rikhu. ku?]

/t a + t i h t + e

Thus:

I see him ( a l l the time, many times).

riIcthuh kuf

ind-sb j-dir-pv-vs-imp-hab obj asp asp Inchoative forms of most verbs are formed with the secondary s u f f i x

-

-itik.

Inchoative forms of descriptive verbs, however, a r e desig-

nated by means of a special construction involving the s t a t i v e verb stem

(see p. 70).

7.

EVIDENTIAL (liDFLs/~s): t h i s category takes i n t o

account the narrated event, the speech event, and a narrated speech event.

It involves distinctions r e l a t i n g t o the source of informa-

tion about the narrated event, and judgments of the speaker a s t o the v a l i d i t y and probability of the narrated event. distinctions a r e not canprehensively l i s t e d here.

Evidential The most important

contrast i n Arikara is t h a t between a narrated event which the speaker has d i r e c t knowledge of (indicative) and narrated events which the speaker has not d i r e c t l y witnessed.

Contrast:

He s t o l e it.

adv-ind-sb j -vs -prf proc asp

H e s t o l e i t (not witnessed).

evi-adv-ind-sb j -vs-prf proc asp Other e v i d e n t i a l s include t h e quotative p r e f i x

s-, which precedes

t h e modal marker, and t h e i n f e r e n t i a l "probably," indicated l e x i c a l l y by t h e form ~ t i r o - h u d 3and p o t e n t i a l mode.

8.

SUBORDINATION

(EnEn):

t h i s category characterizes

t h e narrated event i n r e l a t i o n t o another narrated event, and without reference t o t h e speech event.

The p r i n c i p l e c o n t r a s t i s between an

event which is e i t h e r a n t e r i o r t o t h e speech event o r i n some sense semantically contingent upon a f i r s t event, and therefore subordinated t o it vs. two narrated events which are e i t h e r simultaneous o r of equal semantic salience, and therefore simply conjoined. Simple conjunction i s designated by t h e independent p a r t i c l e na "and"; -

subordination is designated by t h e verbal p r e f i x E- and

a subordinating s u f f i x of t h e verb stem.

Stems may be classed

according t o t h e subordinating s u f f f x they employ:

some take 2

-

-

i n subordinated perfective forms, o t h e r s -i and s t i l l others, -$. I n t h e following example, t h e verb stem at "to go" is among those t h a t form subordinated constructions with t h e s u f f i x -2:

ctatuhne.si-gu? w i - ta

nag tA1

/ta+t+0+ut+ne-

w i ta

siahu

ind-sbj-dir-pv-vs-imp 0bj asp

dir obj

I know t h a t t h e man went,

na+%+at+%+a/ sub-sbj-vs-prf-sub asp suf pfx

I n f i n i t i v a l constructions a r e formed with t h e p a i r of prefixes

na.. .ku.

An example with t h e stem "to go" in a siibordinated

i n f i n i t i v a l construction is the following: t tatuhna?it w i - tA nakuku- t a d 7

ind-sb j-dir-pv-vs-prf 0bj asp

dir obj

I asked t h e man t o go f o r me,

inf -sb j -ind-ben-vs-prf -sub obj asp suf

1.5 Positional Summary of Elements i n the Arikara Verb We conclude our introduction t o Arikara s t r u c t u r e with a sununary statement of positions of elements within t h e verb and an indication of t h e s o r t s of modifications elements i n each position undergo. It has already been noted t h a t many verbs consist of separa b l e preverb and stem.

Grammatical elements may be conveniently

classed according t o whether they-precede or follow t h e verb stem

i n surface structure.

STEM

SUFFIX

The generalized schema

- summarizes

- PROCLITIC

PREFIX

the elements which occur i n verbal

constructions.

O f t h e gramslatical elements discussed, t h e dual marker, t h e reflexive, negative elements, and adverbial p r o c l i t i c s occur i n proc l i t i c position.

Other elements not discussed, but which occur i n

this position, include adverbial prefixes and a s m a l l number of

P r o c l i t i c s are distinguished from prefixes

demonstrative prefixes.

by t h e l r lack of i m l v e m e n t i n phonological processes.

Proclitics

are e a s i l y recognized and do not undergo modification; they a r e only very loosely integrated i n t o the verb form.

Prefixes, on the'oth-er

hand, undergo extensive modification and a r e t i g h t l y integrated i n t o the verb. Prefixes may conveniently be distinguished from suffixes by the d i f f e r e n t kinds of conceptual information t h a t each c l a s s conveys. Designators of participants (P-designators) are a l l prefixes, whether they be s h i f t e r s (person) o r non-shifters

(number).

Other prefixes

not mentioned above (g.g., benefactive, possessive) a l l convey relat i o n a l information about participants.

The E-designators (desig-

nators of the narrated event) which occur before the verb stem a r e a l l shifters:

mood, tense and evidential.

Suffixes convey information about t h e narrated event.

The

E-designators include aspect and subordination, both non-shifter categories.

Table 1.1

(g.Jakobson

1971:145) i l l u s t r a t e s the

i n t e r r e l a t i o n of the grammatical concepts discussed. Table 1.1 P involved Designator Quantifier:

Connector

Number

P not involved Designator Aspect

Voice Shifter:

Connector

Person

Subordination Tense

Mood

Evidential

Shif ter :

This study focuses on the relationships of nouns t o verbs, and therefore examines i n d e t a i l t h e categories of-number, person,

and voice.

In keeping with its primary emphasis, it must also

examine the determination of modal marking by personal features

In closing, it should be remarked that transformational processes in the language are characterized by the introduction into the verb of information from the nominal constituents that designate participants; perhaps the outstanding characteristic of the language is its polysynthetic nature.

Chapter I1

2.1

Basic Generalizations The i n t e n t of t h i s chapter is t o present b a s i c generaliza-

t i o n s about Arikara phonological s t r u c t u r e .

Many of these generali-

zations are s t a t a b l e as segmental and sequential c o n s t r a i n t s on l e x i c a l matrices. examined first.

Morpheme s t r u c t u r e conditions of both types a r e Other generalizations a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e t o opera-

t i o n s which convert surface s t r u c t u r e s generated by the s y n t a c t i c component i n t o a form appropriate f o r use by the phonological component.

These operations, expressed a s

'readjustment

r u l e s ' (Chom-

sky and Halle 1968:10), have the primary e f f e c t of r e l a t i n g syntax t o phonology by removing boundaries and making other modifications i n surface s t r u c t u r e s .

Finally, other generalizations a r e s t a t a b l e

a s phonological r u l e s whose a p p l i c a b i l i t y is determined by phonolog i c a l environments within and across morpheme.boundaries.

The appli-

cation of phonological rules r e s u l t s i n a phonetic l e v e l of representation.

2.2

Phonetic Representations Arikara u t i l i z e s a t o t a l of twenty-six phonetic segments.

Table 2.1 presents these phonetic segments, with t h e i r abbreviatory alphabetic representations, i n terms of a d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e matrix. The i i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e system used is t h a t presented by Chomsky and

--

-

Halle (1968) i n The Sound P a t t e r n of English. The three major c l a s s f e a t u r e s of the Chomsky-Balle system d e f i n e t h e following classes of phonetic segments:

Vowels

I+

son,

Semivowels

I+

son,

Resonants

I+

son,

Obstruents

[- son,

Voiceless Glides

I-

son,

+ -1,

- con]

- syl, - s y l , + con] COP]

- syl, + con] - s y l , - con]

Each of these c l a s s e s i s set o f f i n Table 2.1 by double v e r t i c a l

lines.

Vowels in t h e f e a t u r e matrix are marked a s universally tense, although t h e r e is in f a c t considerable phonetic v a r i a t i o n in degree of tenseness of vowels. '

Phonetic d e t a i l r u l e s accounting f o r d i s t r i -

bution of tenseness are not considered i n t h e present study.

The

following generalizations rnay be made concerning phonetic tenseness: voiceless vowels a r e always tense; phonetic long vowels, whether derived from underlying organic long vowels o r secondarily lengthened, a r e universally tense.

Vowels which a r e phonetically short but

derive from underlying long vowels a r e t-se.

Stressed s h o r t vowels

a r e more tense than t h e i r unstressed counterparts.

I n addition t o the f i v e short and f i v e long vowel voiceless [A],

segments,

[I], and ID] are included i n t h e phonetic inventory.

Vowel devoicing is not d e f i n i t i v e l y t r e a t e d i n t h i s study, although t h e problem of devoicing is examined i n 2.8. Of t h e four non-continuant obstruents, t h r e e are t h e lax,

-

unaspirated s t o p s 2, L, and k. The apico-alveolar s t o p

and dorso-

velar &may exhibit phonetic voicing t o some degree, p a r t i c u l a r l y

during release, seemingly i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a following vowel.

Table 2.1

Arikara Phonetic Segments

In c l u s t e r s preceding a second obstruent no voicing i s observable. Considerable v a r i a t i o n is a l s o fo.imd in t h e phonetic voicing of t h e m a s p i r a t e d lax alveo-palatal

affricate

-E.

Continuant obstruents are t h e blade alveolar spirant 2, t h e alveo-palatal s p i r a n t

$,

and t h e voiceless dorso-velar s p i r a n t x:

Non-consonantal sonorants include t h e high back rounded glide

x, and

t h e high f r o n t unrounded g l i d e p.

Consonantal sonorants

are t h e voiced apico-alveolar tap L, and t h e voiced apico-alveolar nasal g.

-

The phonetic segments h and

2 are

characterized in t h e -

d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e matrix a s voiceless glides. voiceless laryngeal glide.

The segment

h is

a

G l o t t a l stop only occurs phonetically;

i t s i n s e r t i o n i s accounted f o r by PR 25 and 26. The supraseginental phenomenon of p i t c h c i t e d by Taylor (1963a:llS)

is c l e a r l y non-distinctive and c o n s t i t u t e s a problem

outside t h e scope of t h e present study.

S t r e s s assignment in Arikara

a?pears t o be a problem of considerable complexity, and i s not defin i t i v e l y t r e a t e d here (see 2.8). The unusual nature of t h e phonetic inventory i n Arikara i s immediately apparent, p a r t l y because of t h e general poverty of the inventory

(e., t h e absence of c e r t a i n very comnon classes of

sounds

such as l a t e r a l s , and the incompleteness of the consonantal s e r i e s ) , and p a r t l y because of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n a l relationships e x i s t i n g among segments t h a t are employed.

2.3

Distribution of Single Segments

Restrictions an the d i s t r i b u t i o n of single segments may be s t a t e d i n terms of t h e i r occurrence i n morpheme-initial,

medial, and

f i n a l positions a t t h e systematic phonemic level of representation. Any s i n g l e obstruent may occur in morph-e-initial

o r medial

position at t h e systematic level.

Any s i n g l e obstruent may occur

~norpheme-finallyexcept the stop

The stop 2 and t h e b i l a b i a l

-

g l i d e w have in conuum the f a c t t h a t they may not occur mrphemefinally.

-

The v e l a r stop k and t h e laryngeal g l i d e h occur in a l l

positions a t the systematic level.

Regular phonological r u l e s account

f o r t h e phonetic non-occurrence of both segplents in word-final posi-

tion.

The absence of 2 and

phonetically i n word-final position,

h w w e r , i s due t o sequential norphene s t r u c t u r e constraints. The resonants

L and n may both occur medially

and f i n a l l y .

Only II, h w w e r , occurs morpheme-initially a t the systematic level. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the semi-vowel 1 is extremely r e s t r i c t e d .

It occurs in a small number of morphemes as the second member of a c l u s t e r preceded by 2 o r

2.

It never occurs a s a single segment i n

any position a t the systematic level. The absolute sequential constraints may be stated a s follows:

-

MSC 1. Neither 2 nor w occurs morpheme-finally a t t h e

systematic level. MSC 2.

The r e s o n a n t x does not occur morpheme-initially a t t h e systematic level.

An o r i g i n a l Caddoan three-vowel system is only t h i n l y concealed in Arikara (Taylor 1963a: 129).

The vowels

=, e. and 2, =

occur much less frequently i n a l l positions at t h e systematic l e v e l than do 5, A, 2, and t h e i r long counterparts.

found t o occur i n i t i a l l y a t the systematic level; i n i t i a l l y in a small number of morphemes.

-

-

Neither e nor

owas

-

and o- occur

Many phonetic occurrences

--

of 2, ee and o, o ma r e the r e s u l t of regular r u l e s of vowel cont r a c t i o n (see PR 20, 2l, and 22).

2.4

Morpheme Structure Conditions: Segmental Redundancy The following segmental morpheme structure conditions s t a t e

t h e segmental redundancies of Arikara l e x i c a l representations. Statement of t h e segmental redundancies in the d i s t i n c t i v e feature matrix allows u s t o enter formatives in the lexicon i n an abbreviated, nonredundant fashion. MSC 3 s t a t e s several redundancies f o r vowels, namely, that

they a r e always sonorant, non-consonantal., and tense. MSC 3

[+ syll

The next condition s t a t e s t h a t non-syllabic segments a r e a l s o non-low, short, and non-tense.

I-

syll

Redundancies in non-sonorant segments are captured by MSC 5,

which s t a t e s that non-sonorant segments may never be round o r nasal.

MSC 5

I-

son]

MSC 6 s t a t e s that consonantal segments may never be round. MSC 6

I+ con]

MSC 7 s t a t e s that only consonantal segments may be coronal, nasal, or anterior. MSC 7

1-

con]

MSC 8-11 capture relationships among the features coronal,

-

anterior, back, high, and low.

Segments that are anterior, coronal,

or both, may not be back (MSC 8 and 9) ; segments that are back may be neither coronal nor anterior (MSC 10). may not be l o w (MSC 11).

MSC 8

I+ cor]

IMSC 9

bck]

Segments t h a t are high

MSC 11

I-

low]

MSC 12 s t a t e s t h a t segments t h a t a r e low a r e always non-high, non-round,

and back.

MSC 12

I+

low]

MSC 1 3 s t a t e s t h a t consonantal segments always have opposite values f o r the features a n t e r i o r and high.

MSC 13

FA.

MSC 14 s t a t e s t h a t non-low sonorant segments have t h e same

backness and roundness values; i n ' o t h e r words, t h e roundness of these segments is predictable from t h e i r backness.

-

MSC 15 states that all non-consonantal sonorant segments

a r e redundantly specified as continuant.

MSC 16 s t a t e s that a l l nan-syllabic, non-consonantal sonor a n t s are high; i n other words, the f a c t t h a t the semivowels 2 and

w

a r e high is predictable from t h e i r specification f o r the t h r e e major c l a s s features.

MSC 16

I =C

17 s t a t e s t h a t non-syllabic,

consonantal, sonorant seg-

ments have i d e n t i c a l values f o r continuancy and nasality.

This

condition captures the f a c t t h a t t h e continuant resonant n i s nasal,

r i s not. while t h e non-continuant resonant MSC 17

[z] MSC 18 s t a t e s t h a t all sonorant segments a r e voiced.

Ia v o i l The l a s t condition insures t h a t t h e non-sonorant g l i d e

h

is non-coronal, non-anterior, non-high, non-back, and continuant. MSC 19

Eq - con 1

2.5

Intramoqheme Consonant Clusters There a r e two types of consonant c l u s t e r s t h a t must be

distinguished i n Arikara: those t h a t occur within morpheme bounda-

ries (intramorphemic) and those t h a t occur across morpheme boundaries (intermorphemic).

Interm~rp~hemic c l u s t e r s c o n s t i t u t e .a s e t

p a r t i a l l y d i s t i n c t from the s e t of possible intramorphemic c l u s t e r s .

In addition, t h e r o s t e r of intramorphemic c l u s t e r s d i f f e r s morphemei n i t i a l l y , medially, and f i n a l l y . Although consonant c l u s t e r s of both types (intramorphemic and intennorphemic) a r e not infrequent, the language e x h i b i t s the following tendencies: f i r s t , t o l i m i t c l u s t e r s of e i t h e r type t o tw segments; and second, t o simplify c l u s t e r s across morpheme boundaries by phonological r u l e s which eliminate segments o r l e n i t e

one of t h e segments that enters i n t o a cluster.

Further a t t e n t i o n

i s not given t o intermorpheme c l u s t e r s , since t h e i r behavior is predicted by phonological rules. --.

,

Attention is focused here on c l u s t e r s that occur within morpheme boundaries, f o r i t is i n terms of these c l u s t e r s that sequential morpheme structure conditions a r e defined.

In order t o

c l e a r l y present t h e netxmrk of canbinatorial p o s s i b i l i t i e s , we

must distinguish i n t e r n a l c l u s t e r s t h a t occur morpheme-initially, medially, and f i n a l l y . Constraints on possible underlying c l u s t e r s i n Arikara a r e --- --

not readily formulable i n terms of general statements.

The follow-

ing two sequential conditions apply t o underlying c l u s t e r s in a l l positions: MSC 20.

There a r e no geminate c l u s t e r s of non-syllabic segments.

MSC 21.

The stop

E cannot be t h e second element of a

consonant cluster.

MSC 22.

The velar spirant 5 cannot be t h e second element of a cluster.

MSC 23.

The v e l a r spirant 2 cannot be t h e f i r s t element of an i n i t i a l or f i n a l c l u s t e r .

Table 2.2

presents the r o s t e r of morpheme-initial c l u s t e r s

of two segments which occur a t t h e systematic phonemic level.

Table 2.2

X

t

6:

s

x x x

X

X

X

X

X

A l l sixteen underlying c l u s t e r s may occur a t the phonetic surface i n i n i t i a l position.

In addition, two c l u s t e r s occur phone-

t i c a l l y which do not occur a t the systematic level.

Eh-

The c l u s t e r

occurs in only one form (&La? "Cippewa"), which i s not analy-

zable a t present.

The phonetic c l u s t e r 8k- i n a l l cases appears t o

be the r e s u l t of composition (e.gg., ?&aw~sak~"pestle";

g-

its. i n i t i a l

-

i s t h e compound form of igu "hand"). There a r e two three-consonant

-

i n i t i a l position: skh- (skhu*l!itakuhu? "water"),

c l u s t e r s which occur i n "chair"),

-

and tst- (tstoohu?

-

Of these, skh- may prove t o be the r e s u l t of composition,

-

but tst- occurs a t the systematic level. The following sequential constraints capture t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t s concerning the s e t of possible i n i t i a l c l u s t e r s :

MSC 24.

If e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r second element is noncontinuant, the other must be continuant.

MSC 25,

If t h e second element is 2, the f i r s t must be an

!

a n t e r i o r stop.

MSC 26.

If t h e f i r s t o r ' second element is

g,

the other

must be coronal. MSC 27.

I£ the f i r s t element is 3, t h e second must be non-continuant.

Further specification of constraints on i n i t i a l c l u s t e r s

'

proves t o be no mre general than a simple l i s t i n g of the possible clusters. Table 2.3 presents the r o s t e r of medial intramorpheme c l u s t e r s of two segments a t the systematic level. Table 2.3

A l l eighteen medial c l u s t e r s occur phonetically in t h i s

position.

Significant generalizations regarding medial intramor-

pheme c l u s t e r s a r e captured by the following two sequential constraints:

MSC 28.

If the second element of a medial cluster is a continuant obstruent, it is 2.

If the second element of a medial cluster is a

MSC 29.

continuant obstruent, the first element is a noncoronal, non-continuant obstruent. Table 2.4 presents the roster of ~ossiblemorpheme-final clusters of two segments at the systematic level. Table 2.4 t t

2.6

k

s

X

X

v

s

Vowel Clusters Vowel clusters consist of only two segments; never within

morphemes are three vowels found in sequence.

Table 2.5 presents

a listing of the vowel clusters found at the systematic phonemic level. Constraints on occurring vowel clusters are captured by the following morpheme structure conditions:

MSC 30.

In a vowel cluster, only one of the two vowels may be long.

.

MSC 31.

The segments 2, % do not occur in vowel clusters.

MSC 32.

The segments 2, = m y

MSC 33.

The segments

precede only back vowels.

=, z, and i* do not occur as t h e

second member of a cluster. MSC 34.

High back vowels may not precede high f r o n t

.

vowels in a c l u s t e r .

MSC 35.

With t h e exception of t h e c l u s t e r ii, f r o n t vowels do not occur in sequence.

Although considerations of symmetry predict t h e existence of t h e intramrpheme c l u s t e r iu, i t is highly l i k e l y t h a t a phonological

rule (see PR 19 below) has eliminated a l l underlying c l u s t e r s of t h i s shape through l e x i c a l restructuring. sequence

ua may

The absence of t h e

be due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t data. Table 2.5

2.7

Readjustment Rules Several readjustment rules' are needed t o alter shapes of '

'

underlying formatives t o prepare surface s t r u c t u r e s f o r phonological interpretation.

For the most p a r t , the readjustment r u l e s a l t e r

t h e shapes of prefixes representing s p e c i f i c gramnatical categories.

In Arikara, prefixes of the same shape may represent various grammatical categories.

Formatives affected by the readjustment r u l e s

must therefore be specified a s t o function. The prefixes

&

(preverb, t h i r d person p l u r a l subject,

( f i r s t person inclusive dual subject) l o s e t h e i r

obviative) and

-

-

f i n a l -n when they precede any of the following morphemes: un (preverb, object possessor), tense, imperative).

ut

(preverb, benefactive) , and

(past

The r u l e which accounts f o r t h i s is represented

as RR 1.

RR 1

Some sequences of vowels across morpheme boundaries do not contract i n accordance with regular r u l e s of vowel contraction (see PR 20 and 21).

Ordinarily, the contraction of *across

boundaries r e s u l t s in

u. I n c e r t a i n p r e f i x

t h e sequence of vowels i*. This statement -

i+u across

morpheme

combinations, however,

morpheme boundaries contracts t o

applies t o a l l instances of prefix-final

-&

t h a t result from the application of RR 1; in addition, it a p p l i e s t o

-

-

the i - f i n a l prefixes i-- (third person subjunctive) and

&

(a p r e f i x

employed in t r a n s i t i v e paradigms where the d i r e c t o r ' i n d i r e c t object is t h i r d person, and in benefactive constructions; see' Chapter 111, s e c t i o n s 5 and 9). the . i n i t i a l

These &-final p r e f i x e s 'dominate'

of t h e morphemes E, ut, and

E. The e f f e c t o f

the

readjustment rule i s represented i n RR 2 (a).

RR 2 (a)

RR 2 (a) s t a t e s t h a t i n i t i a l u- i s deleted in morphemes preceded by t h e &-final p r e f i x e s l i s t e d in t h e rule. By ordinary r u l e s of vowel contraction, sequences of i+a

and at-i across morpheme boundaries r e s u l t i n &

-

morphemic sequences of i+a and

-a-morphemes

include

a

a+i, however,

Certain i n t e r -

r e s u l t i n E. 'Dominant'

(second person object) , 5 ( t h i r d person sub-

j e c t possessor), and ataku ( f i r s t person inclusive p l u r a l object)

When these morphemes a r e preceded by

ti-

.

( i n d i c a t i v e modal p r e f i x ) ,

-

o r t h e i- of t h e discontinuous p r e f i x r e ~ r e s e n t i n gp o t e n t i a l mode

kox.. .i, t h e -

-

combination of i+a r e s u l t s in %. The e f f e c t of t h i s

readjustment is represented i n RR 2 (b).

RR 2 (b)

The rule s t a t e s t h a t f i n a l

-Iof

before t h e specified g-dm.tnnnt

t h e morphemes l i s t e d i s deleted morphemes.

- When t h e 2-dominant morphemes 5 (second person object) and

-a (third

person subject possessor) precede

(preverb, a l t e r n a t e

benefactive prefix), the sequence

acontracts t o x. RR 2 (c)

represents t h e change effected by t h i s readjustment.

It s t a t e s

-

t h a t i n i t i a l i- o f t h e appropriate mor$hemes is deleted when preceded by t h e l i s t e d a-dominant morphemes.

RR 2 (c)

Sequences of

t+t across

dissimilation of t h e f i r s t t t o (benefactive) becomes

us when

morpheme boundaries r e s u l t i n t h e

s,

-

-

yielding stt. The formative u t

it precedes t h e past tense marker E,

although t h e usual conditions which r e s u l t in t h e a s s i b i l a t i o n of

-t a r e

not met.

This readjustment i s symbolized by RR 3.

RR 3

The verb "to be" does not receive concrete phonological representation i n non-subordinate form.

Descriptive (predicate

a d j e c t i v a l ) themes consist of a verb stem and an a b s t r a c t constituent BE.

The presence of the formative

BE determines

the length-

ening ( i f not already long) and reduplication of t h e stem-final vowel. For example, t h e underlying form of the descriptive theme "to be red" is paha.t+BE. -

The form "it is red" surfaces as

.

tipAha.3 ~t Most descriptive themes exhibit surface lengthening and reduplication of the st-final

vowel.

Others, however (e.g.

tara-wig "to be grey", and tareoux "to be green") do not undergo

readjustment.

,+

There i s apparently no h y o f ' p r e d i c t i n g which The readjustment is

descriptive stems are subject t o , t h i s rule. expressed i n transfoniational format by.RR 4.

RR 4

DC?] + 12 Vs

3

BE

4

E3 + lng

1 2 3

b

The r u l e s t a t e s t h a t t h e f i n a l vowel of a verb stem imnediately followed by t h e constituent

2.8

Phonological R u l e s

BE is lengthened

and reduplicated.

Two phonological r u l e s a r e needed t o account f o r t h e

*

behavior of underlying sequences of i d e n t i c a l consonants across morpheme boundaries.

When sequences of

r*s,

3 or

occur across morpheme bounda-

one of t h e two consonants i s deleted.

PR 1 below d e l e t e s

t h e f i r s t member of t h e sequence; t h i s is an a r b i t r a r y choice t h a t has no empirical consequences.

Examples of t h e e f f e c t of t h i s r u l e are: ....

/t i + $ + k ~ t u n + n i n ~ + $ /

I t iku-nino? 1

ad-sbj -dir-pv-vs-prf obj asp

He f e a r s me.

I t d i r i - k + k a *t i - BE+%/ ind-sbj -bp-vs-BE-prf poss asp When sequences of

t+t occur

[&irikati.?lt] Your (sg) eyes a r e black, across morpheme boundaries, the

-

f i r s t t dissimilates t o 2.

..

ind-sbj-dir-vs-prf obj asp

..

.. .

.

.

I ' s t o l e it.

-

-

Underlying morpheme-final n becomes the g l i d e h before

morpheme- initial^, A, &, and

w.

ind-sb j-vs-prf asp

We ( i n c l du) e a t .

ind-sbj-obj-dir-obj-vs-prf poss obj pre asp

I s t o l e yours (ST)

The stops

t and k become

t h e glide

h before

2.

.

Thus, PR 3

and PR 4 account f o r many surface-occurrences of the laryngeal glide.

Examples involving each stop are:

/ i+tat+ni/

litahnip]

/ta+t+atnak+nan+uh+f8l

Itatarahna- nu]

ind-sbj-ind-ind-dir-vs-prf obj nun obj asp Underlying 2 becomes t h e stop

his sister

I gave them t o you (ol)

t following

.

an obstruent.

Similarly, 1 becomes 2 following an obstruent.

4The velar stop

k is deleted

preceding an obstruent.

/tabctaaHwa=waa+0/ ta+x+tak+waewaaS8 ta+&-tak+pa*waa+B ta+~+ta+~a.waa+fl other rules ItAxtapa*wa?a]

PR 5 PR 6 PR 7

The resonant 2 and laryngeal glide when they occur in that sequence.

You ( p l ) eat,

h ordinarily metathesize

Since many prefixes are 2-final,

this rule produces many sequences of the type h+n.

/ ta+t+un+he r+8/ PR 8 ta+t+uh+ne-r+0 other rules Itatuhnel

I am good, handsome-

However, in some environments which cannot yet be characterized adequately, metathesis does not occur.

Fuxther study may indicate

whether failure to metathesize in some environments is due to interaction with other rules.

An example where metathesis does not

operate an the second sequence of

is the following:

/ti+un+hma=nShe.rt.8/ ti+uh+nuna.n+he r+@ other rules [ruhnunanel The land is good.

PR 8

As previously noted, only t h e resonant;

occurs i n morpheme-

i n i t i a l position a t the s y s t e m t i c phonemic l e v e l .

Morpheme-initial

occurrences of r a t t h e phonetic l e v e l are t h e product of PR 9, which states t h a t underlying

= becomes

i n t e m o c a l i c a l l y across

morpheme boundaries.

/ta+t+a+Ilan+uh+0/ PR 9 ta+t+a+ran+uh+0 o t h e r r u l e s [tatara-nu]

I gave them t o you (sg),

The stop 2 becomes t h e b i l a b i a l g l i d e 1 following t h e o b s t r u e n t x , thus assimilating t o t h e value f o r the f e a t u r e continuant of t h e v e l a r s p i r a n t .

/xa.=pax#paha- t /

PR 10 xa*=pax#waha*t

other r u l e s [xa*pAxwahAt1

roan horse

A s evinced by t h e word boundary within t h i s example, PR 10 a p p l i e s

only i n compound forms. The laryngeal g l i d e h i s deleted i n a number of environments, characterized i n p a r t by PR 11, 12, and 13.

is deleted word-finally.

The laryngeal g l i d e

h

PR 11 accounts f o r t h e phonetic absence of

t h e laryngeal g l i d e in word-final position.

/t i + ~ w w u h + 0 / PR 11 t i + W k ~ t 0 t ~ + 0 o t h e r r u l e s [tiku?ul

He gave it t o m e

The laryngeal g l i d e is a l s o deleted before a morpheme-

final consonant o r consonant c l u s t e r i n a verb.

/ ta+t+ahih~+BE+B/ PR 12 other rules

t&t+ahit+8

[ta*t h i t ]

I am f a t .

R e s t r i c t i n g t h i s r u l e t o verbs appears t o be necessary because of t h e l a r g e number of nouns which permit stem-final absolutive s u f f i x

-h before t h e

-8-: /Ziwa&"/

fish -

Igiwaha

The laryngeal g l i d e is deleted following a consonant across morpheme boundaries.

/ ta+lriun+nak+hiwa PR 1 PR 13 other r u l e s

his

ta+lrtu+nak+hiwa-+a ta+xtu+nak+iwa *+b ItAxuna kiwa] You (pl) a r e good.

-

r u l e must be ordered t o precede l a t e truncation rules which

may produce phonetic obstruent+h - c l u s t e r s , as i n the example given f o r PR 12). A fourth r u l e deleting laryngeal g l i d e s is somewhat more complex i n that i t a l s o maps a preceding semivowel.

L onto

i t s corresponding

/we=t i

+fiWd/

PR 14 we=tyunax+fl b e t v x l

H e 'found it.

-

The consonant c l u s t e r - t k i s simplified before word boun-

Qry by t h e deletion of t h e second consonant.

/ta+t+lkut+na-ni- hitk+B/.

PR 4 takt+&-uhfna-ni. h i t H 0 PR U ta+t+0tuk+na0ni. hit+fl Itatuhna-ni-hit]

I smudged him.

-

The velar s t o p k becomes t i n word-final position.

/we=ta+t+ht+e* rik+b/ PR 16 we=ta+t+&ut+e- r i t + @ other r u l e s rwetatu. te. rIt]

I saw him.

The resonants n and r a r e deleted i n word-final position.

/t aSt+un+he*r+b/ PR 8 ta+t+uh+ne.r+8 PR 1 7 ta+t+uh-he.+b other r u l e s Itatuhne]

I a m good, handsome.

-

Word-final t i s optionally deleted following unstressed s h o r t vowels.

/niwi t /

PR 18 niwi other r u l e s [niwI]

skunk

Four r u l e s are needed t o account f o r regular vowel contraction.

The f i r s t of these r u l e s , PR 19, d e l e t e s _I before

u.

As

noted above, t h i s r u l e has apparently removed a l l intramorpheme

i u sequences by l e x i c a l restructuring. -

Ex

- -

PR 19

[2J-01.

PR19 other r u l e s

-

Iti+Wbtuaiainotb/ -*in4 [tuuino?]

He f e a r s him.

PR 19 does not apply before the absolutive s u f f i x -2. /am/ other rules

awiu [awiu?]

image, p i c t u r e

In sequences of vowels across morpheme boundaries i n which one element i s high and the other low, the values mutually assimilate t o produce long mid-vowels.

PR 20

PR 21

Sequences of i d e n t i c a l vowels collapse t o a s i n g l e long

vowel >y PR 22.

The following examples r w e a l t h e e f f e c t s of PR 20, 21,

and 22.

PR PR PR PR

20 21 22 3 other r u l e s

/ t a + t + d t a u . t+0/ ta+t+aSon+fi&tau- t+b ta+t+o+on+btau. t+0 ta+t+o-n+tau*t+$ t*t+o*h+tau-t* Itatchta?ut]

/ti+k?karik+fl/ PR 20 tekfiarilct.8 PR 21 te+%-teriHfi PR 22 te-rilci-fi PR 1 6 t e * r i t + b other r u l e s I t e - r ~ t ]

I s t o l e yours (sg).

He i s standing,

/ti+jf+kn+m+nimtpI/

PR 1 PR 22 other r u l e s

ti+btku+u-hinot.0 ti+hku*+pino+b Itiku- nino?]

He f e a r s me,

Two r u l e s shorten long vowels i n certain environments.

The

f i r s t of these, PR 23, prohibits long vowels i n word-final position.

PR 8 PR 17 PR 23

/ta+t+un+he 13-81 ta+t+uh+ne'. r+0 ta+t+uh+ne +0 ta+t+uh+ne Itatuhne]

--

I am good, handsome.

PR 24 prohibits long vowels i n closed syllables.

v

1-

lngl

I

/t*t+a+m+%+tau= t+@/ t*t+ztton+%+tau- t+b PR 21 ta+t+ocon+&tau. t+0 PR 22 t*t+o.n+fhtau.t+fl PR 3 t*t+o*h-f%+tau*t+b PR 24 t*t+oh+&-taut+$ other r u l e s Itatohta?ut]

PR 20

I s t o l e yours (sg).

A s noted previously, g l o t t a l stop does not occur as a systematic phoneme.

Two rules, PR 25 and PR 26, provide epenthetic

g l o t t a l stops at t h e phonetic level, PR 25

PR 25 i n s e r t s a g l o t t a l stop between i d e n t i c a l vowels; note t h a t it must be ordered t o follow PR 22.

It also i n s e r t s a g l o t t a l stop

between a vowei and a following long vowel, and between a vowel and

- a following non-back vowel. /kataro -piiE!/ PR 25 kataro * p i p i 8 Ikataro p i pix]

/ ti+ku+pax+naa n+hu/ t i+ku+pa&taa n+hu PR 5 PR 25 ti+kut-p&ta aonthu other r u l e s ItikupAxta?a-nu 1

Automobile

My head aches.

Salt -

PR 26 inserts a g l o t t a l stop a f t e r a s h o r t vowel i n wordf i n a l position.

This r u l e must precede PR 23 which shortens a long

vowel in word-final position. d e l e t e s word-final

PR 26 must-also precede PR 11, which

h.

Thus, a l l f i n a l vowels t h a t derive f r a n underlying short vowels a r e followed phonetically by g l o t t a l stop, while f i n a l s h o r t vowels t h a t derive from underlying long vowels a r e not.

The placement of stress i n Arikara appears t o be exceedingly complex, and a t this time, no s a t i s f a c t o r y statement of rules of

stress placement can be given.

S t r e s s placement is c l o s e l y r e l a t e d

t o problems of vowel devoicing and secondary vowel lengthening.

All

of these phenomena require f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n before f i n a l phonetic fonns can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y accounted f o r .

An examination of verb paradigms i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s i n g l e primary stress must be recognized in any simple verb form ( t h a t does n o t contain an incorporated noun), i r r e s p e c t i v e of its length and constituent complexity.

The unmarked p o s i t i o n f o r primary stress

is on t h e final vowel of the verb stem.

Primary stress may never

be s h i f t e d rightward of the verb stem, but other f a c t o r s , thus f a r poorly understood, may move primary s t r e s s a s f a r l e f t a s the preverb. forms.

Primary s t r e s s may never f a l l l e f t of t h e preverb i n such Location of primary s t r e s s i s signalled primarily by a

r a i s e d p i t c h norm, with possible secondary amplitude d i f f e ~ e n c e s . Other than t h e s y l l a b l e t h a t c a r r i e s primary .stress, remaining syll a b l e s a r e characterized by n e u t r a l pitch. These generalizations do not hold t r u e f o r verb forms with incorporated noun stem, however.

In incorporated forms, one primary

stress o r d i n a r i l y f a l l s on the f i n a l vowel of t h e verb stem, a s is t h e case i n unincorporated forms.

Another primary stress a l s o f a l l s

o r d i n a r i l y on t h e noun stem, generally on t h e same s y l l a b l e t h a t i s s t r e s s e d in independent noun stems.

However, i t appears t o be t h e

case t h a t a stress-adjustment r u l e may prevent primary s t r e s s from

f a l l i n g qn.both noun and verb stems, i f t h i s would r e s u l t i n two primary s t r e s s e s before word boundary. involving t h e same verb theme u t

...te, "to

like". r r a t n i s t 31

/tatt+fiin+ni+~t+t&-0/

ind-sbj-dir-pfx-pv-vs-prf obj

Compare t h e two forms

I l i k e it, him.

asp

ind-sbj-pfx-pv-dir-vs-prf obj asp

I l i k e t h e house-

Up t o t h r e e primary s t r e s s e s may f a l l on forms with incorporated .

norms stems; i n these forms, one primary s t r e s s may occur t o the l e f t of the noun stem. /ta+t+@-un+huna*n+tau.

t+O/

ind-sbj-obj-obj-dir-vs-prf poss pre obj asp

[tat&un:hta?ut]

/

I s t o l e h i s land.

A t present no decision can be made whether primary s t r e s s placement

is c y c l i c a l and s e n s i t i v e to constituent s t r u c t u r e , o r i s determined by one o r more word-level r u l e s . The unmarked position f o r primary s t r e s s i n noun stems a l s o appears t o be on t h e stem-final vowel.

No matter how many s y l l a b l e s

t h e stem contains, primary s t r e s s always f a l l s on the stem-final vowel of nouns t h a t take the absolutive suffixes -2 o r

-r.

Primary

stress on nouns t h a t do not take one of these two s u f f i x e s tends t o b e penultimate. Undoubtedly t h e problem of vowel devoicing cannot be understood u n t i l stress placement, devoicing, and secondary vowel lengthening are studied as intimately related phenomena.

Voiceless

counterparts exist only f o r /a/, /i/,. and /u/. . When it is observed t h a t surface s h o r t vowels which derive from underlying long vowels may never devoice, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a r e no voiceless

Ie]

or

101

strongly suggests t h a t these vowels are t h e product of e i t h e r synchronic contractions of underlying vowel sequences, o r t h a t they t r u l y derive from underlying /e/ o r /o/ which represent f o s s i l i z e d contractions.

V o w e l s which receive primary stress never devoice.

It is

undoubtedly t h e case t h a t stress placement precedes vowel devoicing. Because surface s h o r t vowels t h a t derive from underlying long vowels

are never subject t o devoicing, it a l s o seems t o be the c a s e that devoicing must precede shortening. Devoicing occurs automatically i n unstressed short vowels t h a t precede word boundary. between v o i c e l e s s [A], voiced Ia]

, [i], and

There is a contrast i n t h i s position

111, and [Ul , voiced

[a], [i], and [u'J Y and

[u] followed by g l o t t a l stop:

/pitku/

IpitkUl

TWO

1ti+%+k*6t~H%/

Itiku?u]

He gave it t o me.

[huna nu? I

land

ind-sbj-ind-dir-vs-prf obj obj asp /huna -n+u/

Surface s h o r t vowels followed by g l o t t a l stop derive from underlying s h o r t vowels; i n s e r t i o n of the g l o t t a l stop is accounted f o r by PR 26.

Final surface s h o r t vowels a r e presunably derived from underlying s h o r t vowel+&, as revealed in t h e example above.

More commonly,

hatever, f i n a l s h o r t vowels appear devoiced when not followed by

g l o t t a l stop.

In some cases, t h e argunent may be made on compara-

t i v e grounds t h a t phonetically f i n a l voiceless vowels a r e followed by a consonant.

However, these f i n a l consonants a r e not recoverable

synchronically i n Arikara.

In other cases it is p l a i n t h a t voice-

less f i n a l vowels derive from underlying short vowels, a s i n the following examples : /wa wa+i%a /

.

[wa we ~ A I

t o pound

[ta?u- tI]

to steal

vs-sub suf /tau- t+i/ vs-sub suf (Note i n t h e examples t h a t subordinating suffixes c o n s t i t u t e an exception t o t h e regular r u l e of f i n a l g l o t t a l insertion). On t h e b a s i s of examples l i k e tiku?u, "he gave i t t o me,"

it seems t o be t h e case t h a t f i n a l underlying

h protects

t h e stem-

f i n a l vowel from undergoing devoicing; thus, devoicing must precede PR 11, which deletes h i n word-f

ihal

position.

However, t h e r e a r e

a few cases i n which t h e f i n a l vowel of verb stem t h a t end i n

h

may be optionally devoiced when the stem is not followed by a n overtly-represented s u f f i x (constrast naopihu?, imperfective form of "to buy," with = * p i o r na.pI, perfective).

We suggest t h a t the

phonological r u l e s must be applied in the order g l o t t a l insertion,

-

devoicing, and h-deletion, with optional reapplication of devoicing

-

a f t e r h-deletion. No d e f i n i t i v e explanation can be offered a t present t o t h e contrast between f i n a l voiceless and p l a i n voiced vowels.

Interaction

with stress, o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of l o c a l rule-ordering, c o n s t i t u t e possible f u t u r e approaches t o t h i s problem.

2.9

Problems

The preceding s e c t i o n s of t h i s chapter a r e intended primarily as a b r i e f sketch of Arikata phonology which will a i d t h e reader i n following underlying and surface forms c i t e d in the remaining chapIt i s obvious from the forms and examples c i t e d t h a t many

ters.

questions regarding t h e phonological component of a grammar of Arikara remain t o be answered.

Especially t h e problems of stress

placement, vowel devoicing, and secondary vowel-lengthening r e q u i r e f u r t h e r intensive study. Other substantive problems t h a t a r e only mentioned here include t h e d e l e t i o n of an i n i t i a l underlying i- i n some noun stems, t h e r e p l a c ~ l e n tof an underlying f i n a l -t - by g l o t t a l stop i n both verb and noun stems, onset development i n noun stems, and exceptions t o t h e regular r u l e of degemination of

nfn across morpheme boundaries.

A small number of nouns has an i n i t i a l s i n independent form, but when these nouns a r e preceded by another morpheme in i n f l e c t i o n o r derivation, an underlying i n i t i a l i- i s revealed. /na+isaru* x+tafwa*Cwi/

[ne saruxtawa~wi]

h i s cheeks

sub-bp-loc-dis-sub pfx suf cheek

.

/isu*n+u/

Jxe-su-nu?]

rust-colored horse

Isu*nu?J

'porcupine

/xa*#isahniW/

b e sahnig]

Indian pony

/is*iW/

fs a h n i a

Indian, R e e '

-

An i n i t i a l unstressed i- is not always deleted, however, as shown

by forms l i k e i s a t a - u ? , "bread".

-i- in some cases and n o t

The reason f o r d e l e t i o n of initial

o t h e r s is not immediately apparent.

It

seems s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r e a r e r e l a t i v e l y few noun o r verb stems t h a t begin with g. Another f e a t u r e which requires f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n is t h e

-

replacement of underlying t by g l o t t a l s t o p phonetically i n a number of forms: /ati+pat/ ..

/eat/ Taylor (1963a: 126) looking."

Iat ips?]

my grandfather

Iapa?]

your grandfather

a l s o c i t e s t h e phonetic form t i r e - w a ? "he i s

The writer c o l l e c t e d t h i s same form with f i n a l phonetic

t, p o s s i b l e

evidence of d i a l e c t v a r i a t i o n .

A number of nouns develop a laryngeal g l i d e o r g l o t t a l onset before an initial underlying unstressed vowel.

Some examples

of t h i s development are:

/*ax/

Iha

/i*i/

Ihi?axti?]-

h i s father

/itkanahtu. stu/

b I t k a n a h t u - su?]

ashes

/isis/

IhIsisI

spider

/axdrwiet+u/

a?

Ax]

1?axwi*tu?]

This f e a t u r e cannot be predicted at present.

your f a t h e r

hoof

-

Sequences of nSn o r d i n a r i l y result i n t h e ' d e l e t i o n of t h e

i n i t i a l member of the sequence (PR 1). Certain instances of t h e p r e f i x combination ini-ni c o n s t i t u t e an exception t o this rule.

The

sequence of prefixes in-I-ni4-w found i n possessive constructions conf o m t o t h e degemination rule (see Chapter V I , section 4).

In

the sequence of prefixes a+in+ni, where 2 is t h e i r r e g u l a r t h i r d

-

person subject pronoun (see Chapter 111, section 5), t h e f i n a l -n

-

of t h e p r e f i x in becmes the laryngeal g l i d e

&:

/ t i+a+in+ni+ku+ut+halc+t au t+%/ ind-sb j -pf x-ind-ben-dir-ind-vs-prf obj obj asp [tehnikuhnahta?ut 1

He s t o l e i t f o r us (excl pl).

This f a c t i s probably expressible as a readjustment r u l e , but i s l e f t here a s a problem which requires f a t h e r investigation, along with t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the i r r e g u l a r t h i r d person subject forms. 2.10

Boundaries and Notation The Chomsky-Halle version of boundary theory admits a t least

t h r e e d i s t i n c t boundary types: a universal formative boundary symbolized as

+,

a second universal boundary, t h e word boundary #, and

a t h i r d boundary, required f o r an adequate treatment of English phonology, symbolized a s

r.

The formative boundary (+) is the weakest i n t h e ChomskyHalle hierarchy.

The formative boundary is p a r t of t h e representa-

t i o n of every formative i n the lexicon (Chomsky and Halle 1968:364), and in t h i s respect d i f f e r s from word boundary, which Chomsky and Halle claim is inserted i n t o t h e phonological s t r i n g by a universal

rule (Chamsky and Halle 1968:366).

The t h i r d (=) boundary in t h e

Chomsky-Halle hierarchy is intermediate i n s t r e n g t h between t h e formative and word boundaries, and is motivated on t h e b a s i s of s p e c i a l boundary phenomena in English (Chamsky and Halle 1968:371).

In t h i s study, 5 and f a r e adopted t o symbolize formative and word boundaries respectively, a s i n t h e Chomsky-Halle system. The s y m b o l r is reserved t o designate p r o c l i t i c boundaries, which must be distinguished from the other boundary types because pro-

clitics a r e n o t subject t o phonological processes. . ment in phonological processes

formative classes.

Lack of involve-

sets p r o c l i t i c s a p a r t from o t h e r

The p r o c l i t i c boundary 2 i s therefore useful t o

characterize the loose integration of p r o c l i t i c s i n t o the verbal form. Arikara e G P l e s provided i n the t e x t a r e set off by s l a s h e s (/ /) designating underlying forms, and brackets ( designating phonetic forms.

1]

)

In the separate t a b l e s , underlying

forms a r e enclosed i n slashes, but the accompanying phonetic forms a r e n o t distinguished by any d i a c r i t i c marks.

Since we a r e n o t

presently a b l e t o predict vowel devoicing by regular r u l e , devoiced vowels a r e indicated i n phonetic forms b y upper-case l e t t e r s .

Chapter 111

3.1 Introduction This chapter presents a description of basic syntactic constructions i n Arikara.

It is concerned only with characteri-

zing t h e surface forms of basic i n t r a n s i t i v e and t r a n s i t i v e sentences.

The analysis of t h e abstract structures underlying

these surface forms constitutes t h e subject matter of t h e following chapter.

W e have characterized Arikara typologically as a fusional, polysynthetic incorporating language.

Not unlike other American

Indian languages, Arikara verb forms contain various grammatical elements which represent u n i t s of meaning derived from associated nouns.

The derivation of surface sentences from the deep struc-

tures underlying them consists i n l a r g e p a r t of transformational processes which move information 'from associated noun nodes i n t o t h e verb. I n Arikara, information pertaining t o the person, case ( i n t h e broad sense of "gramnatical functionf'), and number of subjects and objects is represented i n surface s t r u c t u r e s by pronominal and other p r e f i x a l elements &thin t h e verb.

It i s t h e

t a s k of this chapter t o outline t h e representation of these grammatical categories i n t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences. I n t r a n s i t i v e constructions have only one primary noun phrase, t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject, associated with the verb.

Intransitive

constructions are therefore simpler than transitive ones, which minimally contain two primary noun phrases associated with the verb

in the functions of transitive subject and transitive object. The theoretical problem arising from the representation

of intransitive subjects in surface sentences is discussed in Chapter V.

Suffice it to say here that the pronouns which represent

transitive subjects and transitive objects form two distinct sets. Intransitive constructions fall into two sub-types, depending upon whether the intransitive subject is represented by the same

- set of pronouns employed to mark the transitive subject , or by the second set of pronouns employed to mark the transitive object. Thus, while the subject and object pronouns employed in transitive clauses are fundamentally distinct, intransitive subjects may be represented in surface sentences by the pronominal forms of either set. We refer to this phenomenon as split-intransitivity (Heath 1974).

Intransitive verbs whose subjects are represented by subject

pronouns are termed "active intransitives"; intransitive verbs whose subjects are represented by object pronouns are termed "stative '

intransitives

3.2

."

Active Intransitives The subjects of active intransitive verbs are represented

by the following proncnninal forms: First person singular:

Second person singular: Third person singular:

-t -x -6

F i r s t person exclusive dual:

.

Y

si.. t

F i r s t person inclusive dual:

sin

Second person dual:

E i o .x

Third person dual:

Y

F i r s t person exclusive plural:

t.. .nak

F i r s t person inclusive plural:

ta.. .nak

Second person plural:

x.. .nak

Third person plural:

in.. .8

l

si.. .0

(The following abbreviations a r e used h e r e a f t e r i n a l l t a b l e s and examples t o - r e f e r t o these forms: f i r s t person singu-

lar, 1 sg; second person singular, 2 sg; t h i r d person singular, 3 sg; f i r s t person exclusive dual, 1 excl du; f i r s t person inclusive dual, 1 i n c l du; second person dual, 2 du; t h i r d person dual, 3 du; f i r s t person exclusive p l u r a l , 1 excl p l ; f i r s t person inclusive p l u r a l , 1 i n c l p l ; second person p l u r a l , 2 pl; t h i r d person plural, 3 pl]. Several observations may be made about these pronominal forms.

Elements representing the categories of person and num-

ber are c l e a r l y distinguishable i n most cases. consistently represented by

L, except

F i r s t person is

in t h e f i r s t person inclu-

s i v e dual; second person is represented by IL, except in the f i r s t person inclusive p l u r a l and t h e f i r s t person inclusive dual, where second person i n conjunction with f i r s t person i s otherwise represented; t h i r d person is represented by g i n t h e singular and dual

forms, and by

in t h e p l u r a l forms.

P l u r a l nlnnber is separately marked f o r f i r s t and second

In t h e t h i r d person p l u r a l , gramna-

persons by the prefix*.

t i c a l categories of person and number a r e coded by a s i n g l e sur-

face fonn. The p r o c l i t i c

% co-occurs

with t h e markers of f i r s t ,

second, and t h i r d persons t o mark dual number. marked by

g i in a l l forms

Dual number is

except t h e f i r s t person inclusive dual.

Person markers i n t h e verb precede number markers (except t h e proclitic

8%)in a l l cases where

the two are d i s t i n c t .

A paradigm of the a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb theme wa-waa "to eat" is presented i n Table 3.1. of a simple verb stem.

The theme wa-waa is composed

Active i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes may a l s o

be complex stems composed of preverb and verb stem.

Illustrating

t h e pronominal i n f l e c t i o n of a complex a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb

.

theme is the paradigm of un. .he o

r

"to be good" i n Table 3.2.

The p l u r a l number stem form i n the paradigm, 9-hiwag

i s suppletive.

-

The element -wa* of the suppletive p l u r a l form is found elsewhere with a d i s t r i b u t i v e meaning.

I n complex themes, person markers

precede the preverb, and number markers follow i t .

I n Table 3.2,

the t h i r d person p l u r a l is not overtly represented when the supp l e t i v e stem i t s e l f expresses p l u r a l i t y of t h e subject.

In addition t o E, another d i s t r i b u t i v e marker which occurs

i n p l u r a l n u n b e r forms of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e and other verb themes is

E.

The singular form of t h e verb stem "to sit down" is w i . t i k ;

t h e f o k of the stem f o r nonsingular subjects i s vinru. t i k .

Table 3.2 Active Intransitive Paradigm, un... hear "to be good"

aSb3 1 sg

tatuhne

I am good

2 sg

tAxuhne

you (sn) are good

3 sg

t uhne

he is good

1 excl du

Xitatuhne

we (excl du) are good

1 incl du

t s ihne

we (incl du) are good

2 du

k! it~xuhne

you (du) are good

3 du

%ituhne

they (du) are good

tatuna-kiwa

we (excl pl) are good

Du &l -

P1 *+$/

1 excl pl

/ta+t+u&ak+hiwa

1 incl pl

/ ta+ta+un+nak+hiwa +fb/

tato*na.kiwa

we (incl pl) are good

2 Pl

/ta+x+un+nak+hiwag+@/

tAxuna~kiwa

you (pl) are good

3 Pl

/ ti+&un+hiwa-+$/

tuhniwa

they (pl) are good

Some active i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes have only a single nonsingular suppletive stem forms; others have separate suppletive dual and plural stems

&.

, at

"to go", singular subject;

wan,

The use of suppletive stem

dual subjects; wo, plural subjects).

forms and d i s t r i b u t i v e markers to indicate nonsingular subject number is limited t o the active i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm; no examples have been found of suppletive nonsingular stems of s t a t i v e intrans i t i v e verb themes. The modal marker agrees with person features of the a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject.

The indicative modal marker in forms with

non-third person subjects is subjects, it is

3.3

z-;in

forms with third person

ti-.

Stative Intransitives 'Rre pronominal forms employed t o represent the subjects

of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes a r e the following:

1 sg 2 sg

3 sg 1 excl du 1 i n c l du

ku a 0 Y

si.. .ku

saku -

2 du

w

3 du

zi.. .0

1 excl p l

h...nak

1i n c l p l

ataku.. .nak

2 PI

a.. .nak

3 PI

in.. .nak

si.. .a

A paradlgm i l l u s t r a t i n g the i n f l e c t i o n of t h e stative i n t r a n s i t i v e verb theme hisf-ta-hi:

"to be thirsty" is presented

in Table 3.3.

The set of pronouns employed t o represent s t a t i v e intrans i t i v e subjects is, with the a c e p t i o n of the t h i r d person plural, the same set t h a t marks the objects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs.

The

t h i r d person p l u r a l is represented i n s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e s by the person marker

and t h e number marker

e; the t h i r d person

p l u r a l (animate) object of t r a n s i t i v e verbs i s represented by ak with no separate marker of person.

-9

I n the a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e

paradigm, e m a r k s plural number of f i r s t and second persons.

Only i n the s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm i s &c

employed t o

pluralize a l l three persons.

In the a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm, the form of the indicative modal marker

ti- co-occurs

with third person subjects.

In

t h e s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm, a l l persons co-occur with the ti-

. . .

form of the indicative modal marker. Only one complex s t a t i v e verb theme (un.. .na=xih "to be

sick") occurs i n t h e data; all others a r e simple stems.

A number

of s t a t i v e stems a r e clearly morphologically related t o complex t r a n s i t i v e verb themes

(x. nino , "to

be afraid," s t a t i v e ; un...nino

"to fear," transitive). For the most part, s t a t i v e themes designates "states" or "conditions

,"r a t h e r

than "processes" (see Chapter V)

.

.

. %.

3.4

Inchoative Aspect of Descriptive Verb Themes Descriptive verb themes a r e distinguished by t h e presence

of an underlying a b s t r a c t formative BE, which i n most cases cond i t i o n s t h e lengthening and reduplication of t h e stem-final vowel

(see p. 43). Descriptive verbs form t h e inchoative aspect with t h e s t a t i v e

-

i n t r a n s i t i v e theme a - n "to become" (morphologically r e l a t e d t o t h e complex verb theme ut.. t i v e stem.

.a.n

"to do") suffixed t o t h e descrip-

In a l l aspects but t h e inchoative, the s u b j e c t s of

descriptive verb themes are represented by t h e subject pronouns.

In t h e inchoative aspect (inch), d e s c r i p t i v e stems a r e i n f l e c t e d with the object pronouns t h a t a r e employed i n the i n f l e c t i o n of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb themes. The following p a r t i a l paradigms of t h e descriptive themes

--

na.nih&B~ - "to be old", and ahiht+BE "to be fat", i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r i n f l e c t i o n i n t h e perfective aspect.

/we= ta+t+na nihZ+~E+b/

IwetAhna-nih?!]

I am old.

[wemta=nih8]

You (sg) a r e old.

iwetira-nihx]

H e is old.

adv-ind-sbj-vs-BE-prf proc asp /we=ta+&na. nihx+~E+B/ proc

-

asp

/we=t i + h a.nih&BE+@/ adv-ind-sbj-vs-BE-prf proc UP

/we=ta+t+mi-na*nih~+~~+@/ [wetatuxta=nih8] I was old.

adv-ind-sbj-pas-vs-BE-prf proc

asp

/we=ta+xkdaa*nihaB~e/

Cweti9mucta=nihx]

Y

Cwetwrta nihzl

He was old.

Eta*thitl

I am fat.

adv-ind-sbj-pas-vs-BE-prf proc asp /we=ti+fhxha-nih%~~+Ib/

(sg) were old.

-

adv-ind-sbj-pas-vs-BE-prf proc asp

/ ta+t+ahiht+BE*/

?ou (sg) are fat.

-

Re is fat.

In the following examples in the inchoative aspect, the object pronouns represent the subject, and the stative stem is suffixed to the descriptive stem.

/we=ti+ktrtaa.nihW&*n+hu/

Cwetikura - n ~ ~ a = n u ?Ilam getting old.

-

adv-ind-sbj-vs-inch-imp proc asp /we=ti+afna-nihU& .n+hu/

[wetaraon~Ea -nu?]

you (sg) are getting old.

adv-ind-sb j-vs-inch-imp proc asp /we=ti+&m *nihue+a-n+hu/

Cwetira*n~~a*nu?l He is getting old.

adv-ind-sbj-vs-inch-imp proc asp /we=ti+ku+ahih t+a *a).hu/ adv-ind-sbj-vs-inch-imp proc asp

Ewetikoh1ta=nu?3

I am getting fat.

!we= t i+a+ahiht+a n+hu/

[weta*h~ta*nu?]

You (sg) a r e getting fat.

adv-ind-sb j-vs-inch-imp proc asp

proc

.3.5

asp

Person Agreement i n Transitive Verbs Transitive verb themes a r e i n f l e c t e d t o agree with two pri-

mary noun constituents in the functions of t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object. Pronouns in the verb marking subject person always precede those marking object person.

Markers of object number occur i n

surface structures i n a position immediately preceding the verb

stem.

In complex stems object number markers occur between the

preverb and verb stem. The t r a n s i t i v e object is always represented by the same obj e c t pronouns employed i n the i n f l e c t i o n of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e s , with the exception of the t h i r d person p l u r a l forms.

The t h i r d

-

person g l u r a l d i r e c t object form i s ak f o r animate d i r e c t objects,

nan f o r inanimate d i r e c t -

objects.

Person of t h e - t r a n s i t i v e subject i s represented by the same subject pronouns employed i n the i n f l e c t i o n o f . a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e s , with t h e exception of the f i r s t person inclusive plural. f i r s t person is represented by

t in

Thus,

t h e f i r s t person singular, f i r s t

person exclusive dual, and f i r s t person exclusive plural; second person 'is represented by x i n the second person singular, second

person dual, and second person plural; t h i r d person is represented

-

by $ i n t h e t h i r d person singular, dual, and p l u r a l (with nont h i r d objects); t h i r d person p l u r a l is represented by % w i t h t h i r d person objects; person of t h e f i r s t person inclusive dual

and p l u r a l are represented by

sin.

Number of t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject is not represented as is number of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e subjects.

Instead, in t r a n s i t i v e

paradigms, dual and p l u r a l subject number a r e neutralized, and t h e dual is marked.

Nonsiugular number (dual and plural) of t r a n s i t i v e

subjects is thus marked by t h e p r o c l i t i c dual-marker

zi.

Because

of neutralization of dual-plural number, many t r a n s i t i v e verb forms may have several interpretations, depending

upon whether

3 is

construed t o represent dual or p l u r a l number of t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject. S i is a l s o employed t o mark dual number of j e c t s ; however,

& may

t r a n s i t i v e ob-

occur only once i n any surface form.

t h i s reason, verbal forms containing readings, depending upon whether

zi may

For

have several additional

is interpreted t o represent

number of t h e t r a n s i t i v e object, of t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject, o r both. Representation of t h i r d person categories i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigms requires 'special comment.

are represented by represented by

8,

fi.

Third person singular objects are a l s o generally

but may be represented by t h e obviative marker

i n (designating a "second" singular subjects.

Third person singular subjects

t h i r d person) i n forms with t h i r d person

The obviative marker never occurs i n t r a n s i t i v e

fonns with f i r s t o r second person subjects. Person of t h e third person p l u r a l t r a n s i t i v e subject is represented by

-0 i n

forms with non-third person d i r e c t objects.

With t h i r d person (singular o r nonsingular) d i r e c t objects, person

of t h e t h i r d person plural is represented by

&.

The object pronouns i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigms a r e the following:

2 Sg

ku -a

3 sg

0

1s g

.

1 excl du

Y

1 i n c l du

saku

2 du

Y

3 du

Y

1 excl p l

ku.. .nak

1i n c l p l

ataku...nak

2 PI

a. .nak

3 p l (anim)

0.. .ak

3 p l (inanim)

0. .nan

si. .ku

si.. .a si..

.8

.

.

The subject pronouns i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigms a r e the following:

2 sg

-t X

3 sg

-0

1sg

1 excl du

1 i n c l du 2 du

Y

si.. .t

sin Y

si.. .x

3 du

li.. .fl

lexclpl

Y

l i n d p l

Hi...sin

si...t

Y

si.. .x

2 PI

3 PI

li.. .$

(non-third objects)

3 p2

Y

( t h i r d objects)

si.. .in

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 present t h e possible subject-object combinations in t r a n s i t i v e paradigms.

Forms with singular subjects

are presented in 3.4 and forms with dual o r p l u r a l subjects in 3.5. Subject forms are separated from following object forms by a hyphen (-) where possible.

I n some cases it is not possible t o separate

subject and objects forms i n t h i s way because

3, since

i t occurs

in p r o c l i t i c position, i n many instances i s separated from the

object person marker whose number i t represents. surf ace occurrence of and obj ect

.

Also, a s i n g l e

3 may be marking number of

Theref ore, i n cases -where

3 does not

both subject represent number

f e a t u r e s of t h e immediately following subject pronoun only, it is simply set off by hyphens.

Forms with c o r e f e r e n t i a l subject and object a r e indicated

in t h e c h a r t as r e f l e x i v e (ref 1 ) ; r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n is discussed i n the following section.

Forms which do n o t occur because of par-

t i a l l y overlapping membership of person f e a t u r e s in t h e subject and object a r e indicated by a series of hyphens (-

)

Animate

d i r e c t object forms are abbreviated (ah); inanimate d i r e c t object

forms are abbreviated (inanim)

.

Table 3.4 Subject-Object Pronominal Combinations i n T r a n s i t i v e Paradigms Singular Subject

ref1 t-a

t-0

x-ku ref 1 x-8

0-ku 0-a

0-lb

0-in (obv) ref 1

1 e x c l du 1 i n c l du 2 du 3 du

1 excl p l 1 incl pl 2 Pl 3 Pl

---------

..nak t-0. ..ak (anim) t-0 ...nan (inanim)

t-a.

x-ku...nak

-----

----x-0. x-0.

..ak (anim) ..nan (inanim)

$9-ku.. .nak (8-ataku. .nak @-a. .nak 9 4 . . .ak (anim) $94..nan (inanim)

. .

.

..

P

m

u

cr)

I-l

a d

l d

u

0 a8

aC c

2 7 a

OH iG ? 0& 1-1"G O &

@I

U

0 al

d

r

l

g I-l G

d

a c

I

I

I

-*

-

*

.

1 drl I %%a

1

am 1

1

1-1 1 U U V l l 1 l al 1 d r l

I Xo'W

I

-

.

.

4 1 . . a W I 0 . . al 1 rlrlrl

rc

l%fJ%%o

Table 3.6 presents the paradigm of t h e t r a n s i t i v e verb "to fear".

theme un...nino

Singular subject forms are presented

before dual and p l u r a l subject forms.

In t h e few cases where dual

and p l u r a l subject forms d i f f e r , they a r e l i s t e d separately in the table. The t r a n s i t i v e paradigm i n Table 3.6 may be termed a "regular1' t r a n s i t i v e paradigm.

A small number of t r a n s i t i v e verbs

d i f f e r from t h e regular paradigm in pronominal i n f l e c t i o n f o r t h i r d person subjects.

Some of these verbs a l s o exhibit additional

prefixes which vary with object person throughout t h e ~aradigm.

An example of an "irregular" t r a n s i t i v e is the verb theme ut...te

"to like".

The singular subject forms of the verb s u f f i c e

t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r r e g u l a r i t y ; they a r e presented i n Table 3.7. addition t o the preverb and verb stem, an additional p r e f i x

In

in

precedes the preverb i n a l l forms with t h i r d person subjects and non-third objects, and i n a l l forms with non-third subjects and objects.

I n forms with non-third subjects and t h i r d person objects,

the sequence of prefixes i m k d precedes t h e preverb.

I n forms

with t h i r d person subjects and objects, t h e prefix in precedes t h e preverb, and the t h i r d person subject is represented by the pronominal form a.

These observations may be smmarized a s follows:

subject and object person subjects of a l l persons acting on non-third objects non-third subjects acting on t h i r d person obj ects t h i r d subjects acting on t h i r d person objects

prefix

in in+ni -

in (with

"irregular" subject f o m a)

\\=\

\

as.+=

+0 +0 2 $

\%

a a c E G G rl+ C r l % % E C + C C C + + & + +-I4 E c 0 2

' h 3a3scta

l$ $a5r2r+ ,w3 3 + + 3 7

tu tuxam 3 4 tui ut

\\\\\\

n

kQM33r-44

m a a a aa

4

4 0

0

kQWX 7 X r i 01.0 P) a

m m

3 3 3 g aa

4 rl

G44

4 rl

aa

2

0 0

bObObDbO# 7 3 X E d 4 UJ a m m a ~ r l a a P)+ aa

N 0 N 0 N m

4mr-4040

4 N m 0 4 4 N m 4 F l N m

4 4 4 4 4 4

NNNNNN

000000000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Table 3.6 (cont)

Gloss -

1 e x c l dufpl-2 s g 1 e x c l dulpl-3 ag 1incl 1incl 1excl 1 excl 1incl 1incl 1excl 1excl 1incl

du-3 s g pl-3 s g dulpl-2 dulpl-3 du-3 du pl-3 du dulpl-2 dulpl-3 pl-3 p l

du du pl pl

2 dufpl-1 s g 2 dulpl-3 s g 2 dulpl-1 e x c l du 2 dulpl-1 e x c l p l 2 dulpl-3 p l

excl 'du i n c l du du

/gi-tatt+a+un+ninot8/ /gi- t a t t+&untninotB/ / ta+sin+&un+nino+fl/ /gi=ta+sin+8tun+nino+fl/ /gi=ta+t+a+un+ninotfl/ /iY'i=ta+t+Wun+nino+jO/ /gi=ta+sin+@tun+ninotfl/ t a+s int$%untnino+fl/ /~i=tatt+atun+nak+nino+fl/ /ta+sin+&untak+nino+~ /8i=ta+sin+&un+aktnino+fl/

/xi=

1gi=t a+x+kufun+nino+fl/ /~i=ta+x+@tun+nino+fl/ /gi=t a + x + k u t u n + n J n ~ ~ / /gin t a+xt8tun+nino+fl/ /lfi~ta+x+lbtun+ak+nino+fl/

fear you (sgl

%itato*nino? llitatunino? tsionino? gitsi-nino? gitato*nino? gitatunino? Hitsi.nino7 gitai*nino? !$ita t o nahnino? t si n ~ h n i n o ? 8it s i n ~ h n i n o ?

we we we we we we we we we we we

git~xku~nino?

$I' t ~ x u n ~ h n i n o ?

you you you you you

gitiku-nino? b'ito nino? B'i tuninof ?$itiku.nino? g i tsaku*nino? t o nino ?

they they they they they they

gi t ~ x u n i n ?o

Xi t ~ x k unino?

'1Si t ~ x u n i n o ?

xi

fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear

him him him you (du) them (du) them (du) them (du) you ( p l ) them ( p l ) them ( p l )

fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear

me him us ( e x c l du) them (du) them ( p l )

me you (BR) him us ( e x c l du) us ( i n c l du) you (du)

wj lsWl\ 3

a

& a Aa2 4 a a e

1 +8 o o 3 g a o 3 g a

r l t l + E o.r(

rlrlrlu14

33

a a a a a a

m

HHHHHH

gloggzg

5452255 rlrlrlrlrlrl

Co

o++

rlrl

OD

. .

4

a

.aa, u

a+\\+ + aae a Y

+

\C&L3jr: a u u

+ucd

*..2%%a+ +a=+uuus$

s+ a

2%%S33&aS

+ u q + s s s $ + U + + E + + U S 1 u u + %E C 1 +

+rl++ 4 % % B 3 t & z3 Y

szpa3a%ss + m $ t p a J

& + &+ t+Sa &+u0ue&+&+

-.....\.. rlrlrl++++++ u u u)ra U%%O u u

I

rl

a

rl

--

1

4

a

a " a

rl

rlrl

NmNmNm

rlmrlmrlm

rlrlrlrlrlrl

NNNNNN

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

rlrl

aa

4.4

dNmrlrlNmrlrlNm 1 I I I I l I I I I l mmmm0mmmmmm

-

The presence of t h e irregular t h i r d person subject form a

renders homophonous the two p a i r s of forms 3 sg-2 sg and 3 du-2 du. The prefixes

and in+ni a l s o mark non-third and third

person indirect objects respectively, in complex themes with pre-

- -

verbs u t or un. The use of the prefixes in these instances is

taken up in the discussion of i n d i r e c t objects and benefactives. 3.6

Reflexive Constructions

In Arikara, coreferentiality of subject and d i r e c t object

nominals i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigms i n expressed by the reflexive construction. I n contradistinction t o t r a n s i t i v e forms with non-identical subjects and objects, the reflexive construction r e s t r i c t s p a r t i cipation i n the narrated went.

Ordinarily the t r a n s i t i v e verb is

inflected f o r two primary noun constituents i n the functions of subject and d i r e c t object

.

Transitive verbs with coref e r e n t i a l

subjects and objects a c l u d e the second of these, thus creating a closed, effectively i n t r a n s i t i v e construction i n which the grammat i c a l subject is t h e only primary participant marked i n the verb. The verb theme u t

...na.ni-hitk

"to smudge r i t u a l l y "

be inflected f o r non-identical subject and object:

ind-sbj-dir-pv-vs-prf 0bj asp

I smudged him.

ind-sb j -dir-pv-ob j -vs-prf 0bj asp

I smudged them (pl).

may

W e n t h e subject and d i r e c t object a r e coreferential, t h e

verb is inflected with t h e reflexive prefix w i t i - ,

and person is

represented by the s e t of subject pronouns employed i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e canstructions. A complete reflexive paradigm of ut,..na-ni-hitk smudge oneself r i t u a l l y t t is presented in Table 3.8.

"to

The form of

t h e reflexive prefix throughout t h e paradigm is invariable.

Agree-

ment in person and number with the underlying subject nominal is not atpressed on the surface by t h e reflexive prefix, a s it is i n

.

English (9. , myself, yourself, himself)

witi-

The reflexive prefix

is discontinuous wherever t h e number marker

3 occurs

in

the verbal form. The noun stem a r i - z i t with reflexive constructions.

"self"

may be optionally employed

It cannot be conveniently glossed

in English, but i t lends added emphasis t o the reflexive construction.

It too is invariable throdghout the paradigm.

/mi-zit witi=ta+t+ut+na-ni.hitk-i+?/ t a r i . 8 i t wititatuhna-ni-hit1 self

refl-ind-sbj-pv-vs-prf

asp

I smudged myself.

self

refl-ind-sbj -pv-vs-prf

asp

They (pl) smudged themselves,

The reflexive is a l s o employed i n both t r a n s i t i v e and intran-

sitive constructions in which the underlying i n d i r e c t object nominal is i d e n t i c a l t o t h e underlying subject.

I n these instances, t h e

i n d i r e c t object nominal must be marked f o r benefaction.

The bene-

f a c t i v e construction ordinarily requires t h a t the p r e f i x

ut

be intro-

duced before t h e verb stem.

Other prefixes, however, a r e intro-

duced i n benefactive constructions with camplert verb themes containing the preverbs

so r =.

Alternate marking f o r benefaction

is discussed in 3.9. Transitive constructions with i d e n t i c a l underlying subjects and indirect objects admit d i r e c t object nominals.

I n the i l l u s t r a -

t i v e sentences below, the r e f l a i v e p r e f i x marks i d e n t i t y of subject The benefactive p r e f i x

and indirect object nominals.

ut

is intro-

duced before t h e verb stem; the d i r e c t object is the inzependent noun u*kawiE "shirt." / w i ti=kox+t%+&@-ut+na

piM.0 u kawiE/

refl-pot-sbj-ind-dir-ben-vs-prf dir obj obj asp obj I w i l l buy myself a s h i r t .

Cwitikoxtuhna-pi u-kawizl

/witi=kolrtwi+Nhtfna*pim u=kawir/ refl-pot-sbj-ind-dir-ben-vs-prf dir obj obj asp obj C w i t ikoxuhna p i

He w i l l buy himself a shirt.

u*kawiEI

refl-du-pot-sbj-ind-dir-ben-vs-prf obj obj Cwigitikoxuhna-pi u.kawiE'c3

asp

dir obj

They (du) w i l l buy themselves shirts,

Thus, t h e reflexive construction is used to express coref e r e n t i a l i t y of both underlying subject and d i r e c t object nominals,

and underlying subject and indirect object nominals. 3.7

Reciprocal Construction Verbal forms inflected with w i t i - and the subject pronouns

Table 3.8 Reflexive Paradigm, ut

...ntr*ni-hitk "to smudge ritually''

1 88

wititatuhnaeni hitku?

I am smudginn myself

2 sg

wititAxuhna.ni .hitku?

you (sg) are smudging yourself

3 sg

witituhna*ni*hitku?

he is smudging himself

1 excl du

wi%ititatuhna*ni.hitkur we (excl du) are smudging ourselves

1 incl du

wititsihna-ni.hitku?

2 du

wigitit~xuhnaeni. hitku? you (du) are smudging yourselves

3 du

wi$itituhna.ni- hitku?

1 excl pl

wititatuhnahna.ni.hitku? we (excl pl) are

we (incl du) are smudging ourselves

they (du) are smudginq themselves smudging ourselvee

1 incl pl 2

PI

3 PI

wititat~hnahna~ni .hitku? we (incl pl) are smudging ourselves -ni.hitku? you (pl) are smudging witit~xuhnahna yourselves wititihna.niehitku?

they (pl) are smudging themselves

are used t o express the notion of reciprocal action, o r action on "each other," as well as reflexive action.

Thus, the sentence

wigitituhnamni-hitku? may be interpreted t o mean e i t h e r "they (du) smudged themselves" (reflexive) , o r "they (du) smudged each othertt A reciprocal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is possible f c r a l l non-

(reciprocal),

singular verb forms inflected with w i t i - ,

Although reflexive and

reciprocal surface forms with nonsingular subjects a r e indistinguishable, d i f f e r e n t meanings a r e expressed by reciprocal and reflexi v e constructions

.

~ i f f e r e n tunderlying sources a r e postulated

f o r t h e two constructions i n Chapter Iv.

3.8

Ditransitive Constructions I n d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions, the Arikara verb i s inflected

f o r i n d i r e c t objects as well a s t r a n s i t i v e subjects and direct objects.

The order of noun constituents expressed by pronominal

a f f i x e s Jln d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions i s subject-indirect objectd i r e c t object

.

I n d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions, the regular t r a n s i t i v e subject pronouns (with neutralized dual-plural number) a r e employed. t h i r d person p l u r a l subject form is

The

.

Xi. .in when the indirect

object is a t h i r d person category, and

gi.. .0 when

the indirect

object is non- third. The d i r e c t object i n d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions is expressed by

-0,

i f i t is singular, and by

( t h i r d person p l u r a l inanimate

object), i f i t is plural. The pronouns which represent the i n d i r e c t object a r e the same

as those which mark d i r e c t objects.

The t h i r d person p l u r a l

i n d i r e c t object form, however, is invariably

&

(animate),

The

i n d i r e c t obj ect pronouns a r e :

ku -a -0

1s g 2 sg

3 sg

1 excl du 1 i n c l du

Y

si.. .ku

saku w

si.. .a

2 du

si.. .0

3 du

Y

1 excl p l

ku.. .nak

1incl p l

ataku...nak

2 PI

a.. .nak

3 PI

ak

The d i t r a n s i t i v e construction is i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 3.9. For purposes of c l a r i t y , t h e t r a n s i t i v e subjects and d i r e c t objects throughout t h e paradigm a r e t h i r d person singular, and therefore phonologically null. Because of t h e neutralization of dual and p l u r a l t r a n s i t i v e subject forms, d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions involving t h e number marker

3 may have several interpretations,

t i v e constructions may.

j u s t as other transi-

The form ZitikuTu may have t h e readings

'he gave it t o u s (excl du) ," "they (du) gave it t o me," (pl) gave it t o me,"

depending upon whether t h e p r o c l i t i c

o r "they

2 is

construed t o mark number of a dual t r a n s i t i v e subject, a p l u r a l

` able 3.9 D i t r a n a i t i v e Paradigm,

& "to

give"

Singular D i r e c t Object

a

Ind Obj

D i r Obi

3 s g 1 88

3 sg

/ tit0+kut&uhtfl/

t iku?u

H e gave i t t o me

3 sg 2 sg

3 sg

I ti+Bfatlbtuht@/

ta?u

H e gave i t t o you (SR)

3 s g 3 ag

3 88

/ t i+lbt.lbt.uh+b/

ti?u

He gave i t t o him

3 eg 1 e x c l du 3 s g

/8i-t

?$itiku?u

He gave i t t o u s ( e x c l d u l

3 ag 1 i n c l du 3 s g

/ ti+&saku+&tuhtfl/

tsaku?u

H e gave it t o u s ( i n c l du)

3 ag 2 du

3 ag

/8i=ti+@ta+@tuh+@/

xi ta? u

He gave i t t o you (du)

3 eg 3 du

3 88

/8i=tit8t.(b@tuht0/

xi t i?u

H e gave i t t o them (du)

3 sg 1 excl p l 3 sg

/tit6tku+nak+@t-uht$/

tikuraeku

He gave i t t o us ( e x c l p l )

3 sg 1 i n c l p l 3 sg

/ti+$tataku+nak+f%uh+$/

t a t a k u r a - k u He gave it t o us ( i n c l p l )

3 sg 2 p l

3 sg

/ti+$%atnakt@tuhtfl/

t a r a ku

He gave i t t o you ( p l )

3 sg 3 p l

3 st3

/ ti+@-takt&tuhtfl/

ta-ku

He gave i t t o them (pl)

it$%kul-$tub+@/

4

a

0

d

a

0

4

4

a

r

a

l

a

e l l 3 I r l a a a

4

r

a

u

l

a

r

-j

l

a

r

a

l

4

a

4

a

g Z r al r al ra l 4a

t r a n s i t i v e subject, o r the i n d i r e c t object. Table 3.10 presents a paradigm i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e d i t r a n s i -

tive construction with t h i r d person p l u r a l d i r e c t objects, represented by t h e inanimate marker=.

I n t h e forms t a r a - n u "he gave

them t o him," and Xitehnaanu "he gave them t o them (du) ,I1 t h e t h i r d person singular subject is represented by the i r r e g u l a r t h i r d person f o r m s .

Note a l s o i n Table 3.10 t h a t a t h i r d person

p l u r a l d i s t r i b u t i v e i n d i r e c t object may be distinguished.

3.9

Benefactive Constructions Benefactive nominals a r e indexed in t h e verb by the indi-

r e c t o b j e c t pronouns.

I n addition, the benefactive construction

requires t h a t a benefactive p r e f i x (usually u t ) be introduced before the verb s t e m .

I n t r a n s i t i v e a s well a s t r a n s i t i v e construc-

t i o n s may b e i n f l e c t e d f o r benefaction.

In both cases, the bene-

-

f a c t i v e p r e f i x i s u t when the verb theme is simple ( t h a t is, does n o t contain the preverbs u t o r E). Table 3.11 presents a t r a n s i t i v e paradigm i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e benefactive construction.

-

The verb theme i n Table 3.11 is t h e

simple stem t a u a t "to steal."

The majority of t h e t h i r d person

s u b j e c t s in the paradigm a r e represented person pronouns.

dy

the irregular t h i r d

In addition, the prefixes intni a r e introduced

i n t o t h e verb when t h e subject is t h i r d person and t h e benefactive nominal i s non-third;

-

the prefixes &in are introduced when t h e

subject and benefactive nominal are both t h i r d person.

No addi-

t i o n a l ' p r e f i x e s a r e introduced i n t o t h e verb when the subject i s

e i t h e r f i r s t o r second person. When t h e direct object of t r a n s i t i v e benefactive coastruc-

tions is p l u r a l , it is marked by

(inanimate).

Table 3.12

presents a t r a n s i t i v e paradigm involving a benefactive nominal and t h i r d person p l u r a l d i r e c t object. i n f l e c t e d f o r p a s t tense. tense prefix.

The forms i n t h e t a b l e a r e a l s o

The benefactive p r e f i x precedes the p a s t

-

Again, t h i r d person subjects a r e marked with a when

t h e benefactive nominal i s t h i r d person. Complex verb themes containing t h e preverbs

ut o r

not i n f l e c t e d f o r benefaction with the regular p r e f i x

are

s. Instead,

t h e benefactive is expressed by the introduction before the preverb of the p r e f i x & i f t h e benefactive nominal is non-third,

o r the

sequence of prefixes i n - h i i f t h e benefactive nominal i s t h i r d person.

A l l r e f l e x i v e forms which contain the preverbs

ut

or

form the benefactive construction with t h e sequence of prefixes irrtni. -

Table 3.13 presents a p a r t i a l benefactive paradigm of t h e

complex verb theme ut...a-n

"to do" i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e use of the

a l t e r n a t i v e benefactive prefixes.

Table 3.13

.

Benefactive Paradigm, ut, .awn"to do" 4

Dir O b i 3 sg

/koxtt+i+a+irrt@+ut+a-n+$/

koxtanuota

I will do it for you (sg)

3 sg

/koxt.t+i+t&in+nitO+ut+a.n+$/

koxtiniota

I will do it for him

3

/%i=koxtt+i+a+in+hut+a nt$/

xikoxtanu-ta

I will do it for you (du)

sg

I will do it for them (du) I will do it for you (pl)

2 sg

3 sg

I will do it for them (pll

3 sg

/kox+t+i+@+in~ni+&ut+ak+a*n+$/

3 sg

/witi=kox+t+i+~in+ni+@tut+a~n+fl/witikoxtinia ta

I will do it for myself

3 sg

/kox+x~Z+ku+in+@tut+a n+$/

koxikunum t a

You (sg) will do it for me

3 sg

/kox+x+i+t&in+ni+@l-utta*n+fb/

ko xini ta

You (sg) will do it for him

koxtini.ta. ka

2 eg 1 excl du 3 sg /#i=koxtxti+ku+O+in+@+ut+a*n+$/

'l/iko*xikunu*ta You (sg) will do it for us (excl du)

2 sg 3 du

Xiko xini ta

3 sg

/gi=koxtxti+@l-in+ni+@ut+a n+b/

You (sg) will do it for them (du)

2 sg 1 excl pl 3 sg /kox+xti+ku+in+@+ut+nak+a~n+fb/

ko.xikunuhna*ka You (sg) will do it for us (excl pl)

2 eg 3 pl

ko0xini.ta-ka

3 sg

/kox+xti+@tin+ni+@tut+ak+a~nf fl/

You (sg) will do it for them (pl)

& m

1 0

PI rl 0)

B

+ s Ir

7 rl cct rl U 0 0)

4 'rl

3 .3

r

.

4.1

Chapter IV

Introduction

This chapter presents a formal a n a l y s i s of person agreement

i n t h e Arikara verb.

W e propose that more a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e s

underlie each of t h e surface constructions described in t h e preceding chapter, and t h a t t h e surface constructions a r e derived from t h e

a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e s underlying them by a series of transformational processes.

Specifically, an examination of Arikara surface s t r u c t u r e s

shows t h a t a number of grantmatical u n i t s found i n t h e verb agree w i t h external noun phrase constituents.

W e propose an account of Arikara

deep s t r u c t u r e i n which complex symbols of nouns a r e external t o the .

verb on a pre-inflectional t r e e .

We then show how semantic information

contained i n these complex symbols is introduced i n t o t h e verb transformational processes.

by

Similar types of transformational pro-

cesses have been described i n Onondaga i n t h e following terms.

...

at is especially c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of postsemantic processes in Onondaga t h a t they add u n i t s t o t h e verb while very often subtracting them from elsewhere i n t h e sentence. W e saw hoe t h e u n i t reflexive is introduced i n t o the verb while a p a t i e n t noun is simultaneously deleted. By t h i s and o t h e r processes the s t r u c t u r e of t h e verb is gradually augmented, while t h a t of associated nouns is eroded. By t h e time surface s t r u c t u r e is reached i t is o f t e n the case t h a t t h e only word l e f t i n a sentence is t h e verb. Such complete erosion of nouns does n o t a l ways take place, however, and frequently enough is l e f t of a noun t h a t i t becomes symbolized as a . separate word (Chafe 1970: 49). The discussion of noun incorporation i n Chapter VII provides f u r t h e r

evidence of the generality and importance of verb-augmenting pro-

cesses characterist i c of the transf ornational component of an Arikara grammar.

A l l verbal forms in Arikara obligatorily contain same cambination of the affixed person and number markers described i n the preceding chapter.

In i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences only one noun phrase

constituent is indexed in the verb.

In t r a n s i t i v e sentences, a t

l e a s t two primary noun phrases functioning a s subject and object a r e indexed i n t h e verb.

An e x p l i c i t description of Arikara must

account f o r t h i s phenomenon of person and number agreement.

We be-

gin the discussion of person agreement by presenting further evidence concerning the simplest possible case, namely, t h a t of person agreement i n simple active i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences of the type i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 3.1.

4.2

Independent Pronouns I n the active i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences i n Table 3.1, person

and number a r e indexed by pronominal a f f i x e s i n the verb only. Active i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences with independent subject pronouns and

pronominal indexing of t h e subject also occur, a s i l l u s t r a t e d i n (1)-(8)

below. (I) [na*t u tatwa ewa?a]

I am eating.

(2) [namxu tAxwa*wa?a]

You (sg) a r e eating.

(3) [ h a t u gitatwa*wa?al

W e (-1

(4) [tAhsianu tsihwa*wa?al

W e ( i n c l du) a r e eating.

du) a r e eatinq.

(5) Hina-xu ~itsxwa.wa?a]

You (du)' are eating.

(6) [natara*kig tatara-pa*wa?a]

W e ( i n c l p l ) are eating.

(7) [n~hna.kix tAlma-pa-wa?a]

W e (excl p l ) a r e eating.

(8) [nAxta.lci% tAxtaspa-wa?a]

You (pl) are eating.

Note t h e concrete morphological i d e n t i t y of p a r t s of t h e independent pronouns with t h e affixed pronominal fo-.

The indepen-

dent pronouns are canplex forms which contain t h e subordinating p r e f i x n a , followed by t h e same elements representing person and number found i n t h e affixed pronominal forms, and a suffixed f o m of t h e verb " t o be," -u - i n t h e case of s i n g u l a r and dual pronouns,

-

-i?!in t h e c a s e of p l u r a l pronouns.

The pronominal a f f i x e s in t h e

verb can be s a i d t o agree with the independent subject pronouns i n person and number. There a r e no corresponding independent subject pronouns f o r t h i r d person categories.

Third person subject agreement is exem-

p l i f i e d i n sentences (9)- (11). (9) Iwi.ta tiwa.wa?a]

The man e a t s .

(10) Iwiata $itiwa.wa?a]

The men (du) e a t .

(11) [wi t a t i k a swa?a]

The men (pl) e a t .

Person and number agreement i s marked only i n the verb i n t h e case of t h i r d person categories.

The independent noun, which

is i t s e l f a t h i r d person category, is n o t o v e r t l y marked f o r nunber

. The noun phrases in sentences (9)-(11)

c o n s i s t of nouns alone.

The same f a c t s of t h i r d person s u b j e c t agreement can be i l l u s t r a t e d

by means of subject noun phrases consisting of demonstratives and nouns, o r simply demonstratives alone.

Demonstratives a r e formed

with two d i f f e r e n t verb stems, one f o r indicating t h i r d persons

-

standing, a r i g i ; t h e o t h e r f o r t h i r d persons s i t t i n g , ku.

Demon-

s t r a t i v e s d i r e c t l y code t h e number of the nouns they modify, as i n 12)-4).

-

Notice t h a t t h e p r e f i x na occurs in both subject pro-

nouns and demonstratives.

(12) f na 0 r i E i ( w i t a ) tiwa -wa?al

That one(man1 eats.

(13) ~ h a w a * r i E i( w i t a ) gitiwa -wa?al Those two men e a t . (14) fnawa . r i E i (wi t a ) tihwa wa?a3

Those (men) e a t

.

Even though there a r e no independent t h i r d person subject pronouns, t h i r d person subject agreement must be treated i n much the

same way a s agreement of f i r s t and second person categories, since pronominal i n f l e c t i o n of t h i r d person categories formally p a r a l l e l s t h a t of f i r s t and second person categories.

The e s s e n t i a l proposal

is t h a t information of person and number represented by pronominal a f f i x e s in the verb is introduced transformationally from a noun phrase constituent external t o t h e verb i n deep s t r u c t u r e .

The

external noun phrase c o n s t i t u t e n t which determines agreement may be deleted a f t e r t h e agreement transfarmation has applied, o r i t may be retained and assigned a phonological representation a s an independent pronoun o r noun.

4.3

Phrase Structure Rules

W e now characterize t h e deep s t r u c t u r e s over which agreement transformations operate.

P r i o r t o t h e application of agreement

rules, a tree representing a simple ( t r a n s i t i v e o r i n t r a n s i t i v e ) sentence c o n s i s t s of a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase @P). The NP c o n s i s t s minimally of a noun alone, o r a determiner (e.g. demonstrative, numeral) and noun.

For c l a r i t y of p r e s a t a t i o n , i n

the present discussion we consider only cases in which t h e NP is expanded a s a noun (N)

.

Nouns may be f u r t h e r specified by sub-

categorization r u l e s as C+ PRO1 (pronoun).

The specification of

some nouns a s C+ PRO1 and o t h e r s as C-PRO1 i n deep s t r u c t u r e s is extremely important t o a transformational account of person agreement. W e noted above t h a t f i r s t and second person subjects may be

represented by independent subject pronouns a s well a s by obligat o r y pronominal i n f l e c t i o n i n the verb.

Third persons, on the

other hand, have no corresponding subject pronoun forms.

Third

person categories a r e o b l i g a t o r i l y indexed in the verb, and agree with a noun constituent of an external NP.

The implication of these

f a c t s is t h a t t h i r d person categories a r e b a s i c a l l y nominal, and f i r s t and second person categories b a s i c a l l y pronominal.

This

difference between f i r s t and second versus t h i r d person categories must be accounted f o r i n some principled way in t h e grammar. Following t h e analysis proposed by ~ e - i s t e papers on 'pronouns' and 'person'

i n h i s various

(Benveniste 1970:195-204,

217-222),

t h e r e a r e b a s i c a l l y only two personal pronoun types, t r a d i t i o n a l l y categories of f i r s t and second person.

F i r s t and second persons a r e

indexical s i g n s t h a t denote p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e speech s i t u a t i o n ;

they are r e f e r e n t i a l l y well-defined.

The t r a d i t i o n a l ' t h i r d person,'

under Benveniste' s analysis, is a c t u a l l y a 'non-person'

(Benvenis te

1970:221) not r e f e r e n t i a l l y definable in terms of t h e speech situation.

'Third person' noun phrases a r e b a s i c a l l y nominal, and

languages have r u l e s of various kinds f o r t h e i r pronnainalization under c e r t a i n conditions, yielding anaphoric, and cross-referencing surface units t h a t preserve, t o d i f f e r e n t degress, lexical p r o p e r t i e s of t h e missing nominal expression. Agreement i n t h e case of t h i r d person categories, then, is

an anaphoric process, by means of which information of person and number is introduced i n t o the verb from a noun i n t h e same phrase marker.

Third person i n f l e c t i o n a l pronouns a r e transformationally

derived from an external [N] marked [-PRO]

.

When information of

person and number is introduced from the external noun, the specification

I+PRO]is

transformationally introduced ,under i d e n t i t y with

the external noun in t h e phrase marker.

The I+PRO]

specification

of t h i r d person categories is thus transformationally derived. The [+PRO]

s p e c i f i c a t i o n of f i r s t and second person cate-

gories, on t h e other hand, is not.transfonnationally introduced. These categories are specified a s [+PRO] complex symbol dominated by [N]

.

in deep s t r u c t u r e i n t h e

Transformational processes oper-

a t e t o copy the information represented i n t h e external [N] i n t h e verb, including t h e [+PRO] specification.

Thus, a l l 'person'

cate-

gories ( f i r s t , second, and t h i r d ) within t h e verb are specified a s [+PRO].

A t the surface l e v e l , t h e r e is formal parallelism of t r u e

personal indices ( f i r s t and second persons) and anaphoric (third person) forms.

A t the underlying semantic level, however, w e must

r e a l i z e t h a t we a r e dealing with two d i s t i n c t systems.

The impor-

t a n t difference is t h a t [+PRO3 specification of t h i r d person categories i s transformationally introduced, under i d e n t i t y with the external noun, while t h e [+PRO3 specification of f i r s t and second person categories is present i n deep structure, before any agreement r u l e s have applied.

W e now b r i e f l y characterize the representation of the VP i n Arikara deep structure.

The VP contains a verb (V)

.

The V is

further minimally developed a s mode, verb theme (VT), and aspect

(ASP).

The VT may contain a simple verb stem (VS), o r a preverb

(PV) and VS. termed 'simple';

Verb themes comprised only of a verb stem w i l l be verb themes comprised of preverb and verb stem

w i l l be termed 'complex'. I n Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky develops an argument i n support of the view t h a t the strict subcategorization of verbs (i.e.,

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o t r a n s i t i v e , i n t r a n s i t i v e , and

so f o r t h ) can be characterized exhaustively i n terms of context within the VP.

He has pointed out t h a t "every frame i n which V

appears, i n the VP, is relevant t o the s t r i c t subcategorization of V" (Chomsky 1965:96). Thw, i n Arikara, i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs have t h e property t h a t

they appear in the frame C

Iw, but not i n the frame CNP-b,

which defines t r a n s i t i v e verbs.

W e propose t h a t t h e ' b a s e component of an Arilcara grammar includes a number of phrase s t r u c t u r e rules.

These phrase struc-

ture (PS) r u l e s a r e simply formal statements of t h e preceding prose description.

(iii) (iv)

VP-3

V

(NP)

v

j HlDE VT ASP

The categories of mode and aspect could be f u r t h e r developed,

as indicated i n Chapter I.

The r u l e s and conventions outlined t o

t h i s point produce preterminal s t r i n g s (i.e., l e x i c a l items).

s t r u c t u r e s without

A preterminal s t r i n g i s converted i n t o a terminal

s t r i n g by replacing preterminal ctnnplex symbols with l e x i c a l items. This is accomplished by a general l e x i c a l rule according t o which

a l e x i c a l item may replace a preterminal complex symbol i f i t s l e x i c a l complex symbol is not d i s t i n c t from t h e ccnnplex symbol developed i n the phrase marker (Chomsky 1965:84). The lexicon includes e n t r i e s of t h e following s o r t , each

en4rry a complex symbol (here g r e a t l y abbreviated) and a d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e matrix (giving t h e phonological representation of t h e

lexical i t e m , h e r e abbreviated by t h e alphabetic representation):

man

IN, -PRO], l w i - t a l

IN,

+PRO]

, /na t u J

-I

INP, VIw,

/un...nino/

' t o fear

C vlw,

/wa0waa/

t 6 '&at

Note t h a t the lexical e n t r i e s distinguish t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs: these a r e

M_lVP

I I V p respectively.

and

W e n w consider t h e types of information contained i n t h e complex symbols dominated by the terminal category symbol

IN].

W e claim i t is t h e information contained i n these complex symbols which rules of person agreement operate on. F i r s t , however, we must mention t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e theory of person agreement might be entertained.

Instead of claiming

t h a t person agreement operates with reference t o information contained i n complex symbols of

IN],

i t could be suggested t h a t person

agreement operates d i r e c t l y on l e x i c a l constituents, and moves

them t o t h e appropriate locus i n s i d e the verb. W e noted above the morphological i d e n t i t y of p a r t s of independent subject pronouns with t h e i r a f f i x a l counterparts.

There i s

undoubtedly an h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y behind t h i s formal i d e n t i t y .

At

same t i m e i n t h e prehistory of t h e Caddoan languages, p a r t s of t h e independent subject pronouns w e r e perhaps ' a t t r a c t e d t i n t o second ( e n c l i t i c ) p o s i t i o n i n t h e verb by a process s i m i l a r t o t h a t documented f o r Indo-European (Wackernagel 1892).

The process of 'attrac-

tion' may have then become an obligatory rule, even i n cases where t h e 'sourcet independent pronoun w a s retained.

Another entertainable h i s t o r i c a l explanation of t h e morphol o g i c a l relatedness of t h e independent subject pronouns and t h e pronaminal a f f i x e s is t h a t the synchronic imdependent subject pronoun series was created from the a f f i x a l forms, possibly replacing an e a r l i e r set of independent subject pronouns. W e a r e n o t presently a b l e t o decide what the a c t u a l h i s t o r i -

cal developments may have been.

A t any r a t e , given t h e synchronic

morphological i d e n t i t y , w e might e n t e r t a i n the idea t h a t person agreement i s accomplished by the d i r e c t copying of the l e x i c a l . independent pronouns i n t h e verb, with appropriate adjustment of

t h e i r phonological r e a l i z a t i o n .

This, however, would be confusion

of an h i s t o r i c a l account of the language with a synchornic one. This conception of person agreemeEt as 'constituent copying'

is not adopted f o r several reasons, the most important of which a r e mentioned here.

F i r s t , the independent subject pronouns and the

pronominal a f f i x e s o b l i g a t o r i l y represented i n the verb code the

same semantic information of person and number.

An account of t h e

language is simplified by the assumption t h a t t h i s information i s represented only once i n deep s t r u c t u r e a s f e a t u r e s of an external noun constituent, and copied by transformational r u l e in the approp r i a t e locus i n t h e verb.

Second, various transformations i n

Arikara, e s p e c i a l l y t h e rule of noun incorporation, can be formulated s a t i s f a c t o r i l y only i f transformational r u l e s are allowed t o make d i r e c t reference t o underlying l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s of noun.

Since

t h e transformational rule t h a t copies f e a t u r e s of nouns in noun

incorporation i s formally p a r a l l e l t o the transformational r u l e t h a t copies the f e a t u r e s of complex symbols of

IN] i n

person agree-

ment, w e propose here t h a t all cross-referencing, anaphoric, and agreement rules operate on f e a t u r e specifications of complex symbols r a t h e r than lexical constituents. The complex symbols dominated by for

, a s well

-1

IN]

contain specification

as person and number features, and it is with

reference t o these features t h a t rules of person agreement operate. Table 4.1 presents the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the pronominal and anaphoric forms i n accordance with a theory of markedness of the s o r t suggested by ~ e n v e n i s t e ' sanalysis of pronouns (see page 101).

In Table 4.1, the inclusive-exclusive d i s t i n c t i o n of 'person'

is captured by specification i n l i n e s (a) and (b), and t h e singulardual-plural d i s t i n c t i o n of 'amber' is expressed i n l i n e s (c) and (d).

The standard names of the f e a t u r e bundles a r e given over each

colunm.

Columns specified a s

Ifpl] may

be f u r t h e r specified a s

r e s t r i c t e d I+res], signifying t h a t f u r t h e r individuals coded by the pronominal fonns a r e unique, or 1-res] individuals a r e not unique.

, indicating

that further

The f e a t u r e Ires] is redundantly spe-

c i f i a b l e as positive f o r singular categories, since singular categories a s w e l l as dual categories are countable j u s t on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r f e a t u r e specifications f o r person. forms are specified a s

Ifres], as w e l l

Note t h a t a l l dual

as i+pl], indicating t h a t

d u a l i t y is a sub-feature of p o s i t i v e specification f o r p l u r a l i t y .

The heavy double v e c t i c a l l i n e s i n Table 4.1 separate t h e 'personal'

f rant the 'non-personal ' pronouns.

The

't h i r d

person '

forms of the last three colmms index neither speaker nor hearer;

hen&

rows (a) and (b) are negatively specified.

The l a s t three

bundles, then, represent t h e pronominal forms whose [iPROJspecif i c a t i o n a r i s e s by t h e transfoxmationdl mechanism of pronominalization.

Table 4.2 presents the surface morphology of the personal pronominal f o m . 4.4

Subject Agreement i n Active I n t r a n s i t i v e Clauses With t h i s introduction, i t becomes possible t o characterize

t h e form which simple active i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences exhibit p r i o r t o the application of the person agreement rules.

The PS r u l e s

w i l l generate s t r u c t u r e s a s in (a) and (b) below.

Note the [+PRO]

specification of t h e specification of the

IN] IN]

is (a), and the I-PRO] deep s t r u c t u r e

i n (b).

\Y/

MODE

I

ind

T VS

prf

waawaa

0

The phonological realization of the indicative modal marker is l e f t unspecified i n these structures since, a s w i l l become clear,

all information relevant to the specification of its shape has not

been presented. The r u l e of person agreement must be formulated t o copy t h e f e a t u r e specifications of t h e complex symbols of the terminal category symbol N.

The transformationally-created f e a t u r e bundles

are attached t o the V-node following t h e modal p r e f i x .

The r u l e

which expresses t h i s operation is formalized as T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT.

-T-SUBJECT

L

AGREEMENT

N NP

V

W

S

F=I, 11, p l , res This rule c r e a t e s a b s t r a c t f e a t u r e bundles which duplicate the person and number features of t h e external [N]

.

The explana-

tory condition indicates t h a t both person and nunber f e a t u r e s a r e copied i n the verb.

I n addition, i t s p e c i f i e s a l l f e a t u r e bundles

created i n s i d e t h e V as [+PRO], regardless of t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r [PRO] of t h e source

IN].

The s t r u c t u r a l changes effected by t h i s r u l e a r e shown i n t h e phrase markers i n Table 4.3 f o r a l l eleven forms of t h e a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm.

Table 4.3 Structural Changes Effected by

T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT i n Active Intransitive Clauses

A

[q

MODET!/

ASP

+ res

I

1

MODE

+ res

1;q pg MODE *ASP

+ res

+ res

Table 4.3 (cont)

MODE

ASP

Vina*tu

1 excl du

\7//,

MODE

ASP

Table 4.3 (coat)

w

YE'

I

I

N

- res n ~ h n aki' 1 excl p l

yh\P

MODE

- res

The motivation f o r t h e rule of subject agreemeat is essen-

tially semantic, and not simply d i s t r i b u t i o n a l .

We observe t h a t

a l l surface verb-forms contain pronominal elements representing '

information of person and number.

W e f u r t h e r observe t h a t surface

sentences may contain independent pronouns and nouns which express t h e same semantic information of person and nmber coded i n t h e pronominal affixes.

W e therefore p o s i t an a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e f o r

these sentences i n which semantic information of person and number

is expressed only once (as f e a t u r e values) on an external noun. The transformational r u l e of subject agreement d i s t r i b u t e s these f e a t u r e values by copying them i n t h e appropriate locus i n s i d e the verb.

The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s operation is the observation t h a t

t h e pronominal a f f i x e s within the verb express the same grammatical categories of person and number a s do the nouns external t o t h e verb phrase. W e cannot d i r e c t l y assign phonological r e a l i z a t i o n s t o t h e

transformationally created f e a t u r e bundles, however.

We must s t i l l

account f o r t h e placement of number markers in surface structures. There a r e several f a c t s t o be accounted f o r .

Some pronominal forms

-

(including a l l singular forms, f i r s t person inclusive dual sin, and t h i r d person p l u r a l &) do not have separate number markers.

Rather,

person and number are expressed by a s i n g l e portmanteau surface category.

xi

-9

Number of a l l other dual forms is expressed by the p r e f i x

while nmber of a l l other p l u r a l forms is expressed by t h e num-

ber marker nak, which may be separated from t h e personal a f f i x e s by t h e preverb in the surface structures. A separate set of r u l e s is therefore required t o account f o r t h e movement of number f e a t u r e s t o a locus i n s i d e t h e verb where they may be assigned phonological spellings.

Thus, f o r a number of

t h e a b s t r a c t f e a t u r e bundles, r u l e s of number segmentalization w i l l

create a b s t r a c t b i p a r t i t e bundles, s o t h a t person f e a t u r e s are represented in one bundle, number f e a t u r e s i n another.

No r u l e s a r e

needed t o account f o r number marking in bundles specified a s C-p13, o r i n t h e bundles s p e c i f i e d C-I,

-11, +pl, -resl (i n , t h i r d person

p l u r a l ) and [+I, -11, + p l y +res3 (sin, f i r s t person inclusive dual). The following set of r u l e s accounts f o r the placement. of..& ..

number

marker i n a l l dual forms with t h e exception of the f i r s t person inc l u s i v e dual. T-NUMBER -

--

SEGMENTALIZATION OF DUAL SUBJECT FORMS

]

-11

1 e x c l du

[m]

.

The rules for number segmentalization in non-third plural forms must be formalized in a slightly different way.

The non-third

plural number marker in active intransitive sentences follows the preverb, i f there i s one.

The rules which create bipartite feature

bundles i n non-third plural forms must therefore be formalized as follows :

T-NUMBER S ~ A L I Z A T I O NOF -NON-THIRD -FORMS -

7

1 incl pl

-

1 excl pl

PLURAL SUBJECT

Spellings may now be assigned t o t h e f e a t u r e bundles created by t h e operations of subject agreement and number segmentalization. The complete set of spellings f o r subject pronominal forms in a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences is presented below.

The set of r u l e s shows

i n an e x p l i c i t fashion that t h e pronominal a f f i x e s replace s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e bundles. Spelling --Rules of the Active I n t r a n s i t i v e Subject Pronominal~

C

1 inc du

BoDFJ

To the analysis a s developed thus f a r , i t might be objected t h a t subject agreement and number segmentalization should not be formulated a s separate rules.

A r u l e of subject agreement could be

devised so t h a t it would copy person f e a t u r e s and number f e a t u r e s a s separate bundles, and inmediately assign number f e a t u r e s t o the correct locus.

However, we n n t s t still account f o r subject agreement

i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

I n t r a n s i t i v e clauses number marking f o r dual

and p l u r a l subjects is neutralized.

Because of t h i s , number of

t r a n s i t i v e subjects i s not marked i n the same way as subject number

i n i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

If we formulate subject agreement and

number segmentalization as two separate processes, as we have done, only t h e number segmentalization rules and a c t u a l s p e l l i n g rules

f o r subject forms i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses need d i f f e r from those i n

active intransitive clauses.

4.5

Subject Agreement in Stative Intransitive Clauses Stative intransitive verb themes like histtaehig "to be

thirsty" (see Table 3.2) are inflected with the object pronouns employed to mark the transitive object.

Only the third person

plural pronominal affix in stative intransitive clauses differs from the third person pronominal affix which marks the direct object in transitive clauses.

The formal identification of the

pronominals associated with stative verbs and the pronaminals which mark the direct object in transitive clauses suggests that person agreement in stative verbs might be accomplished by a rule of object, rather than subject, agreement. We observe, however, that stative intransitive verbs, like active intransitives, are defined by the strict subcategorization frame

[IVp.

That is, there is only one NP constituent associated

with stative intransitive verbs.

Formally, stative intransitive

constructions are parallel to active intransitive ones, except that surface case-marking differs in the two constructions.

Sf we claim that the single NP constituent in stative intransitive constructions occupies the same position on a deep structure tree as the transitive object, we are in effect claiming that sta-

-Ivp*

tive verbs are defined by the subcategorization frame INP

indistinguishable from the frame which subcategorizes transitive verbs.

We are then forced to consider stative constructions to be

underlying transitive constructions, with some sort of 'impersonal'

'

t r a n s i t i v e subject which i s n w e r r e a l i z e d in sur-

f a c e structures.

This position is untenable, s i n c e t h e r e is never

o r 'understood

any case i n which we can show t h a t s t a t i v e verbs have more than one primary NP associated with them. Instead, we claim t h a t Arikara exhibits a s u r f a c e distinct i o n between two types of i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

I n t h e a c t i v e in-

t r a n s i t i v e clause type, t h e s i n g l e NP constituent in t h e function of i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is e x p l i c i t l y agentive a t the surface l e v e l ,

i.e., is inflected with t h e subject pronouns. -

I n t h e s t a t i v e intran-

s i t i v e clause type the s i n g l e NP constituent i n the function of i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is e x p l i c i t l y patientive a t the surface l e v e l , i.e., is inflected -

with the object pronouns.

A t the surface, then,

Arikara exhibits s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v i t y .I Surface case-marvng i n s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses corresponds f a i r l y w e l l t o semantic notions.

That is, s t a t i v e verbs

designate a s t a t e , condition, o r process (e.g.,

"to be cold," "to be

hungry," "to die," "to be t h i r s t y , " "to be needy," and so f o r t h ) which a f f e c t the associated subject.

Semantically, t h e ' s u b j e c t can-

not be described as the agent of t h e s t a t e o r condition predicated by t h e verb.

The congruence of semantic notions and surface case-

marking is a topic t h a t deserves f u r t h e r attention.

Some t e n t a t i v e

suggestions regarding a possible semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s p l i t

i n Arikara a r e proposed i n Chapter V.

Although we are a b l e t o cha-

r a c t e r i z e semantically the s e t of s t a t i v e verbs that a c t u a l l y occurs i n Arikara, i t is nevertheless t r u e that we a r e not a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h

a firm s e t of c r i t e r i a enabling us t o predict which i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs w i l l be s t a t i v e , and which active. A descriptively adequate grammar of Arikara must include a subcategorization r u l e which c l a s s i f i e s verbs as Cfstativel: (1)

V

---- > Ckstativel

The general l e x i c a l r u l e which replaces complex symbols i n preter-

minal s t r i n g s with l e x i c a l items can replace a complex symbol dominated by CV,+stativeI only with a verb theme specified a s C+stativeJ

in t h e lexicon. The deep s t r u c t u r e of simple s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences

is exactly the same a s t h a t of simple a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e sentences. The presence of a complex symbol dominated by a V marked C+stativel t r i g g e r s a transformational rule.

This transformation, T-STATIVE,

moves t h e NP dominated by S on an underlying t r e e and reattaches i t under the domination of the VP.

Following t h i s transformation, NP

i s i n a position on a t r e e equivalent t o t h a t occupied by t h e transi t i v e object.

T-STATIVE i s formalized below. T-STATIVE

NP

V V P S

NP

V V P S

Figure (a) represents the deep s t r u c t u r e underlying the sentence Ctikuhista-hiE3 "I am thirsty",

Figure (b) represents t h e

s t r u c t u r a l change produced i n t h e phrase marker by t h e application of T-STATIVE,

' j r T i v e 1

MODE

1

ind

I T

VS

his+ta hig

prf

8

/vp

NP

1

N

MODE

VT

ASP

Person agreement is accomplished following T-STATIVE by a

rule of object agreement.

The r u l e of object agreement operates on

t h e same person and number f e a t u r e s found i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

The rule of o b j e c t agreement, however, is formulated s o

t h a t i t duplicates t h e person and number f e a t u r e s of nominals dominated by VP.

'

-T-OBJECT 'AGRE7

PSI, 11, p l , res The rule of object agreement copies the person and number f e a t u r e s i n the verb following the modal marker.

A s i n T-SUBJECT

AGREEMENT, i t a l s o s p e c i f i e s a l l transformationally-created segments within t h e verb a s [+PRO]

.

Rules of number segmentalization p a r a l l e l those required

i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, with one exception.

In stative

i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses a r u l e of n m b e r segmentalization operates on t h i r d person p l u r a l f e a t u r e bundles and c r e a t e s a b i p a r t i t e s t r u c t u r e with person features i n one bundle, number f e a t u r e s

i n another.

T-THIRD --

PERSON PLURAL NUMBER SEGMENTALIZATION (STATIVE INTRANSITIVE CLAUSES)

Spelling --Rules of the Stative Intransitive Subj e c t Pronominal~

4.6

Person Agreement in t h e Inchoative Aspect of Descriptive Verbs The description of Arikara deep s t r u c t u r e is regularized by

t h e assumption t h a t noun phrases i n a c t i v e and s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions derive from a u n i t a r y underlying source, and t h a t t h e difference i n surface case-marking i n t h e two clause types can be explained i n terms of t h e inherent verb f e a t u r e C+stativel.

A s we

have seen, this f e a t u r e t r i g g e r s a transformation which moves an underlying NP i n t o a position on a phrase marker s o t h a t agreement in the verb can be determined by a rule of object agreement. I n Chapter I11 (section 4) we noted t h a t d e s c r i p t i v e verb themes a r e o r d i n a r i l y i n f l e c t e d with t h e subject pronouns.

The

subject of a descriptive verb theme i n inchoative aspect, however

i s i n f l e c t e d with t h e objective s e t of pronouns. These inchoative i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions a r e a c t u a l l y cmplex.

The phrase marker underlying these sentences contains a

matrix sentence with constituents NPWP. tains an embedded sentence complement.

The NP of t h e matrix con(The.phrase s t r u c t u r e r u l e s

must be revised so t h a t NP may optionally be expanded a s S.

rules a r e presented in revised form i n Chapter V I I ) .

The

The verb of

the matrix sentence contains the inchoative verb theme became

fi "to

." The phrase marker underlying the sentence wetikura. n1Va-nu?

"I am getting old" is represented i n '(a).

, f ~ t i v e ~

MODE

VT

ASP

ind

VS

in;^

'I I /

A transformational r a i s i n i rule brings the VT of the em-

bedded sentence up into the V of the next highest duminating sentence.

The effect of the raising rule is i l l u s t r a t e d i n (b).

I

3?qay,v,/ MODE

VT

ina

vs

I

VT

ASP

l vs l

imp

The raising rule which produces t h i s structural change i s formulated as T-VT RAISING.

EL

T-VT --

NP

p a LEI2

RAISING

rsr71

~g]

VVP

SNP

117 -> I

-

I

V V P S

C+stative3

T-VT RAISING creates a complex verb which has the same feature marking a s the verb of the matrix, t+stative3.

The presence of the

feature C+stativel triggers T-STATIVE, resulting i n (c).

VT

MODE

VS na-nihc +BE

a=n

Person agreement i s accomplished by t h e r u l e of o b j e c t agreement i n t h e same way a s i n simple underlying s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions.

The transformational r u l e s must be ordered s o t h a t

T-RAISING precedes T-STATWE.

Both r u l e s must precede person

agreement.

4.7

Modal P r e f i x Agreement

-

The form of t h e i n d i c a t i v e modal p r e f i x ta- co-occurs with s u b j e c t s i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses s p e c i f i e d a s [+I3 and/or C+113.

The i n d i c a t i v e p r e f i x

ti- co-occurs

i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses s p e c i f i e d a s C-1,-113. c a t i v e modal p r e f i x

ti- co-occurs

with s u b j e c t s i n a c t i v e The form of t h e indi-

with a l l persons throughout t h e

stative i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm,

-

These f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the shape of t h e modal marker ta-

agrees with t h e f e a t u r e s [+I3 and/or [+I13 i n a noun phrase constit u e n t dominated by S. shape

ti- when

The i n d i c a t i v e modal marker is assigned the

t h e r e are no noun phrase c o n s t i t u e n t s dominated by S

containing t h e features [+I3 and/ o r [+I11

.

Modal p r e f i x agreement

in s t a t i v e clauses is determined following T-STATIVE, when there

are no noun phrase constituents dominated by S.

The rules of modal

p r e f i x agreement a r e formulated below a s spelling r u l e s which show e x p l i c i t l y t h e shape assigned t o Cind3 when it co-occurs with the specified f e a t u r e bundles. MODAL PREFIX AGREEMENT

(a) Active i n t r a n s i t i v e and t r a n s i t i v e clausas

1

4

MODE

VVPS

II MODE

VVPS

-Stative i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses

(b)

-+ I

N NP

MODE

VVPS

Ev dV] P S ?

MODE

Sub-part (a) accounts f o r t h e shape of the indicative modal p r e f i x in any phrase marker in which person features a r e contained

in a complex symbol in an NP d i r e c t l y dominated by S.

Sub-part (b)

accounts f o r t h e shape of t h e i n d i c a t i v e modal prefix i n a phrase marker i n which the single NP associated with t h e verb i s dominated by VP, i-e., in s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

4.8

Person Agreement in Transitive Clauses Transitive verb forms agree with both subject and object

nominals.

The order of nominal constituents within t h e verb is in-

variably subject-object.

Features of complex symbols must be

duplicated i n the verb by the application of T-OBJECT AGREEMENT and T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT, i n t h a t order. The phrase marker underlying the sentence C t a t o enino? 3"1 f e a r

you (sg) " is represented a s i n (a).

(a)

NP

I

N

LB&

/T

NP

I

N

/:\

MODE

VT

ASP

The r u l e of object agreement applies t o t h i s s t r u c t u r e creating the s t r u c t u r a l change i l l u s t r a t e d i n (b).

MOD< ind

Subsequently the r u l e of subject agreement applies, creating a second feature bundle t o the l e f t of t h e f i r s t , a s i n (c).

The r u l e of object agreement as formulated correctly copies the f e a t u r e s of t h e object nominal i n a position preceding the VT. The r u l e of subject agreement as i t now stands, however, does not e x p l i c i t l y account f o r t h e copying of subject f e a t u r e s i n transi-

tive clauses in a position preceding the object feature bundle. T-SUBJECT AGREEMEW must be modified slightly so that it copies features of the subject nominal in the appropriate position in both active intransitive and transitive clauses.

The necessary modifi-

cations are made in the revised version of T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT below.

-T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT

r

N NP

(revised)

VVPS

'

V V P S

F=I, 11, pl, res This modification of the rule indicates that subject features are copied preceding the VT in intransitive clauses, and preceding the transformationally-created.object feature bundle in transitive clauses. Rules of number segmentalization are somewhat more complex in transitive clauses than in either of the two intransitive clause types.

The transitive object pronominal forms are given in Chapter

I11 (section 5).

Number markers for all [+pl, -res] transitive

objects occur in a position'preceding the VS and following the PV,

in complex themes.

A generalized rule of number segmentalization

is formulated which duplicates number features of all [+pl, -res]

bundles i n t h e correct locus-

(Phonological r e a l i z a t i o n of number

features w i l l vary with person f e a t u r e s , however).

-T-C+PL,

-RES3

OBJECT NUMBER SEGMENTALIZATION IN TRANSITIVE CLAUSES.

Singular object forms do not undergo number segmentalization.

Number of d::al object forms, with t h e exception of t h e f i r s t

person i n c l u s i v e dual, is marked by t h e p r e f i x

3. Number

segmen-

t a l i z a t i o n i n dual object forms i s a s i n i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, except where t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject i s nonsingular. I n t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject forms (see p. 73) t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between dual and p l u r a l number i s . n e u t r a l i z e d , and i t is t h e dual t h a t is marked.

W e expect t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject t o be represented

by t h e same forms employed t o mark p l u r a l subject forms i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, as follows:

1i n c l p l

ta- onak

1 excl p l

t - *nak

2 PI

x- nak

3 PI

in. -0

Instead, i n transitive clauses these forms are r e a l i z e d as follows:

1i n c l p l

3i;.-sin

1 excl p l

l i e

=t

2 PI

xi*

.x

3i...$ ( f i r s t and second

gi I n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, number.

The number marker

& is

person objects) in ( t h i r d person objects)

only employed t o specify object

Hi, on t h e other hand,

can be construed

t o mark dual object number, dual subject number, o r p l u r a l subject number.

I n addition, t h e element

3 appears

only once i n any sur-

f a c e form, so t h a t i f t h e t r a n s i t i v e object is dual, and the trans i t i v e subject non-singular, context) whether the

3in

it is impossible t o determine (without

a t r a n s i t i v e form i s marking dual object

number o r non-singular subject number. surface forms involving ways.

Because of t h i s , t r a n s i t i v e

a may be i n t e r p r e t e d i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t

Ambiguous pronominal sequences a r e l i s t e d i n Table 4.4, with

possible underlying associated f e a t u r e bundles f o r each sequence. To account f o r nuraber marking of t h e t r a n s i t i v e s u b j e c t w e

must formulate a r u l e which operates on any subject f e a t u r e bundle within t h e V ( i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses) specified a s [+ply -resl and changes t h e f e a t u r e value of I r e s 3 from (-) t o (+). mulated as T-NUMBER NEUTRALIZATION.

The r u l e is for-

The rule a p p l i e s following

object and subject agreement, and preceding number segmentalization.

T-NUMBER -

NEUTRALIZATION

W e must a l s o account f o r the f a c t t h a t i n any surface form

-

t h e number marker g i may occur only once, even though t h e object be dual and t h e subject non-singular.

Formulated a s T-SI DELETION,

the r u l e s p e c i f i e s t h a t when two f e a t u r e bundles, both specified a s -C+pl, +resl occur on a phrase marker, the number f e a t u r e s i n the second bundle a r e deleted.

(This r u l e could a c t u a l l y be formulated

a s a sub-part of a more complex r u l e of T-NUMBER NEUTRALIZATION. For purposes of c l a r i t y , however, i t is presented a s a separate rule).

p

. T---DELE'TION ,-

pq FFJ rkj) i-res

1

+res

VT

7 => v

Table 4.4

Ambiguous Pronoun Sequences in Transitive Clauses

1 excl du-2 sg

q

rI: :g + res

+ res

+

+ res

k:d. - Pl

.

1 excl p l - 2 sg

res

19

+ res

1 sg-2 sg

[

1 excl pl-2 du

1 excl du-2 du

1 ~ g - 3d~

'

+Pl + res 1 excl pl-3 sg

- res

+ res 1 excl du-3 sg

+ res

Table 4.4 (cont)

NP 1 -

'NP 2 1 excl du-3 du

1 excl pl-3 du

- res 2 sg-1 excl du

2 du-1 sg

[:$1 - res

q

2 pl-1 sg

+ res

2 du-1 excl du

+ res 2 pl-1 e x c l du

+ res

+ res 2-sg-3 du

+ res

[q + res

[13 + res

2 du-3 s g

2 pl-3 sg

Table 4.4 (cont)

+ res

- res

+ res -

:n

+ PI

-+ res

2 sg-1 excl du

2 du-1 s g

q

+ res -+ I 1 -

2 pl-1 sg

2 du-1 excl du

+ res .

i]

2 pl-1 excl du

- res

1:;I + res

2 sg-3 du

+ res 2 du-3 sg

[:] + res

2 pl-3 s g

Table 4.4 (wnt)

['.;I :] + res

1;I - res - pl'

+ res -

2 pl-3 du

+ res

3 sg-1 excl du

+ res 3 du-1 sg

-+ res3 du-1 e x c l du

-+ res-- res-

[;q + res

[IP:.] + res

[:I + res

:I

[

+ res

i:] 21

3 pl-1 sg

3 pl-1 e x c l du

+ res

3 sg-2 du

+ res

3 du-3 s g

3 du-2 du

Table 4.4 (cont)

-

N P 2

+ res + res

+ res

[q

+ res

+ res

+ res

+ res

+ res 1 incl pl-3 sg

- res

Fig

[:(

1 incl pl-3 du

+ res.

- res

14 - res

+ res

+ res

q

+ res

21

+ res

Number segmentalization now applies to only one of the two feature bundles in the transitive construction. The actual rules are not formalized here, because they operate in the same way as do rules of number segmentalfzation in intransitive clauses. Number segmentalization in transitive clauses applies after T-OBJECT AGREE-

MENT, T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT, T-NUMBER NEUTRALIZATION, and

T-SI DELETION.

Spelling rules then replace specific feature bundles with the appropriate pronominal forms.

4.9 Reflexivization An Arikara verbal form is inflected with the reflexive prefix witi- when the -

(direct or indirect) object nominal of a sentence is

identical to a preceding subject nominal within the same simple sentence structure. A l l nominals are specified as t-ref11 in deep .

structure. In simple transitive, ditransitive, and intransitive clauses, a rule of reflexivization creates the feature [+ref11 within the verb subject to identity of the direct or indirect object nominal with the subject nominal, and deletes the identical external object nominal. The series of operations that results in reflexivization is more complex in intransitive and ditransitive clauses than it is in simple transitive clauses, however. We consider first reflexivization in transitive clauses.

The phrase marker underlying the sentence wititatuhna*ni=hitku?

"I am smudging myself" is represented in (a).

NP-

I

NP

1

!

N

HIDE

ind

ta Subnumerals

VT

ASP

I\

19"

PV VS

I 'I

! I

I

ut na-ni-hitk hu

mark identity of the noun phrases.

Reflexivization introduces the feature [+ref13 into the verb subject to identity of the two noun phrases, and deletes the external object nominal, as in (b)

N

PRO^

/I\

[+ref11

witi

MODE

.

VT

i I?

ASP

I

ind

PV VS

ta

ut na-niohitk hu

Since the resulting structure is in effect intransitivized, subject agreement now applies as in intransitive clauses. In ditransitive and intransitive constructions, on the other hand, the indirect object is specified as identical to the under-

lying subject.

Where t h e s u b j e c t and indirect object are i d e n t i c a l ,

the i n d i r e c t o b j e c t is defined i n deep s t r u c t u r e as a benefactive

nominal, c o n t z h b g t h e f e a t u r e C+ben3 (benefactive).

Before re-

f l e x i v i z a t i o n a g p l i e s i n d i t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, (and following n-OBJECT AGREEMENT i n d i t r a n s i t i v e clauses) T-BENEFACTIVE operates, introducing t h e f e a t u r e t+ben3 i n t o t h e verb (see

s e c t i o n 4.12).

Reflexivization a p p l i e s t o t h e derived s t r u c t u r e ,

introducing the f e a t u r e [+ref13 i n t o t h e verb and d e l e t i n g t h e e-xt e r n a l i n d i r e c t obj e c t nominal.

Subj e ct agreement follows re-

f l e x i v i z a tion. T-REFLEXIVE is formulated a s a set of two r u l e s .

Sub-part

(a) accounts for r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n simple t r a n s i t i v e clauses containing only s u b j e c t and d i r e c t object nominals; (b) accounts f o r

r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n i n t r a n s i t i v e and d i t r a n s i t i v e clauses, following T-BENEFACTIVE.

Although separate r u l e s a r e required t o c l e a r l y spe-

c i f y t h e s t r u c e u r a l descriptions on which r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n operates, nevertheless the e f f e c t of T-REFLEXIVE i s t h e same i n both (a) and

(b).

Reflexivlzation c r e a t e s t h e f e a t u r e [+ref11 i n t h e verb sub-

ject t o i d e n t i t p of an object nominal with the s u b j e c t nominal on a n underlying tree, and d e l e t e s the i d e n t i c a l e x t e r n a l ( d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t ) obj ect nominal,

-T-REFLEXIVE (a)

Transitive Clauses (identical direct object nominal)

(b)

Ditransitive and Intransitive Clauses (identical indirect object nominal)

A spelling readjustment is required to account for correct

reflexive surface forms.

We observed i n Chapter I11 (section 6)

that the reflexive prefix w i t i - i s discontinuous in dual forms containing gi.

Following T-REFLEXIVE, person agreement, and NUMBER

the rule of Dual Reflexive Spelling (abbreviated

SE-IZATION,

here t o show only relevant information) makes the necessary s p e l l i n g adjustments. Dual Reflexive Spelling

L

4.10

Reciprocals I n Chapter I11 (section

7 ) we observed t h a t constructions

inflected with w i t - permit the interpretation of reciprocal action, o r action on "each other", when the subject nominal i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses is non-singular.

Although reflexive and reciprocal construc-

t i o n s a r e i d e n t i c a l i n surface form, the meaning is d i f f e r e n t i n each case.

Consequently, sentences interpreted a s action on "each

other" a r e derived from an underlying source d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of reflexives.

In keeping with the standard analysis (cf. - Lees and Klima 1963:26-28) we suggest that reciprocal sentences such a s wigitituhna = n iohitku?

"they (du) a r e smudging each other" are derived

from an underlying phrase marker containing two conjoined sentences

i n which t h e subject nominal of S1 is coreferential with t h e object nominal of S2, and the object nominal of S1 is coreferential with

the subject nominal S2. wi%itituhna.ni.hitku?

in (a).

The (abbreviated phrase marker underlying

in its reciprocal interpretation is represented

The phrase marker may be "glossed" in English as in (b). (b)

Sl

: lTheyl

S2

: 2They2 are smudging ltheml

a r e smudging 2them2

\

2

s-

The complex conjunction rules needed t o derive correct surface

forms are not examined here. 4.11

D i t r a n s i t i v e Constructions The surface order of nominal constituents in d i t r a n s i t i v e

constructions is always subject-indirect object-direct object.

In

deep s t r u c t u r e t h e W i n d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions contains two NP's, the f i r s t t h e i n d i r e c t object nominal, the second the d i r e c t o b j e c t norainal. .

A s noted i n Chapter I11 (section 8 ), the p l u r a l

d i r e c t object i n d i t r a n s i t i v e constructions i s always realized a s

nan (inanimate), -

while t h e t h i r d person p l u r a l i n d i r e c t object i n

d i t r a n s i t i v e clauses is always realized a s ak (animate). The deep s t r u c t u r e of t i k u r a -nu "he gave them t o me" is represented in (a).

I

--

N N

N

MODE

(+res ti

u

0

I n order t o derive correct surface forms, we must order transformations so t h a t t h e r u l e of object agreement precedes a r u l e of i n d i r e c t object agreement; subject agreement follows both of these. I n d i r e c t object agreement is formulated below as T-INDIRECT

OBJECT AGREEMENT.

Note that t h i s r u l e operates both on d i t r a n s i t i v e

s t r u c t u r e s t o which T-OBJECT AGREEMENT 'has applied, and on intrans i t i v e structures.

I n d i r e c t object agreement i n i n t r a n s i t i v e struc-

t u r e s follows T-BENEFACTIVE, however (see 4.12)

-T-INDIRECT

.

OBJECT AGREEHENT

1

V W S

INNP I NNP

I L 2

NNP

Following T-SUBJECT AGREEMENT, number segmentalization r u l e s operate on transformationally-created i n d i r e c t object C+pl, - r e d f e a t u r e bundles, creating a separate bundle containing number f e a t u r e s immediately following t h e bundles of person features.

The operation

of number segmentalization on C+pl, - r e d f e a t u r e bundles is repre-

sented below w i t h a l l i r r e l w a n c d e t a i l s omitted from a s t r u c t u r a l description. SEGMENTALIZATION OF C+PL, -T-NUMBER OBJECT BUNDLES

-RESI INDIRECT

2-kanbe.z~segmentalization i n f e a t u r e bundles marked C f p l , +res3 (with t h e exception of t h e bundles marked [+I, +I13 c r e a t e s s e p a r a t e bundles containing number f e a t u r e s i n a p o s i t i o n preceding t h e modal prefix.

Number segmentalization of dual i n d i r e c t o b j e c t forms is

n o t s p e l l e d o u t s e p a r a t e l y f o r each form, but is given a s a general

r u l e below.

T-NUMBER -

SEGMENTALIZATION OF C+PL, +RES 3 INDIRECT OBJECT BUNDLES

T-SI DELETION precedes number segmentalization in d i t r a n s i t i v e clauses, however, a s well as i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

When two conse-

cutive bundles marked C+pl, +red occur i n a phrase marker underlying

a d i t r a n s i t i v e construction, the right-most number f e a t u r e s (those of the i n d i r e c t object) a r e deleted before number segmentalization operates.

T-31 --

4.12

-

DELETION I N DITRANSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Benefactives Benefactive nominals i n t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e construc-

tions a r e marked with the feature t+ben3 i n deep structure.

The

person and number features of any nominal marked C+benl a r e introduced i n t o t h e verb by a transformational r u l e T-BENEFACTIVE.

T-BENEFACTIVE

follows T-OBJECT AGREEMENT, in t r a n s i t i v e clauses, and precedes TINDIRECT OBJECT AGREEMENT i n a l l clause types.

T-BENEFACTIVE intro-

duces t h e f e a t u r e C+benJ i n t o t h e verb i n a position immediately t o the l e f t of the VT i n i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, and t o t h e l e f t of t h e pronominal object copy i n d i t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

1

L i b 4

NP

(C 7GD3 (PI) El

NP

NP

VVPS

-

3b3 NP

NP

(L

bg=>

Pa]

FpR7) I @ ! ,

]@OD.

~ b G i l ( ~

NP

VVPS

-

The f e a t u r e C+benl is r e a l i z e d a s u t i f t h e v e r b theme is sim-

ple.

If t h e verb theme contains t h e p r w e r b s

ut

or

s, however,

[+bed is r e a l i z e d a s i n i f t h e person f e a t u r e s of t h e benefactive nominal (introduced by T-INDIRECT OBJECT AGREEMENT, following TBENEFACTIVE) a r e non-third,

and a s -in+ni i f t h e f e a t u r e s of t h e bene-

f a c t i v e nominal a r e t h i r d person.

The r u l e of benefactive s p e l l i n g

below i n d i c a t e s how t h e category C+benl

, once

i t is transformationally

introduced i n t o t h e verb, i s r e a l i z e d under t h e conditions s p e c i f i e d

i n t h e r u l e ' s s t r u c t u r a l description; elsewhere, i t i s Benefactive S p e l l i n g

s.

FOOTNOTE 1

It is significant that languages of the Siouan and Iroquoian families also exhibit split-intransitive case-marking, since work has been done recently G.Chafe 1973) to support the notion that Caddoan, Siouan, and Iroquoian may be genetically related at . great time depths.

Chapter V

5.1

Ergative-Accusative Syntactic Typology On t h e b a s i s of t h e description presented i n Chapter 111,

and t h e a n a l y s i s presented i n Chapter IV, we now consider t h e question of s y n t a c t i c "type" i n Arikara.

'The claim has been made

t h a t t h e Caddoan languages a r e of "ergative" s y n t a c t i c type.

We

claim i n s t e a d that Arikara is a language of "accusative" type. The following discussion examines t h e notions of "ergativity" and "accusativity,"

and e s t a b l i s h e s t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e l a t t e r

t o the Arikara case. W e must f i r s t comment on the notion of s y n t a c t i c "typet'

a s i t i s used here.

The p a r t i c u l a r typology with which we a r e

dealing i s based on t h e s y n t a c t i c treatment of noun phrases i n t h r e e primary functions. s i t i v e clause types.

A l l languages have t r a n s i t i v e and intran-

Verbs i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses have a t l e a s t two

primary noun phrases associated with them, referred t o by t h e r e l a t i o n a l o r functional l a b e l s " t r a n s i t i v e subject" and " t r a n s i t i v e object

.

"

Verbs i n i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses have associated with them

only one primary noun phrase, t o which t h e functional l a b e l "intrans i t i v e subject" is applied. The d i s t i n c t i o n between "ergative" and "accusative" systems

is based on t h e s y n t a c t i c treatment and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of noun phrase constituents in a c t i v e declarative surface sentences.

In e r g a t i v e

languages the object of the t r a n s i t i v e and the subject of t h e intran-

s i t i v e verb are s y n t a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , while the s u b j e c t of t h e

transitive verb is distinguished syntactically from the two other verbal functions.

In languages with morphological case-marking

systems, the unique treatment of the transitive subject is in terms of a case-marking formative termed "ergative case" for which (at least) the noun constituent of the subject noun phrase is inflected. The intransitive subject and transitive object receive no overt case-formative, and are said to be in the "nominative" case. Accusative systems, by a minimal definition, are those in which transitive and intransitive subjects are syntactically iden.

tified, while the transitive object is distinguished syntactically from both of these.

In languages with nominal case-marking, the

unique treatment of the transitive object is in terms of a casemarking formative termed "accusative case" which is attached to at least the head noun of the object noun phrase, while transitive and intransitive subjects are in the unmarked, or "nominative," case. Thus, in ergative systems there is one surface morphological form-class, intransitive subject-transitive object.

This suggests

that at the time of structure-dependent transfomrations, noun phrases in these two functions are in identical positions on a phrase marker. That is, there is no cause to distinguish'intransitive subjects from transitive objects in terms of the transformational rules which apply to noun phrases in these two functions, indicating that the relations of the noun phrases in these functions to the verb are 1

identical.

In accusative systems, on the other hand, there is a

single.surface form-class, transitive subject-intransitive subject,

suggesting t h a t noun phrases in these two functions a r e in iden-

tical p o s i t i o n s on an underlying tree.

I n ergative systems t h e

aspmetric function is t h a t of t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject, w h i l e in accusative systems the asymmetric function is that of the transit i v e object. Clearly, not a l l grammatical systems of e i t h e r type have morphological case-marking.

The functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s of noun

phrases t o verbs are indicated a t t h e surface i n languages by d i f f e r e n t s o r t s of syntactic mechanisms, including agreement i n t h e verb by pronominal cross-reference, a f f i x a t i o n of pronominal formatives, and word order, as w e l l a s a f f i x a t i o n of case-marking formatives t o noun phrase constituents.

The various s y n t a c t i c

mechanisms employed i n languages express the same kind of information, namely the syntactic r e l a t i o n s between noun phrases and verb, which we may term "case-relations." may speak of "case-marking"

I n t h i s broad sense we

i n a l l grammatical systems, regardless

of t h e a c t u a l surface manifestation.

I n Arikara, t h e surface

morphology of nouns is q u i t e simple; no case-marking formatives

are attached t o noun phrase constituents themselves.

Instead,

case-marking is i n terms of pronoknals o b l i g a t o r i l y incorporated

i n t h e verb, a s described i n Chapters I11 .and IV.

5.2

Markedness of Functions i n Ergative and Accusative Systems The difference between accusative and e r g a t i v e systems is

usually defined i n t h e following terms: i f t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject is i n case A, and t h e t r a n s i t i v e object is i n case B, a language

is accusative i f t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is in case A, and ergat i v e if t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is i n case B.

This d e f i n i t i o n

ignores t h e case-marking of t h e t r a n s i t i v e functions by simply

ass-

the opposition of t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e ob-

ject, and focuses on the case-marking of the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject. Thus, t h e treatment of the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is considered diagnostic of syntactic type.

Actually, t h e treatment of t h e intran-

s i t i v e subject is e n t i r e l y predictable i n both ergative and accus a t i v e systems on t h e b a s i s of assignment of markedness values t o t h e two t r a n s i t i v e functions. I n accusative systems such a s Latin, t h e t r a n s i t i v e object is morphologically marked and the t r a n s i t i v e subject morphologi-

c a l l y unmarked(e.g.,

Caesar-em, accusative; Caesar-0,

nominative).

In ergative systems such a s Walbiri, markedness values of the t m t r a n s i t i v e functions a r e reversed: t h e t r a n s i t i v e subject is morphologically marked, while t h e t r a n s i t i v e object is unmarked (Walbiri,

+,

ergative case;

-6,

nominative case).

In both types of

systems the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is i d e n t i f i e d with the unmarked member of t h e p a i r of t r a n s i t i v e functions.

ject is therefore always unmarked.

The i n t r a n s i t i v e sub-

Greenberg (1966:95) points t h i s

out in the formulation of his thirty-ei&thuniversal:

''Where there

is a case system, t h e only case which ever has only zero allomorphs is the one which includes among its meanings t h a t of the subject

of t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb,"

Thus, while the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the

i n t r a n s i t i v e subject with one or t h e other of t h e t r a n s i t i v e func-

tions may be considered diagnostic of syntactic type, it is impor-

.

.

tant to.remember thapthe variation in case-marking which distinguishes accusative from ergative systems occurs within the transitive functions.

5.3

Split-Ergative Systems

In thoroughly ergative systems all nouns and pronouns are consistently case-marked on the basis of syntactic function. - A l l transitive subjects are in the ergative case, and all intransitive subjects and transitive objects are in the nomi~liltivecase.

In

addition to fully ergative systems, however, there is another kind of surface case-marking system, attested in the Dyirbal language of North Queensland and other Australian languages, as well as in Chinook of the Pacific Northwest, in which some nominal categories are case-marked in accordance with the principle described above for ergative systems, while others are case-marked according to the principle described for accusative systems. The distinction developed in section 5.2 between ergative and accusative systems in tenns of differential assignment of markedness values to the two transitive functions is necessary to the understanding of case-

marking in these so-called "split-ergative" systems.

In Dyirbal, first and second person pronouns are accusatively case-marked, while third person pronouns and all nouns are ergatively case-marked.

Sentences (1)-(7)

(taken from Dixon 1972)

illustrate this system. When first and second person pronouns occur in the same sentence with nouns, the pronouns are still accusatively

.

case-marked, and the nouns ergatively case-rked. (1)

s bj -nm

(2)

laugh-intrans

pinda miyandanu s bj -nom

(3)

@a

(4)

I 'look a t thee.

ninuna buran

look a t - t r a n s Thou lookest a t me.

pinda nayguna buran sbj-nom d i r obj-acc

(5)

pa&

look at-trans I am looking a t t h e man.

bayi yara buran

sbj-nom d i r obj-nom

look at-trans

nayguna bangul yarangu b u ~ a n d i r obj-acc

(7)

Thou a r t laughing.

laugh-intrans

sbj-nom d i r obj-acc

(6)

I am laughing.

pada miyandanu

sbj-erg

Man i s looking a t me.

look a t - t r a n s

bayi yara bangun dugumbiru buran Woman is looking at man. d i r obj-nom

sbj-erg

look at-trans

S i l v e r s t e i n provides a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s type of case-system i n h i s unpublished paper "Feature Hierarchy and Ergat i v i t y , " in which he demonstrates t h e d i r e c t r o l e played by nominal and pronominal f e a t u r e s in morpho-syntax.'

I n t h e following dis-

cussion, S i l v e r s t e i n ' s ideas a r e f r e e l y rendered and adapted. I n s p l i t - e r g a t i v e systems a consistent r e l a t i o n s h i p can be demonstrated between semantic classes on t h e one hand and surf a c e morphological patterning on t h e other.

Semantic c l a s s e s a r e

groupings o r sets of nouns and pronouns which p a t t e r n a l i k e with

respe& t o some morphological o r s y n t a c t i c function.

The classes

-

are established on t h e b a s i s of f e a t u r e s which represent surfacecoded semantic distinctions.

For pronouns, t h e set of features

includes such values a s fkparticipant3, Efhumanl, Cf anhatel, and *pluralJ.

The f e a t u r e Cfparticipantl r e f e r s t o the speech situa-

tion, and distinguishes f i r s t and second persons from a l l t h i r d person categories.

I n some systems t h e f e a t u r e Cfnon-speakerl, which

d i f f e r e n t i a t e s f i r s t from second persons, a l s o plays a r o l e i n t h e f e a t u r e set. 2 Many of t h e same f e a t u r e s apply t o nouns, with t h e except i o n of e p a r t i c i p a n t 1 and Chon-speaker3 categories.

Other f ea-

tures , including Cfproperl and Ckconcrete3, are relevant t o nominal but not pronominal systems. Clearly, t h e l e x i c a l f e a t u r e specification of a noun phrase is not unrelated t o its syntactic privileges of occurrence and the

s y n t a c t i c functions it can f i l l . specified f o r categories of

Noun phrases t h a t a r e positively

, ['human],

[f p a ~ t i c i p a n t l

and C'animate3

serve more frequently and more acceptably i n the function of trans i t i v e subject than do noun phrases negatively specified f o r these features.

(Clearly, too, noun phrases positively specified f o r

these categories have real-world r e f e r e n t s t h a t are consistently more animate than those of noun phrases negatively specified f o r these values).

Most t r a n s i t i v e verbs have s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s

which favor human and animnte subjects and disfavor nonhuman, inanimate subjects.

The features in languages indicative of naturalness

as t r a n s i t i v e subject presumably a r e composed of values a s indicated

h 1)(6)

.

These features are probably largely universal, al-

though p a r t i c u l a r systems may exhibit language-specific variation.

(1)

c+-NP3

(2)

Eparticipant3

(3)

Ckhumanl

(4)

Ckanimate3

(5)

[*roper3

(6)

[*concrete3

Positive specification of a noun f o r these f e a t u r e s points towards naturalness o r greater s t a t i s t i c a l acceptability a s t r a n s i t i v e subject, negative specification towards naturalness a s object. The features operative i n a given grammatical system can only be i d e n t i f i e d i f they receive some s o r t of surface-coding. The s p l i t i n case-marking in Dyirbal which distinguishes f i r s t and second person categories from a l l others provides c l e a r evidence f o r t h e postulation of t h e 'feature c*participantl.

fhe

s p l i t i n Dyirbal recapitulates our independent notion of the semantic markedness of l e x i c a l features of noun phrases.

The

f e a t u r e [-participant3 distinguishes t r u e personal indices, whose r e f e r e n t s are concretely definable in terms of the speech s i t u a t i o n

from anaphoric forms not so definable.

The f e a t u r e CfparticipantJ

is shared by t r a d i t i o n a l "third personff categories as well a s a l l nouns.

In Dyirbal, case-marking is not assigned on t h e b a s i s of t h e syntactic function t h a t a noun phrase f i l l s .

Rather, t h e assign-

ment of surface case-marking is mediated by l e x i c a l f e a t u r e speci..

f i c a t i o n s of noun phrases.

High-ranking categories

.

( , . ,referen-

t i a l l y well-defined I+perticipantl categories) are t h e most natural t r a n s i t i v e subjects.

By a principle of maximal d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ,

o r polarity, high-ranking categories a r e defined as unnatural transit i v e objects within the grammatical system.

Thus, high-ranking

categories a r e case-marked i n Dyirbal according t o an accusative system, which distinguishes the t r a n s i t i v e object as t h e specialized t r a n s i t i v e category.

That is, when a high-ranking category occurs

i n t h e unnatural object function, it is morphologically marked.

. ., a l l

On t h e other hand, low-ranking categories i n Dyirbal ( i e

[-participant1 categories) a r e ergatively case-marked.

In an erga-

t i v e system, the t r a n s i t i v e subject i s t h e highly-marked, specia-

.

lized t r a n s i t i v e function.

When a low-ranking category occurs a s

t r a n s i t i v e subject, it receives a special mark of e r g a t i v i t y reflec-

ting its unnaturalness i n t h i s function. In surmnary, case-marking i n Dyirbal expresses a hierarchy of semantic classes with respect t o the t r a n s i t i v e functions.

High-

ranking categories a r e accusatively case-marked, and low-ranking categories a r e ergatively case-marked.

m e s p l i t i n case-marking

indexes on the one hand the naturalness of high-ranking categories

i n t h e function of t r a n s i t i v e subject, and on t h e other hand t h e unnaturalness of low-ranking categories i n the t r a n s i t i v e subject function.

Thus, there is a consistent relationship between semantic

classes and morphological case-marking, iconically expressed by t h e

potential in languages f o r an opposition between marked and un-

marked categories. It should be mentioned i n passing t h a t Dixon demonstrates a t some length t h a t t h e s p l i t operative in Dyirbal is morphological, and not syntactic.

I n syntactic patterning (under transformations),

both nouns and pronouns conform t o an ergative syntactic system. Although the d e t a i l s of the proof a r e not of immediate concern here, Dixon shows (1972:132) t h a t the s p l i t represents a variation on a basically ergative system.

O f concern here a r e t h e dynamics behind

the s p l i t i n case-marking.

The nature of the s p l i t underscores the

f a c t t h a t accusative systems focus on and mark t h e patientive s t a t u s of t r a n s i t i v e objects, while ergative systems focus on and mark t h e agentive s t a t u s of t r a n s i t i v e subjects. .

exhibiting t h e opposite s p l i t

The discovery of languages

(G., ergative

marking f o r high-

ranking categories, accusative marking f o r low-ranking ones) would pruvide evidence against t h i s generalization, but so f a r , no languages of t h i s description have been documented.

I n an unpublished

paper, Heath (1974) provides evidence t h a t the s p l i t i n case-marking

i n Murngin and other Australian languages may occur a t lower l e v e l s

i n the nominal hierarchy, but the principle operative i n the Murngin s p l i t is t h e same a s t h a t operative i n Dyirbal.

5.4

Caddoan: Ergative o r Accusative? With t h i s introduction, we turn t o the arguments of Parks

and Rood i n support of the idea that South Band and Wichita are ergative systems.

Parks (1972) is primarily concerned with t h e description of surface phonology and morphology in South Band.

He does, however,

assert t h a t South Band is of e r g a t i v e s y n t a c t i c type, Paxks makes. a d i s t i n c t i o n in South Band between a c t i v e and

passive verbs : Active verbs designate scts o r processes...Active verbs are, i n turn, divided i n t o two subclasses, a t r a n s i t i v e and int r a n s i t i v e . Members of both of these subclasses take n= s u b j e c t s and are i n f l e c t e d with t h e same subject pronoun forms, Transitive verbs, however, d i f f e r from i n t r a n s i t i v e ones i n t h a t they take noun objects and a r e i n f l e c t e d f o r object pronouns...Passive verbs d i f f e r from a c t i v e verbs by being objectively i n f l e c t e d ; t h a t is, what is interpret i v e l y a pronominal s u b j e c t i s i n f l e c t i o n a l l y a pronominal object. I n passive verbs, then, an action b e f a l l s o r happens t o a p a t i e n t , o r grammatical object (Parks 1972:141-142). The passive verbs of Park's description a r e equivalent t o t h e s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e s of Arikara. .

It is misleading and in-

cosr.ect t o r e f e r t o t h e South Band verbs a s passive.

I n accusa-

t i v e languages, passivization r e f e r s t o a transformational operat i o n of t o p i c i z a t i o n which changes the subject-object r e l a t i o n s t o t h e verb of t h e two primary noun phrases i n a t r a n s i t i v e construction.

I n passivization t h e node dominated by VP becomes the

node dominated by S; thus, t h e d i r e c t object becomes a surface

subject, o r topic.

I n e r g a t i v e languages, a p a r a l l e l antipassive

transformation i n v e r t s t h e primary noun phrases i n a t r a n s i t i v e clause, s o t h a t t h e node dominated by S becomes dominated by VP.

In both passive and a n t i p a s s i v e transformation i t is the asymmetric, marked t r a n s i t i v e function t h a t changes.

The South Band construc-

t i o n s which Parks terms "passive" have only one associated noun phrase a t both surface and underlying l e v e l s , and thus do not i l l u s -

trate a passive relationship i n any technical sense. Parks claims t h a t South Band is ergative on t h e b a s i s of t h e system of p l u r a l number marking.

In nmrking number f o r subjects and objects among a c t i v e verbs, t h e sunbjects of i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs and the objects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs take t h e same forms f o r indicating p l u r a l i t y ; while the subjects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs take a d i f f e r e n t s e t of forms f o r indicating p l u r a l i t y . Pawnee is therefore a language of the ergative type; and in addition t o distinguishing between subjects and objects, we may a l s o distinguish between agents and patients. Agents a r e t h e subjects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs and a r e i n t h e ergative case; whereas p a t i e n t s a r e both the subjects of i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs and t h e objects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs, and are i n t h e non-ergative case (Parks 1972:142). P l u r a l number marking provides rather weak evidence upon which t o base a claim of ergative syntactic type i n South Band. Actually, p l u r a l number marking i n South Band i s e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l t o p l u r a l nmber marking i n Arikara.

In both Arikara and South

Band, number marking f o r t h i r d person p l u r a l i n t r a n s i t i v e subj e c t s and t r a n s i t i v e objects is not equivalent.

Furthermore,

-

South Band rak (Arikara nak) p l u r a l i z e s f i r s t and second persons of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs, f i r s t and second person objects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs, and a l l persons of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs. With the exception of i t s use f o r a l l persons i n s t a t i v e intrans i t i v e constructions, & s i g n a l s

t h a t non-third forms a r e plural.

A s i n Arikara, South Band nonsingular t r a n s i t i v e subjects e x h i b i t n e u t r a l i z a t i o n of dual and p l u r a l number, and dual number is marked. For t h i s reason, j e c t s . . The use of

is never employed t o p l u r a l i z e t r a n s i t i v e sub-

& to

p l u r a l i z e i n t r a n s i t i v e subjects and

t r a n s i t i v e objects, and not t r a n s i t i v e subjects, is the r e s u l t of

neutralization of t h e dual-plural d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h e norsingular' t r a n s i t i v e subject.

It does not p r w i d e evidence f o r ' t h e syntac-

t i c identification of i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object I

functions. The application of the term " ~ g a t i v e " t o South Band appears t o be based on a misunderstanding of t h e term.

As defined i n section

5.2, ergative systems are those in which the t r a n s i t i v e subject

is the asymmetric, marked function of t h r e e primary verbal functions, while the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object a r e syntactically identified.

I n South Band, as in Arikara, transi-

t i v e subjects and objects a r e marked by d i s t i n c t s e t s of pronouns. Most i n t r a n s i t i v e subjects a r e case-marked with t h e subject pronouns; these a r e the subjects of active i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs.

In

addition, a much smaller number of i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs require that t h e i r subjects be objectively case-marked; these a r e the subjects of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs.

is

Thus, i n the Pawnee languages, i t

case-marking within the i n t r a n s i t i v e paradigm t h a t requires

explanation.

We cannot claim that t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is

invariably case-marked i n the same way as the t r a n s i t i v e object. Rather, we a r e dealing with two d i f f e r e n t kinds of i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs, active and s t a t i v e .

Rood (1971) approaches t h e active-stative i n t r a n s i t i v e s p l i t in Wichita from a different point of view.

H e writes with

t h e i n t e n t of establishing the primacy of Chafe-style "agent" and "patient" relationships over t r a d i t i o n a l notions of "subject"

and "object", Transformationalists generally assume that t h e primary relationships a r e "subject" and "object". Fillmore (1968) and Chafe (1970) prefer several kinds of relationships ("agent", "patient", "instrumental", beneficiary", etc, ) which appear in t h e surface s t r u c t u r e as subjects and objects in English (Fillmore 1968) and a s agents and patients i n Onondaga (Chafe 1970). But no d e s c r i p t i o n ' t h a t I have seen discusses the co-occurrence of both subject and patient in the same language a t t h e same time (Rood 1971: 100)

.

Although he uses the term f'ergative" only once (Rood 1971:105), Rood appears t o claim t h a t Wichita exhibits a s p l i t system i n which f i r s t and second person categories a r e syntactical-

. l y treated i n one way, and t h i r d person categories and nouns in another.

H e s t a t e s t h a t f i r s t and second person subject and ob-

ject fonns a r e fundamentally d i s t i n c t , so t h a t there is no problem in describing these categories i n terms of the t r a d i t i o n a l subject-obj e c t dichotomy.

The subj ect-obj ect case-sys t e m "sepa-

r a t e s t h e objects of t r a n s i t i v e verbs from t h e subjects of a l l verbs" (Rood 1971:lOO).

Further on, however, he remarks t h a t

"the objective case of the pronouns i s used t o express the only nominal in. .construction with s t a t i v e verbs" (Rood 1971: 101). Because of this, a contrast between agent and patient case forms

must be defined i n order t o separate "the' subject of a t r a n s i t i v e verb (the 'agent')

from t h e other subjects ('patients')"

(~ood

Rood s t a t e s that t h i r d person forms exhibit no distinct i v e subject-object contrast.

W e a r e t o understand by this t h a t

third person forms (with the acception of obviative forms) receive

no concrete phonological representation.

(Plural number of non-

singular third person forms is overtly marked, however.)

He

concludes, therefore, t h a t t h e f o r m of t h e t h i r d person pronouns provide no indication of whether they follow a subject-object o r

an agent-patient d s e system.

Other evidence, however, indicates

t h a t third person forms follow an agent-patient case-marking system. 3 Rood summarizes the f a c t s of Wichita by saying that "nonthird persons show in t h e surface s t r u c t u r e a subject-object case distinction, whereas t h i r d person forms use an agent-patient system'' (Rood 1971:104).

His analysis recognizes three d i f f e r e n t

kinds of verbs: t r a n s i t i v e s , i n t r a n s i t i v e s , and s t a t i v e s .

An early

r u l e of Wichita grammar specifies a l l verbs a s having an associated patient noun.

By a second rule, t r a n s i t i v e verbs a r e specified

a s having an associated agent noun.

Underlying agents a r e l a t e r

realized a s t r a n s i t i v e subjects, while patient nouns associated with t r a n s i t i v e and s t a t i v e verbs a r e l a t e r specified a s surface structure objects.

The underlying patient nouns associated with

i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs, however, a r e l a t e r marked a s surface subjects. Rood's major theoretical assertion is t h a t "subject" and "object" a r e surface notions, and that underlying noun-verb relationships a r e b e t t e r characterized by the more universal notions of "agent" and "patient"

.

The surf ace r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e universal

semantic relationships may vary from language t o language.

I n the

Wichita case, some deep s t r u c t u r e p a t i e n t s a r e realized a s subjects and others a s objects.

Presumably, same underlying patient nouns

are marked as surface s t r u c t u r e objects because Wichita has a s y n t a c t i c rule requiring t h a t underlying nouns associated with s t a t i v e verbs be realized a s surface objects. ,

Another r u l e spe-

c i f i e s that underlying p a t i e n t nouns associated with i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs be marked a s surface s t r u c t u r e subjects. Seemingly, t h e terms "agent" and "patient" a r e employed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t c e r t a i n t j p e s of verbs have associated nouns which stand i n a p a r t i c u l a r semantic relationship t o them.

In

t h i s case, however, the notions of agent and p a t i e n t a r e s o broad a s t o be p r a c t i c a l l y meaningless.

It is d i f f i c u l t t o claim t h a t

t h e s i n g l e noun phrase associated with Wichita i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs

is W e r e n t l y patientive, especially since i n surface s t r u c t u r e these noun phrases a r e cross-referenced by t h e subject pronouns. The use of the term "patient" is t h e r e s u l t of a p a r t i c u l a r theor e t i c a l stance which, i n t h i s case, obscures the f a c t s of t h e language t o be described.

Indeed, the use of the term "subject" t o r e f e r

t o the s i n g l e noun phrase associated with i n t r a n s i t i v e s seems more n e u t r a l and l e s s subject t o question.

Furthermore, no c o n s t r a i n t s

a r e placed by the analysis on the transformational relationships between underlying agents and p a t i e n t s and surface s t r u c t u r e subjects and objects.

Unless constraints on these relationships can be

motivated, any underlying categories may be transformed i n t o any surface s t r u c t u r e categories, and thus the search f o r relationships between semantic classes and surface morpho-syntactic patterning

must be abandoned e n t i r e l y .

Methodologically, we a r e j u s t i f i e d i n

postulating underlying semantic categories only when formal evidence can be produced t o motivate them.

5.5

S p l i t - I n t r a n s i t i v i t y in Arikara I

Arikara maintains a surface d i s t i n c t i o n between two types of i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

The s u b j e c t s of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs

a r e e x p l i c i t l y agentive on t h e surface, and t h e s u b j e c t s of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs, e x p l i c i t l y patientive.

Both types of surface

constructions are derived from t h e same a b s t r a c t underlying struc-

ture.

The difference i n surface case-marking in Arikara i s moti-

vated by t h e inherent verb f e a t u r e f + . s t a t i v d .

The presence of t h e

f e a t u r e i n deep s t r u c t u r e t r i g g e r s t h e transformation T-STATIVE formulated i n Chapter IV (section 5).

....

S p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e case-marking i s widely d i s t r i b u t e d i n North America.

It is found i n Iroquois (Boas 1909:438), Dakota

(Boas and Deloria 1941:1), Haida (Swanton 1911:217), Hidatsa (Matthews 1965:62), and Choctaw (Heath 1974), a s w e l l a s i n Caddoan. S p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e systems a r e distinguished from unitary i n t r a n s i t i v e systems l i k e t h a t of English, i n which t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is always represented by t h e subject pronouns. The n a t u r e of t h e s p l i t i n these languages deserves f u r t h e r

study.

Perhaps t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of underlying semantic c l a s s e s t o

surface morphological patterning is governed by p r i n c i p l e s which operate t o a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r extent, but i n p a r a l l e l ways, i n t h e various languages.

The following remarks a r e offered a s a

t e n t a t i v e formulation of t h e semantics behind t h e s p l i t i n Arikara.

In Arikara, by f a r the majority of i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs a r e active.

Active i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs designate actions and processes

("to run"), as w e l l a s conditions and s t a t e ("to know," "to be

lying down," "to be good," "to want").

For the most p a r t , s t a t i v e

i n t r a n s i t i v e s designate conditions (''to

be hungry"),

cesses ("to die").

but a l s o pro-

There appears t o be no a p r i o r i way of deter-

mining which i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs w i l l be active, and which s t a t i v e . A d i s t i n c t i o n i n tenns of verbs designating a c t i v i t i e s versus verbs d e s i g n a t h g lack of a c t i v i t y appears inadequate.

However, the

s t a t i v e verbs in Arikara constitute a semantic class.

A l l stative

verbs designate s t a t e s o r processes of which the subject is not the active agent; rather, the subject of the s t a t i v e verb is affected by the s t a t e o r process denoted by the predicate.

The parti-

cipation of the subject i n the verbal a c t i v i t y i s non-intentional. Perhaps more important is the f a c t t h a t a l l s t a t i v e verbs i n A r i kara require animate subjects.

terms of a nominal f eatu;e

hierarchy, a l l s t a t i v e verbs i n Arikara

(x., "to be cold,"

"to

be hungry," "to need," "to itch," "to be sick," "to be tired," "to ache o r hurt," "to be afraid," and "to wake up") require highranking subjects positively specified f o r the feature [animate]. J u s t as the s p l i t i n split-ergative systems indexes the unnaturalness of low-ranking categories i n the agentive t r a n s i t i v e subject function, the s p l i t i n the Arikara i n t r a n s i t i v e system appears t o index t h e function

tmna=uralness of high-ranking categories i n a non-agentive

(Q. , as

subjects of s t a t i v e verbs).

High-ranking cate-

gories associated w i t h s t a t i v e verbs receive a s p e c i a l mark of t h e i r unnaturalness i n the non-agentive function by objective surface case-marking. It is premature t o suggest t h a t t h i s p r i n c i p l e o r same

variant of i t is operative i n a l l t h e s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e systems named above.

However, w e appear t o be dealing with a four-fold

s t a b l e surface case-marking typology.

On t h e one hand, we have

ergative systems and split-ergative v a r i a n t s of than, and on t h e other hand, accusative systems and s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e v a r i a n t s of these.

Further study of s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e systems must in-

volve rigorous d e f i n i t i o n of l e x i c a l verb features within each language, and selectional r e s t r i c t i o n s of verbs, i n order t o e s t a b l i s h a basis f o r cross-linguistic comparison.

FOOTNOTES The r o l e played by l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s of noun phrases i n Algonkian d i r e c t and inverse thane-marking is widely known. I n The AlgonEtian languages, t r a n s i t i v e verbs involving action by [+participant If irst and second persons on third, and proximate on obviative t h i r d , receive no special mark, and are said t o be "direct" themes. Transitive verbs inXolving a c t i o n by E-part i c i p a n t l t h i r d persons on f i r s t and second, and obviative on proximate t h i r d , receive a s p e c i a l mark of t h e "abnormal" subject-object relationship, t h e "inverse" theme-sign Another i n t e r e s t i n g study of t h e r o l e of f e a t u r e hierarchies i n syntax is Hale's paper (1974), A Note on Subject-Object Inversion in Navajo, i n which i t is shown t h a t passivization i n Navajo is governed by l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s of subject-object p a i r s .

-&.

2

The f e a t u r e Cfnon-speaker1 i s operative i n Algonkian person-marking and p r i v i l e g e of occurrence rules. The naturalness-coding of subject-object p a i r s by theme-marking i n Algonkian i s supplemented by an ordering principle which s e l e c t s second person markers in preference t o f i r s t person markers i n transit i v e sentences involving these two persons.

3

Part of Rood's evidence f o r this involves p l u r a l marking. The following passage i s intended by Rood t o e s t a b l i s h a s f a c t t h a t t h i r d person forms follow an agent-patient case-marking system: One s e t of allomorphs p l u r a l i z e s patients; another is used f o r agents. I n (S), forms (a-d) a r e pat i e n t plurals, marked by ak o r L, depending on t h e verb. Forms (e) and (f) a r e agent p l u r a l s , marked by the hi- prefix. (5) tapakhish They went (a) ti- ak-hisha ta?ak?i:ys He saw them (b) ti- ak- i:y s (c) ti- r-tacka as-s tickackatass They b u r s t (d) ti-r-tacka as-k causative -s (e) hi-ti i:y-s (f) hi-ti-tacka as-k-s (Rood 1971:102)

open

ticacka?asks H e b u r s t them open h i t i ' l i : ys They s a w him hititacka?asks They b u r s t i t --

open

.

*

From sentences (e) and (f) it appears that in Wichita, as in South Band and Arikara, the dual-plural opposition is neutralized in nonsingular transitive subjects. Rood's evidence does not satisfactorily establish the syntactic identification of transitive object and intransitive subject. In the examples cited, intransitive subjects appear to be marked for plurality in two different ways, one of which is indeed equivalent to number-.marking for the third person transitive object.

Chapter V I

6.1

Introduction

This chapter examines possession i n Arikara.

There is a

diverse a r r a y of constructions i n Arikara which may be grouped together under t h e general term "possessive .I1

Two type of inde-

pendent possessive predications a r e described, followed by the description of c l a u s a l constructions of subject and object possession.

Tentative analyses a r e suggested f o r the possessive

constructions.

6.2

Predication of "Having" I n Arikara, an independent possessive constrcction expres-

ses the notion of "having," o r simple possession, without any implication of ownership.

The construction may be used t o express

possession of inanimate objects, gnimate creatures (e.g.,

horses,

dogs) a s w e l l a s body p a r t s and products. The construction is formed with the verb theme nanah "to have."

The possessor i s indexed i n t h e verb by t h e subject pronouns

employed i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions (see 3.2) ; t h a t is, t h e r e is no n e u t r a l i z a t i o n of dual-plural subject number.

The

possessed nominal i s represented by a noun which may be e i t h e r independent o r incorporated i n the verb. Table 6.1 presents a paradigm of the construction of "having."

The possessed body product

"tears1'

is expressed by t h e obligatorily-

incorporated noun E i r i t s - "eye water," a compound of

Firi * k "eye" and

ts-, -

a bound form of "water," morphologically r e l a t e d t o t h e inde-

pendent noun stem tsto-h- "water." The possession of an inanimate object is i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e mixed paradigm i n Table 6.2.

karu.x-

In some forms the possessed nominal

"medicine bundle" is incorporated i n the verb, while i n

o t h e r s i t i s expressed a s an independent noun outside the verb.

The

paradigm is presented with incorporated possessed nominal i n some -forms, and independent possessed nominal i n others, t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e f a c t t h a t some nouns may o r may not be incorporated, a t t h e option of t h e speaker.

The noun stem karu-x- "medicine bundle" is

one of a number of nouns whose incorporation seems t o be optional. Informants a s s e r t t h a t there is no difference i n meaning between the incorporated and unincorporated forins. karuexu

The independent noun

is composed of the noun s t e m karuox- and the absolutive

noun s u f f i x -u. -

Only the noun stem, and not the noun s u f f i x , i s

incorporated. 6 - 3 Predication of Ownership A second type of possessive construction expressed t h e notion of ownership, a s i n (1). (1)

/ku=ta+t+in+akal- BE+^/

kutati*naka*?~

poss-ind-sbj-poss-sbj-BE-prf proc poss p r e asp

I owna/the house.

-

The surface constituents of the ownership construction a r e a s follows: t h e possessive p r o c l i t i c ku,l a subject pronoun of t h e set found in t r a n s i t i v e constructions (exhibiting neutralized dual-plural number) expressing'the possessor (sbj poss), a possessive p r e f i x

which agrees with t h e possessor (poss pfx), t h e incorporated noun

stem aka- "house,"

and a lengthened and reduplicated f i n a l vowel of

t h e noun stem representing t h e underlying formative

~ 3 . ~

Table 6.3 presents a complete p a r a d i p of t h e ownership construction.

aka-

The possessed ncnuinal is t h e incorporated noun s t e m

"house."

One o r more possessive p r e f i x e s inmediately follow

and agree with t h e subject pronominal possessor,

The forms of the

possessive p r e f i x e s f o r each person are a s follows: 1sg 2 sg

in in

1 e x c l du

a in

1 i n c l du

&in

2 du

in

3 sg

1excl p l

-a in

1i n c l p l

&in

2 PI

in

3 PI

*in

3 du

The possessive p r e f i x & occurs i n a l l forms with t h e except i o n of a l l t h i r d person and f i r s t person i n c l u s i v e forms. When t h e ownership construction is used t o express possession of nouns t h a t do not incorporate, t h e vowel of t h e possessive p r e f i x

is lengthened and reduplicated, as i n (2)- (4).

(2)

/ku=ta+t+in+~Et@

kataro p i i g /

I own a / t h e car.

poss-ind-sbj-poss-BE-prf proc poss p r e asp (3)

/ku=ta+%Sin+~Ei-@

kataro * p i i g /

(4)

poss p r e

kataro

asp

/ k u = t i + & k + ~ E i - @ kataro=piiE/

poss-ind-sbj-poss-BE-prf proc poss p r e asp

6.4

CkutAxi .? I pi?iEl

You(sg) own a j t h e car.

poss-ind-sbj-poss-BE-prf proc

f k u t a t i - ? I kataro* pi?ig13

Ckuta- ? A kataro* pipi13

H e owns a / t h e car.

Subject Possession This s e c t i o n discusses two types of constructions i n Arikara

i n which the possessed nominal is the subject of t h e sentence. two a r e referred t o a s constructions of subject possession.

The

I n the

f i r s t type, possession i s expressed by means of t h e independent poss e s s i v e pronouns.

I n t h e second type, possession i s expressed by

means of one o r more possessive prefixes within t h e verb. The complete paradigm of the i n d e e n d e n t possessive pronouns i s presented i n Table 6.4.

Constituents of t h e independent pronouns are:

t h e possessive p r o c l i t i c

&;

the subordinating p r e f i x E;

t h e set of

subject pronouns (expressing t h e possessor) employed i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions (exhibiting n e u t r a l i z a t i o n of dual-plural number); one o r more possessive prefixes which agree with t h e possessor; t h e subordinate f o r m u of t h e verb "to be.

tf

The possessive p r e f i x e s within

t h e independent possessive pronouns a r e t h e same f o r each person a s t h e possessive p r e f i x e s found i n the ownership construction ( i . e. ,

f i r s t person singular, in; second person singular, in; t h i r d person

singular, 5; and s o f o r t h ) . The independent possessive pronouns p r e f e r e n t i a l l y precede t h e possessed nominal, as i n (1)-(3). (1)

tkunati-nu

xa-waoruxti?

1 Sg horse ind poss pro (2)

Ckunxi.nu

xa-wa-r u x t i ?

2 Sg horse ind poss pro

ti'CEistA1

My horse is lame.

3 Sg lame tiEistA3

3 Sg lame

Your (sg) horse is lame.

-

H i s horse i s lame.

3 Sg horse ind poss pro

3 Sg lame

The independent possessive pronouns a r e a l s o used where t h e possessed head of the noun phrase has been deleted, as i n (4)-(6). Mine i s lame.

1 sg 3 sg ind poss pro lame

(5)

Chi-nu

ti'EistA1

'Yours(sg) is lame,

2 sf3 3 sg ind poss pro lame

(6)

Ckuna-u

tiEistA3

His is lame,

3 sg 3 sg ind poss pro lame Of importance s y n t a c t i c a l l y is t h e f a c t t h a t t h e independent possessive pronouns are used t o express possession of nouns such as

-

xa-wa.;rw~ti?"horse," and xa*E "dog" t h a t function as s u b j e c t s of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e o r t r a n s i t i v e sentences.

In terms of t h e nominal

f e a t u r e hierarchy, these nouns a r e high-raneng [+animate] categories.

They a r e a l s o nouns which may n w e r incorporate. On t h e other hand, possession of nouns such as huna-nu?

-

"land" and aka- "house" functioning as subjects of a c t i v e intransit i v e sentences4 m u s t be expressed by the second type of subject possession involving one o r more possessive prefixes with t h e verb. Nouns like "land" and "house" a r e low-ranking [-animate]

categories.

They a r e among the nouns t h a t regularly incorporate in both transi.

-

t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions. For convenience, t h i s second type of subject possession is r e f e r r e d t o as p r e f i x a l subject possession. Table 6.5 presents a complete paradigm of p r e f i x a l subject possession.

The possessor i s

expressed by t h e set of subject pronouns employed i n active intransit i v e constructions.

The possessive prefixes within the verb agree

with the possessor, a s follows:

1 sg 2 sg

3 sg

1 excl du 1 i n c l du 2 du

1 excl p l

1 incl p l

3 PI

a+iPtumhm

The series of prefixes M + u n is employed with all persons of t h e possessor except a l l t h i r d person and f i r s t person i n c l u s i v e forms. The f i n a l p r e f i x i n t h e s e z l e s f o r a l l persons is un. t h e possessed incorporated noun stem t h e predicate

E i e

Eawata-*BE

&-"house"

In Table 6.5,

is t h e subject of

"to be white."

Table 6.6 presents a paradigm of p r e f i x a l s u b j e c t possession where t h e predicate is t h e complex verb theme uno 0he.r "to be good"

When t h e predicate is a complex verb theme containing t h e p r w e r b s o r un, t h e f i n a l p r e f i x

ut

of t h e possessive prefixes within t h e verb

does not occur i n addition t o the preverb; ' r a t h e r , th'e preverb takes its place.

The possessed nominal i n Table 6.6 is t h e incorporated

noun stem hunaen- "land.

"

Both Tables 6.5 and 6.6 i l l u s t r a t e possession of an incorporated subject nominal.

The p r e f i x a l construction i s a l s o employed t o

express possession of a low-ranking inanimate subject nominal t h a t does n o t incorporate, a s i n (7)-(9).

(7)

/ t a + t + i n f n i + ~ n t . % i ~ i r*BE+@ i.

kataro p i i z / My c a r is new.

ind-sbj -poss-vs-BE-prf s bj * asp t t a t n i h % i p i r i - 3 1 kataro-pirig3

(8)

/ta+xSin+ai+u~&ipiri .nl-~~+ql

kataro - p i i g /

ind-sbj -poss-vs-BE-prf sbj asp ~ t x i n i h ~ i ~ i Ir i * kataropi?iE3 ?

Your (sg) c a r is new.

sub-id.-sbj-poss-vs-BE-prf asp

sbj

John's c a r is new.

kataro opi?igl

[John tanuhzipiri*? I

Sentence (10) i l l u s t r a t e s p r e f i x a l s u b j e c t possession where t h e possessed head of t h e noun phrase has been deleted. (10)

/ta+t+M+un&piri

on+~E+%/

ind-sbj-poss-vs-BE-prf poss p r e asp

c tatnihEipiri.3 11 Mine is new.

The understood, deleted head of (10) may only be a low-ranking noun such as "car" o r "house."

Sentence (11) would be used where' t h e

deleted head is an animate, high-ranking noun such as xa-E "dog." Mine i s lame.

1 sg 3 sg ind poss pro lame

6.5

Object Possession Possession of a nominal functioning a s t h e object of a tran-

s i t i v e sentence i s referred t o a s o b j e c t possession. of object possession requires t h a t t h e p r e f i x

The expression

be introduced i n t o

t h e verb immediately preceding the verb stem, o r preceding t h e possessed o b j e c t noun stem i f t h e object is incorporated, and that t h e possessor of t h e object be expressed by t h e object pronouns. Table 6.7 presents a paradigm i l l u s t r a t i n g object possession. The possessed nominal i n t h e paradigm is t h e incorporated noun stem huna-n- "land,"

steal

functioning as t h e o b j e c t of t h e predicate t a u a t

." The p r e f i x un (obj pfx)

object.

I1

to

inmediately precedes t h e incorporated

The possessor of t h e object (obj poss) is expressed by t h e

3

a

3

a

4

a

\

set of o b j e c t pronouns.

The s u b j e c t of t h e sentence is expressed by

t h e set of subject pronouns found in t r a n s i t i v e clauses.

The possessed nominal "land" in Table 6.7 is an inanimate The same constructior of o b j e c t

noun which r e g u l a r l y incorporates.

possession i s employed t o express possession of animate nominal o b j e c t s t h a t do not incorporate, a s in (1).

(1) /ti.tQksakutwn+tau* t+QJ ind-sb j -obj -ob j -vs-prf poss p r e asp

6.6

xa-z/ obj

ttsakuhta?ut xa-El

He s t o l e our(inc1 du)

dog.

Possession of Body P a r t s Possessed body p a r t nouns a r e subordinate nouns which express

two-place r e l a t i o n s h i p s of possessor and possessed.

The c o n s t i t u e n t s

of possessed body p a r t nouns (bp) include t h e following: t h e subordinating p r e f i x

z, a

subject pronoun expressing t h e possessor of

ta, a locative t h e body p a r t ; t h e body p a r t nouli stem; t h e s u f f i x -

stem "to be suspended"; and t h e subordinating noun s u f f i x

e. The

-

constituent s t r u c t u r e of t h e possessed body p a r t stem d e n - "arm1' is illustrated i n (I).

(1) /na-f-t+wi*n+ta+wi/

Cnatwihtawi3

sub-sbj-bp-loc-sub pf x suf

Motile body p a r t s such a s "arm1' are i n f l e c t e d with t h e locative suffix ta.

Stationary body p a r t s a r e i n f l e c t e d only with

t h e subordinating noun s u f f i x w i , a s i n (2).

Cna t a w 3

my tooth

sub-sb j -bp-sub pfx suf T h e , f a c t t h a t c e r t a i n body p a r t s n a t u r a l l y occur i n pairs .

is indicated by t h e prefixation of t h e dual marker

3, as

in (3).

The p l u r a l i t y of body p a r t s is expressed by t h e d i s t r i b u t i v e suffix

E,

a s in ( 4 ) .

( 3 ) / g i = n a + W -n+ta+wi/

C~inatwihtawil my (two) arms

du-sub-sbj-bp-loc-sub pfx s u f .

( 4 ) /na+t+a=n+wa-+wi/

Cna-tahwa-wi1

my t e e t h

sub-sb j -bp-dis-sub pfx suf However, =may

a l s o be used t o express non-singularity of body

p a r t s t h a t n a t u r a l l y occur i n p z i r s , a s i n (5). (5)

EM. tztawa*wil mg hands

/na+t+i&ta+wi*wi/ sub-sb j -bp-loc-dis-sub

Table 6.8 presents a paradigm of t h e possessed body p a r t

stem

s-"hand ." The body p a r t a f f i x e s are employed only t o c r e a t e indepen-

dent possessed body p a r t nouns.

Body p a r t s functioning as s u b j e c t s

o r o b j e c t s of t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses always incorporate. Possession of incorporated bod7 p a r t s is not expressed by means of t h e a f f i x e s described above.

Instead, s e n t e n t i a l possession of body

p a r t s and products is simply expressed by pronouns case-marked i n accordance with the surface s y n t a c t i c function of t h e body p a r t .

That is, possession of body parts functioning as subjects of active \

intransitive clauses is expressed by subject pronouns which immediately precede the incorporated body part stem in surface structure. Possession of body parts functioning as transitive objects and subjects of stative intransitive verbs is expressed by the object pron o u n ~ . ~Sentences (6) and (7) illustrate the possessed body part

-

"head" and wi-n- "arm" functioning as the subjects of the stem Estative intransitive verb theme naa-n "to ache."

The possessor is

expressed simply by the first person object pronoun (6)

/ti+ku+paxtnaae n+hu/

&.

[tikupAxta?a*nu?] My head aches.

ind-poss-bp-vs-imp asp

(7)

/ti+k~*n+naa*+hu/

[tikuwi*na?a-nu?]Myarmhurts.

ind-poss-bp-vs-imp asp 6.7

Analysis of the Predication of "~aving" The following analyses of the possessive constructions are

extremely tentative.

Because the syntax of possessives involves

many peculiarities, we simply propose deep structures for the possessive constructions and suggest the sorts of transformational operations required to derive surface forms, rather than attempt to formalize the rules involved. The difficulties posed by possessive constructions are not peculiar to Arikara.

The syntax of

possessives in a number of languages indicates that there are little-understood linguistic relationships holding among such notions as existence, possession, and identity.

I n languages all wer t h e world sentences involving "have" and "be" have d i s t i n c t i v e and sometimes perplexing grammatical properties. Among the notions commonly expressed by these predicates a r e existence, i d e n t i t y , possession, and location, as w e l l a s notions of tense and aspect. However, tIie way these and r e l a t e d notions a r e manifested v a r i e s widely from language t o l a n b a g e ; a given notion may be expressed with "have" i n one language; with "betf i n another, and with no verb a t a l l in another (Langacker 1972:183). I n Arikara, the predication of "havingff c l e a r l y involves two noun phrases i n a possessed-possessor relationship.

A s noted i n

s e c t i o n 6.2, the nonsingular pronominal subject expressing t h e possessor is marked with the set of subjective pronouns employed i n a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions, not by t h e neutralized dual-plural forms employed i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions.

Nevertheless, t h e con-

s t r u c t i o n otherwise exhibits a l l the properties of an ordinary t r a n s i t i v e construction.

I n contradistinction t o t h e other types

of possessive constructions, it has an overtly-represented predicate

nanah "have."

W e therefore t e n t a t i v e l y suggest t h a t the construction

of "having" is derived from an underlying t r a n s i t i v e s t r u c t u r e .

The

possessor is derived from an underlying subject noun phrase, and t h e possessed from an underlying object noun phrase.

Underlying the

sentence tAhnana karu*xu? "I have a bundle" is a s t r u c t u r e of t h e form represented in (a).

NP

I

/\ /y r

N

A\

MODE

VT

I

I

ASP

i" i' R u l e s of object and then subject agreement must apply t o t h i s structure.

In t h i s case, object agreement r e s u l t s i n a zero

pronominal copy in the verb. a movement r u l e

After agreement r u l e s have applied,

i s required to move the unincorporated noun

object t o the r i g h t of the verb.

The movement r u l e required in

cases where incorporation does not occur i s formulated i n Chapter VII. \

6.8

Analysis of the Predication of Ownership The presence of the abstract underlying formative

BE i n

ownership constructions suggests t h a t the possessed nominal i s the underlying sentence subject.

What requires explanation i s the

presence i n surface s t r u c t u r e s of .the subject pronouns representing t h e possessor, and t h e agreement of the modal p r e f i x with the possessor.

W e propose t h a t ownership constructions derive from underl y i n g i n t r a n s i t i v e structures i n which the possessed nominal is the head of the subject noun phrase of a main sentence.

The possessor

is derived from a t r a n s i t i v e sentence s t r u c t u r e embedded i n the noun phrase of which the possessed noun is t h e head. The s t r u c t u r e underlying k u t a t i * n a k a * ? "I ~ own the house''

is represented i n (a).

aka-

HAVE

aka-

The verb of t h e embedded sentence i s represented a s HAVE; t h i s verb receives overt phonological representation only when i t

i s t h e predicate of a non-subordinate sentence, a s i n 6.7. In t h e derivation of surface forms, t h e animate possessor of t h e embedded sentence is topicized

6

*

and i s thereby promoted t o

subject p o s i t i o n within t h e main sentence. of t h e main sentence

&-i s

The underlying subject

moved i n intermediate s t r u c t u r e under

t h e domination of VP, and thereby becomes a surface object.

The

shared NP of t h e embedded sentence i s deleted, a s i n a l l r e l a t i v e clause constructions (see 7.6), ded sentence.

as is t h e verb HAVE of t h e embed-

The s y n t a c t i c r u l e s which d e l e t e s t h e verb of t h e

embedded sentence inserts a f e a t u r e [poss pfx] (possessive p r e f i x )

within t h e verb of t h e main sentence. tions result in t h e s t r u c t u r e (b).

These transformational opera-

h

ASP

I

prf

Thus, we suggest t h a t t h e surface ownership construction is t h e r e s u l t of a t o p i c i z a t i o n transformation t h a t a l t e r s t h e underl y i n g configuration of noun-verb r e l a t i o n s h i p s by t o p i c i z i n g t h e possessor and moving t h e underlying s u b j e c t i n t o object position. Object agreement i n t h i s sentence r e s u l t s i n t h e incorporation

-

of aka- "house"

(see Chapter V I I ) .

I n o t h e r cases, o b j e c t agreement

r e s u l t s i n a zero pronaminal copy i n t h e verb.

Following o b j e c t

agreement, s u b j e c t agreement produces a zero pronominal copy i n t h e verb.

A f e a t u r e [poss proc] r e a l i z e d by t h e possessive p r o c l i t i c

ku is c r e a t e d leftmost -

i n t h e verb.

The f e a t u r e [poss ~ f x ]agrees

with t h e possessor, and is replaced by a f f i x e s a s follows:

1 excl du

1 incl du

1 excl p l

1 i n c l pl

6.9

Analysis of Subject Possession 'The two types of subject possession described in 6.4 differ

from each other formally.

In the f i r s t type, possession is expressed

by means of t h e independent possessive pronouns.

The modal p r e f i x

of t h e surface sentence agrees with the possessed subject nominal, and not t h e possessor.

The possessed subject is never incorporated.

In the second, p r e f i x a l construction, possession is expressed i n surface s t r u c t u r e s by prefixes within t h e verb which agree with t h e pronominal subject possessor.

The modal p r e f i x of t h e surface

sentence agrees with t h e possessor, and not the possessed underlying subject of t h e sentence.

The subject nominal is often incorporated.

The nouns with which t h e two constructions are used d i f f e r in t h e i r l e x i c a l feature composition.

Subjects whose

is

expressed by means of the independent possessive pronouns a r e those whose l e x i c a l feature composition points towards t h e i r naturalness a s t r a n s i t i v e subjects.

They a r e nouns which never incorporate.

Subjects possessed by the prefixal construction a r e those whose f e a t u r e composition points t o t h e i r unnaturalness a s t r a n s i t i v e subjects.

Many of these nouns may incorporate.

These observations suggest t h a t the two types of subject possession c o n s t i t u t e a syntactic "minimal pair."

The expression of

subject possession with the independent possessive pronouns o r by means of the p r e f i x a l construction is determined by t h e l e x i c a l f e a t u r e composition of the possessed noun.

In view of t h i s , we

propose t h a t both types of constructions a r e derived from a common a b s t r a c t source.

The transf onnational operations required t o derive

t h e two types of surface constructions d i f f e r s l i g h t l y . Possessive phrases of both types a r e embedded a s sentences

within noun phrases i n deep s t r u c t u r e .

The a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e

\

underlying both kunati-nu x a - w a - m i ? ti8istA "My horse is lame,"

and tatni-nal&i.l$awata?~

"My house is white" is represented

schematically i n (a).

(a)

A \

MODE

VT

ASP

HAVE

The operation of transformational r u l e s is determined by t h e l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s of the head noun of the highest noun phrase.

If

the head is a high-ranking noun containing t h e f e a t u r e [+animate],

7

t h e verb HAVE of the embedded sentence i s realized a s an independent possessive pronoun which agrees with the possessor.

The inde-

pendent possessive pronoun is moved under the domination of the NP of the main sentence, and the lower sentence i s deleted, r e s u l t i n g

in t h e (abbreviated) s t r u c t u r e (b)

.

If t h e possessed nominal is a low-ranking I-animate] cate\

gory, t h e possessor within t h e embedded sentence is topicized, and t h e underlying subject of the main sentence is moved under t h e domination of VP, as i n t h e ownership construction. r e l a t i v e constructions, the shared NP is deleted.

A s in all

The underlying

possessive verb HAVE is deleted, leaving its t r a c e only i n t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e f e a t u r e ipfx pass] (prefixal possession) within t h e verb.

These operations r e s u l t i n t h e (abbreviated) s t r u c t u r e (c).

NP

I

N

aka-

ta

Vi*gawa- 0 ta*n+BE .

Object agreement in (c) results i n t h e incorporation of

aka-

i n the verb.

Subject agreement r e s u l t s i n t h e copying of t h e

f e a t u r e s of t h e possessor i n t h e verb.

Modal p r e f i x agreement i s

determined by the f e a t u r e s of t h e topicized possessor.

[Pfx poss]

is s p e l l e d out a s t h e appropriate s e t of possessive p r e f i x e s which agree with t h e possessor, as follows:

3 sg

1 excl du

1 i n c l du

1 incl p l

2 Pl

6.10

Analysis of Object Possession Object possessors are similarly derived from sentence modi-

f i e r s of head nouns functioning as objects of transitive clauses.

Underlying tikuhnunahta?ut "He s t o l e my land" is the s t r u c t u r e (a).

MODE ind

VS

prf

tau-t

$5

I

VS

I huna en

huna*n

HAVE

I n t h i s instance, object agreement produces a nominal copy of t h e possessed naninal i n t h e verb. s o r a r e copied i n t h e verb.

The features of the posses-

Deletion of t h e verb HAVE of t h e subor-

d i n a t e sentence is accompanied by the c r e a t i o n of the f e a t u r e [obj pfx] i n the verb of the main sentence.

[Obj pfx] is invariably

un. r e a l i z e d as t h e p r e f i x 6.11

Analysis of Body P a r t Possession S e n t e n t i d possessors of body p a r t nouns functioning a s in-

t r a n s i t i v e s u b j e c t s are s i m i l a r l y derived from sentences embedded within noun phrases. t h e s t r u c t u r e (a).

Underlying tikup~xta?a*nu?"My head aches" is

MODE

I

/y\

VT

ind

Pax

Pax

HAVE

ASP

I

I

VS

imp

naa n

hu

T-STATIVE moves t h e subject noun phrase and a l l i t dominates i n t o t h e verb phrase.

Object incorporation invariably results i n

the incorporation of the body p a r t stem, and possessive formation i s accomplished by copying of the f e a t u r e s of t h e possessor i n the verb. The transformational r u l e s required t o account: f o r subject

and object possession i n 6.9-6.11

a r e f a i r l y complex.

Instead of

precisely formulating t h e r u l e s involved, the analysis informally suggests how possessive constructions a r e derived.

W e have proposed

t h a t subordinated clausal subject .and object possessive constructions a r i s e from sentence modifiers.

The operation of transformational

rules in the two constructions of subject possession is determined by f e a t u r e values of the possessed nominal.

Possession of nouns func-

tioning as d i r e c t objects is expressed by a s i n g l e surface construc-

tion.

6.12

Kinship Terminology

Ten primary consanguineal kin terms always occur i n possessed form.

They a r e marked f o r inalienable h s s e s s i o n by a s p e c i a l set

of affixes, and exhibit the most complex morphology of any subclass of nouns. Table 6.9 presents t h e ten inalienably possessed k i n terms i n underlying and phonetic form.

The forms are glossed with t h e tradi-

t i o n a l kin-labels of English, "uncle," "brother ,"and so forth. These glosses, however, a r e simply supplied f o r convenience, and do not r e f l e c t the usage of the l i n g u i s t i c forms (for a discussion of "Crow" terminological systems,

cf., Lounsbury

1956).

Person of the possessor i s expressed by prefixation i n f i r s t and second person forms of the kin terms, and by prefixation and suffixation i n t h i r d person forms.

The kin terms involve two-place

r e l a t i o n s equivalent t o possessor and possessed, and thus may be s a i d t o share the syntactic properties of t r a n s i t i v e verbs. a f f i x e s marking person of the possessor a r e a s follows:

2 Sg

ati-a-

"your"

3 sg

i.. . n i

"his"

1 sg

"w"

The stem forms of t h e ten kin terms a r e the following:

pat

"grandfather"

ka

"grandmother"

xax 8X

"father" O

mother"

The

wat -

"niece/nephewn

wasi:

"uncle"

na-n nas tat naE -

"sibling" (same sex as speaker)

\

"brother" (female speaker) "sister" (male speaker) "grandchild"

The kin term "mother" has the morphologically conditioned

-

alternate stem fonns na- ( f i r s t person possessor) and gax- (third person possessor); the term "uncle" has the third person alternate w

form wa-ni-s.

FOOTNOTES

1

The p r o c l i t i c ku is found i n a number of o t h e r construeSince

tions.

s occurs i n t h e independent pronouns a s

well a s in the ownership construction, i t i s r e f e r r e d t o here as a "possessive proclitic." 2

The formative BE conditions t h e lengthening and reduplication of t h e stem-final vowel of descriptive stems (see 2.7).

3

is l o s t by t h e The f i n a l of t h e possessive p r e f i x regular phonological rule which d e l e t e s the resonants r and n i n word-final position.

=

-

-

4

These nouns cannot function a s subjects of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e s (see Chapter V).

5

In Chapter V it was s t a t e d t h a t s t a t i v e verbs require animate subjects. Possessed body p a r t stems (whose possessor is, of course, animate) c o n s t i t u t e t h e only exception t o t h i s statement.

6

Topicization is distinguished here from t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . .Topicization transformations a r e those t h a t a l t e r underlying grammatical relationships, whereas topicalizat i o n involves a l t e r a t i o n of focus and other surface relationships, without necessarily changing grammatical configurations.

7

Kin terms are, of course, I+animate] The possession of ten primary consanguineal k i n types i s discussed i n 6.12. Possession of other, non-primary kin types is more complex, and is not discussed in 6.12.

.

Chapter VII

7.1

\

Introduction '

Noun incorporation is one of t h e most s a l i e n t typological

f e a t u r e s of Arikara.

Preceding chapters show t h a t information de-

rived from m e r n a l noun constituents is introduced'transformationally i n t o t h e Arikara verb, r e s u l t i n g i n complex surface v e r b a l forms.

In noun incorporation, the s t r u c t u r e of the verb i s f u r t h e r augmented by the introduction i n t o the verb of a noun whose l e x i c a l properties

are preserved.

This chapter describes various aspects of noun

incorporation, and analyzes the evidence t h a t noun incorporation provides f o r the understanding of noun-verb relationships i n t h e language.

7.2

Studies of Noun Incorporation i n North American Languages Although i t i s a topic of g r e a t t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t , noun

incorporation i n American Indian languages has received r e l a t i v e l y

l i t t l e attention.

The papers of Kroeber (1909) and Sapir (1913)

c o n s t i t u t e t h e major t h e o r e t i c a l discussions of noun incorporation

i n North America. I n "Noun Incorporation i n American Languages ,"Kroeber (1909:569) a s s e r t s t h a t noun incorporation, which he defines a s "the combination i n t o one word of the noun object and t h e verb functioning as t h e predicate of a sentence," has mistakenly been alleged t o exist i n North America.

Kroeber is s c e p t i c a l of t h e

existence of noun incorporation f o r two reasons.

F i t s t , he says

t h a t "the p r i n c i p a l cause contributing t o t h e b e l i e f in objective

noun incorporation has been t h e existence in many American languages

of pronominal incorporation" (Kroeber 1909: 570).

He obsenes that

t h e term pronominal incorporation has been frequently misunderstood.

H e points out t h a t in many American languages, pronominal incorpora\

t i o n i s not t h e introduction i n t o t h e verb of independent pronouns, but is r a t h e r an i n f l e c t i o n a l process, which he describes as combination with t h e verb of pronominal elements which are e s s e n t i a l l y syntactical and unindependent elements, and therefore not words. Whatever t h e i r f i r s t o r i gin... these elements...are shown in a number of languages t o be c e r t a i n l y not abbreviations of o r i g i n a l l y independent pronominal words, equivalent t o English and him. I n t h e present state of these languages these elements a r e t h e older, and t h e independent words s u p e r f i c i a l l y resembling t o Indo-. European minds our L and him a r e c l e a r l y derivations from these elements by process of composition. Such 52ing t h e case, the combination of pronominal elements with t h e verb in these and similarly constituted languages is not r e a l l y a case of incorporation. A s long a s pronominal incorporation is regarded a s incorporation of an actual pronoun i n t o the verb, it seems natural t h a t t h e noun also should a t times be incorporated, f o r the Indo-European pronoun i s syntact i c a l l y the equivalent of a noun, a s i t s name and grammarschool d e f i n i t i o n teach. It is precisely t h i s point of view t h a t is responsible f o r the s t i l l - e x i s t i n g belief i n noun incorporation. The erroneous conception of pronominal incorporation caused the belief t h a t nominal incorporation must e x i s t , and t h i s supposition found food i n the l i t t l e understood compositional processes common i n American languages a s w e l l a s i n c e r t a i n prevalent vague notions of polysynthesis as the fundamentally c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e of these languages (Kroeber 1909:570-571)

...

-

-

.

Kroeber 's second argument against t h e existence of noun incorporation i s "the f a c t t h a t no one has af firmed incorporation of t h e subject.

And yet, there is no more reason why t h e object should

be fused with the verb than t h e subject, and i f objective incorporat i o n is found in many languages, subjective incorporation should a t

least occur sometimes" (Kroeber 1909:573).

Kroeber a s s e r t s , however,

t h a t the very notion of incorporation of both subject and object is

implausible, since i f t h i s were t o occur,

a l l elements of t h e sentecce, o r a t l e a s t of t h e clause, would be contained in t h e verb, and t h e s y n t a c t i c a l word would be not only i n scheme but in f a c t i d e n t i c a l with t h e sentence...A word enla3ged u n t i l i t comprised a sentence would be a sentence and as such would break up i n t o separate words (Kroeber 1909:574). The common use of body p a r t a f f i x e s i n American languages forces Kroeber t o conclude t h a t body p a r t terms occupy a d i s t i n c -

tive place among noun classes, and t h a t "even t h e d i r e c t objective use of independent noun stems denoting p a r t s of t h e body in singleword verb complexes seems dependent on t h e unique character o f ' t h e s e stems" (Kroeber 1909: 572). Refuting Kroeber ' s negative claims, Sapir (1913) provides evidence of noun incorporation in several language families, inclu-

.

ding Penutian glsimshian and Takelma) , IIokan ( ~ a n a,) Uto-Az tekan (Nahuatl and Southern Paiute), Iroquoian, and Caddoan (Pawnee). Sapir (1913: 250) agrees with Kroeber t h a t "so-called pronominal incorporation and noun incorporation stand i n no necessary r e l a t i o n t o each o t h e r

." He (1913: 251-252)

f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t s the d e f i n i t i o n of

noun incorporation by observing t h a t -

verbal a f f i x e s t h a t r e f e r t o noun, i n other words, convey a s u b s t a n t i v a l idea, a r e not instances of noun incorporation i f they a r e etymologically unrelated t o t h e independent nouns o r noun stems with which they seem l o g i c a l l y connected...As long a s they are l e x i c a l l y d i s t i n c t f r a n noun stems proper, they must be looked upon a s grammatical elements pure and simple, however concrete t h e i r s i g n i f i c a t i o n may seem. They are l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o independent nouns of the same o r a l l i e d meaning a s a r e tense a f f i x e s ' t o independent adverbs of time. S a p i r a l s o excludes as evidence of noun incorporation t h e formation of denominative verbs from noun stems by means of various

d e r i v a t i v e a f f i x e s of verbal, generally transitive, meaning.

Thus, from P a i u t e qani- "house" are formed qanintcu "to build a house," and qanixYai "to have a house," from Yana hauyauba "deer f a t " is formed hauyauba ?iniqui?a "to contain nothing but deer fat." In these d e r i v a t i v e verbs t h e nouns "house" and "deer f a t " cannot be considered a s incorporated, f o r the verbal elements -ntcu -xYai and ?iniqui?a a r e n o t verb-stems 9 -

-

but verb-forming a f f i x e s , morphologically comparable t o -ize i n verbs of t h e type materialize, pauperize (Sapir 1913:254).

Sapir f i n d s objectionable Kroeber's d e f i n i t i o n of noun incorporation as "the campounding i n t o one word of t h e noun object and the verb functioning as t h e predicate of a sentence."

Kroeber's defini-

t i o n makes two separate requirements:

...

a noun must combine with a verb predicate i n t o a w o r d - n i t , and t h e noun so ccrmbined must function a s t h e object of the verb. T h e . f i r s t requirement i s morphologic i n character, the second purely syntactic; i n other words, t h e f i r s t c a l l s f o r a c e r t a i n type of word formation, while t h e second demands t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s u b s i s t between t h e two independent .elements t h a t e n t e r i n t o word formation. Noun a morphologic o r a s y n t a c t i c incorporation is primarily e"i:er process; t h e attempt t o put i t under two r u b r i c s a t t h e same t i m e l e a d s t o a c e r t a i n amount of a r t i f i c i a l i t y of treatment (Sapir 1913:255). Sapir '(1913:257) proposes instead t o define noun incorporat i o n a s "the process of compounding a nouri stem with a verb...no matter what t h e function of t h e noun l o g i c a l l y is."

There is no

need t o regard body p a r t terms a s a separate o r peculiar c l a s s of nouns; body p a r t terms may be accepted as evidence of noun incorporation, provided t h a t the incorporated stem is morphologically r e l a t e d t o t h e independent noun. The main point t o be determined in any p a r t i c u l a r case as f a r as noun incorporation is concerned, is n o t whether i n s t m e n tal, l o c a l , objective, o r other s u b s t a n t i v a l a f f i x e s do o r do n o t r e f e r t o p a r t s of the body, but whether o r n o t they are i d e n t i c a l with o r closely r e l a t e d t o independent nouns ( ~ a p i r1913: 253).

Although a l l the languages t h a t Sapir c i t e s may be classed as It

-

noun incorporating," Sapir (1913: 258) cautions that they "of ten

d i f f e r materially among themselves, each traveling more o r less its \

separate way

-

." Languages may d i f f e r 'with respect t o the position of

the incorporated stem, the degree of coalescence of t h e noun stem with t h e verb, and the types of s y n t a c t i c relationships t h a t a r e

expressed by noun incorporation.

In Iroquois, Pawnee, Shoshonean, and Takelma, t h e incorporated noun precedes t h e verb stem; i n Yana and Tsimshian, it follows the '

verb.

This d i s t i n c t i o n i s not of fundamental importance, except

t h a t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o note with what group of a f f i x e s t h e incorporated noun i s a f f f l i a t e d ; t h i s may provide evidence of t h e essen-

t i a l nature of the incorporative process. When i n Paiute, f o r instance, the incorporated noun is prefixed t o the verb stem, and it i s f u r t h e r noted t h a t p r a c t i c a l l y a l l r e l a t i o n a l elements, including the pronominal a f f i x e s , a r e suffixes, i t becomes f a i r l y evident that the incorporated noun is, from i t s morphological treatment, not so much of syntactic a s of compositional value: "to rabbitk i l l " is not morphologically comparable t o "to kill-him," but r a t h e r t o "to quickly-kill" (Sapir 1913: 259-260).

In Takelma, t h e incorporated noun and verb stem exhibit a r e l a t i v e l y loose coalescence, while i n Iroquois and Pawnee, t h e noun

is t i g h t l y integrated i n t o the verb. The most comaon relationships t h a t s u b s i s t between noun and verb stem include instrumental, locative, and objective ones.

Re-

f u t i n g Kroeber's claim that incorporation of t h e subject is not found, Sapir i l l u s t r a t e s subjective incorporation i n Nahuatl, Southern Paiute, Yana, Takelma, Pawnee, and Iroquois.

Another way in which noun-incorporating languages map d i f f e r

is in t h e tendency of some t o u s e the incorporative process t o express permanent o r general a c t i v i t y , w h i l e o t h e r s f r e e l y employ incorporation t o express p a r t i c u l a r o r single a c t s . \

Thus "I meat-eat" may b e understood t o mean e i t h e r "I e a t m e a t , I am a meat-eater" o r "I eat t h e m e a t " (at one point in h e ) ; in its former sense it may be termed a verb of $&era1 application, in its l a t t e r sense one of p a r t i c u l a r application This d i s t i n c t i o n between a general and p a r t i c u l a r type of verb is of significance in s o f a r a s i n some American languages verbs with incorporated noun always belong o r tend t o belong t o t h e former type, s i n g l e a c t i vities being expressed by t h e s y n t a c t i c method t h a t w e a r e f a m i l i a r with i n Indo-Germanic o r by one more nearly resemb l i n g it. On t h e whole, general verbs with incorporated object a r e more'often met with, or, a t any r a t e , met with i n more languages, than those of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s , and t h i s f a c t is in s t r i k i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t analogy with the prevailingly general character of compound nouns (Sapir 1913:259).

...

I n t h i s regard, Sapir (1913:281) comments t h a t Pawnee and Iroquois, which share some formal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of noun incorporation, a l s o have i n common t h e f a c t t h a t "verbs with incorporated nouns are f r e e l y used t o r e f e r t6 p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . "

.

Recent documentation of noun incorporation i n individual languages includes Haas' (1941) paper on Muskogean, Wolfart's (1968) study of noun incorporation in Plains Cree, P o s t a l ' s (1962) dissert a t i o n on Mohawk, and Rood's (1971) comments on noun incorporation i n Wichita.

The task of comparing noun incorporation and its significance

in t h e various languages has not y e t been undertaken.

I n same

language families, notably Iroquoian, Caddoan, and Algonkian, noun incorporation is highly productive.

I n Muskogean, noun incorporation

is reportedly a r e l i c process only, no longer productive i n any of t h e languages within t h e family (Haas 1941).

7.3

Noun Incorporation in Arikara

In Arikara, both the noun s u b j e c t of t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb (active and stative) and the noun object of t h e t r a n s i t i v e verb may incorporate,

Discussion of incorporation in this chapter i s limited \

t o a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e and t r a n s i t i v e verbs.

Incorporation of t h e

"intransitive subject" in the following s e c t i o n s r e f e r s t o incorpora t i o n of t h e noun subject of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs. The incorporated i n t r a n s i t i v e subject o r t r a n s i t i v e object immediately precedes t h e verb stem in surface forms.

Where t h e verb

theme i s complex, t h e incorporated noun stem is inserted between t h e preverb and verb stem.

I n t h i s respect noun incorporation d i f f e r s

from pronominal agreement i n t h e verb, f o r pronominal copies a r e inserted d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e verb preceding both preverb and verb stem. Independent l e x i c a l nouns consist of a noun stem and absolut i v e noun suffix. "land"),

The absolutive noun s u f f i x e s a r e - u _ ' ( h ~ - n + u

-

-8 (tsas+E "meat"), and

9

( s a ~ a t + 0"woman").

I n incor-

poration, only the noun stem appears i n surface forms within the verb. I n Arikara, t h e morphological relatedness between independent and incorporated noun stems is q u i t e c l e a r .

Most incorporated stems

are i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i r independent counterparts.

A few nouns, however,

have phonologically reduced stem forms t h a t occur in noun compounds a s w e l l as in incorporation.

The independent stem form "water" is

tsto-h-, while t h e form of the stem t h a t appears in noun compounds and in noun incorporation is

E-.Similarly,

t h e independent stem

aka.n-

"house" has t h e compound st-

form

&-.2

Incorporation of t h e a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject is i l l u s t r a t e d i n (1) and (2); (3) and (4) i l l u s t r a t e incorporation of t h e \

t r a n s i t i v e object. (1)

/ti+un+huna enthe- r+ @/ ind-pv-sb j -vs-prf

ind-sb j -vs-prf

(3)

C tuhnunanel

The land i s good.

asp

asp

The house is white.

/ta+t+aka+karauk+huh-ku/ t t a - t a k A k a r o ~ k h u ~ k u ? l ind-sb j -dir-vs-imp-hab obj asp

(4)

/ta+t+huna*n+na*pih+0/

I build houses.

Ctatuna-na-pi3 I bought land.

ind-sbj -dir-vs-prf obj asp The incorporated i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e o b j e c t occupy t h e same surface s t r u c t u r a l position between preverb and verb stem.

Nouns in these functions, however, occupy d i s t i n c t positions

on trees i n deep s t r u c t u r e .

I n surface sentences with independent

nouns i n these functions t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject o r d i n a r i l y precedes t h e verb and t h e t r a n s i t i v e object follows it, a s i n (5) and (6).

(5)

fwi-ta sbj

(6)

[wi.paxE

sbj

M

The man is eating.

tiwa.wa?al 3 sg eat tsakuhta?ut

xa.E]

d i r obj

. The

boy s t o l e our ( i n c l du) doe*

e t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object may

incorporate, nouns i n the t r a n s i t i v e subject function never do so.

The following section shows that potential for incorporation is not inherent in the syntactic function that a noun fulfills in any given sentence, but rather is mediated by lexical feature specification of nouns. 7.4

\

The Bble of Nominal Features in Noun Incorporation Not all nouns functioning as intransitive subjects or transi-

tive objects may incorporate.

In Arikara, some intransitive subjects

incorporate while others do not, and the same is true of transitive objects.

Thus, rules of noun incorporation may not be phrased in

terms of syntactic function alone. It is conceivable that noun incorporation might be due to some characteristic of particular verbs.

That is, there may be verbs

that permit incorporation and others that do not.

That incorporation

is not determined by the verb is demonstrated by the fact that both incorporated and independent intransitive subjects and transitive objects are found with the same verb.

The noun object is incorpor-

ated in (1) below, but not (2) ; the complex verb theme ut like1' is the predicate of both (1) and (2).

...te "to

Similarly, the noun

object is incorporated in (3) but not ( 4 ) , while the predicate in both sentences is the simple theme tau-t "to steal."

(1)

[tatnitakAte?J

/ta+t+in+ni+ut+aka+te+$/

I like the house.

ind-sbj-pfx-pv-dir-vs-prf

(2)

/ta+t-Wh-in+ni+ut+te+$ w i . tal ind-sbj-dir-pfx-pv-vs-prf obj =P

dir obj

c tatniste?

w i . ta]

I like the man.

H e s t o l e our ( i n c l du) land,

ind-sb j-ob j -ob j-dir-vs-prf poss p r e obj asp

ind-sb j-dir-ob j-ob j -vs-prf obj poss p r e asp

dir obj

H e s t o l e our ( i n c l du) dog.

Clearly, i t is n e i t h e r t h e verb i t s e l f t h a t determines incorporation, nor is incorporation inherent in syntactic function, since

a l l l e x i c a l nouns i n (1)-(4)

a r e grauumtical objects, but only "house"

and "land" may incorporate. Although p o t e n t i a l f o r incorporation may not be phrased i n terms of syntactic function only, i t is n w e r t h e l e s s t r u e t h a t there

is a d i r e c t relationship between the nature of nouns (as defined by l e x i c a l f e a t u r e specification) 2nd t h e i r s y n t a c t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n .

Arikara, incorporating nouns a r e n a t u r a l non-agents.

In

That is, i n

terms of a hierarchy of pronominal and nominal features, incorporating nouns a r e characterized by negative specification f o r high-ranking f e a t u r e s such a s [+animate] and ~~hiunan]. P o s i t i v e specifica-

t i o n f o r these features is l e x i c a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e of surface pronominal paradigms and nouns designating n a t u r a l agents.

Nouns negatively

specified f o r these f e a t u r e s normally function as objects but do not c o n s t i t u t e n a t u r a l o r highly-acceptable t r a n s i t i v e subjects.

Almost

a l l t r a n s i t i v e verbs have s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t favor [+animate)

and

subject function.

[+human), o r other agentive nouns i n t h e t r a n s i t i v e That t r a n s i t i v e subjects never incorporate is not

i n h e r k t i n the t r a n s i t i v e subject function, but is due t o t h e f a c t

t h a t t r a n s i t i v e subjects a r e invariably characterized by p o s i t i v e s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r high-ranking nominal features.

In Arikara, l e x i c a l c l a s s e s t h a t do not incorporate include:

-

a l l human nouns such ?s w i * ta "man," sapat "wanan," wi-nax?! "boy," and a l l noun! designating kinsmen; nouns designating animals and

a l l l i v i n g c r e a t u r e s t h a t have t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r action; proper names of persons, v i l l a g e s , t r i b e s , and geographical locations. On t h e o t h e r hand, body p a r t s and products, and nouns desig-

nating c l o s e l y a l l i e d phenomena such as s?$u*nu? "soul,"

-

nano ka?a tu? "shadow," and awiu? "image o r picture, " regularly incorporate, a s do body products regularly associated with p a r t i c u l a r animals, a s i n (5).

sbj

ind-sbj-dir-vs-imp-hab obj asp asp

1niku.s xirikohx

-

t i r i p i r i okaro khu oku?] Thela chicken l a v s eggs.

Nouns designating n a t u r a l forces and large, often mass, n a t u r a l phenomena, regularly incorporate, a s i n (6)- (8).

adv

adv-ind-sbj-loc-vs-prf proc asp

ind-sbj-vs-prf

It's raining hard.

The wood is w e t .

=P

adv

ind-sb j -vs-prf

asp

The ground is s t i l l wet.

-

Other nouns in t h i s c l a s s t h a t regularly incorporate include: nawaka nu? "smoke, ''snow,"

-

"wind,

"

.

ho ruhtu? "rnud ,'I huna u?

8aku=nu? "sun," h ~ t k a - n u ?" d i r t , earth," tsto.hu? "water,

%i SU? "liquid," II

" hutu .nu?

II

hue nu? "weeds ,I1 hanu*tu? "hay o r grass," kata-nu?

green grass ,"ha;ku? "tree,"

ahkawikat "cut bank," hatawi "hole ,I'

haturnnu?"path," and l a n i t $ "rock." Within a general c l a s s of nouns designating c u l t u r a l products

and a r t i f a c t s , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o predict which may incorporate and which may not.

Nouns which regularly incorporate designate the most

basic and generic c u l t u r a l phenomena such as itusnu? "village," "meat ,"

avita.nu? " t r i b e o r viliage," t a ~ k a x ? "dried meat ,I' sats?!

kuna. u? "medicine, " karu. xu? "medicine bundle ," wag psi&? "metal o r money," hax8 "rope," naw~.!!lcah$ "pipe," and na- ka.wi "house

."

Many other nouns designating items of material culture, such a s niogu? "arrow," newsig "knife," and tina. ku? " r i f l e " do not incorporate.

Such nouns, although they do not normally occur a s

t r a n s i t i v e subjects, nevertheless designate referents t h a t a r e o r d i n a r i l y employed i n a s p e c i f i c function or t o accomplish a p a r t i cular a c t .

Thus, these nouns often stand i n instrumental relation-

ships t o predicates with which they occur.

- nouns

of grammatical non-agents (i.e.,

Within the c l a s s

t h a t a r e not natural o r

acceptable t r a n s i t i v e subjects) w e may distinguish nouns t h a t a r e semantically agentive (Part of whose conceptual meaning involves the notion of use o r a c t i v i t y with respect t o predicates with which they ordinarily occur) f r a n those t h a t a r e semantically non-agentive.

Nouns l i k e tinaaku? "gun" are semantically agentive even though they may n o t occur as t r a n s i t i v e subjects, while nouns l i k e ta. kaxz "dried meat" a r e non-agentive both grammatically and semantically. S.emantically agentive nouns do not incorporate, while semantically non-agentive n o u n s a y do so. 3 Within lexical dcanains, nouns of generic reference may incorporate, while taxonomically-subordinate nouns of s p e c i f i c reference may not.

That is, superordinate nouns i n a taxonomic

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t e n incorporate, while hyponyms (words whose companentialmeanings contain all the f e a t u r e s present in t h e defin i t i o n of t h e superordinate term, p l u s some a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e s ) do not.

Thus, ha.ku? "tree" regularly incorporates but nouns desig-

nating s p e c i f i c subclasses of t r e e s such a s t a w ~ s a - k u ?"cedar" never incorporate. "water" and

v i e

Similarly, superordinate terms l i k e t s t o - h u

su? "liquid" incorporate, while nouns designating

s p e c i f i c types of l i q u i d s such a s t s k a *tit "coffee" stem form of "water,"

-

and ka-t

"milk" (e-t "breast" and e i - s u

i o t

-

(ts-,

compound

"to be black") and e t g i - s u

"liquid") do not.

Hyponyms stand i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p of meaning inclusion, but not r e f e r e n t i a l inclusion, t o the taxonomically-superordinate terms. A closely-allied d i s t i n c t i o n relevant t o incorporation is t h a t between nouns designating individuals and mass nouns t h a t a r e r e f e r e n t i a l l y i n c l u s i v e of the individuals o r objects.

Nouns denoting

individual animals o r objects such as tanaha? "buffalo" do n o t incorporate, but mass nouns r e f e r e n t i a l l y i n c l u s i v e of the

-

individuals (e.g., -

kani*?h?"herd") may do so.

The presence of any one of t h e f e a t u r e s C+animateI,

C+human3, o r C+properJ in t h e l d c a l ' f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n of nouns blocks incorporation.

Since nouns normally employed as

t r a n s i t i v e subjects are almost invariably positively specified f o r t h e f e a t u r e C+animnteI, they may n w e r incorporate. Only one exception is found t o this otherwise absolute f e a t u r e r e s t r i c t i o n on noun incorporation.

Hurnan notas may option-

a l l y incorporate when they occur as predicate norninals of t h e a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verb theme un.. .heor "to be good or haxdsome" a s i n

(9)

/ti-tun+wi* ta+he-r+@/

Ctuhwi-tanel

ind-pv-sbj-vs-prf asp (10)

/ti.tun+wi* te*&+hiwa*+$/ ind-p~sb j -vs-prf asp

(11)

/ti+un+su*na*xu+he-rWf/ ind-pv-sb j YS-prf

asp

H e is a good man. -

C tahwi- teeZuniwa3 The young men a r e good.

Ctunsu-na*rrunel The g i r l is good.

Human nouns never incorporate i n other predicate nominal constructions

. A t present, it is not possible t o e s t a b l i s h a s c a l e of

binary f e a t u r e s which absolutely defines t h e p o t e n t i a l of nouns f o r incorporation.

Nouns negatively specified f o r t h e f e a t u r e s

Chdmatel, Cfhumanl, and Q r o p e r ] a r e more l i k e l y t o incorporate if they a r e negatively specified f o r t h e f e a t u r e [*count],

probably

because C+countIobjects may be more e a s i l y used t o accomplish

some end o r a c t i v i t y , w h i l e C-count] ~lounsordinarily stand in non-agentive relationships t o predicates with which they occur. Further r ~ l a t i v ecapacity f o r incorporation seems t o depend i n part,on the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of taxonomies.

Within taxonomic

groupings, superordinate C -specific 3 nouns may incorporate, while C+specificl hyponyms may not.

7.5

Obligatory and Optional Incorporation The description of noun incorporation is complicated by

t h e f a c t that some nouns obligatorily incorporate, while others do so optionally.

I n (1)-(4),

(a) sentences with independent

noun subjects and objects, and (b) sentences with incorporated subjects and objects, a r e considered equally acceptable. (1)a

/ w i tea&&

sbj

(2)a

/ati+nas ind Obj

t i+&n+hiwa 4-01

C w i * t e -guz tuhniwal

ind-sbj-pv-vs-prf The young men a r e goodasp

ta+t+@-O-hh+f.I

awi+u/ Catinas t a - t u awiu?]

ind-sbj-ind-dir-vs-prf obj obj asp

dir obj

I gave my brother a / t h e picture.

ind 0bj

ind-sb j -ind-dir-vs-prf obj obj asp

ind-sbj-dir-vs-prf dir asp obj

I have a bundle.

ind-sbj-dir-vs-prf obj asp

ind-sb j -dir-pf x-pv-vs-prf 0bj asp

dir obj

I l i k e (the) m e a t .

.

ind-sbj-pfx-pv-dir-vs-prf obj asp The nouns i n (1)-(4) verb.

a r e only weakly "attracted" i n t o t h e

Among t h e nouns t h a t o b l i g a t o r i l y incorporate a r e t h e stems

f o r "house," "land," "water," "tree,"

"hole," and a l l body p a r t s .

Within t h e c l a s s of nouns t h a t may p o t e n t i a l l y incorporate, those t h a t o b l i g a t o r i l y do so, in addition t o body p a r t s , l a r g e l y designate naturd forces and phenomena, while nouns t h a t optionally incorporate include many of t h e stems designating c u l t u r a l products and a r t i f a c t s .

7.6

Obligatory and Optional Deletion I n a l l preceding sample sentences, only the incorporated

copy of t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject o r t r a n s i t i v e object appears i n surface structures.

The f a c t t h a t t h e r e is no external noun sug-

g e s t s t h a t t h e transformational operation by which incorporation

-

is accomplished moves an a c t u a l noun constituent i n t o t h e verb.

This version of incorporation, although i t would s u f f i c e t o explain the instances of incorporation presented s o f a r , cannot be accepted.

In some cases t h e external noun which t h e incorporated copy cross-

references is optionally retained, a phenomenon which we term noun-doublinq.

The f a c t t h a t external nouns may be retained under

certain circumstances indicates t h a t noun incorporation is accanplished by an agreement transformation which copies lexical feat u r e s of nouns i n t o t h e verb, and not by movement of an a c t u a l noun constituent.

Thus, noun incorporation, o r "nominal agree-

ment," formally p a r a l l e l s pronominal agreement, except t h a t copying is done i n a d i f f e r e n t position within t h e verb.

The f a c t t h a t

external nouns may be retained a l s o raises the question whether feature-copying of t h e noun i n t o the verb and d e l e t i o n of the external notm occur i n the same transformational operation. This s e c t i o n examines several i n s t a c e s of noun-doubling i n order t o determine whether i ~ c o r p o r a t i o nand deletion may be accounted f o r by t h e same transformational rule. Sentences (1)a and (2)a i l l u s t r a t e noun-doubling;

(1)b

and (2)b i l l u s t r a t e optional deletion of the external noun.

Aste-

risked sentences (3) and (4) i l l u s t r a t e two instances i n which r e t e n t i o n of t h e external noun r e s u l t s i n unacceptable surface sentences.

(1)a Ihuna. n+u Ina+t+huna . h a p i h w a l sbj

rel-sbj-dir-vs-prf-sub obj asp suf

The land t h a t I bought i s good.

b

fnatuna-na-pihA tuhnunane]

t i+un+huna n+he- r+U

ind-pv-sbj-vs-prf asp

sbj

,rel-sbj-dir-pas-vs-prf dir obj asp obj

neg-rel-pv-sb j -vs-prf -sub ind-sb j -pv-vs-imp a s p suf asp C w i ta n d i . k

d tst o hu?

kananuht se r A

t i-nagxihu?]

The man who drank t h e bad water is sick. b Cwi-ta nuxEi-ka? kananuhtse-rA

sbj

ind-pv-sbj-vs-prf asp

sbj

ind-pv-sb j -prf asp

ti-na-xihu?]

The land is good.

.

The water is good.

Sentences ( I ) and (2) are complex.

Sentence (1)a c o n s i s t s

of a main sentence and a r e l a t i v e clause embedded i n t h e noun phrase of which hunamnu?

is t h e head.

Comparison of (1)a and (1)b with

(3) shows t h a t r e t e n t i o n of t h e external noun huna-nu?

i s optional

when t h e r e l a t i v e clause i s present, while t h e e x t e r n a l noun i n (3) must be deleted when t h e r e is no r e l a t i v e clause in order f o r the surface sentence t o be well-formed, I n (2)a, t h e external head noun tstoohu? "water" is optionally retained when the noun phrase of which i t

contains an embedded r e l a t i v e clause.

is t h e head

Comparison of (2)a and (2)b

with (4) shows t h a t d e l e t i o n of t h e external noun i s obligatory

when t h e noun phrase of which i t is t h e head does not contain a r e l a t i v e clause.

Relative clause formation in (1) and (2) provides same evidence of how deletion of external nouns must be fonrmlated. Since t h e topic of r e l a t i v e clause formation is otherwise outs i d e t h e scope of this chapter, i t is touched on only b r i e f l y here. Relative clauses i n Arikara derive from sentences embedded within noun phrases. well-formed,

I n order f o r a r e l a t i v e clause t o be

the embedded sentence must contain a noun phrase

(the "shared" NP) i d e n t i c a l t o its head in the main sentence. Bnbedded r e l a t i v e s are mapped i n t o surface s t r u c t u r e s by deletion of t h e shared NP, and modification of s t r u c t u r e within t h e verb of t h e embedded sentence. Sentence (5) i l l u s t r a t e s r e l a t i v e clause formation i n an instance where noun incorporation does not occur. (5)

/ta+t+&ut+e*rilct@

pi*ra+u CEi=ni+in+0-twa.waiE+a7

ind-sbj -dir-pv-vs-prf 0bj asp

dir obj

S

/

sbj -rel-sb j -dir-vs-sub num obj suf

I saw the child t h a t they h i t

The surface sentence is comprised of a main sentence

("I saw the child") and a r e l a t i v e clause embedded a s a sentence within t h e object noun phrase of which pi*rau? "child" i s the head ("They h i t the child").

The r e l a t i v f z e r ( r e l ) which occurs

i n t h e modal p r e f i x position i n t h e embedded sentence agrees with person f e a t u r e s of t h e subject of the embedded sentence (I&-t h i r d person subject;

=non-third

subject). The verb of t h e

embedded sentence is marked f o r subordination by the subordinating

suffix

-a,

Underlying (5) is t h e s t r u c t u r e (a).

(a)

/T\

MODE VT ASP

1 1 :

ind

I

VS prf

I

\

I1 1

ind

I

\!

prf

ut e-rik

0

Since r e l a t i v i z a t i o n d e l e t e s t h e shared NP i n t h e lower sentence, c l e a r l y object and subject agreement must precede r e l a tivization.

Object agreement operates c y c l i c a l l y i n t h e lower

and then t h e higher sentence, producing a pronominal copy i n the verbs of each sentence.

in both sentences.

Subject agreement then operates c y c l i c a l l y

Relativization occurs i n t h e lower sentence,

subject t o i d e n t i t y (indicated by subnumerals) of t h e shared NP with i t s head.

R e l a t i v i z a t i o n d e l e t e s CMODEI and introduces Crell

i n its place, c r e a t e s t h e verb f e a t u r e Csubl (subordination) rightmost in t h e verb, and d e l e t e s t h e shared NP.

Following

object and s u b j e c t agreement, r e l a t i v e clause formation produces t h e derived s t r u c t u r e (b) ip t h e lower sentence.

Since r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n Arikara d e l e t e s the shared NP, c l e a r l y a l l operations of object and subject agreement mst precede r e l a t i v i z a t i o n .

Because i n some sentences object and/or

subject agreement r e s u l t s i n incorporation, i t follows t h a t incorporation must precede r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . Underlying t h e sentence huna *nu? natuna na *pihA tuhnunane

"The land t h a t I bought is good" is t h e s t r u c t u r e (c)

.

(c)

/--\

NP

I

/!\

N

l

h

MODE VT ASP I l l ind VS prf ~ 1*

~

~

Object agreement i n the lwer sentence obligatorily r e s u l t s

in the incorporation of the l d c a l ,features of hunagn- "land" i n t o the verb theme.

Cyclical subject agreement results i n the

copying of pronominal features i n the verb of t h e lower sentence,

and copying of nominal features in the verb theme of the main sentence.

.

Relativization occurs in the lower sentence, producing

t h e (abbreviated) derived structure (d)

.

The f a c t t h a t the shared NP hunaonu? must remain following

noun incorporation in order f o r r e l a t i v i z a t i o n t o take place indicates t h a t incorporation and deletion should be formulated a s two separate operations.

7.7

Rules of Noun Incorporation

Noun incorporation operates by copying l e x i c a l features of appropriate external nouns in the verb theme.

The incorporated

feature bundle is realized by the appropriate entry i n the lexicon

on a second l e x i c a l pass.

Subentries f o r notm stems t h a t have

special compound stem forms must be included i n the lexicon.

The phrase s t r u c t u r e rules a r e revised i n (i)-(viii)

to

specify the possible expansions of NP discussed i n Chapters IV

-

and V I , and t h e expansion of the category tense. (i)

(iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

(viii)

S--3

NF VP

N-3

NS

Vp-3

(NP)

V----

3 MODE

IT--->

(PV)

(NP)

(TNS)

v VT

VS

taS)

TNS-3non-pas

Since noun incorporation i s an agreement transformation formally p a r a l l e l t o pronominal agreement, we r e f e r t o incorporation of the subject as "nominal subject agreement," and t o incorporation of the object as "nominal object agreement . I t

Nominal agreement

operates on complex symbols containing appropriate l e x i c a l f e a t u r e specification, including negative specification f o r ranimate l , Ihtmran], and [proper].

Since a complete statement of the l e x i c a l

features t h a t determine potential f o r incorporation is not possible, p o t e n t i a l of nouns f o r incorporation is indicated by the feature inc within -

the incorporating noun i n the rules.

T-N-

SUBJECT A

m

T-NOMINAL OBJECT AGREEMENT

VT

NIP

The agreement rules s t a t e

VT

v

- A VPS

V VPS

t h a t l e x i c a l features of appro-

p r i a t e nouns in the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object functions a r e copied in the verb theme inmediately preceding the verb stem. I n the derivation of surface structures from deep structures, deletion of noun phrases from which pronominal and nominal copies

have been created in t h e verb follows all agreement transformat i o n s .5

Evidence f ram r e l a t i v e clause formation i n d i c a t e s t h a t

t h e d e l e t i o n of t h e external noun whose l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s a r e copied in noun incorporation depends upon t h e constituency of t h e noun phrase.

If t h e incorporating head noun is t h e s o l e consti-

t u e n t of t h e noun phrase, t h e e n t i r e e x t e r n a l noun phrase is deleted.

I f t h e noun phrase contains an embedded sentence, t h e

head noun i s optionally deleted but t h e noun phrase containing t h e embedded sentence remains.

Since t h e conditions of deletion

are d i f f i c u l t t o display i n a s i n g l e rule, d e l e t i o n is accounted f o r by a set of two optional d e l e t i o n r u l e s and a set of two obligatory ones.

Deletion of the external head noun of noun

phrases containing embedded sentences is accounted f o r by t h e two transformations T-SUBJZCT DELETION-OP (optional), and T-03JECT DELETION-OP.

The two r u l e s s t a t e t h a t t h e external incorporating

noun subject of a c t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses and t h e external incorporating noun object of t r a n s i t i v e clauses may be optionally retained when t h e noun phrase of which t h e incorporating noun i s head contains an embedded sentenceO6 T-SUBJECT DELETION-OB (obligatory) and T-OBJECT Dh'LETION-OB s t a t e t h a t when an external incorporating noun is t h e s o l e constituent of a noun phrase, t h e e n t i r e

noun phrase is deleted.

T-SUBJECT DELETION-OP

2

VT

ki?,

,

VVPS

VT

VVPS

ivq

L

T-OBJECT DELETION-OP

1 1

7 1 1 [vg! j . I _1 7L.i.J ' 1 i

NNP

1

NS

N

NP

VT

VVPS

1

NNP

T-SUBJECT DELETION-OB

-

NS

N NP

VT

ppliE1

@y]

L V ~

VT

VVPS

VVPS

=>

T-OBJECT DELETION-OB

F3ccipt where incorporation has occurred, d e l e t i o n of extern a l noun phrases from which pronominal copies have been created i n t h e verb does not occur when t h e noun constituent contains l e x i c a l noun features.

Since unincorporated t r a n s i t i v e objects

p r e f e r e n t i a l l y follow the verb when t h e subject noun phrase cont a i n s a l e x i c a l noun, a f i n a l transformational r u l e i s needed t o move t h e object noun phrase from its position t o t h e l e f t of t h e verb i n deep and intermediate s t r u c t u r e around t o t h e r i g h t of t h e verb.

The r u l e , formulated a s T-OBJECT MOVEMENT, a p p l i e s

a f t e r a l l d e l e t i o n rules.

It s t a t e s t h a t t h e object noun phrase

is mwed t o t h e r i g h t of t h e verb i n cases where subject and obj e c t noun phrases have not been deleted by preceding r u l e s .

T-OBJECT MOVEMENT

L

NNP

1

V

NNPVPS

1

In Chapter V it w a s noted t h a t ouly animate nouns may function as subjects of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs. There is only one exception t o t h i s statement: possessed body p a r t nouns may function a s underlying subjects of s t a t i v e verbs. The possessor of the body p a r t i s always nnimnte. Since t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of formation of possessive phrases with noun incorporation i s not considered i n t h i s chapter, discussion of incorporat i o n i n s t a t i v e verbs is omitted.

2

The independent noun stem akaon- "house" occurs a s a c i t a t i o n form, but "house" and a number of other stems always occur i n a c t u a l speech a s subordinated nouns. Subordination of nouns is expressed by the subordinating p r e f i x E-, the noun stem, and the subordinating s u f f i x - wi . The subordinated form of "house" is na=ka.wi.

3

One way i n which semantically "agentive" nouns may be distinguished from "non-agentivet' couns is t h a t t h e former may be i n f l e c t e d with the instrumental cases u f f i x -hini.

4

Incorporation is optional i s t h i s construction. The meaning "The young men a r e good/handsomeWmay also be expressed with unincorporated noun. The forms with incorporated noun d i f f e r semantically from other instances of incorporation, i n t h a t they presuppose t h a t t h e individual of individuals a r e r e c e r e n t i a l l y defined. This requirement is not placed on instances of obligatory incorporation. . For example, t a *takAkaro *ku? may mean "I am building a house" o r "1am building t h e house." Incorporation of "houseff is obligatory i n e i t h e r meaning.

5

The r u l e s which d e l e t e external noun phrases following agreement a r e not e x p l i c i t l y formulated here, except in the case of noun incorporation. Elsewhere, a lowl e v e l [+PRO] deletion r u l e is needed which applies following a l l agreement transformations. The presence of a feature, perhaps [emph] (emphasis), p o s i t i v e l y s p e c i f i a b l e f o r f i r s t and second persons i n subject

-

position, would prevent t h e d e l e t i o n of independent personal pronouns where they a r e used f o r emphasis.

6 It is possible t h a t t h i s statement should b e expanded t o read t h a t d e l e t i o n of t h e external noun is a l s o optional when t h e noun phrase contains a determiner constituent. For example, r e t e n t i o n of t h e e x t e r n a l noun is optional i n (a), where the noun is modified by t h e demonstrative determiner nawa rix "those (standing)"; (b) is not considered good.

(a) (b)

Inawa- r i g w i te .xu% tuhwi te -%uniwa] Those young men a r e good. j w i a t e - % d tuhwi*te.&~niwal

Also, subordinated nouns are optionally retained outside the verb, as i n (c)

.

(c)

jna*ka*wi ta*takana-pi]

I bought a/ the house. The r e l a t i o n s h i p among these phenomena is n o t well understood.

Chapter VIII

8.1

Conclusions One purpose of t h i s study has been t o describe and

analyze a small portion of t h e s y n t a c t i c component of a transformational gramnar of Arikara; a second, p a r a l l e l purpose has been t o show t h a t a s y n t a c t i c account of the language cannot be divorced from the study of underlying semantic s t r u c t u r e .

In this

concluding chapter, we draw together and summarize these two aspects of the study. Since our description and analysis concentrate on only one aspect of Arikara grammar--the

relationships of nouns t o verbs

a t deep and surface s t r u c t u r e levels--it

is c e r t a i n l y the case

t h a t many other r u l e s w i l l be required f o r an adequate account of

Arilcara syntax.

W e have shown t h a t Arikara surface v e r b a l forms

a r e characterized by the presence of a number of formatives within t h e verb which derive from noun phrases external t o t h e verb i n deep s t r u c t u r e .

The transformational operations discussed i n

Chapters I V , V I , and V I I augment the verb.by introducing s t r u c t u r e i n t o it.

With j u s t the small set of r u l e s proposed here, it is

necessary t o make e x p l i c i t t h e sequences i n which they may apply.

In s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e constructions, T-VT RAISING, i f applicable, must apply before T-STATIVE; both precede MODAL PREFIX

AGREEMENT and T-OBJECT AGREEMENT.

Two rules, T-OBJECT AGREEMENT and T-NOMINAL OBJECT AGREEMENT,

copy f e a t u r e s of d i r e c t object nominals in t h e verb.

T-REFLEXIVE

must be ordered t o precede T-OBJECT AGREEMENT, f o r r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n eliminates one of t h e environments i n which T-OBJECT -A

would otherwise apply.

T-REFLEXIVE a l s o precedes T-INDIRECT OBJECT

AGREEMENT, s i n c e r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n in d i t r a n s i t i v e and i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses d e l e t e s t h e i n d i r e c t object nominal which would otherwise be indexed by pronominal copy in t h e verb.

Where applicable, t h e

r u l e T-BENEFACTIVE precedes T-INDIRECII OBJECT AGREEMENT.

Two rules, T-SUBJECT A-

and T-NOMINAL SUBJECT AGREE-

MENT, create pronominal and nominal subject copies, respectively, i n the verb.

Rules of subject agreement follow a l l r u l e s of object

agreement. I n a l l clauses, r u l e s of number segmentalization follow agreement i n tkr verb.

I n t r a n s i t i v e clauses, T-NUM3ER NEUTRALI-

ZATION and T-SI DELETION precede segmentalization.

Deletion of

external noun phrases from which information has been copied i n t h e verb, except in the case of reflexivization, is t h e l a s t operat i o n i n t h e derivation of surface forms.

W e have examined the claim of other i n v e s t i g a t o r s t h a t t h e Caddoan languages a r e of ergative syntactic type.

The notions of

"ergativity" and "accusativity" have been discussed, and i t has been shown t h a t i f Arikara and t h e o t h e r Caddoan languages w e r e ergative, t h e r e should be no difference i n the s y n t a c t i c treatment

of the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t h e t r a n s i t i v e object.

W e have

shown .that in Arikara, t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e

object functions are not i d e n t i f i e d syntactically, but r a t h e r , t h a t the underlying subject of s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs becomes i d e n t i f i e d i n surface case-marking with the object of t h e transi-

tive verb.

The rule T-STATIVE- alters t h e configuration of under-

lying tress, moving the subject of t h e s t a t i v e verb i n t o a position on an intermediate phrase-marker where agreement i n the verb is accomplished by T-OBJECT . -GA

W e have referred t o

t h e r e s u l t i n g system of surface case-marking as s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v e .

It has furthennore been shown t h a t s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs have s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s such t h a t t h e underlying subjects of these verbs must be animate, o r body p a r t nouns whose possessors a r e animate.

S t a t i v e verbs a r e not comprehensively

defined a s designating "states" or "conditions" a s opposed t o 11

processes," although t h i s is generally t h e case; r a t h e r , they

a r e invariably verbs designating s t a t e s , conditions, or processes of which the associated noun phrase is not the agent, but the patient.

W e have suggested t h a t the objective surface case-

marking of the s t a t i v e i n t r a n s i t i v e subject indexes t h e unnaturalness of high-ranking categories i n a semantically p a t i e n t i v e function.

This i s t h e mirror-image of the s p l i t surface case-

marking found i n fundamentally ergative languages such a s Dyirbal, f o r the e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of split-ergative systems is t h a t lower-ranking categories i n a nominal hierarchy become morphol o g i c a l l y marked when they occur i n the agentive t r a n s i t i v e subject function.

Thus, we have argued that all intransitive constructions derive from a unitary underlying source, and that surface case functions are determined by underlying semantic structures whose configurations determine the applicability or non-applicability of transformations. We may think of T-STATIVE as a topicization transformation which alters the underlying foncfiguration of nounverb relationships. The number of stative verb themes in Arikara probably does not exceed thirty.

It is to be hoped that our speculations

regarding the nature of the split in Arikara will provide some material for comparison with other languages exhibiting splitintransitive case-marking, such as Iroquoian, and many of the Siouan languages in which the split in the intransitive paradigm is much more pervasive. We have shown that cross-referencing of external subject and object nominals in the verb is accomplished by two formally parallel processes, pronominal and nominal agreement. Object agreement is determined under different 'conditions by a rule-set including T-REFLEXIVE, T-OBJECT AGREEMENT, and T-NOMINAL OBJECT

AGREEMENT.

The applicability of each rule is determined by

underlying semantic configurations of noun phrases. T-REE'LEXIVE operates on structures in which the subject

and direct object nominals are coreferential.

Reflexivization

deletes the second of two coreferential norm phrases, thus remving

a number of transitive structures from the domain of application

of T-OBJECT AGREEMENT. The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of T-NOMINAL OBJECT AGREEMENT is s i m i l a r l y determined by underlying semantic configurations of noun phrases.

W e have r e l a t e d t h e phenomenon of noun incorporation

t o the finding t h a t c e r t a i n nominal functions i n a sentence a r e p r e f e r e n t i a l l y f i l l e d by c o n s t i t - x n t s with d i f f e r e n t underlying

In Arikara, incorporating

configurations of f e a t u r e values. ,nouns are low-ranking

[-animate]

categories. It has been shown

t h a t incorporation of the i n t r a n s i t i v e subject and t r a n s i t i v e object is n o t determined by s y n t a c t i c function per se, but is explicable r a t h e r i n terms of the f a c t t h a t nouns which preferent i a l l y f i l l these two case functions have, i n many instances, s i m i l a r configurations of l e x i c a l features. It can be argued on several grounds t h a t the process of

noun incorporation is becoming increasingly marginal and less productive i n Arikara.

F i r s t , i t is d i f f i c u l t t o specify preciselj-

t h e nominal feature-configurations t h a t t r i g g e r incorporation. Although we can claim t h a t incorporating nouns a r e characterized by negative s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r high-ranking features, we cannot make t h e stronger claim t h a t we can p r e d i c t i n a l l cases which nouns

may incorporate and which may not. o p t i o n a l in a number of cases.

Second, incorporation is

Third, older speakers tend t o

incorporate more frequently than do younger speakers.

The tendency

n o t t o incorporate may be due t o t h e influence of English, and is

one i n d i c a t i o n t h a t o l d e r p a t t e r n s a r e not being maintained i n t h e

rapidly dwindling speech ccmmanity. The e f f e c t of noun incorporation in cases of obligatory incorporation combined with obligatory deletion, is t o reduce autonomous word-units t o t h e s t a t u s of unindependent elements,

.

a phenomenon which we may consider one sort of grammaticalization. Incorporating nouns a r e removed from a position of r e l a t i v e synt a c t i c independence and a r e inserted i n t h e morphologically r i g i d s t r u c t u r e of the verbal form.

Thus, the s a c r i f i c e of syntax t o

morphology runs p a r a l l e l with detopicization of incorporating nouns.

In noun incorporation, s y n t a c t i c process is inextricably bound up with semantic s t r u c t u r e on a number of l i n g u i s t i c levels.

We

suggest t h a t the f u r t h e r study of noun incorporation may provide i n t e r e s t i n g i n s i g h t s i n t o change i n s t r u c t u r a l type. Although rules of possessive formation have not been integrated i n t o the grammar, one point of especial i n t e r e s t has emerged from t h e discussion of possession.

The two formally d i s t i n c t

constructions of subject possession have been r e l a t e d t o d i f f e r e n t configurations of f e a t u r e values of possessed noun.

In p r e f i x a l

subject possession, the possessed nominal i s invariably lowerranking than t h e possessor.

Many of the nouns whose possession

is expressed by t h i s construction may incorporate, and we observe t h a t t h e animate possessor is topicized, s o t h a t modal p r e f i x agreement i s determined by t h e possessor, and not the possessed

nominal.

The underlying possessed sentence-subject i n e f f e c t

becomes equated with a surface object.

Sentential possession of animate categories, on the other band, is expressed with the independent possessive pronouns, and t h e modal p r e f i x agress with the possessed subject nominal.

Thus,

Arikara expressed s y n t a c t i c a l l y a constant semantic opposition of animate and inanimate categories i n s p l i t - i n t r a n s i t i v i t y , noun incorporation, and possessive formation. It i s hoped t h a t t h i s study has made some small addition

t o our knowledge of Caddoan, and t h a t f u r t h e r research w i l l provide

a f u l l e r and more adequate account of the Caddoan languages and the people who speak them.

BIBLIOGRAPEY

1971

Problems i n General Linguistics. Miami Linguistics Series No. 8 (trans. by Mary E. Meek). University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Boas, Franz 1909

Notes on the Iroquois Language. Pp. 427-460 in The Putnam Anniversary Volume. New York.

Boas, Franz (ed. ) 1911

Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 4C, Part 1.

Boas, Franz, and E l l a Deloria ..

1941

Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 23:l-183.

Bucca, Salvador, and Alexander Lesser 1969

K i t s a i Phonology and Morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 35:7-19.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1970

A Semantically Based Sketch of Onondaga. Memoir 25, Indiana University Publications i n Anthropology and Linguistics, Bloomington.

1973

Siouan, Caddoan and I.roquoian. Pp. 1164-1209 i n Current Trends i n Linguistics 10, Part 2 (ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok).

1957

Syntactic Structures.

Janua Linguarm No. 4.

Hague, Mouton. 1965

Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.

Cambridge,

The

Chomslcy, Noam, and Morris Halle 1968

The Sound P a t t e r n of English. and Row.

New York, Harper

...

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972

The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Studies i n Linguistics 9.

Cambridge

Dtmbar, John Brown

1890

The Pawnee Language. Pp. 409-437 i n Pawnee Hero S t o r i e s and Folk Tales (by George B. Grinell). New York.

Greenberg, Joseph (ed. ) 1966

Universals of Language (Second Edition). The MIT Press.

Cambridge,

Haas, Mary 1941

Noun Incorporation i n the Muskogean Languages. Language 17: 311-315.

Hale, Kenneth 1973

Person-Marking i n WalbirS. I p . 308-344 i n Fests c h r i f t f o r Morris Halle (ed. by Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky). New York.

1974

A Note on Subject-Object Inversion i n Navajo. Unpublished paper.

Heath, J e f f r e y 1974

Nominal Hierarchies i n Grammar.

Unpublished paper.

Jakobson, Roman 1971

S h i f t e r s , Verbal Categories, and t h e Russian Verb. Pp. 130-147 i n Selected Writings 11: Word and Language ( o r i g i n a l l y published 1957, Russian Langmge Project, Earvard University). P a r i s , The Hague.

Katz, J e r r o l d , and 3 . A . Fodor 1963

The Structure of a Semantic Theory. 170-210.

Language .39:

Katz, Jerrold, and J.A. Fodor (eds.) 1964

The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

Kroeber, Alfred L., 1909

'.

.

Noun Incorporation in American Languages. Pp. 569-576 in Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Americanists. Vienna.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1972

Fundamentals of Linguistic Analysis. Brace and Jovanovich.

Harcourt,

Lees, Robert B., and Edward S. Klima 1963

Rules for English Pronominalization. Language 39:17-28.

Lesser, Alexander, and Gene Weltfish 1932

Composition of the Caddoan Linguistic Stock. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 87, No. 6:l-15. Washington.

Lounsbury, Floyd 1953

Oneida Verb Morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 48. Yale University Press.

1956

A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage. Language 32:158-194.

Matthews, George B. 1965

Hidatsa Syntax.

Mouton, The Hague.

Parks, Douglas R. 1972

A Grammar of Pawnee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Postal, Paul Unpublished Ph.D.

1962

Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. dissertation, Yale University.

1972

The Method of Universal Gramnar. Pp. 113-131 in Method and Theory in Linguistics (ed. by Paul L. Garvln). Mouton, The Hague.

Rood, David S. 1969

Wichita Grammar: A Generative Semantic Sketch. Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of California, Berkeley.

1971

Agent and Object i n Wichita.

Lingua 28:100-107.

S a p i r , Edward 1913

The Problem of Noun Incorporation in American Languages. American Anthropologist 11:250-282.

S i l v e r stein, Michael 1973

Feature Hierarchy and Ergativity. paper.

Unpublished

Swanton, John R. 1911

Haida. Pp. 205-282 i n Handbook of American Indian Languages (ed. by Franz Boas). Bureau of American Ethnology B u l l e t i n 40, P a r t 1.

Taylor, Allan R. W63a Comparative Caddoan. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal.of American L i n g u i s t i c s 29:113-131. 1963b The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e Caddoan Languages. Proceedings of t h e American Philosophical Society 107, No. 1:51-59. Philadelphia. Wackernagel, Johann 1992

Uber e i n Gesetz der 1ndoge&uanischen Wort st ellung. Indogermanische Porschungen 1:333-436.

Weltfish, Gene 1936

The Vision Story of Fox Boy. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal o f American L i n g u i s t i c s 9:44-73.

1937

Caddoan Texts. Publications of t h e American Ethnological Society 17. New York.

n.d.

The l@rphology of t h e Pawnee Language. Unpublished manuscr'ipt 1096, American Council of Learned S o c i e t i e s , Philadelphia.

Wolfart, H. Christoph

1968

Plains Cree Internal Syntax and the Problem of Noun Incorporation. Pp. 5!L--22' .? Proceedings of the XXXVIII Int: :-E.: :: 1 72.2- -I; t.2 sess of Americanists: Vol 3. Stuttga~:--!:~kl.i~en. -.

Young, John P.

1900

English and Arickaree Vocabulary. Unpublished manuscript, State Historical Society Library of North Dlkota, Bismarck.

Curriculum Vitae Francesca C. Merlan was born January 23, 1949, i n Taos,

New Mexico.

She attended primary and secondary schools in

New Pork, Colorado, and Idaho, graduating from Moscow High School, Moscow, Idaho, i n 1964.

She attended the University

of Idaho from 1964 t o 1966, and San Francisco S t a t e College from 1966 t o 1967, when she received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Modern Languages.

Ms. Merlan entered the University

of New Mexico i n 1970, and received the degree of Master of A r t s in Anthropology i n 1970, and the Doctor of Philosophy

i n Anthropology i n 1975. From 1967 t o 1968, M s . Merlan held a post-graduate Fulbright Fellowship i n Pavia, I t a l y .

She joined the s t a f f of

Tulane University in 1973, where she currently holds t h e rank of Instructor i n the Department of Anthropology. Ms. Fferlan was elected t o Phi Beta Kappa in 1966, and

was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship i n 1972.