TOPICS IN CHEMEHUEVI MORPHOSYNTAX: LEXICAL CATEGORIES, PREDICATION AND CAUSATION by

TOPICS IN CHEMEHUEVI MORPHOSYNTAX: LEXICAL CATEGORIES, PREDICATION AND CAUSATION  by
TOPICS IN CHEMEHUEVI MORPHOSYNTAX:
LEXICAL CATEGORIES, PREDICATION AND CAUSATION
by
Angelina Eduardovna Serratos
________________________
Copyright © Angelina Eduardovna Serratos 2008
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2008
2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation
prepared by Angelina Eduardovna Serratos entitled Topics in Chemehuevi
Morphosyntax: Lexical Categories, Predication and Causation and recommend that it be
accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
________________________________________________________Date: 10/24/2008
Heidi B. Harley
________________________________________________________Date: 10/24/2008
Andrew Barss
________________________________________________________Date: 10/24/2008
Andrew Carnie
________________________________________________________Date: 10/24/2008
Susan Penfield
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s
submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and
recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
________________________________________________________Date: 10/24/2008
Dissertation Director: Heidi B. Harley
3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an
advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library
to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided
that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended
quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by
the copyright holder.
SIGNED:
Angelina Eduardovna Serratos
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There is a reason why on the second page of every dissertation you find the names of the
people who supervised the work done by the author. These are the scientists whose
judgments we trust and who inspire us in academic and personal matters. Heidi Harley
has been my academic advisor from the very beginning of my studies at the University of
Arizona. She gently guided me through the research process and always understood the
issues involved, whether I battled the existence of subject idioms in Russian or the
absence of adjectives in Chemehuevi. I truly believe that there are no syntactic puzzles
that Dr. Harley cannot solve, and in a sense this belief inspired me to leave the safety of
research on my own native language and plunge into the depths of an unknown to me
Chemehuevi. There were many surprises in the Chemehuevi language that pushed me to
learn more about linguistics, and I always had Heidi’s support and guidance in finding
satisfactory answers.
Susan Penfield is another person without whom this thesis would not be possible.
We met when I was writing an article about her outstanding work on language
preservation, and I was moved by her dedication to language revitalization and to the
people on the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation. At that time I was actively
looking for a dissertation topic and it occurred to me that this might be the opportunity of
a lifetime – to work with one of the Chemehuevi speakers and hopefully make my
contribution to the documentation of this language. I had heard many good things about
Johnny Hill Jr., but meeting him in person was truly the highlight of my fieldwork.
Johnny is a kind and generous person, friendly and open to meeting new people. I know
that Chemehuevi is of great personal importance to him, and I cannot thank him enough
for allowing me to use his words in my thesis. I am also very grateful to the CRIT Tribes
Council for giving me permission to conduct fieldwork on the CRIT reservation.
I would also like to thank Andrew Carnie and Andy Barss for giving me their
insights on many issues discussed in my dissertation. My work benefited in many ways
from their insightful and honest comments, helping me to keep in mind alternative views
in the world of linguistics. I also need to emphasize how greatly I was influenced by the
general atmosphere at the U of A Department of Linguistics: the faculty, the staff, the
students are all high quality people, friendly, informal, intellectually stimulating. The
leadership of the department has found the balance between providing the students with
freedom to do what they want and guidance in finding what it is they want to do.
This brings me to think about my wonderful classmates, Azita Taleghani, Jian
Wang, Scott Jackson, Charles Lin, JeongRae Lee and students of linguistics from other
years – thank you all for your support and friendship. Also many thanks to my friend
Joyce Swiokla for watching my son while I was finishing my dissertation.
Finally, to my family go my deepest thanks. To my mother Ludmila Gracheva, I
owe the biggest debt of gratitude for instilling in me the desire to learn from my earliest
days and perseverance to finish what I started. To my husband Martin and my son Martin
Andres – you guys are the constant source of inspiration and joy for me. Thank you for
your love, patience and support. I love you dearly.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………...9
LIST OF ILLUSTRATION……………………………………………………………...10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………11
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………...……13
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………15
1.1 What is this dissertation about?...............................................................................15
1.2 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe……………………………………………………….…19
1.2.1
Background………………………………………………………………19
1.2.2
Brief history of the tribe……………………………………….…………20
1.3 The Chemehuevi language…………………………………………………………23
1.3.1
Previous work on the Chemehuevi language………………….…………23
1.3.2
Brief language description…………………………….…………………26
1.3.2.1 Sound inventory………………………………………………….26
1.3.2.2 The Chemehuevi orthography……………………………………28
1.3.2.3 Word formation: Nouns……………………………………….…29
1.3.2.3.1 Possession……………………………………...………31
1.3.2.3.2 Number………………………………………...………33
1.3.2.3.3 Case marking……………………..……………………34
1.3.2.4 Word formation: Verbs…………………….………………….…35
1.3.2.5 Pronominal system……………………………………………….37
1.3.2.6 Word order……………………….………………………………41
1.4 The organization of the dissertation…………………………………….…………42
PART I. ROOTS AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI …………..43
CHAPTER TWO. LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI: NOUNS …….44
2.1 Theoretical background: DM on roots and functional categories……………….44
2.1.1
Principles of Distributed Morphology…………………………………...44
2.1.2
DM on roots and functional categories…………………………………..47
2.1.3
Arad (2005) on roots and lexical categories in Hebrew…………………52
2.2 Lexical categories in Chemehuevi: Nouns……………………………………...…55
2.3.1
Non-Possessed Noun marker – a noun-forming functional head n0…..…55
2.3.2
Possessive marker – allomorph of ‘little’ n0…………………………..…58
2.3.3
Roots vs. nouns: derivational vs. inflectional morphology………………67
2.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………..………………………69
2.4 Notes for community use: How to form words in Chemehuevi………………….70
CHAPTER THREE. LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI: VERBS…...76
3.1 Theoretical background: Verbal functional projections and complex syntax
of verbs…………………………………………………………………………………..76
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
3.1.1
Flavors of ‘little’ v……………………………….………………………80
3.1.2
Low vs. high attachment of functional heads……………………………82
3.2 Chemehuevi verbs……………………………………………..……………………86
3.2.1
Chemehuevi low attachment functional verbs………...…………………90
3.2.2
Chemehuevi high attachment functional verbs …………..……………103
3.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………110
3.4 Notes for community use: How to form verbs in Chemehuevi…………………111
CHAPTER
FOUR.
LEXICAL
CATEGORIES
IN
CHEMEHUEVI:
ADJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………………114
4.1 Theoretical background: A non-uniform class of adjectives………………..….114
4.2 Chemehuevi predicative adjectives as stative verbs ……………………………123
4.3 Chemehuevi attributive adjectives………………………….……………………127
4.3.1
Attributive adjectives as nominalizations………………………………127
4.3.2
Theoretical background: Nominalizations within DM…………………131
4.3.3
Chemehuevi adjectival and verbal nominalizations……………………135
4.3.4
Typology and internal structure of relative clauses…………………….139
4.3.5
Chemehuevi relative clauses and attributive modification…..…………147
4.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………152
4.5 Notes for community use: How to form adjectives in Chemehuevi……………153
CHAPTER FIVE. PREDICATION AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN
CHEMEHUEVI ………………………………………………………………………156
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..156
5.2 The puzzle of the enclitic –uk……………………………………………………..156
5.3 Theoretical background: Predication……………………………………………160
5.3.1
Bowers (1993): functional category Pr for Predication…………….......161
5.3.2
Baker (2003): functional category Pred for Predication………………..162
5.3.3
Overt realization of Pred……………………………….........................164
5.4 Pred in Chemehuevi………………………………………………….……………166
5.4.1
Verbal predicates in Chemehuevi ………………………...……………167
5.4.2
Chemehuevi color terms and predicates formed from them……..……..168
5.4.3
Nominal predicates in Chemehuevi…………………………....………172
5.4.4
Predicates formed by Chemehuevi adjectival nominalizations………..175
5.4.5
Analysis: copula –uk as the overt realization of Pred………………….178
5.5 Copula –uk as a focus particle …………………………………………………...184
5.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………188
5.7 Notes for community use: How to build sentences in Chemehuevi…………….189
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
PART II. CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVE VERBS..………………………………...193
CHAPTER SIX. CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVES: DESCRIPTION AND
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND………………………………………………….194
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..194
6.2 Variants of the causative morpheme in Chemehuevi…………………………...195
6.3 Theoretical background…………………………………………………………..202
6.3.1 Causatives: definition, valence and argument structure…………………….202
6.3.2 Typology: lexical, affixal and syntactic causatives………………………...205
6.3.2.1 Affixal causatives and case marking – typological
distinctions……………………………………………………...206
6.3.2.2 Case marking, true objecthood and clause structure of affixal
causatives……………………………………………………….208
6.3.3 Early syntactic analyses of the typology of affixal causatives………...…...211
6.2.3.1 Marantz (1984): Morphological merger of causative affixes…..211
6.2.3.2 Baker (1988): Incorporation analysis of affixal causatives……215
6.3.4 Japanese affixal causatives: lexical vs. syntactic…….…….……………….217
6.3.4.1 Baker’s (1988) incorporation analysis……...………………….220
6.3.4.2 Harley (1995, 2005): Event structure and low vs. high
attachment causatives ………………………………………….221
6.3.4.3 Pylkkanen (2002): Complements of CAUS and causative
typology………………………………………………………...225
6.4 Conclusion: low vs. high attachment analysis of affixal causatives……………231
6.5 Notes for community use: How use a causative construction ‘make something’
in Chemehuevi…………………………………………………….………………234
CHAPTER SEVEN. CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVES: STRUCTURE AND
TYPOLOGY…………………………………………………………….……………..237
7.1 Low vs. high attachment causatives in Chemehuevi……………………………237
7.1.1
Chemehuevi is a non-Voice bundling language………… ……….……239
7.1.2
Morpho-phonological differences between the two types of
causatives……………………………………………………………….241
7.1.3
Semanitic differences between the two types of causatives…………….251
7.1.4
Differences in the clause and event structure: evidence from syntax and
morpho-syntax…………………………………………………………..257
7.1.4.1 Case marking, passivization and reflexivization of causative
verbs………………………………………………………...….257
7.1.4.2 Intervening verbal morphology…………………………………263
7.1.4.3 Adverbial modification…………………………………………266
7.1.4.4 Control of subject-oriented anaphors and adjuncts ……….…269
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
7.1.5 Availability of causative iteration………………………………………………271
7.2 Productivity of low and high attachment causatives……………………………273
7.3 Conclusion………………………………………
275
7.4 Notes for community use: How to use a causative construction ‘make someone
do something in Chemehuevi……………………………………………………...….276
CHAPTER EIGHT. CONCLUDING REMARKS…………………………………279
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..………285
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table #1. Chemehuevi Orthography……………………………………………………..28
Table #2. Aspect markers in Chemehuevi……………………………………………….36
Table #3. Independent pronouns in Chemehuevi……………………………..…………38
Table #4. Pronominal enclitics in Chemehuevi………………………………………….38
Table #5. Derivations for different kinds of verbs (based on Hale and Keiser 1993)…...78
Table #6. Derivation of de-adjectival and de-nominal verbs (based on Hale 2000:164166)……………………………………………………………………………79
Table #7. Varieties of ‘little’ v (based on Harley and Noyer 2000)……………………..81
Table #8. Properties of passive and stative functional heads (based on Marantz 2001)...85
Table #9. Flavors of ‘little’ v and Voice projection in Chemehuevi……….……………89
Table #10. Chemehuevi verb-forming light verbs, Part One……………………………91
Table #11. Chemehuevi low attachment functional verbs, Part Two……………………93
Table #12. Chemehuevi low attachment functional heads – derivation……………...….94
Table #13. Chemehuevi high attachment functional verbs……………………………..108
Table #14. Chemehuevi adjectives in bare form……………………………………….127
Table #15. Baker’s (2003) structures for VP vs. PredP………………………………..163
Table #16 Chemehuevi causative affixes attached directly to roots – allomorphy…….197
Table #17. Chemehuevi causative affix attached to verbal stems: invariant -tu’i-…….199
Table #18. Monoclausal causative structure (Marantz 1984)…………………………..213
Table #19. Biclausal causative structure (Marantz 1984)………………………………214
Table #20. Formation of mono- vs. biclausal causatives (Baker 1988)………………..216
Table #21. Japanese lexical vs. syntactic causative structures (Harley 2005)………….223
Table #22. Variation: Voice-bundling of the causative head (Pylkkanen 2002:75)……226
Table #23. Variation: Selection of the causative head (Pylkkanen 2002:77)…………..227
Table #24. Summary of properties of low and high attachment causatives……………232
Table #25. Availability of allomorphy: low vs. high attachment of a functional head...245
Table #26. Derivations for Chemehuevi root causatives with allomorphy…………….246
Table #27. Case and Tense licensing in Chemehuevi root and verb-stem causatives….259
10
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Chemehuevi Indian Reservation and Colorado Indian Tribes Reservation…...20
Figure 2. The structure of the grammar in Distributed Morphology…………………….47
11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
aff
agr
anim
anter
appl
caus
cont
cop
dem
des
dim
emph
excl
fact
FV
fut
gen
habit
imm
imper
inanim
incl
ind
instr
invis
loc
neg
nom
nomin
NPN
mom
obj
obl
part
pass
past
perf
pl
poss
pres
pres.prt
affirmative
agreement
animate
anterior aspect
applicative
causative affix
continuous aspect
copula
demonstrative
desiderative
diminutive
emphatic
exclusive
factual mood
final vowel
future tense
genitive case
habitual aspect
immediate aspect
imperative
inanimate
inclusive
indicative mood
instrumental
invisible
locative
negation
nominative case
nominalization
non-possessed noun marker
momentaneous aspect
object
oblique case
partitive case
passive
past tense
perfective
plural
possessive marker
present tense
present participle
12
prog
prt
pst.prt
ptcl
punc
rec
RED
rel.pro
res
sev
sg
stat
subj
SubjRel
subord
top
usit
vis
progressive aspect
participle
past participle
particle
punctual
reciprocal
reduplication
relative pronoun
resultative aspect
several
singular
stative
subject
subject relative clause
subordinator
topic
usitative tense
visible
13
ABSTRACT
This dissertation is an application of the framework of Distributed Morphology to the
morphosyntax of Chemehuevi, an endangered Southern Numic language of the UtoAztecan family. Following one of the central claims of DM, I argue that word formation
in Chemehuevi happens in the syntax and provide evidence for this claim from the
formation of lexical categories, as well as from the morphosyntax of the Chemehuevi
causative verbs. I frame my discussion of lexical categories around the Root Hypothesis
(Marantz 1997, Arad 2005), a notion that there are no underived nouns, verbs, or
adjectives in the grammar, but roots that receive interpretation and assignment to a ‘part
of speech’ depending on their functional environment. I show that Chemehuevi nouns
and verbs are formed when roots are incorporated into nominal or verbal functional
heads, many of which are overtly represented in the language. I also demonstrate that
there is no distinct class of adjectives in Chemehuevi, and that roots with adjectival
meanings are derived into stative verbs or nominalizations, depending on their function.
My discussion of predication in Chemehuevi centers around the previously
unexplained distribution of the enclitic copula -uk, which under my analysis is viewed as
an overt realization of a functional head Pred (based on Baker 2003), which is obligatory
in the formation of nominal and adjectival, but not verbal predicates.
Another major theme of the dissertation is the notion that word-formation from
roots differs from word-formation from derived words, known as the Low vs. High
Attachment Hypothesis (Marantz 2000, Travis 2000, etc.). This approach explains the
differences between compositional and non-compositional word formation by the
14
distance between the root and functional head(s) attached to it. On the basis of
Chemehuevi causatives, I show that causative heads attached directly to the root derive
words that exhibit morphophonological and semantic idiosyncrasies, such as allomorphy
and availability of idiomatic meanings, while high attachment heads derive words that are
fully compositional. This locality constraint on interpretation of roots is explained in
terms of phase theory, and I present evidence from Chemehuevi showing that what
constitutes a phase may be subject to parametric variation.
Each chapter of the dissertation contains a section for non-linguistic audience
where I provide a summary of the main points in non-theoretical terms and connect them
to practical applications for the purposes of language learning and revitalization.
15
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
What is this dissertation about?
I believe that our understanding of human mind and language cannot be complete without
a study of every existing language. The imminent death of an estimated half of the world
languages gives linguists a sense of urgency, since an undocumented language is lost
forever with the death of its last speaker. Such loss is catastrophic for the native
community for whom a traditional language is as much part of identity as their land,
ancestry, and religion. It is also an irreplaceable loss for linguists, for whom language is a
window into the human mind.
This dissertation is devoted to the study of the Chemehuevi language, a highly
endangered Southern Numic language, currently spoken by a handful of people in
Arizona and California. I had the opportunity to conduct fieldwork with one of the last
speakers of the Chemehuevi language, Johnny Hill Jr., as well as work directly with all
existing Chemehuevi materials. I was also priveledged to meet several Chemehuevi
elders and language activists, and their dedication to the Chemehuevi language and
culture became an inspiration for me. To a theoretical linguist, conducting research in the
field is an incredible opportunity. So often theoretical linguistics is removed from actual
language speakers and focuses mainly on the language competence of an idealized
speaker, purposefully abstracted from the social and cultural aspects of language use. As
16
speakers of mainstream languages, we often lose sight of how central language is to our
identity, and how completely and mutually dependent it is on the culture of its speakers.
In the case of endangered languages, there is an added sense of responsibility to preserve
the precious linguistic material and aid the native community in their language
preservation efforts. While the focus of this work is mainly theoretical, I would like to
emphasize that in its core this work is about the way words and sentences are built in
Chemehuevi, and it is my hope that the descriptive sections and especially examples of
Chemehuevi sentences will be useful to anyone interested in the Chemehuevi language.
Also at the end of each theoretical chapter, there are notes for community use, where I
summarize the main points in non-theoretical terms and connect them to practical
applications.
From the theoretical standpoint, the main goal of this dissertation is to
demonstrate using the example of the Chemehuevi language, that all basic language units,
such as words, phrases and sentences are constructed by a single generative mechanism -syntax. Traditionally, it has been assumed that words and sentences are formed
separately, by two distinct modules of the human language faculty. In that view, words
are built in the lexicon, a mental storage where a word's meaning and pronunciation are
listed, and where some word formation takes place. Sentences, on the other hand, are
built in syntax. In recent years, a framework known as Distributed Morphology has been
developed to bring word and sentence formation together (Halle & Marantz 1993; Harley
& Noyer 1998, 1999; Marantz 1997, 2000, 2001; Embick and Noyer 1999). I apply this
framework to the Chemehuevi data and aim to demonstrate that Distributed Morphology
17
provides an accurate explanation of the complex morphosyntactic processes in this
language, and the data points toward answering deep theoretical questions about the
nature of word formation and interaction between concepts on the one hand and lexical
categories on the other.
One of the central themes of this work is a hypothesis that word morphology
should be viewed in terms of roots on one side and functional elements on the other
(known as the Root Hypothesis (Arad 2005)), where the former carry lexical meaning,
and the latter provide grammatical information and facilitate interaction between words
in sentential contexts. Chemehuevi word formation provides solid support for the Root
Hypothesis, and as I show in Part I of this dissertation, the dichotomy between roots and
functional elements provides a uniform and straightforward account for the formation of
lexical categories in the language and the existing fluidity between them. In chapters 2, 3
and 4 we will take a close look at how nouns, verbs and adjectives are derived from roots
in the Chemehuevi language, how lexical categories differ from each other and what they
have in common.
I also show that the Chemehuevi lexical categories differ in principled ways in the
formation of predicates. Chapter 5 addresses several puzzles related to predicate
formation in the language by nominals/adjectives on the one hand and verbs on the other.
I provide support to Baker’s (2003) proposal that nominal and adjectival predicates are
formed with the help of a functional head Pred, whereas verbs form predicates
independently.
18
Part II of this dissertation applies an approach known as the Low vs. High
Attachment Hypothesis to the study of the Chemehuevi causative verbs. Chemehuevi has
productive causatives that belong to two groups: the ones in which the causative element
is added to a verbal stem and the ones in which it is attached directly to the root. The two
kinds of Chemehuevi causative verbs differ systematically and these differences are
reflected in all components of the grammar -- in pronunciation, meaning and structure.
Traditionally, the two groups were viewed as lexical vs. syntactic causatives, their
differences stemming from the place of their origin (i.e., lexicon vs. syntax). I argue that
these features can be naturally accounted for in a non-Lexicalist framework, showing that
both types are built by syntax and the differences come from the distance of the causative
functional head from the root. Following Marantz (2000) and Arad (2005), I explain this
locality constraint on interpretation of roots in terms of Phase Theory. However, contrary
to their conclusions about the definition of phase as the first functional head attached to
the root, I show that at least in Chemehuevi phase is defined by the Voice head and is
thus subject to crosslinguistic variation.
In the sections below, I provide background information on the Chemehuevi
Indian Tribe and an overview of the Chemehuevi language, including a brief language
description, as well as a survey of previous work done on this language.
19
1.2 The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
1.2.1
Background information
The Chemehuevi language is a Southern Numic language of the Shoshonean branch of
the Uto-Aztecan family, traditionally spoken by the Chemehuevi Indians. Currently the
Chemehuevi reside primarily on the Colorado Indian Tribes Reservation (CRIT) in
Parker, Arizona, and on the Chemehuevi Reservation, located in the eastern parts of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties in California, with twenty-five miles of its boundary
along the shores of Lake Havasu. There are some tribal members also living on the Agua
Caliente, Cabazon, and Morongo reservations.
According to the registration of the Chemehuevi and Colorado River Indian
Tribes Reservations, the tribe currently has about four hundred members. In 1994, there
were three fluent speakers of Chemehuevi on the Chemehuevi Reservation and ten in
CRIT (Ethnologue, 2006). Today there are only three fully fluent speakers of the
Chemehuevi language in CRIT (Penfield, p.c.), and all of them are over fifty years old.
This makes Chemehuevi a moribund language, which faces extinction within one
generation of speakers.
20
Figure 1. Chemehuevi Indian Reservation and Colorado Indian Tribes Reservation
(from www.expedia.com, 2006)
1.2.2
Brief history of the tribe
The Chemehuevi, whose name possibly comes from a Mohave term dealing with fish,
call themselves the Nüwü or ‘people’. Their traditional lands were situated along the
Colorado River between Nevada and Yuma, Arizona. An Arizona historian Thomas
Edwin Farish (1918) writes that Chemehuevis traditionally lived on the east bank of the
Colorado River, from Bill Williams Fork to Needles, and west towards Providence
21
mountains, California, their main place of residence being Chemehuevi Valley, which
stretches along the Colorado River. He mentions that it is unclear how they came to live
on this formerly Yuman territory. The first mention of the Chemehuevi is by Francisco
Garces, who passed through their country, traveling from the Yuma to the Mohave in
1775–76. He found the Chemehuevis in the desert southwest, west and northwest of the
Mohave. Here are his recollections of the tribe:
They wore Apache moccasins, antelope skin shirts, and a white headdress like a
cap, ornamented with the crest feathers of a bird, probably the roadrunner. They
were very swift of foot, were friends of the Ute, Yavapai Tejua, and Mohave, and
when the latter “break their weapons,” (keep the peace), so do they also. It is said
that they occupied at this time the country between the Beñemé (Panamint and
Serrano) and the Colorado “on the north side” as far as the Ute, and extending to
another river North of the Colorado, where they had their fields. They made
baskets, and… all carried a crook besides their weapons,” which was used for
pulling gophers, rabbits, etc., from their burrows.
(Ferish 1918:315)
Naturally, the Chemehuevi language was noted as distinct from that of the other
Colorado River tribes, because it was a Uto-Aztecan language surrounded by Yuman
languages. Farish describes Chemehuevis as a “wandering people, traveling great
distances on hunting and predatory excursions,” and although they lived mainly on the
22
natural products of the desert, they also farmed where possible. Like the other Colorado
River tribes they had no canoes, but used rafts made of bundles of reeds (Farish 1918).
They mostly hunted small game such as rabbit, lizards and other reptiles; plants such as
wild grass, chia, and pine nuts also provided a nutritional balance in their diet.
Chemehuevis were also known for their basket weaving skills.
Gronski (2004) states that in the period from 1776 till 1857 the Chemehuevi
Indians begin to migrate from Nevada, Utah, and Arizona to California because of a
complication with the Yuman tribes, who were living in the area next to theirs. In 1857,
Lieutenant Joseph C. Ives conducted an expedition and noted that the Chemehuevi
Indians were neighbors of the Mohave Indians. Both tribes were living on Cottonwood
Island as well as in the Chemehuevi Valley. In 1870s and late 1880s, the Chemehuevi
were forced into Indian reservations, particularly to the Oasis at Twenty Nine Palms. The
CRIT reservation was established on March 3, 1865 for the Indians who lived on the
Colorado River. The Mohave have inhabited the area for centuries, while members of the
Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo tribes were relocated to the reservation later.
Access Geneology Indian Tribes (2004) offers the following census information.
The number of Chemehuevis was estimated by Leroux about 1853 at 1,500, probably an
excessive estimate for the whole tribe; in 1866 Thomas estimated their population at 750.
Kroeber (1967) estimates the Chemehuevi population before the European contact only
between 500 and 800. He states that the federal census of 1920 reported 320
Chemehuevi, 260 of them in California (Kroeber 1967:595).
23
1.3
The Chemehuevi language
As noted above, the Chemehuevi language is a Southern Numic language of the
Shoshonean branch of the Uto-Aztecan family. The closest relatives are three other
Southern Numic languages: Southern Paiute, Ute, and Kawaiisu.
The dialectal differences within the Chemehuevi language are an interesting
subject and require attention in future work. Laird (1976:277) identifies at least three
dialects of Chemehuevi, Northern, Desert, and Southern. There were also some
differences between the Chemehuevi dialects spoken in the Chemehuevi Valley and at
the Oasis at Twenty-Nine Palms. Another source of variation is its closeness to Southern
Paiute, and the fact that in the past many Chemehuevis were fluent in both languages. In
fact, Kroeber (1967) considers Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi to be “dialects of
remarkable uniformity” (593)). However, since the tribes identify themselves as two
distinct entities, and there are many differences between the two languages, today
Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi are treated as separate languages, not dialects of the
same language.
1.3.1
Previous work on the Chemehuevi language
The linguistic work on the Chemehuevi language is quite sparse and falls mainly
into two types: collections of lexical items and texts, recordings by anthropological
linguists and analytical work done in 1970s.
24
In the first group of materials, the most extensive are the unpublished field notes
of John Peabody Harrington, collected at the National Museum of Natural History, by the
Smithsonian Institution. In fact most of these transcriptions were done by Harrington’s
assistant and wife at that time Carobeth Tucker Harrington, who later married her
Chemehuevi consultant George Laird. Carobeth started her Chemehuevi interviews on
the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation in 1919; later both she and George Laird
moved first to Santa Fe and later to Washington DC to work under Harrington’s
supervision. He proofread and edited Carobeth’s notes and later submitted them to the
Bureau of American Ethnology. As they appear today, these field notes contain sixteen
microfilm reels of Chemehuevi vocabulary, grammar and twenty-eight texts from
traditional Chemehuevi mythology. Carobeth Laird, who continued collecting
Chemehuevi myths until George Laird’s death in1940, later published some of these
stories and brief notes on the Chemehuevi language in her books, The Chemehuevis
(1976) and Mirror and Pattern: George Laird's World of Chemehuevi Mythology (1984).
Another source of Chemehuevi documentation is Roy Major’s (1969) and Guy
Tylor’s (1972) collections of recordings of oral history with several Chemehuevi
speakers. Both collected word lists, personal narratives, songs and traditional stories in
both English and the native language. Major’s collection is currently archived at the
Arizona State Museum, as well as at the CRIT Library. Tylor’s recordings are also
archived at the CRIT library.
The next group of published materials on the Chemehuevi language originated in
the 1970s. In 1979 Margaret Press published a grammar of Chemehuevi, Chemehuevi: A
25
Grammar and Lexicon, in which she provides a sketch of Chemehuevi phonology and
syntax presented within the framework of early generative grammar. This book also
contains a Chemehuevi-English and English-Chemehuevi Lexicon, and is based on
Press’s fieldwork with a Chemehuevi consultant Mary Hanks Molino.
In 1978, Pamela Munro published two theoretical articles, one on aspects of
Chemehuevi quotatives (1978a) and their place among Uto-Aztecan quotatives, and the
other on Chemehuevi passives, imperatives and imperfectives (1978b).
Press’s grammar and the works of Carobeth Laird have become the basis for an
XML based Online Chemehuevi Dictionary that is currently being compiled by Dirk
Elzinga (http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/elzingad/chemehuevi_dictionary/). The
Dictionary has over 3000 entries, and a part of the on-going project is addition of sound
files and ethnographic information to each lexical entry.
Another invaluable source of information on Southern Numic languages in
general is Edward Sapir’s (1930) grammar of Southern Paiute, a close relative of
Chemehuevi. The two languages are mutually intelligible and differ with respect to
several phonological rules, some aspects of tense/aspect morphology, shifts in their
pronominal systems, and some vocabulary (Press 1979:2). Sapir’s grammar is a great
reference source for all Southern Numic languages and is helpful in understanding the
underlying grammatical processes.
In this dissertation, I use all of the above sources for the linguistic data, as well as
materials I collected in 2005-2006, during interviews with one of the remaining fluent
26
Chemehuevi speakers Johnny Hill Jr1. Mr. Hill is the youngest known speaker and is
fully fluent, having learned Chemehuevi from his monolingual grandmother. He is one of
the advocates for documentation and revitalization of the Chemehuevi language, and a
vital member of the CRIT language documentation project. I used two methods of
obtaining data from my consultant: elicitation and grammaticality judgments of
constructed sentences. All interviews are audio recorded and transcribed in the practical
orthography approved by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe.
1.3.2
Brief language description
This section is a brief introduction on the Chemehuevi sound system and word formation.
It is designed to provide background linguistic information on the language, and is
purposely limited in scope (see Press 1979 for more detailed information on the
language).
1.3.2.1 Sound inventory
The sound system of Chemehuevi is quite complex compared to other related languages.
According to Press (1979), Chemehuevi consonants include: stops /ʔ/, /p/, /t/, and /k/
(with allophones [k], [q] and palatalized [ky])); fricatives /v/, /s/, /ɣ / (spelled g), and /h/;
affricates /ts/ or /č/, depending on the speaker; nasals /m/, /n/, /ŋ/ and their glottalized
1
I use the following abbreviations for the sources of data throughout the dissertation: JHJ (Johnny Hill Jr.),
JPH&CL (J.P. Harrington and C. Laird), OCD (Online Chemehuevi Dictionary).
27
counterparts /mʔ/, /n/ʔ, /ŋʔ/; approximants /w/ and /j/ and their glottalized counterparts
/wʔ/ and /jʔ/; the trill /r/, and labialized velars /kw/, /ɣ w/and /ŋw/.
Vowels can be either short (/i/, /ü/, /u/, /a/, /o/) or long (/ii/, /üü/, /uu/, /aa/, /oo/),
and there is a number of diphthongs (/üi/, /ui/, /oi/, /ai/, /ia/, /üa/, /ua/, /oa/, /aü/, /au/,
however it is unclear whether these are just vowel clusters or true diphthongs.
One of the key features of Chemehuevi vowels is that all word final vowels are
either voiceless or completely omitted, depending on the dialect. Press (1979:13) states
that final voiceless vowels were widely attested in Harrington-Laird’s materials, as well
as in Southern Paiute, but never surfaced in the dialect she documented. In the speech of
my consultant, the word final vowels are omitted. Examples in (1) illustrate this process:
(1) a. /aipa-tci-Ø /
=> [aipač]
boy-NPN-nom
‘boy (nom.)’
b. /aipa-tci-a/
=> [aipači]
boy-NPN-obl
‘boy (obl.)
Primary stress is assigned to the second mora in a word (pungkún ‘my dog’). For
the purpose of stress assignment, long vowels are considered bimoraic since the stress
falls on the second mora (cf. huú ‘arrow’). Secondary stress is assigned to all evennumbered vowels starting with the fourth vowel segment:
1 2
2
(2) /na-ravasü- tu’i-vüü/ => [na-rávasǘ-tu’í-vü] 
self-dry-caus-past
‘dried oneself’
(Press 1979:28)
28
1.3.2.2 The Chemehuevi orthography
There are several writing systems used by linguists in their work on Chemehuevi. The
orthography in Harrington’s field notes differs from that of Press and The Online
Chemehuevi Dictionary. Needless to say, this inconsistency can cause potential problems
for both community members and linguists. In this dissertation I use the writing system
approved by the Chemehuevi tribal community as the official orthography. It is the same
system used by Dr. Elzinga in The Online Chemehuevi Dictionary.
Table #1 summarizes writing systems used to describe Chemehuevi sounds, with
the emphasis on the correspondences between each system.
(3) Table #1. Chemehuevi orthography (based on Elzinga (p.c))
Chemehuevi
Harrington, Laird
Press (1979)
orthography
(unpublished field
notes)
a
a
a
aa
ā
aa
c
not attested
not attested
g
g
g
w
gw
gw, g
gw, gw
h
h
h
i
i
i
ii
ī
ii
k
k
k
w
kw
kw, k
kw, kw
m
m
m
n
n
n
ng
ng
ŋ
o
o
o
oo
ō
oo
p
p
p
r
r
r
s
s
s
t
t
t
ts
ts
c
Corresponding
sounds (IPA)
a
a:
š
ɣ
ɣw
h
i
i:
k
kw
m
n
ŋ
o
o:
p
r
s
t
ts
29
tc
u
uu
ü
üü
v
w
y
‘
ts
u
ū
ə
ə̅
v
w
j
‘
c
u
uu
ɨ
ɨɨ
v
w
j
ʔ
č
u
u:
ɨ
ɨ:
v
w
j
ʔ
In this dissertation, any examples taken from Harrington, Laird, Press, etc., are
converted into the official orthography for the sake of uniformity.
1.3.2.3 Word formation: nouns
Common nouns in Chemehuevi are formed from a noun root with or without affixes.
Some nouns, like paa ‘water’, kani ‘house’ and tua ‘son’, consist of just the nominal
stem; nothing is added to them in the nominative case (i.e., there is a zero nominative
morpheme), and nothing is deleted when they are compounded or possessed. Most nouns,
however, consist of a root and a non-possessed noun marker (henceforth, NPN marker),
traditionally referred to as an “absolutive” marker (Press 1979)2. Press states that the
basic forms of the absolutive are /-tsi-/, /-tsü-/, /-pü-/ and /-pi-/, with the last two having
variants /-mpü-/ ~ /-vü-/ and /-mpi-/ ~/-vi-/, respectively, predictable from nasalization
and spirantization (Press 1979:36). Below are several examples illustrating the NPN
markers in Chemehuevi:
2
The term ‘absolutive’ in the Uto-Aztecan literature in general is different from the ‘absolutive’ case
marker elsewhere, since the languages are not Ergative-Absolutive.
30
(4) a. aipa-tsi
b. na’üntsi-tsi
c. maapü-tsi
‘boy’
‘girl’
‘old woman’
(5) a. a-tsü
b. hüpüki-tsü
‘bow, gun’
‘hole’
(6) a. tüvi-pü
b. nünga-pü
c. paga-pü
‘dirt’
‘chest’
‘shoe’
(7) a. tühiya-vü
b. na’nka-vü
‘deer hide’
‘ear’
(8) a. huku-mpü
‘dust’
b. huvitunu-mpü ‘radio’
(9) a. tüka-pi
b. atamu-pi
c. kukwa-pi
‘food’
‘car’
‘wood’
(10) a. süna-vi
b. tukwo-vi
c. nopa-vi
‘coyote’
‘meat’
‘egg’
(11) a. tawa-mpi
b. ago-mpi
c. aso-mpi
‘tooth’
‘tongue’
‘salt’
The NPN marker disappears when the noun is possessed or compounded.
Consider the examples in (12): in (12a) the noun is marked with the NPN suffix -tsi with
a zero nominative, in (12b) this marker disappears since the noun appears in its possessed
form; in (12c) the NPN marker is present since the noun is a direct object, followed by a
regular oblique marker -a-; in (12d) the NPN marker is again retained with a
prepositional phrase:
31
(12) a. /pungku-tsi-Ø / => pungkutsi
dog-NPN-nom
‘dog’
b. pungku-n
dog-1sg
‘my dog’
c. Pungku-tsi-a-n
dog-NPN-obl-1sg
‘I kicked the dog’

d. pungku-tsi-wa’
dog-NPN-with
‘with a/the dog’
tanga-vü.
kick-past
(Press 1979:35-36)
The NPN marker is retained when the plural affix is added (13a and b) and lost
when a derivational affix is added (14a) or when a compound is formed (14b):
(13) a. süna’a-vi
‘coyote’ => süna’a-vi-mü
coyote-NPN
coyote-NPN-pl
b. sügupi-tsi
lizard-NPN
‘lizard’ => sügüpi-tsi-wü
lizard-NPN-pl
‘coyotes’
‘lizards’
(14) a. süna’a-vi
‘coyote’=> süna’a-rükaw’i-tsi ‘turning into a coyote’
coyote-NPN
coyote-turn-prt
b. kukwa-pi
stick-NPN
‘stick’ => kukwa-tapoka-ga
stick-chop-imperf
‘chopping wood’
(Press 1979:35-36)
1.3.2.3.1 Possession
In Chemehuevi, as in many other Native American languages (see Mithun 1999: 251-159
for an overview), some nouns always have to appear with a possession marker. These are
restricted to inalienably or inherently possessed nouns such as body parts, plant parts, and
32
kinship terms. The possessive suffixes -wa-, -‘aa- and -akaa- require the presence of an
overt possessor in the sentence, in the form of a separate pronominal suffix.
(15) a. paü-wa-n
blood-poss-1sg
‘my blood’
b. tüvi-wa-n
land-poss-1sg
‘my land’
c. huvaa-wa-uk
sap-poss-3sg
‘its sap’
(16) a. sagwi-’aa-n
guts-poss-1sg
‘my guts’
b. nangka-‘aa-ik
leaf-poss-3sg
‘its leaf’
(17) pi-piso’o-akaa-m
RED-child-poss-3pl
‘their children’
(Press 1979:39-40)
The possessive suffix that marks other kind of possession is -vi; it does not have
any restrictions:
(18) nangka-vi-n
leaf-poss-1sg
‘my leaf’
(Press 1979:40)
33
1.3.2.3.2 Number
In Chemehuevi, there is a distinction between animate and inanimate plural nouns.
Inanimate nouns usually do not vary in number, but the ones that do (like the body parts
in (19) below), employ reduplication to form plural forms (Press 1979:54).
(19) a. mo’ovü ‘hand’ =>
b. pu’ivi
mo-mo’ovü
‘eye’ => pu-pu’ivi
‘hands’
‘eyes’
In contrast, the plurals of some animate nouns can be formed with productive
plural markers -wü and -mü:
(20) a. tüvatsi ‘wolf’ => tüvatsi-wü
b. poo’avi ‘flea’
c. tuuk
=> poo’avi-mü
‘cougar’ => tuku-wü
‘wolves’
‘fleas’
‘cougars’
(Press 1979:54)
Some animate nouns use both reduplication and plural markers:
(21) maapütsi ‘old lady’ =>
ma-maapütsi-wü ‘old ladies’
(Press 1979:54)
Other animate nouns differentiate between dual and plural by adding a suffix for
‘two and more’ and reduplicating for ‘three and more’:
(22) aivatsi ‘youth’ => aiva-wü
=> a-‘aiva-wü
‘youth-pl’
‘several-youth-pl’
(Press 1979:54)
34
1.3.2.3.3 Case Marking
Chemehuevi nouns can be marked with two cases: nominative and oblique3. The
nominative case is a zero morpheme; the oblique case is realized as –a or –ya when
preceded by vowel /a/. Press (1979) gives the following distribution to case marking: the
nominative case marks subjects of matrix sentences and objects of imperatives; the
oblique case is used for direct and indirect objects, objects of postpositions, possessor
nouns, and subjects of embedded clauses (52-53). The paradigm is illustrated below: in a
transitive sentence (23a), the subject is marked nominative and the object oblique; similar
situation is attested with a ditransitive sentences in (23b).
(23) a. Manga-k
maapü-tci-Ø
kani-Ø-a
patca-ga-ntü.
3sg/anim/vis-cop woman-NPN-nom house-NPN-obl clean-be-prt
‘The woman cleaned the house’.
b. Manga-k
aipa-tci-Ø
pungku-tci-a tüka-pi-a
maga-ka-tü.
3sg/anim/vis- boy-NPN-nom dog-NPN-obl food-NPN-obl give-perf-prt
‘The boy gave the dog food’.
(JHJ)
The next two examples are an imperative sentence with objects marked
nominative (24), and an embedded sentence (bracketed) with an oblique subject (25):
(24) Aipa-tci-Ø
wampakwi-tci-Ø
punikai-tu’i-ngu.
boy-NPN-nom scorpion-NPN-nom see-caus-imp
‘Show the boy the scorpion’.
(Press 1979:92)
(25) John-Ø [Ann-i
karütüa-ya küawi
tanga-kai-na ] pututcuga-yü.
John-nom Ann-obl chair-obl yesterday kick-perf-nomin know-pres
‘John knows Ann kicked the chair yesterday’.
3
Carnie (p.c.) points out that the term ‘oblique’ is typically reserved for non-structural cases, and the
Chemehuevi ‘oblique’ case is often structural, a counterpart of what we call ‘accusative’ case in other
languages. It also appears in truly oblique situations (marking objects of prepositions, for example). I
preserve the term ‘oblique’ to refer to this case for the sake of uniformity since all previous work on the
Chemehuevi language uses this term, but basically it is the non-nominative case, sometimes structural,
sometimes not.
35
(Press 1979:115)
1.3.2.4 Word formation: verbs
In this section I will discuss such morphological aspects of the Chemehuevi verbs as
number agreement, tense and aspect morphology, and combination with light verbs.
In Chemehuevi, the verb must agree in number with the subject. In (26a) the
singular subject appears with an unmarked verb; in (26b) the subject is dual animate and
the verb appears with the marker –m; in (26c) the subject is plural and the verb is marked
by ‘real’ plural marker –ka, used for both animate and inanimate nouns.
(26) a. Nüü
nukwi-vü.
1sg.nom run-past
‘I ran’.
(Press 1979:106)
b. Wahayugaisu-'um Ann
Johnn-i-wa
nukwi-vüü-m.
both-3pl
Ann.nom John-obl-with run-past-pl
‘Both Ann and John were running/ ran’.
(Press 1979:106)
c. Wii honono’o-ka-yü.
knife fall-pl-pres
‘The knives are falling.’
(Press 1979:78)
The tense morphemes indicate whether the action described by the verb happened
in the past (-vüü and –mpüü), future (-vaa and -mpaa)4, remote past -pügai, or present
(-yüü, -ya or zero depending on the verb class). The examples below demonstrate the use
of some of these tense markers:
(27) Utusampa-n
always-1sg
4
tuka-mi-mpü.
eat-habit-past
The choice of allomorphs for the past and future morphemes depends on the presence of spirantized or
nasal feature on the verb stem, resulting in -vüü and –vaa in the former and -mpüü and –mpaa in the latter
case.
36
‘I always used to eat’.
(Press 1979:70)
(28) Nüü-(k) nukwi-vü.
1sg-cop run – past
‘I ran’.
(Press 1979:66)
(29) Mang
nukwi-yü.
3sg.anim.vis run-pres
‘He runs/ is running’.
(Press 1979:65)
(30) Nüü-k pagü-tsi-a
tüka-vaa-ntü.
1sg-cop fish-NPN-obl eat-fut-nomin
‘I will eat fish’.
(Press 1979:113)
Chemehuevi also has a rich aspectual system. Press lists the following aspect
markers:
(31) Table #2. Aspect makers in Chemehuevi (based on Press 1979)
Aspect
Morpheme
Examples
momentaneous/ -ngu
mutcu-ngu ‘get strong’ (67)
punctual
-ku
wü’i-ku-vü ‘fell’
(68)
achievement
reduplication ka-karü
‘sit down’ (67)
continuative/
-ni’i
tüka-ni’i ‘be eating while doing something else (68)
imperfective
iterative
reduplication+ puni ‘look’ => pu-mpuni’i ‘look repeatedly’ (68)
glottalization
perfective
-ma’aku
tüka-ma’aku ‘finish eating’
-maü
tüka-maü
‘finish eating’
(69)
resultative/
-kai~-kwai~
puni-vü ‘looked’ => puni-kai-vü ‘saw’ (69)
perfective
-ngkwai
cessative/
-maupa
tüka-maupa ‘to stop eating’ (69)
non-completive
telic
usitative/
-mi
tüka-mi-mpü ‘used to eat’
(70)
past habitual
There is also a variety of predicators, analyzed in this dissertation as light verbs,
which can be suffixed to verbal stems. A representative sample is in (32)-(34):
37
(32) Directionals
a. –gi
b. -wa’i
‘come to’
‘go to’
(33) Modals
a. –maga
b. –suawagai
c. –musu
d. –tütu’ani
e. –tüvitcu
f. –guu
g. –guu-pu
h. –ngkuu
‘try to’
‘want to’
‘try in vain’
‘seem to’
‘want to’
‘would’
‘should’
‘could’
(34) Verb creating light verbs
a. –gai
b. –tu
c. –tu’a
‘be, have’
‘make’
‘become’
(35) Valency changing light verbs
b. –ngkü
c. –tu’i
d. –tü
‘transitivizer’
‘causative’
‘passive’
We will examine some of these light verbs in more detail in chapter 3.
1.3.2.5 Pronominal system
Pronouns in Chemehuevi are classified according to Number (singular, dual, plural),
Person (1, 2, 3), Exclusivity (of the addressee), Proximity (within the arm’s reach/
beyond it/ invisible), and Animateness (animate/ inanimate). Independent pronoun forms
are summarized below:
38
(36) Table #3. Independent pronouns in Chemehuevi (Press 1979:44)
sg
dual
pl
1
nüü/ nüüni
tami
tawü
incl
nümi
excl
2
ümi
mümi
3
anim
inga
imü
here
manga
mamü
visible
unga
umü
invisible
inanim
itsü/ika/ihere
marü/maka/mavisible
urü/uka/uinvisible
Nom/oblique/postpositions
Only animate pronouns vary in number between singular and plural. The only
independent pronouns that have nominative and oblique forms are 1 person singular (nüü/
nüüni) and 3 person inanimate pronouns (itsü/ika, marü/maka, urü/uka); the rest are
invariant between the two cases. All personal pronouns have suffixal forms used when
the independent pronoun is omitted from the sentence and its referent is understood from
the context. The underlying suffix forms for each pronoun are given below:
(37) Table #4. Pronominal enclitics in Chemehuevi (Press 1979:46)
sg
dual
pl
1
-nV5
-tami
-tawü
incl
-nümi
excl
2
-ukV
-wV
subject
-ʔ
subj-imperf
-mV
-wümV
object
3
anim
-inga
-imü
here
-anga
-amü
visible
-unga
-umü
invisible
inanim
-ika
here
-aka
visible
-uka
invisible
5
The word final vowel in these forms never surfaces, since nothing ever follows it, but according to Press
(1979) the vowel is underlyingly there.
39
Only second person pronominal suffixes have different forms for subject and object. Both
independent and suffixal forms can act as pronouns or determiners.
To illustrate the use of pronouns, consider the examples in (38)-(40): pronominal
arguments can appear either as independent pronouns (examples in (a)) or as suffixes
(examples in (b)). In the case of suffixes, the subject marker must attach to the first word
in the sentence provided it is a lexical category. It can attach to any constituent: verb
(38b), direct object (39b), or negative particle (40b), except to the subject itself. In (39)
and (40) ung and ang are determiners.
(38) a. Nüü nukwi-vü.
1sg run-past
‘I ran’.
b. Nukwi-vüü-n.
run-past-1sg
(39) a. John nüüni wihi-a maga-vü.
John 1sg.obl knife-obl give-past
‘John gave me a knife’.
b. Wihi-a-ung
nüüni maga-vü John ung..
knife-obl-3sg 1sg.obl give-past John that
(40) a. Aipatsi ang kats nukwi-vüü-wa.
boy that not run-past-neg
‘That boy didn’t run’.
b. Kats-ang aipatsi ang nukwi-vüü-wa.
not-3sg boy that run-past-not
(Press 1979:120)
If the direct object is a full noun, it is marked by an oblique marker /-a-/, followed
by the subject marker (39b). It is extremely interesting that the subject marker has this
flexibility of attaching to either a verb or the direct object or even a negative particle,
whichever comes first in the sentence. It is a second position clitic, known in the
literature as a ‘Wackernagel’ clitic, which attaches to the first phonological word of the
sentence (see Anderson 2005 for an overview).
40
Ditransitive sentences show a similar pattern: each argument can appear
independently with the subject marked with the nominative case and the two objects in
the oblique (41a), or one of the objects can be suffixed to the first word in the sentence
following the subject marker (41b):
(41) a. Ann
ung pagu-tsi-a
nüüni
maga-vü.
Ann.nom that fish-NPN-obl 1sg.obl give-past
‘Ann [that one] gave me a fish’.
b. Pagü-tsi-a-unga-n
maga-vü Ann
ung.
fish-NPN-obl-3sg-1sg give-past Ann.nom that
‘Ann [that one] gave me a fish’.
(Press 1979:121)
Now consider a transitive sentence, in which both subject and object are overt and
the subject marker is doubling the overt subject. In (42), the subject John is marked with
nominative case and the object Ann has the oblique marker /-i-/; also the verb itself
carries the enclitic /-a-/6 and the subject marker.
(42) Tanga-vü-a-ing
John
Ann-i.
kick-past-obj-3sg John.nom Ann-obl
‘John kicked Ann’.
(Press 1979:76)
When the word order is reversed and the object appears sentence initially, the
oblique marker appears on the direct object, together with the subject marker, and the
verb only carries the tense morphology:
(43) Puku-tsi-a-n
tanga-vü.
dog-NPN-obl-1sg kick-past
‘I kicked the dog’.
6
(Press 1979:36)
The exact nature of enclitic -a- is unclear (Press 1979:77), but it may be an object marker.
41
Thus, to summarize the use of pronominal subject markers: they are (i) second
position clitics, (ii) can attach to any lexical category, provided it is not the subject NP,
(iii) can co-occur with the subject NP, i.e., participate in clitic doubling. Pronominal
object markers (i) follow the pronominal subject marker, (ii) can attach to any lexical
category except the object NP they refer to, (iii) it is unclear whether they can double.
1.3.2.6 Word order
The underlying word order is Chemehuevi is SOV, with the direct object following the
indirect object in ditransitive sentences, as illustrated in (44) and (45) below.
S
DO
V
(44) Mango-k
aipa-tci
tukwa-vi-a
tüka-ka-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop boy-NPN.nom meat-NPN-obl eat-perf-nomin
‘The boy ate the meat’.
S
IO
DO
V
(45) Mango-k
aipa-tci
pungu-tci-a tüka-pi-a
maga-ka-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop boy-NPN.nom dog-NPN-obl food-NPN-obl give-perf-nomin
‘The boy gave the dog food’.
(JHJ)
However, the word order in Chemehuevi is flexible within a sentence and
depends largely on the information structure, i.e., topic/focus (Press 1979:117). The
focused element (if not the subject) is fronted and is followed by the pronominal suffix
agreeing with the subject of the sentence. Compare the sentences in the pairs below: any
element, a verb, a direct object, or even a negative particle, can be fronted, and its
meaning is slightly focused.
(46) a. Nukwi-vüü-n nüü.
run-past-1sg 1sg
‘I ran’.
42
b. Nüü nukwi-vü.
1sg run-past
‘I ran’.
(47) a. Wihi-a-unga
nüüni maga-vü John
unga.
knife-obl-3sg.anim.invis 1sg.obl give-past John.nom 3sg.anim.invis.nom
‘John gave me a knife’.
b. John
nüüni wihi-a maga-vü.
John.nom 1sg.obl knife-obl give-past
‘John gave me a knife’.
(48) a. Katcu-ang
aipa-tci
ang
nukwi-vüü-wa
not-3sg.anim.vis boy-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis run-past-neg
‘That boy did not run’.
b. Aipa-tci
ang
katcu
boy-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis not
‘That boy did not run’.
nukwi-vüü-wa
run-past-neg
(Press 1979:120)
1.4 The organization of the dissertation
The dissertation is organized in the following way. Part I is devoted to the study of
lexical categories and word formation in Chemehuevi with focus on noun (chapter 2),
verb (chapter 3), and adjective formation (chapter 4). In chapter 5, I consider how lexical
categories in the language form predicates. Part II focuses on the study of the
Chemehuevi causatives, with chapter 6 presenting the Chemehuevi data and the
theoretical background on morphological causatives and with chapter 7 discussing my
analysis of the Chemehuevi causatives.
43
PART ONE
ROOTS AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI
44
CHAPTER TWO
LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI: NOUNS
In this chapter, I introduce the theoretical framework of Distributed Morphology
(henceforth, DM) and lay down the foundation for the discussion of word formation in
Chemehuevi. I begin with general principles of DM and summarize its treatment of word
and sentence formation. I will then discuss the Root Hypothesis and its applications to
word morphology on the basis of English and Hebrew. Later in the chapter, I turn to the
formation of Chemehuevi nouns, with detailed discussion of non-possessed and
possessed nouns. I claim that nouns in Chemehuevi are derived through the incorporation
of roots into a noun-forming functional head ‘little’ n0, which has an overt phonological
realization in the language.
2.1 Theoretical background: DM on roots and functional categories
2.1.1
Principles of Distributed Morphology
The framework of Distributed Morphology was introduced in the early 1990s by Halle
and Marantz (1993, 1994), as an alternative to the existing lexicalist approaches to
morphology represented in the work of Lieber (1980), Kiparsky (1982), Di Sciullo and
Williams (1987) among others. The very term, Distributed Morphology (hereafter DM),
illustrates the main postulate of the framework: morphological composition does not
45
happen in a separate component of the grammar, typically construed as the lexicon. In
fact, in DM there is no lexicon in a sense of a single storage of sound-meaning
correspondences. The tasks performed by the lexicon in lexicalist theories are
‘distributed’ through several components of the grammar. Three such components (Lists
in the Figure 2) are identified: the Lexicon, the Vocabulary and the Encyclopedia.
Crucially, the Lexicon is a set of bundles of morphosyntactic features which serve as
input to syntax and are relevant only to the principles of syntax. These are not ‘words’ or
‘morphemes’ in the traditional senses of the terms as they lack phonological content. In
other words, syntax does not manipulate words or morphemes with both phonological
and semantic content, but abstract syntactic and semantic formatives like Root, [sg]/[pl],
Det, vCAUS, etc. The phonological realization of these features or feature combinations
does not appear until late in the derivation. Phonological exponents are encoded in the
Vocabulary, defined as a set of Vocabulary Items, each of which provides “the set of
phonological signals available in the language for the expression of abstract morphemes”
(Harley and Noyer 1999:5). The last piece of the puzzle is the Encyclopedia, which
relates roots to meanings that are irrelevant for the computational system and are
understood to be a part of extralinguistic knowledge.
DM brings word formation and sentence formation together: both are generated
by a single generative mechanism - syntax. Syntactic operations, such as Move and
Merge, combine morphosyntactic features into morphosyntactic structures according to
the principles of Universal Grammar. Each bundle of morphosyntactic and semantic
features corresponds to a terminal node in the structure and can undergo such syntactic
46
operations as head-to-head movement to be adjoined to a terminal node in another
position or merger of structurally adjacent nodes, among the few. These terminal nodes,
i.e., bundles of features, receive phonological content after syntactic operations, at the
point of Spell-Out when vocabulary insertion takes place. The morphological component
of the grammar is part of Spell-Out; it is “part of a mapping procedure that takes a
syntactic structure as its input and incrementally alters that structure in order to produce
a phonological form” (Bobaljik 2008:296). After this point, Vocabulary Items (from List
B in the diagram below) are matched with the bundles of features at each terminal node,
and those that are the closest match are inserted into the structure. For example, the plural
marker in English /-s/ will be inserted in the terminal node with the bundles of features
[NUM][pl]. All Vocabulary Items (henceforth, VIs) whose meaning is not predictable
from their morphosyntactic structural description require Encyclopedia Entries (List C),
which connect the output of the grammar to non-compositional meanings. Thus, the root
dog will have the following information linked to it in the Encyclopedia: four legs,
canine, sometimes bites, etc. (Harley and Noyer 1993:3). When all Merge and Move
operations are completed and the bundles of features are shipped to LF7, at the point of
Conceptual Interface, morphemes receive special meanings from the Encyclopedia
depending on their syntactic context. For example, the verb kick in the context of to __
the bucket receives from the Encyclopedia the special meaning ‘die’, cat in the context of
7
For DM, LF does not express lexical meaning. It is “a level of representation which exhibits certain
meaning-related structural relations like quantifier scope” (Harley and Noyer 1999:9).
47
let the__ out of the bag is interpreted as ‘secret’, etc. Harley and Noyer (1999) illustrate
how such grammar works with the schema in repeated (1) below.
(1) Figure 2. The structure of the grammar in DM (Harley and Noyer 1999:3)
Morphosyntactic features
[Det] [1st] [CAUS] [+pst]
[Root] [pl]
etc.
List A
Syntactic operations
Merge, Move, Copy
Morphological operations
Logical Form
Phonological Form
(Insertion of Vocabulary Items,
Readjustment, phonological rules)
List B
Vocabulary items
/kæt /: [Root],[+count],
[+animate], etc.
List C
Conceptual interface
‘meaning’
Encyclopedia
(non-linguistic knowledge)
cat: four legs, feline, pet, purrs, scratches;
2.1.2 DM on roots and functional categories
Within DM, the traditional distinction between roots/stems and affixes receives special
attention. Both roots and affixes are Vocabulary Items, i.e., “they connect
morphosyntactic feature bundles with phonological feature complexes” (Halle & Marantz
1993:113). Whereas the morphosyntactic features are supplied by Universal Grammar,
48
roots are language-specific. Like Saussurean signs, roots have their phonological form
and their meaning(s). Marantz (2003:7) claims that in DM roots can have multiple,
context-dependent meanings (cf. the root ‘-ceive’ in conceive, deceive, receive, perceive,
etc.); but they cannot have multiple phonological forms, i.e., suppletive allomorphs. He
explains this property of roots by the fact that phonological features are part of the
linguistic system per se and form a kind of label for each root, whereas the root meanings
are part of the extra-linguistic, encyclopedic knowledge and cannot be used to create
labels for roots. He states that “the internal semantic structure of roots (atoms for
construction, along with the universally available grammatical features), whatever it may
be and however it interacts with the syntax/morphology, is nothing like the internal
structure of words and sentences and thus cannot be decomposed or composed in the
grammar” (Marantz 2001:8).
Harley and Noyer (1998) suggest that root/affix distinction can be viewed in
terms of two different kinds of morphemes, f-morphemes and l-morphemes,
corresponding to the traditional distinction between functional and lexical categories. Fmorphemes, by definition, are “morphemes for which there is no choice as to Vocabulary
insertion”, i.e., their syntactic and semantic features are linked to a unique phonological
expression. L-morphemes, on the other hand, can compete for the same slot at the SpellOut (Harley & Noyer 1998:7).
As with all morphemes, neither the phonological form of roots nor their meanings
are relevant for the purposes of syntax. Syntax manipulates only placeholders for roots,
49
marked with a root symbol √ in syntactic derivations (adopted from Pesetsky 1995)8.
These abstract roots receive phonological content at Spell-Out by Vocabulary Insertion,
and semantic content from the Encyclopedia.
This abstract view of roots is the foundation for another important principle of
DM, known as the L-Morpheme Hypothesis (Marantz 1997, Embick 1997, 1998, Harley
1995, etc.), also known as the Root Hypothesis (Arad 2005), which suggests that lexical
categories such as nouns, verbs and adjectives are derived from the combination of a
root/l-morpheme with a category-defining f-morpheme. For example, root √dance will be
interpreted as a verb when its nearest c-commanding f-morphemes are verbal functional
elements v, Aspect and Tense, but as a noun in the environment of a Determiner, or (in
later versions of the theory (Marantz 2000)) a nominal functional head ‘little’ n. This
view of lexical categories captures the ability of roots to appear in a language as different
lexical categories depending on their morpho-syntactic environment. English provides
many examples of this flexibility, among which is a root like √grow that can surface as a
verb grow-s, a participle grow-ing, or a noun/nominalization grow-th. Marantz (2000)
also argues that word pairs like atrocious and atrocity provide evidence for word
formation from roots: the root √atroc yields an adjective atroc-ious in the adjectival
environment, and a noun atroc-ity in a nominal environment.
8
There is an alternative view suggesting that roots may be specified semantically in the numeration
because there is evidence that sometimes there are features on roots that influence their syntactic behavior
(Embick 2000, Pfau 2000, among others).
50
(2) a.
a
2
a √atroc9
-ious
b.
n
2
n
√atroc
-ity
Similar derivations hold for a pair like nominate and nominee, with the root
√nomin as the base for the word formation. The output depends on the functional
environment the root appears in, verbal in the case of nomin-ate and nominal in the case
of nomin-ee.
(3) a.
v
2
v
√nomin
-ate
b.
n
2
n
√nomin
-ee
Marantz (2001) argues that derivationally, the combination of root and its ccommanding head determine the edge of a cyclic domain (a “phase” in Chomsky’s
(1998) terminology). This content is shipped off to LF and PF for phonological and
semantic interpretation, where the meaning of the root in the context of the functional
head (be it ‘little’ n, v, or a) is negotiated using “Encyclopedic” knowledge. Functional
heads that attach outside of the category forming n/a/v (as in (4b) below) take as
complements a structure in which the root’s meaning and pronunciation has already been
negotiated, and that is why no special meanings are available.
9
In all trees throughout this dissertation, the phonological forms are inserted into the terminal nodes for the
ease of exposition; in reality the VIs containing phonological exponents do not appear in syntactic
derivation till after Spell-Out.
51
(4) Availability of special meaning (based on Marantz (2001:8))
a.
.
n/a/v
LF
root
phase
b.
.
head
PF
LF
n/a/v
n/a/v
…root…
PF
To illustrate that special meanings are available to roots, but not ‘words’ formed
from them, Marantz (2000) compares the pair of words donor and donator and concludes
that don-or is formed from the root √don and thus can have special meanings like blood
donor or organ donor; whereas donat-or is derived not from the root but from the verb
donate and these special ‘blood’ and ‘organ’ interpretations are unavailable.
(5) a. [[√don]n or]
b. [[[√don]v ate]n or]
This line of reasoning that separates root-based word formation from word-based
formation finds further development in the work of Travis 2000, Pylkkanen 2002, Arad
2005, Harley 1995, 2006a, Svenonius 2005 among others and is known as the Low vs.
High Attachment Hypothesis which is becoming influential in the study of verbal
morphology, as we will see in chapters 3, 6 and 7.
English word formation provides some valuable evidence in favor of roots as the
basic elements of words. However, as Arad (2005) points out, the majority of words in
English (like nouns dog, tree and chair) do not demonstrate evidence of overt
decomposition into roots and f-morphemes. In her book on word formation in Hebrew,
52
she provides strong evidence in favor of the (universal) Root Hypothesis, which she
defines as “the existence of atomic cores of sound and meaning, from which all words are
built” (14).
2.1.3
Arad (2005) on roots and lexical categories in Hebrew
Arad builds her argument for the Root Hypothesis based on two facts about Hebrew word
formation: (i) root and word creating morphology are clearly distinguished in Hebrew;
(ii) word formation from roots and from derived words is also distinct, both
morphologically and semantically (Arad 2005:13).
Hebrew roots are composed of three consonants that must be combined with
verbal, adjectival or nominal pattern morphology to be pronounceable. This pattern
morphology includes slots for the consonants of the root, as well as a particular syllabic
structure and inherent vowels10. Arad shows in example (6) repeated below that Hebrew
roots are underspecified not only phonologically, but also semantically, since words
derived from the same root can have a variety of lexical meanings, even though they
share a common semantic core (13). The root √gdl is the core for the following words, all
of which have something to do with size; however, the semantic relation between the
derived words is not always straightforward:
10
For an alternative ‘word-based’ approach to Hebrew morphology, see Bat-El (1994, 2003), Ussishkin
(1999, 2005).
53
(6)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
√gdl
Pattern
CaCaC (v)
CiCCeC (v)
hiCCiC (v)
CaCoC (a)
CoCeC (n)
miCCaC (n)
CCuCa (n)
Words
gadal ‘grow’
gidel ‘raise’
higdil ‘enlarge’
gadol ‘large’
godel ‘size’
migdal ‘tower’
gdula ‘grandiosity’
(Arad 2005:13)
Arad argues that roots are underspecified potentialities: even though the words
derived from the same root share some lexical core meaning, their semantics are not
computed compositionally. The reason for the availability of these special meaning lies in
the fact that all words in (6) are root-derived and as such lie within the same phase (in
terms of Chomsky 1998, 1999), which Arad (following Marantz 2000) defines as the first
category head merging with the root. She writes, “…the first category head merging with
the root defines a phase, that is, a stage in the derivation where the element built by the
computational system is spelled out both semantically and phonologically” (748). The
output of this derivation is sent off for phonological and semantic interpretation, and thus
any further word-formation occurs beyond the boundary of the phase and has no access to
the root and to the domain of special meaning. That is why, explains Arad, denominal
verbs in Hebrew can only have meanings based on the nouns they are formed from.
Arad’s definition of a phase as “any head that creates a semantic or phonological
domain” is a lot stronger than Chomsky’s original proposal that includes little v, C and
possibly D as heads that define phases. I will show on the basis of the Chemehuevi data
that this definition of phase is too strong and requires refining at least for Chemehuevi.
54
(7)
…
2
{n, v, a}
2
{n, v, a}
√root
domain for special meaning = phase in terms of Arad (2003)
Arad (2005) also brings attention to another pattern in Hebrew that may have
crosslinguistic implications: the overt expression of verbal morphology is obligatory,
whereas the overt expression of nominal morphology is often optional (15). For example,
there are nouns in Hebrew that are exempt from pattern morphology and are built from
syllabic roots, not from consonantal roots as the majority of nouns and all verbs. Most of
these nouns are borrowings from other languages, like televizya ‘television’, telefon
‘telephone’, etc. In these nouns there is no predictable pattern of prefixes, or vowels,
since the vocalic content is derived from the source language. What is particularly
interesting, however, is that when borrowed syllabic roots form verbs, the vocalic pattern
morphology is required. So even though the noun is telefon, the corresponding verb is
tilfen ‘to telephone’ (35): the consonants of the syllabic root remain the same, but the
vowels are those from the corresponding verbal pattern. Arad explains this asymmetry by
the fact that verbal features (tense, aspect) are present in the syntax, while nominal
features (like person and number agreement) can be inserted post-syntactically (Embick
2000, Bobaljik 2000). In terms of Hebrew this means that features present in syntax are
obligatorily spelled-out, i.e., verbs and nouns formed from roots are formed based on the
pattern morphology because they acquire their nominal character in the syntax. But in the
case of nouns formed from the syllabic stems, not from roots, their nominal features are
55
omitted in the syntax. Arad reports that a similar asymmetry is attested between borrowed
verbs and nouns in Russian. Borrowed nouns like kofe ‘coffee’ or metro ‘subway’ do not
decline, i.e., do not show case/gender agreement; however, borrowed verbs like parkovat’
‘to park’, praktikovat’ ‘to practice’, telefonirovat’ ‘to telephone’, kserit’ ‘to xerox’ must
carry overt markers of a verbal conjugation (-ova in the first three verbs, -i in the last
one).
Overall, Arad’s discussion of roots and functional heads that derive them is highly
relevant for Chemehuevi, a language in which roots have much flexibility in the
formation of lexical categories and where there are a number of overt category-forming
functional heads. However, as we will see from the sections below, Arad’s
generalization about nominal morphology being optionally present in syntax does not
work for Chemehuevi, since one of the distinctive features of nominal morphology in the
language is the necessary presence of non-possessed noun (henceforth, NPN) markers on
the majority of nouns. In the next section, I will show in detail that NPN markers are part
of derivational morphology and derive nouns from roots in Chemehuevi.
56
2.2 Lexical categories in Chemehuevi: Nouns
2.2.1 Non-Possessed Noun marker – a noun-forming functional morpheme little n0
In this section, we will take a closer look at the noun-forming functional morphemes in
Chemehuevi. Recall from chapter 1, that most common nouns in Chemehuevi consist of a
root and an NPN marker, which deletes if the noun has a possessive marker or is
incorporated, but is preserved when number or case morphemes are added to the noun.
There is a small number of nouns that do not have an NPN marker and nothing is deleted
from them when they are possessed or incorporated. On the basis of these facts we can
say that there are five classes of nouns in Chemehuevi depending on the NPN marker that
they take: -tsi-, -tsü-, -pü-, -pi-, and zero. The allomorphs -pü- and -pi- have variants
-mpü- ~ -vü- and -mpi- ~ -vi-, respectively, predictable from nasalization and
spirantization11 (Press 1979:36). The Chemehuevi noun classes are exemplified in the
data below:
(8) Class 1 NPN -tsi
a. aipa-tsi
‘boy’
b. na’üntsi-tsi ‘girl’
c. maapü-tsi
‘old woman’
(9) Class 2 NPN -tsü
a. a-tsü
‘bow, gun’
b. hüpüki-tsü
‘hole’
11
Both processes are morpho-phonological: [+nasal] and [+sprnt] are features of the root and do not always
correspond to the presence of nasal or spirantized consonants in the root, but spread these features to the
phonemes following the root.
57
(10) Class 3 NPN -pü
a. tüvi-pü
‘dirt’
b. nünga-pü
‘chest’
c. paga-pü
‘shoe’
NPN -pü [+sprnt]
a. tühiya-vü
‘deer hide’
b. na’nka-vü
‘ear’
NPN -pü [+nasal]
a. huku-mpü
‘dust’
b. huvitunu-mpü ‘radio’
(11) Class 4 NPN -pi
a. tüka-pi
‘food’
b. atamu-pi
‘car’
c. kukwa-pi
‘wood’
NPN -pi [+sprnt]
a. süna-vi
b. tukwo-vi
c. nopa-vi
‘coyote’
‘meat’
‘egg’
NPN -pi [+nasal]
a. tawa-mpi
‘tooth’
b. ago-mpi
‘tongue’
c. aso-mpi
‘salt’
(12) Class 5 NPN /Ø/
a.
paa-Ø
‘water’
b.
kani-Ø
‘house’
c.
tua-Ø
‘son’
In terms of Distributed Morphology, we can view the Chemehuevi NPN marker
as a functional morpheme, a little n0 that forms a non-possessed noun out of a root in its
complement position. This functional morpheme has several allomorphs that are
considered to be Vocabulary Items with the following insertion possibilities:
(13) Vocabulary Items for an NPN marker/little n0 (to be continued)
a. -tsi <> n0 / [√ Root [Class 1]__]
58
b. -tsü <> n0 / [√ Root [Class 2]__]
c. -pü <> n0 / [√ Root[Class 3]__]
d. -pi <> n0 / [√ Root [Class 4]__]
e. -Ø <> n0/ [√ Root [Class 5]__]
The cases of spirantization and nasalization within classes 3 and 4 are treated
through the application of readjustment rules, phonological rules that apply to
morphemes after Vocabulary insertion (Halle and Marantz 1993). These are common
morpho-phonological processes that affect the initial consonant of morphemes following
roots that have a [+sprnt] or [+nasal] feature. The readjustment rules have a
representation like the one in (14) below, and will result in alternations pü ~ vü ~mpü and
pi~ vi ~ mpi within the NPN marker/ functional head n0.
(14) a. p
b. p
v / √ Root [+ SPRNT]___
mp / √ Root [+ NASAL] __
The fact that the NPN marker is subject to morpho-phonological allomorphy
supports Arad’s observation that root+ n0 is a phase: since both occur within a phase, the
regular word-domain phonological rules of the language apply. However, later in this
dissertation we will see that Arad’s definition of a phase is too strong and in Chemehuevi
constituents larger that root plus the first category forming head can belong to the same
phase (see chapter 3 and 7 for more on this).
59
2.2.2 Possessive marker – allomorph of little n0
As the very term Non-Possessed Noun marker indicates, this morpheme occurs only with
non-possessed nouns. In fact, when nouns appear in possessive constructions, the NPN
marker does not surface. There are two cases to consider: nouns that occur with
inalienable and alienable possession. In Chemehuevi, as in many other Native American
languages, some nouns always have to appear with an overt possession marker. These are
restricted to inalienably or inherently possessed nouns such as body parts, plant parts, and
kinship terms which take one of the possessive suffixes -wa-, -‘aa-, or -akaa- and require
the presence of an overt possessor in the sentence. As the data below indicate, the NPN
markers are deleted in these cases and importantly the possessive marker is followed by a
pronominal clitic that shows agreement with the Possessor (examples in (15b) through
(19 b)).
(15) a. paü-pi
blood-NPN
‘blood’
b. paü-wa-n
blood-poss-1sg
‘my blood’
(16) a. huva-vü
sap-NPN
‘sap’
b. huvaa-wa-uk
sap-poss-3sg
‘its sap’
60
(17) a. sagwi-vü
guts-NPN
‘guts’
b. sagwi-’aa-n
guts-poss-1sg
‘my guts’
(18) a. nangka-vü
leaf-NPN
‘leaf’
b. nangka-‘aa-ik
leaf-poss-3sg
‘its leaf’
(19) a. piso’o-tsi
child-NPN
‘child’
b. pi-piso’o-akaa-m
RED-child-poss-3pl.anim
‘their children’
(Press 1979:39-40)
If the NPN marker and the obligatory possessive marker are in complementary
distribution, we can claim that they occupy the same structural position. I claim that they
are allomorphs of little n0, one appearing in non-possessed contexts and the other in case
of possessed nouns. Consider the derivation of a non-possessed noun in (20a): the root is
a complement of a noun-forming functional head little n0 that does not have a specifier.
In (20b), however, the same noun is inalienably possessed, and a possessive allomorph of
little n0 is inserted. The difference between the two allomorphs is in the presence/absence
of the specifier: the possessive little n0 projects a specifier, occupied by the possessor DP.
For this particular noun this allomorph is spelled-out as -wa. The agreement suffix, being
61
an enclitic, attaches to the existing nominal stem at PF as a linearization requirement (we
will return to the details of this process later in the section).
(20) a. paü-pi ‘blood’
nP
2
√paü
n0
-pi
b. paü-wa-n ‘my blood’
nP
2
DPPOSSi
n’
[1sg]
2
=n
√paüi
n0
- wa
Such analysis of inalienable possessive constructions as NPs is consistent with the
data from Hungarian (Szabolcsi 1994) in which the possessor appears in Spec-NP of the
possessed noun. The fact that the possessor is obligatory in the inalienable possessive
constructions is accounted for by Vergnaud and Zubizarreta’s (1992) analysis. Under this
analysis, the possessor and the possessed noun are in a predicate-argument relation
marked as coindexation between the two nouns. Interestingly, there are clear parallels
between this predicate analysis of inalienable possession and Baker’s (2003) analysis of
predicative properties of verbs on the one hand and nouns and adjectives on the other (see
chapter 5 for the complete review). Baker argues that verbs can form predicates due to
the fact that verbs can project specifiers. In the case of the inalienable possession, a
similar effect is in place: the presence of the specifier of nP enables the predicate-
62
argument relation between the possessed noun and the possessor. Within the framework
of DM a similar treatment has been proposed for a verbal functional head little v by
Harley and Noyer (1998). They maintain that little vDO/CAUS has a specifier, which
enables it to have an external argument, but little vBECOME does not project a specifier and
is the basis for forming unaccusative verbs. In their later work, Harley and Noyer (2000)
develop a formalism for dealing with selectional properties of roots in terms of licensing:
roots are listed with a set of licensing requirements, features that indicate what functional
heads or other environments a particular VI co-occurs with (more on this in chapter 3).
Overall, this approach can not only account for the deletion of NPN markers in
possessive contexts, but also for the fact that possessors are obligatory in some possessive
constructions. I assume the same is true for inalienably possessed ‘noun’ roots in
Chemehuevi; their licensing requirements include the variety of n0 head which projects a
specifier. Alienable nouns do not have this licensing requirement and occur with the
‘unaccusative’ n0 head.
Consider example (21) below: the possessor DP, DPPOSS nüüni ‘my’, originates
within the nP in the predicate-argument relationship (represented by the co-indexation)
between itself and the possessed noun tua ‘son’. Since the possessor is a pronoun in this
case, I assume it is a D0 head that besides person and number features has the oblique
case feature. The NPN marker/n0 head that forms the nP is phonologically null in the case
of the root √tua ‘son’. After Vocabulary Insertion, we have the linearized string nüüni tua
‘my son’.
63
(21) a. nüüni tua
1sg.obl son
‘my son’
b.
(Press 1979:59)
nP
3
DPPOSSi
n’
!
3
DPOSS √tuai
n0
[1sg][OBL]
-Ønüüni
Press (1979) indicates that there are other ways of saying (21): either by suffixing
the pronominal to the possessed noun (22a), or by clitic doubling (i.e., using the clitic and
the independent pronoun), as in (22b).
(22) a. tua-n
son-1sg
‘my son’
b. nüüni tua-n
1sg.obl son-1sg
‘my son’
(Press 1979:59)
In these examples, the possessed noun bears the enclitic –n which agrees with the
DPOSS in number and person. Recall from chapter 1 that the same pronominal forms are
used as pronouns or determiners (see Tables #3 and #4 in chapter 1), and both pronouns
and demonstrative determiners in Chemehuevi have an option of surfacing either as
independent pronouns or enclitics. I propose that the independent forms are D heads,
present in syntax as in example (21) above, while the phonologically dependent ones are
agreement markers inserted post-syntactically as disjointed morphemes (Embick 2000,
64
Bobaljik 2008)12. Embick (2000) formulates the principle of Feature Disjointness in the
following way: “Features that are phonological, or purely morphological, or arbitrary
properties of vocabulary items, are not present in the syntax; syntacticosemantic features
are not inserted in morphology” (188). Agreement features on nouns and adjectives are a
typical example of disjointed (also known as ‘dissociated’) morphological features;
conjugation and declension class features that must be memorized with particular noun or
verb classes are also examples of disjointed features.
If we accept this dual analysis of pronominal forms, the derivation for the
examples in (22) above will have the following representation. The affixal possessive
marker will be inserted postsyntactically as a disjointed Agr node, and I assume the
possessive D head is a pro in (22a). As for the clitic-doubling case, the features on D are
interpreted and have a phonological realization, and the Agr node is again inserted in the
morphological component of the grammar (shaded part of the derivations in (23)).
12
One way to account for clitic doubling is to assume a pronominal argument analysis a lá Baker (1995) in
which the independent pronoun is an adjunct and the clitic is in the argument position. However,
Chemehuevi is not a pronominal argument language: full DPs appear in argument positions.
65
(23) a. Enclitic form of pronominal agreement marker
nP
3
DPPOSSi
n’
!
3
DPOSS √tuai
n0
[1sg][OBL]
2
pro
n0
Agr
-Ø[1sg]
-n
b. Clitic doubling
nP
3
DPPOSSi
n’
!
3
DPOSS √tuai
n0
[1sg][OBL]
2
nüüni
n0
Agr
-Ø[1sg]
-n
This structural distinction between the D determiner (whether possessive or
demonstrative) present in the syntax and the agreement morphology inserted after syntax
helps to understand why in Chemehuevi you can literally say ‘the his mother’. Examples
(24a) and (b) illustrate this point: in both cases there possessed noun is followed by a
possessive agreement marker and the demonstrative determiner, cliticized in the
morphology.
(24) a. pia-anga-anga
mother-3sg.anim.vis-3sg.anim.vis
‘his mother, that one’
b. tsi’aka-‘ami-unga
opponent-2sg-3sg.anim.invis
‘your opponent, that one’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 15)
66
In the case of alienable possession, there is no overt possessive marker, but the
NPN marker is also deleted and only agreement morphology follows the root:
(25) a. nia-vi13
name-NPN
‘name, n.’
(OCD)
b. Mangay-uk
nia-anga
Bill.
3sg/anim/vis-cop name-3sg/anim/vis Bill
‘His name is Bill’.
c. Nümiy-ak
nia-nümi
avaatü.
1pl/excl-cop name-1pl/excl many
‘Our names are many’.
d. Mamü-uk
nia-amü
avanayu.
3pl/anim/vis-cop name-3pl/anim/vis many
‘Their names are many’.
(Guy Tyler)
Similarly to the inalienable possessive constructions, the alienable possessive NPs
can occur with demonstrative determiners. In other words, their syntactic structures are
identical to the inalienable possessive phrases. I assume that the only difference between
the two is the absence of the predicate-argument relation between the possessor and the
possessed nP and the corresponding absence of a licensing requirement on the root.
Consider the example (26) below: the demonstrative pronoun mar ‘that inanimate visible’
is a D determiner taking a possessive nP as a complement.
(26) a. mar
pampün’i-n
3sg.inanim.vis pot-1sg
‘that pot of mine’
13
(Press 1979:60)
The same root also occurs with verbal particles: niya ‘call’, nia-ga ‘have a name’(OCD)
67
b.
DP
3
D
nP
mar
3
[3sg.inanim.vis] DPPOSS
n’
!
3
D √pampün’ n0
[1sg][OBL]
2
n0
Agr
-Ø[1sg]
-n
In terms of Vocabulary Items, the little n0 will have the following additional
entries reflecting the distribution of suffixes in possessive contexts:
(27) Vocabulary Items for an NPN marker/little n0 (continued)
a. -wa <> n0[+poss] / [nP Possessor [√ Root Class 6__]]
b. -‘aa <> n0[+poss] / [nP Possessor [√ Root Class 7__]]
c. -akaa <> n0[+poss] / [nP Possessor [√ Root Class 8__]]14
d. -Ø <> n0[+poss]/ elsewhere
2.2.3 Roots vs. nouns: derivational vs. inflectional morphology
The Chemehuevi data shows that the NPN marker is not present when the noun root is
incorporated into a verbal head, since only roots can incorporate, not derived stems. In
the examples below the roots süna-, kukwa- and huku- appear as nouns when followed by
14
Classes 6,7 and 8 of roots are the ones that require inalienable possession.
68
an NPN marker (examples 28a, 29a, 30 a) but can also be incorporated into a light verb
(28b) or lexical verbs (29b) and (30b):
(28) a. süna’a-vi
coyote-NPN
‘coyote’
b. süna’a-rükaw’i-tsi
coyote-turn-aspect
‘turning into a coyote’
(29) a. kukwa-pi
stick-NPN
‘stick’
b. kukwa-tapoka-ga
stick-chop-imperf
‘chopping wood’
(Press 1979:35-36)
(30) a. huku-mpü
dust-NPN
‘dust’
b. huku-nüa-ga
dust-wind blowing-imperf
‘dust wind blowing’
(OCD)
Also predictably, the NPN marker is retained when the noun appears as a part of a
post-positional phrase:
(31) pungku-tsi-wa’
dog-NPN-with
‘with a/the dog’
(Press 1979:35-36)
The NPN marker is also retained when the noun is pluralized (32 a and b) and
when the case morphology appears on a noun (33):
(32) a. süna’a-vi
‘coyote’ => süna’a-vi-mü
coyote-NPN
coyote-NPN-pl
‘coyotes’
69
b. sügupi-tsi
lizard-NPN
‘lizard’ => sügüpi-tsi-wü
lizard-NPN-pl
‘lizards’
(Press 1979:35-36)
(33) Pungku-tsi-a-n
tanga-vü.
dog-NPN-obl-1sg kick-past
‘I kicked the dog’.
(Press 1979:35-36)
To summarize, the presence of the NPN marker, one of the instantiations of
‘little’ n0, indicates that the root has been derived into a noun. Such word can then attract
the corresponding inflectional morphology (case and number for the Chemehuevi nouns),
as well as interact with postpositions. Derivational morphology, however, occurs only
with roots (the NPN marker itself being derivational); that is why the NPN marker does
not appear when the root is incorporated. The Chemehuevi data on noun formation
presents special interest because the noun forming functional head little n0 has several
overt realizations: a variety of NPN markers and possessive markers.
2.3 Conclusion
To conclude this chapter, I’d like to refer back to Arad’s view of roots as underspecified
potentialities. In Chemehuevi we find many words based on roots that are hard to define
precisely. Only when these roots appear in the context of category-forming functional
morphemes do they acquire precise meanings. For example, roots √nüa- and √üwa- never
appear independently and can have meanings only in the context of verbal or nominal
functional elements as in nüa-ga ‘wind blowing’, nüa-rü ‘wind’ or üwa-ga ‘raining’,
uwa-rü ‘rain (n)’.
70
The same is true of words derived from the root √tüka, roughly translated as ‘eat’.
In the context of the NPN marker –pi it forms a noun ‘food’, and this is the only word in
(34) that has a non-compositional, arbitrary meaning, which is predicted because it is
root-derived. Judging from the morphemes that follow tüka- in examples (33c) through
(34e), they are derived from the verbal stem tüka- ‘to eat’: we find an applicative
transitivizer –ngkü in (34c), a present participle ending –ga in (34d), and nominalizing
suffix –tüa, roughly translated as ‘a place for doing x’ in (34e) (as well as in examples
(38 a and b) below). Some of the further derived words can have quite complex meanings
that are nevertheless predictable from the meaning pieces of morphemes they are built
from.
(34) a. √tüka‘eat’
b. tüka-pi
eat-NPN
‘food’
c. tüka-ngkü-a-vi
eat-appl-obj-NPN
‘boarder, the one who eats it’
d. tüka-ga
eat-pres.prt
‘eating’
e. tüka-tüa
eat-place
‘table’
71
As we will see in chapter 3 on the Chemehuevi verbs, many verbal functional
heads are also overtly realized and make Chemehuevi morphology even more
transparent.
2.4 Notes for community use: How to form words in Chemehuevi
In this chapter, I showed that within every word in Chemehuevi we can identify the core
or root that carries the main meaning and pronuncation of the word and all words related
to it. Often the root is not pronounceable by itself and needs some ending to be added to
it to become a noun or a verb. One direct application to learning Chemehuevi words is
identifying what words with similar pronunciation and meaning have in common and
grouping these words together. Take the words listed below, for example. They all have
huvi- in common, the root whose meaning is connected to ‘singing’. Huvi- cannot be
pronounced by itself and appears in many related words, as in the examples in (35)
below.
(35) a. huviavi
‘song’
b. huviagantü
‘the owner of the song’
c. huvitu
‘to sing’
d. huvitunumpi
‘radio’
(OCD)
Similarly, the root ampaga appears in several words having to do with ‘speaking’.
72
(36) a. ampaga
‘talk, speak’
b. ampagapü
‘language’
c. ampagarü
‘speaker’
d. ampagatu’ikamü
‘council’, literally ‘the ones that make talk’
e. ampagangküavi
‘spokesman’, literally ‘the one that says it for someone’
It might be helpful to learn all related words together in one list. Not only it will
be easier to remember them, since their pronunciation and meanings are related, but it
might also help the learner to identify different endings surrounding the root and find
parallels in how endings build words. To illustrate, let us take the words for ‘sitting’ and
‘lying down’ with roots karü and havi. To form words describing the action of sitting or
lying down, we add the ending –ga to the root:
(37) a. karü-ga
‘sitting’
b. havi-ga
‘lying down’
To name the object or place where one can sit or lie down, the ending –tüa is
added:
(38) a. karü-tüa
sit-place
‘chair’
73
b. havi-tüa
lie-place
‘bed’
(OCD)
If you want to mention someone or something doing the sitting or lying down,
you need ending –tü with its variants –rü, -ntü or –tcü, depending on the word.
(39) a. karü-rü
‘one who sits, sitter’
b. havi-tcü
‘that which lies; said e.g., of an elongated mountain or mountain chain, a fallen
tree, hail lying on the ground, etc.’
(OCD)
One can also build many words with so called instrumental ending that connects
the core meaning of the action or activity to the object that is used in this activity, like
‘saddle’ and ‘radio’ in examples below, connected to the core meaning of ‘sitting’ and
‘singing’.
(40) a. karünumpü
‘saddle’
b. huvitunumpü
‘radio’
(OCD)
In this chapter, I also talked about the formation of nouns in Chemehuevi, words
that name people, animals and objects. One feature that distinguishes Chemehuevi from
English, for example, is that many Chemehuevi nouns have similar endings, and we can
group nouns together according to which endings are added to the root. Below I include
several groups of nouns that share the same endings. These lists can be expanded for the
purposes of learning.
74
(41) Nouns ending in –tsi
a. aipa-tsi
‘boy’
b. na’üntsi-tsi ‘girl’
c. maapü-tsi
‘old woman’
(42) Nouns ending in -tsü
a. a-tsü
‘bow, gun’
b. hüpüki-tsü
‘hole’
(43) Nouns ending in -pü
a. tüvi-pü
‘dirt’
b. nünga-pü
‘chest’
c. paga-pü
‘shoe’
(44) Nouns ending in -vü
a. tühiya-vü
‘deer hide’
b. na’nka-vü
‘ear’
(45) Nouns ending in -mpü
a. huku-mpü
‘dust’
b. huvitunu-mpü ‘radio’
(46) Nouns ending in -pi
a. tüka-pi
‘food’
b. atamu-pi
‘car’
c. kukwa-pi
‘wood’
(47) Nouns ending in -vi
a. süna-vi
‘coyote’
b. tukwo-vi
‘meat’
c. nopa-vi
‘egg’
(48) Nouns ending in -mpi
a. tawa-mpi
‘tooth’
b. ago-mpi
‘tongue’
c. aso-mpi
‘salt’
(49) Nouns with no ending
a. paa
‘water’
b. kani
‘house’
c. tua
‘son’
75
Notice that same idea of the root applies to how we use nouns in Chemehuevi: for
example, to say that something belongs to someone and it is a fairly close relation (like
your relative, pet, or a body part), we substitute the regular noun ending for a possessive
ending followed by an ending identifying whose relation this is. So in (50b), the root paüis followed by an obligatory possessive marker –wa and further by an ending –n referring
to ‘I’, the person whose blood it is.
(50) a. paü-pi
‘blood’
b. paü-wa-n
‘my blood’
(51) a. sagwi-vü
‘guts’
b. sagwi-’aa-n
‘my guts’
(52) a. piso’o-tsi
‘child’
b. pi-piso’o-akaa-m
‘their children’
(Press 1979:39-40)
(53) a. tua
‘son’
b. tua-n
‘my son’
In chapter 3, I discuss in detail how to form sentences describing possession and
form verbs in general, and you can look there for more information.
76
CHAPTER THREE
LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI: VERBS
In this chapter, I discuss the formation of verbs in Chemehuevi with a focus on functional
heads that derive verbs from roots. I claim that Chemehuevi verb-forming functional
heads fall into two groups: those that attach directly to the root and those that that attach
to a derived verbal stem. I show that low and high attachment verbal heads differ with
respect to phase boundaries, and claim that in Chemehuevi the first phase is deliniated by
the Agent-projectingVoice head.
This chapter also provides plentiful evidence from Chemehuevi for the complex
syntax of verbs. I identify several ‘flavors’ of verbal functional head ‘little’ v and show
that many of the instantiations of this head are overtly represented in the language. I will
also consider in detail possessive and existential locative verbs to provide further
evidence that Chemehuevi verbs are derived from roots by a variety of functional heads.
3.1 Theoretical background: Verbal functional projections and complex syntax of
verbs
It is well established in the literature that verbs have complex syntax (Hale and Keyser
1993, Travis 1994, Kratzer 1996, Chomsky 1995a, Harley 1995)15. The idea comes from
15
For an alternative view see the Lexicalist approach to verbal syntax and semantics (Jackendoff 1990,
Grimshaw 1990, Levin and Rappaport 1994 among others)
77
the fact that different verbs have different subcategorization requirements or argument
structures, and often the same verb (like melt or crash in English) can act as both
transitive and unaccusative. Hale and Keyser (1991, 1993, 1997, 1998, etc.) have
developed a theory of argument structure based on the observation that argument
structures of verbs across natural languages are extremely limited in their structure and
typologically restricted. These restrictions include the following: (i) theta roles are
limited in number and assigned in a deterministic fashion; (ii) the relationship between
theta roles and resulting syntactic structures is fixed across languages; (iii) there are
distinct limits on branching (binary) and depth of projection (two levels maximum),
which result from highly restricted relations between category types (head, intermediate
and maximal projections) and arguments (complements, specifiers). Hale and Keyser
derive these constraints on argument structure from the relatively simple combinatoric
possibilities of the elements involved: (i) lexical categories N, V, P, A, and (ii) their
syntactic projection. They argue that thematic relations are restricted because “only V
and P take complements, and only P and A, projecting predicates, license specifiers
(H&K 1993:30). The empirical support for these claims come from the study of
denominal and de-adjectival verbs, particularly unergative verbs (laugh, sneeze, dance,
etc.), location verbs (shelve, corral, box), and inchoatives (clear, narrow, lengthen). All
these verbs involve incorporation and their formation is governed by syntactic principles.
Unergative verbs involve incorporation of N into V (as in dance), location verbs are
formed by a chain of incorporation of N into P into V2 intoV1 (as in to corral horses), and
78
de-adjectival verbs are formed by head-movement of A to V2 toV1 (as in to clear the
table). The corresponding derivations are presented below:
(1) Table #5. Derivations for different kinds of verbs (based Hale and Keyser 1993).
Unergative verbs
Location verbs
de-adjectival verbs
to dance
to corral horses
to clear the table
V*
V*
(V*)
2
2
2
V1
NP
V1
VP
(V1)
VP
!
2
2
N
NPa
V’
NP
V’
dance
horses 2
the table 2
V2
PP
V2
AP
2
!
P
NP
A
!
clear
Nb
corral
Hale (2000) applies this theory of argument structure to Uto-Aztecan (Tohono
‘O’odham) verbs, and observes that whereas de-adjectival verbs (verbs derived from
adjectives, like the ones in (2)) can participate in inchoative–causative alternations,
denominal verbs (verbs of creation or production like the ones in (3) below) cannot form
causative verbs, instead they form applicatives (even though both suffixes –jid and –cud
are associated with causative meaning).
(2) Tohono O’odham
a. s-wegï
‘red’
b. wegi
‘redden, become red’
c. wegi-jid
‘redden, make red’
(3) Tohono O’odham
a. ki:
‘house’
b. ki:-t
‘build/make a house’
c. ki:-cud
‘make a house for x’, ‘*have x build a house’
79
Hale’s answer to these differences in argument structure is that de-adjectival
verbs productively participate in inchoative-causative alternations because adjectives
“force the appearance of a specifier” (163). A lexical category adjectives “must be
attributed to, or predicated of something” and thus require an argument of which they are
predicated (161). This argument, an NP in the Spec position in Hale’s analysis, in turn
becomes the surface subject of the intransitive verb and the object of the causative verb.
Noun-based verbs cannot participate in the same alternation because nouns do not project
specifiers, hence excluding the presence of an internal subject, necessary for the causative
alternation, from the configuration. In other words, denominal verbs in O’odham behave
just like unergative verbs in English: we cannot *laugh the child or *smile the baby
because verbs laugh and smile are formed by incorporation of a noun laugh and smile
into a verbal functional head, and since nouns do not project specifiers there is no internal
subject that can become a potential surface object of a causative construction.
(4) Table #6. Derivation of de-adjectival and de-nominal verbs (based on Hale 2000:164166)
De-adjectival verbs: make x red
De-nominal verbs: make house for x
V
V
2
2
-jid
V
DP
V
2
benefactor 2
DP
V
V
N
object 2
-cud
ki:
‘house’
V
A
wegi
‘red’
Hale also discusses a group of O’odham verbs that are derived from roots (a
theme that is further developed in the next section) and that behave like denominal verbs
80
in that they cannot be further causativized and when transitivized, yield applicative verbs.
The argument structure of verbs is predictable from the specifier-head and/or headcomplement structure of the categories they are derived from. As we will see in chapters
4 and 5, Baker (2003) also develops a theory of lexical categories based on the ability to
project specifiers, but he reaches conclusions different from Hale and Keyser, particularly
with respect to adjectives.
3.1.1
Flavors of ‘little’ v
The idea that verbs have a complex syntax is further developed within the framework of
DM. First of all, we find a version of the split-VP view of verbal syntax, with the basic
premise that the syntax of a verb does not depend on theta-grids, but rather on the
functional/aspectual structure into which the verb is inserted. Under this view, within
each verb there are two verbal heads, ‘little’ v and ‘big’ V, each capable of projecting
syntactic structure and taking arguments. Whereas the ‘big’ V head is a locus of ‘lexical’
meaning of the verb (or an L-morpheme in terms of Harley and Noyer 2000), ‘little’ v is
a purely functional head, encoding structural/grammatical potential of the verb. Secondly,
it has been argued (Harley 1995, Harley and Noyer 2000, Folli and Harley 2002, 2003)
that ‘little’ v can come in different ‘flavors’, vDO, vCAUS, vBECOME, and vBE. These
functional verbs differ with respect to their ability to project a specifier and thus select an
external argument. vDO and vCAUS always introduce an argument (Agent or Causer,
respectively) and form eventive verbs. Folli and Harley (2002, 2003) argue that vDO
81
requires an animate Agent subject, while vCAUS only requires the subject to be a possible
Cause, either animate or inanimate. They also show that the two heads have different
selectional restrictions: the complement of vDO can be a nominal Incremental Theme,
whereas vCAUS must take a saturated state as its complement, creating a resultative
structure. This distinction explains the ungrammaticality of *The sea ate the beach, in
which the selectional requirements of vCAUS are not met, and grammaticality of The sea
ate the beach away, in which vCAUS has a small clause [SC the beach away] as a
complement. The agentive John ate an apple, will be possible and will have vDO, as
predicted.
As for the two other functional verbs, vBECOME and vBE have no specifers and do
not project external arguments. In addition, vBECOME forms eventive verbs and vBE, stative
verbs. Harley and Noyer (2000) present a useful summary of corresponding ‘frames’ for
each ‘little’ v head, the basis of which is (i) the availability of a specifer and thus an
external argument and (ii) whether the head is eventive or stative. Table #7 summarizes
the options:
(5) Table #7. Varieties of ‘little’ v (based on Harley and Noyer 2000)
Specifer (agentive)
No specifer
vBECOME
eventive
vDO, vCAUS
destroy, grow (trans) learn, grow (intrans),
jump, frighten
arrive
stative
vBE
be tall, know
Harley and Noyer (2000) make an important point about the selectional properties
of Vocabulary Items: roots are listed “with a set of licensing requirements”, features that
indicate what functional heads or other environments a particular VI co-occurs with.
82
Under such a view, a transitive verb like destroy will have a feature [+CAUS] to ensure
that it appears as the complement of ‘little’ vCAUS, and since vCAUS projects a specifer,
destroy always has an external argument. This system also allows for some items to be
underspecified for a particular syntactic element. For example, the VI open is specified as
[±v] to indicate that it can be a verb or an adjective depending on the syntactic
environment, and it is also specified as [±CAUS] since it can be both a transitive and
intransitive verb. Stative verbs like love and fear are specified for [+BE] and eventive
verbs like eat and jump for [-BE]; consequently if a verb is marked [-BE] and [-CAUS] it
is licensed for ‘little’ vBECOME as is the case of eventive verb arrive. Such feature system
allows syntax to generate any verbal structure without positing unnecessary doubling of
VIs (as transitive open and intransitive open, for example). It also lays a foundation for
deriving lexical categories from roots and functional elements, a system that is very
promising for languages like Chemehuevi.
3.1.2
Low vs. high attachment of functional heads
Recall from our earlier discussion of roots that within DM word formation occurs in two
places: within the domain of the root (delimited by the category-forming functional head
c-commanding it) and outside of this domain. Functional heads that attach directly to the
root, i.e., low in the structural tree, are considered low-attachment; those heads that attach
above the category-forming heads are considered high-attachment. Several properties
follow directly from these structural differences. As Harley (2006a) puts it, “Attachment
83
of a morpheme to a higher functional projection results in regular morphology and
compositional meaning, while attachment of the same morpheme to a lower projection
(often the root), results in some allomorphy and potential meaning drift” (37). This idea
has been developed in the study of morphological causatives by Harley 1995, 2006a,
Travis 2000, Pylkkanen 2002, Arad 2005, and Svenonius 2005, and we will turn our
attention to these in chapters 6 and 7.
Marantz (2001) also applies this hypothesis to several verbal projections and
demonstrates that their distance from the root can be determined on the basis of (i)
availability of special meanings, (ii) presence of allomorphy, (iii) relative order of verbal
heads. Based on observations from several languages and theoretical work of several
linguists (including Kratzer (1996), Pylkkanen (2002) among others), he offers the
following view of verbal functional heads in the Universal Grammar (the ones in
parentheses are optional).
(6) Structure of the VP = vP (based on Marantz 2001:4)
3
(PASS)
3
Voice
3
(APPL)
3
(CAUS)
3
v
3
(STAT)
RootP
Several distinctions need explanation. First, Marantz separates ‘little’ v from
Voice: the former forms verbs from roots and may be involved with Case on the object,
84
while the latter projects an external argument (following Kratzer 1996)16. One of his
arguments for this separation involves the applicative head APPL. He writes:
“Benefactive applicative constructions that relate a benefactive argument to a vP
meaning occur lower than the external argument (thus the external argument, not
the benefactive argument, becomes the syntactic subject). The external argument
should therefore be introduced after the benefactive applicative argument in such
constructions” (Marantz 2001:5).
This view differs from earlier discussed approach with flavors of ‘little’ v, where
vCAUS and vDO derive verbs from roots and project an external argument. Secondly,
Marantz follows Pylkkanen’s (2002) claim that CAUS introduces a causing event without
projecting an argument, based on the fact that in some languages (Japanese and Finnish
among the few) there are causative verbs without an external Causer (more on this in
chapter 6).
Finally, Marantz compares passive verbs with stative/adjectival verbs, and argues
that passive is an “outer construction” or high attachment head, i.e., it appears above
‘little’ v, whereas stative is a low attachment head. This property of the two functional
heads is well exemplified by the data from Chichewa repeated below. Recall that only
heads attached directly to the root can produce idiomatic/special meaning. In the data
below the stative (7b, 8b), but not passive affix (7a, 8a), is involved in sentences with
idiomatic meaning.
16
A similar approach is Koizumi’s (1995) split VP hypothesis.
85
(7) Chichewa
a. Chimanga chi- ku- gul -idwa ku-msika.
corn
AGR-PROG-buy-PASS at-market
‘Corn is being bought at the market.’
b. Chimanga chi- ku- gul
-ika
ku-msika.
corn
AGR-PROG-buy-STAT at-market
‘Corn is cheap at the market.’ < idiomatic
(8) Chichewa
a. Chaka chatha chimanga chi- nalim -idwa.
year last
corn
AGR-PROG-cultivate-PASS
‘Last year corn was cultivated.’
b. Chaka chatha chimanga chi- nalim -ika.
year
last corn
AGR-PROG-cultivate-STAT
‘Last year corn was bountiful.’ > idiomatic
(Marantz 2001:4)
Marantz examines other properties of STAT and PASS heads and argues that they
differ in a principled manner, i.e., depending on the distance from the root.
(9) Table #8. Properties of passive and stative functional heads (based on Marantz 2001)
Characteristics
PASS - high
STAT – low
Can create idioms
No
Yes
The die is cast.
May attach to applicative Yes
No
morpheme
The men were baked a
%The men are baked a cake.
cake.
(* on stative interpretation.)
May attach to causative
morpheme
“Meaning” is
independent of root
Yes
These flowers were grown
by farmers.
Yes
The flowers are being
grown/bathed/stunned.
Trigger stem allomorphy
No
No
%These tomatoes are grown.
(* on ‘cultivated’ reading)
No
These children are
grown/bathed/stunned.
(meaning is connected to
aspectual class of root)
Yes
86
Such a well-articulated structure of vP is not without merits, especially in a
language where roots and functional heads can be seen overtly. In the following section,
we will examine several verbal heads in Chemehuevi, and will see that some of them
attach directly to roots, while others attach to verbal stems, i.e above the category
forming ‘little’ v.
3.2 Chemehuevi verbs
In Chemehuevi, there is a variety of light verbs that can be suffixed either to roots or to
verbal stems (items derived from incorporation of a root into a verbal functional head
‘little’ v). It is useful to distinguish them according to the type of complement they take:
a root or a verbal stem, particularly because in some cases it influences the morphophonology of the resulting word. Press (1979) mentions two groups of functional verbs in
Chemehuevi: the first group includes items that suffix to roots to form verbs (10), and the
second group is made up of the ones that suffix to verbal stems and change their valence
(11).
(10) Verb forming light verbs
a. –tu
b. –tu’a
c. -tükaw’i
d. -gai
e. –wai
‘make, cause’ (with variants –tsu, -ru, -ntu)
‘become’ (with variants –tsu’a, -ru’a, -ntu’a)
‘turn into’ (with variants –tsükaw’i, -rükaw’i, -ntükaw’i)
‘be’, ‘have’
‘get’
(11) Valence changing light verbs
b. –ngkü
‘transitivizer, benefective’
87
c. –tu’i
d. –tü
‘causative’
‘passive’
(Press 1979:70-72)
In the sections that follow, we will consider each group in some detail. It is also
useful to shift towards a different terminology consistent with the theoretical discussion
in the previous section: since verb forming light verbs attach directly to the root I will
categorize them as ‘low attachment’, and the functional verbs that in traditional
terminology are referred to as valence changing, will be ‘high attachment’, since they
attach to the stem -- not to the root-- and appear higher in the morpho-syntactic
derivation.
I would also like to propose a synergetic view of verbal syntax that combines
flavors of ‘little’ v (a lá Harley 1995) with the split Voice hypothesis (Pylkkanen 2002).
Here are several arguments in favor of such a view. There are two indications that in
Chemehuevi Voice is split from vP, i.e., the external argument is introduced above the
category-forming ‘little’ v. First of all, Chemehuevi has causative verbs without a Causer
(more on this in section 3.2.2), a feature that implies that the head introducing the
causative event and the one projecting an external argument are separate entities, as is
illustrated in the diagram below.
(12) VoiceP
2
Agent
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
RootP
v
!
√ Root
88
Secondly, the Benefactive argument appears below the Agent, an indication that
the Agent-projecting head is above the Applicative head (more on this in section 3.2.2):
(13)
VoiceP
2
Agent
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
Benefector v’
2
vP
vAPPL
2
RootP
v
!
√ Root
However, I argue that flavors of verb-forming ‘little’ v need to be maintained
because for one thing they have overt realizations in the language. Here is the essence of
the proposal: roots incorporate into a ‘little’ v of a certain kind, be it vBE, vBECOME, vCAUS
or vDO. Functional heads vBE and vBECOME cannot combine with a Voice projection, hence
there is no external argument, and the only participant in those sentences is an internal
argument and is interpreted as Theme/Patient. vCAUS and vDO both require a Voice
projection (except for the causatives without a Causer), but differ in the animacy of the
external argument: vDO must have an animate Agent, whereas vCAUS is compatible with
any subject that is a possible Causer, either animate or inanimate (Folli and Harley 2002,
2003).
89
(14) Table #9. Flavors of ‘little’ v and Voice projection in Chemehuevi
a. vCAUS
b. vDO
c. vBECOME
d. vBE
VoiceP
VoiceP
vP
vP
2
2
2
2
Agent
Voice’
Agent
Voice’
RootP vBECOME
RootP
vBE
2
2
2
2
vP
Voice
vP
Voice Patient √Root
Patient √Root
2
2
RootP vCAUS
RootP
vDO
!
!
√ Root
√Root
As for the Voice projection, it is a locus of the passive vs. active alternation: when
it has a [+passive] feature, no argument is projected and passive morphology is inserted,
but when the feature is [-passive], the external argument is projected. This analysis
accounts for the traditional alternation of the ‘active vs. passive voice’ as well as for the
observation that passive morphology suppresses the external argument.
Another point that deserves discussion in connection to verbal syntax is the
definition of a phase. Recall that Marantz (2000) and Arad (2003, 2005) define phase as
the root and the first functional head merged with it (i.e., the ‘little’ n, a, or v). For them,
all derivation taking place above this domain should result in regular morpho-phonology
and semantics, hence the impossibility of subject idioms, for example. Since in
Chemehuevi the Agent/external argument is introduced by Voice, a functional head
separate from ‘little’ v, I propose (following McGinnis 2000, 2001 and Pylkkanen 2002)
that it is Voice that defines the first phase in Chemehuevi. As a consequence, all word
formation below Voice (including aP, nP and crucially vP formation) is subject to
90
semantic and morpho-phonological idiosyncrasies; all derivations above Voice are
regular and compositional.
There is one point of similarity between analyses identifying ‘little’ v as the
marker of the first phase in English (as in the works of Marantz), and Voice as the marker
of a phase in Chemehuevi. Both project the external argument, but in English ‘little’ v is
bundled with Voice (in terms of Pylkkanen 2002), consequently introducing both the
event and the Agent, while in Chemehuevi ‘little’v is separate from Voice, thus making
an extra point of distinction between verb formation and introduction of an argument. If
we accept that languages of the world exhibit one of these options (Voice bundling vs. no
Voice bundling), the size of the first phase becomes predictable from the Voice bundling
parameter of the language.
We will see support for this proposal in the sections below, in the behavior of
verbal and adjectival nominalizations in chapter 4, as well as in the study of the
Chemehuevi causatives in chapters 6 and 7. With these points in mind let us turn to the
examination of verbal functional heads in Chemehuevi.
3.2.1
Chemehuevi low attachment functional verbs
The Chemehuevi verb-forming light verbs, low attachment CAUS17, BECOME, TURN
INTO, GET and BE/HAVE suffix to items that in the English translation look like
17
There are two varieties of CAUS in Chemehuevi: a low attachment and a high attachment discussed in
more detail in chapter 7.
91
nominals. However, because in most cases the NPN markers are not present we can
conclude that these light verbs attach to roots and form root-derived verbs. Because the
first three of the light verbs mentioned in (92) begin with /t/, they are subject to morphophonological allomorphy: /t/ alternates with a palatalized [ts], nasalized [nt], and
spirantized [r] depending on the presence of a palatalizing front vowel or the
corresponding feature of the root ([+nasal] or [+sprnt]). I take the presence of rootconditioned allomorphy as evidence that the light verbs in Table #10 below attach
directly to the root.
(15) Table #10. Chemehuevi verb-forming light verbs, Part One (data from Press 1979,
JPH&CL, and JHJ)
Light verb
Root-derived verb
Corresponding nominal
CAUS
a. huvi-tu
b. huvi-a-vi
song-cause
song-clitic-NPN
‘sing’
‘song’
BECOME
18
c. muvi-tsu
beak-cause
‘make a beak’
d. muvi-tsi
beak-NPN
‘beak’
e. atsü-ru
bow-cause
‘make a bow’
f. atsü
‘bow’
g. kwasu-ntu
dress-cause
‘make a dress’
h. kwasu
‘dress’
i. wa’aro-vi-tsu’a18
horse-NPN-become
‘become a horse’
j. wa’aro-vi
horse-NPN
‘horse’
This is one of the few examples when a fully formed noun is incorporated. Press (1979) suggests that it
happens because NPN markers are subject to relexicalization (37), and in some cases are part of the stem.
92
TURN INTO
GET
k. pa’aa-ru’a
worm-become
‘become wormy’
l. pa’aa-vi
pa’aa-NPN
‘worm’
m. küma-ntu’a
different-become
‘become different’
n. küma-ntsi
different-NPN
‘different one’
o. tusu-tükaw’i-tsi
flour-turn-PresPrt
‘turning x into flour’
p. tusu-pü
flour-NPN
‘flour’
q. muhu-ntükaw’i-tsi
owl-turn-PresPrt
‘turning x into an owl’
r. muhu-mpi-tsi
owl-NPN-NPN
‘owl’
s. angaa-rükaw’i-tsi
ant-turn-PresPrt
‘turning x into an ant’
t. angaa-vi
ant-NPN
‘ant’
u. nagami-wai
sick-get-pres
‘get sick’
v. nagami-tcü
sick-nomin
‘sick one’
w. ha’üpü-ya-wai
good-be-get
‘get happy’
x. ha’ü‘good, root.’
The next two light verbs, BE and HAVE, have the same phonological realization
–gai (or –ga due to vowel deletion before several suffixes including nominalizer –tü and
its allomorphs)19, however, the HAVE verbs require the nasalized variant of the
nominalizer -ntü, and the BE verbs the spirantized -rü. We will consider the factors
conditioning this allomorphy later in the chapter.
19
The underlying form of these suffixes is –kai, but in most cases [k] is spirantized and surfaces as [ɣ],
spelled g, due to the wide spread consonant alternation present in Chemehuevi. The form –kai (or –ka
before present participle suffixes) is attested in ontokarü ‘brown’, for example.
93
(16) Table #11. Chemehuevi low attachment functional verbs, Part Two (data from Press
1979, JPH&CL, and JHJ)
BE
a. üvüü-nüwü-a-gai-yu
b. nüwü
bad-person-clitic-be-while
‘person’
‘being a mischievous person’
d. pa’aa-vi
c. pa’aa-gai-yu
pa’aa-NPN
worm-be-while
‘worm’
‘being wormy’
HAVE
e. tosa-ga-rü
white-be-nomin
‘white’
g. puha-gai-yu
spiritual power-have-while
‘having spiritual power,
being a doctor’
f. tosa‘white, root’
i. kani-ga-ntü
house-have-nomin
‘having a house’
j. kani
‘house’
k. pavi-ga-ntü
older brother-have-nomin
‘having an older brother’
l. pavi
‘older brother’
m. patci-ga-ntü
older sister-have-nomin
‘having an older sister’
n. patci
‘older sister’
o. onto-ka-rü
pu’i-ga-ntü
brown-be-nomin eye-have-nomin
‘having brown eyes’
p. pu’i-vi
eye-NPN
‘eye’
h. puha-ga-ntü
spiritual power-have-nomin
‘doctor, having spiritual
power’
Based on the data in Tables #10 and #11 it is evident that in Chemehuevi the
functional verb-forming head, ‘little’ v, has the following flavors that have a distinct
overt realization20: vCAUS, vTURN, vBECOME, vGET, vBE. This functional head takes RootPs as
complements and forms verbs through the incorporation of the root into the functional
20
I assume that there is also ‘little’ vDO that forms agentive verbs and is a phonologically null head.
94
verbal head. The first two varieties of ‘little’ v are the heads that can be further selected
by Voice, and this is how they acquire Agents as arguments. The last three forms of
‘little’ v form intransitive verbs, with no Agent and no Voice projection.
All of these low attaching heads are subject to root-conditioned allomorphy:
vCAUS has variants –tu ~ -ru ~ ntu ~ tsu; vTURN alternates between –tükawi ~ -rükawi~
-ntükawi; vBECOME has variants –tua ~ -rua ~ tsua ~ ntua. This is a strong argument that
the Chemehuevi vP below Voice is a phase, since the features on the root can be
accessible to functional heads only within the same phase.
(17) Table #12. Chemehuevi low attachment functional heads - derivation
a. vCAUS
b. vTURN
c. vBECOME, vGET
d. vBE
kwasu-ntu
tusu-tükaw’i
pa’aa-ru’a
pa’aa-gai
dress- vCAUS
flour-turn
worm-become
worm-be
‘make a dress’
‘turn x into flour’
‘become wormy’
‘be wormy’
VoiceP
VoiceP
vP
vP
2
2
2
2
Agent
Voice’
Agent
Voice’
RootP vBECOME
RootP
vBE
2
2
-ru’a
-gai
2
2
vP
Voice
vP
Voice Patient Root
Patient Root
2
2
√ pa’aa√ pa’aa[+spirnt]
RootP vCAUS
RootP
vTURN
-ntu
!
3 -tükaw’i
Root
Patient(x) Root
√ kwasu√ tusu[+nasal]
In each case the root is incorporated into the verbal functional head and it affects
the phonological realization of this head by the value of its features. The root √ kwasu has
an inherent [+nasal] feature and the little vCAUS is spelled out as -ntu; the root √ pa’aa has
a [+spirantized] feature and little vBECOME is spelled out as -ru’a.
95
Throughout the literature on Chemehuevi, the light verb -gai (alternating with kai) is translated as both ‘be’ and ‘have’ and often it is hard to tease apart the two
meanings, particularly when the words are taken out of context. Consider the next three
sets of examples: -gai/-kai appears in both cases and in the first case it means ‘have’, but
in the second – ‘be’.
(18) a. puha-gai-yu
spiritual power-have-while
‘having spiritual power, being a doctor’
(JPH&CL, Measuring Worm Being a Doctor, 1)
b. kani-gai
house-have
‘have a house, dwell’
(Press 1979:63)
(19) a. manai-kai-yu
dodger-be-while
‘being a dodger’
(JPH&CL, Coyote’s Going to Get Antsi Seed as Gift, 9)
b. ha’ütü-na’intcitci-gai
good-girl-NPN-be
‘being a good girl’
(20) a. paa-gai-vaa
water-be-fut
‘there will be water’
b. kani-gai-mü-umü
house-have-anim/pl-3pl/anim/invis
‘the house-owners’
(Press 1979:63)
(JPH&CL, The Two Date Worm Girls, 14)
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 24)
The difference between the two verbs surfaces when -gai is followed by the
nominalizer -tü: BE verbs require the spirantized version of this nominalizer -rü, but
HAVE verbs take the nasalized version -ntü. The first group is represented by color and
other adjectival verbs in (21); the second by predicative possessive constructions in (22).
96
(21) BE
a. tosa-ga-rü
white-be-nomin
‘white’
b. ‘oasia-ka-rü-mü
yellow-be-nomin-anim
‘yellow, animate’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 5)
c. angka-ga-rü-mü
red-be-nomin-anim
‘red, animate’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 6)
d. tupa-ga-rü-mü
black-be-nomin-anim
‘black, animate’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 7)
e. ‘aü-ga-rü
new-be-nomin
‘new’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 4)
f. ’aa-ga-rü
quiet-be-nomin
‘quiet’
(JPH&CL , The Horned Owl, 2)
(22) HAVE (all inalienable)
a. Nüü-k tcaka’i’-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop younger brother-have-nomin
‘I have a younger brother’.
b. Nüü-k pungku-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop dog-have-nomin
‘I have a dog’.
c. Hu-mang mi’aupitci kani-ga-ntü21.
that/invis-3sg small
house-have-nomin
‘He has a small house’.
d. Hu-mang
That/invis-3sg/anim
21
mutchu-ntü
strong-nomin
angavi-ga-ntü.
arm-have-nomin
Inalienable nouns in Chemehuevi include kinship terms, body parts, as well as pets and dwellings.
97
‘He has strong arms’.
e. Mamü-k
waha pisotci-ga-ntü.
3pl/anim/vis-cop two child-have-nomin
‘They have two children’.
(JHJ)
Where do these features come from? It is unlikely that the same morpheme -gai
could be [+nasal] in one context and [+spirnt] in the other. Either there are two different
‘little’ vs that are accidentally homophonous and have different features, or some other
element introduces the nasalization. It could be the root, but as the data in (23)-(25)
below illustrates this is not the case. In example (23a), the root spreads the spirantization
feature to the following root (tua > rua); nevertheless, the corresponding possessive
construction in (23b) exhibits nasalization (tü > ntü).
(23) a. pungku-rua-tsi (pungku ‘dog’ + tua ‘son’), [+spirnt]
dog-son-NPN
‘puppy’
b. pungku-ga-ntü
dog-have-nomin
‘having a dog’
Similarly, in (24a) the root has [+spirnt] feature that affects the morpheme
following the root (tua > rua), but the corresponding possessive construction in (24b) has
a nasal feature, attested in other possessive phrases (tü > ntü).
(24) a. pa’aa-rua
worm-become
‘become wormy’
b. pa’aa-ga-ntü
worm-have-nomin
‘having worms (in his body)’
(OCD)
98
Finally, in example (25a) the root has no features that may affect the following
morpheme and the causative affix remains unaffected; however the possessive in (25b)
contains the nasalized –ntü as expected.
(25) a. huvi-tu
song-caus
‘sing’
b. huvi-a-ga-ntü
song-poss-have-nomin
‘owner of the song’
(OCD)
In fact, nasalization invariably surfaces in all possessive predicative constructions,
regardless of the features of the root. In other words, in these possessive constructions
there is an element that does not have an overt realization but has a nasalization feature
that percolates up the derivation and affects any higher morphemes that are subject to
morpho-phonological allomorphy. I suggest that this element is a postpositional
functional head PHAVE that takes a Possessee as a complement and has a Possessor in its
specifier. Harley (1995) has argued for such a decompositional analysis of English verbs
‘give’ and ‘have’ and showed that depending on which verbal functional head PHAVE
merges with, in English we get either the verb ‘give’ (vCAUS+PHAVE) or the verb ‘have’
(vBE +PHAVE). In the Chemehuevi examples, not only the functional heads incorporate,
but so does the root of the possessed element: √Possessee + PHAVE +vBE. In the example
below, the root kani- ‘house’ successively incorporates into a PHAVE and then ‘little’ vBE
(spelled-out as –gai at Vocabulary Insertion) and is further nominalized by the
nominalizer, realized as -ntü due to the [+nasal] feature on the PHAVE.
99
(26) Partial derivation of a possessive nominal predicate
a. Nüü-k kani-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop house-have-nomin
‘I have a house’.
b.
(JHJ)
…
nP
2
vP
n22 <= -ntü
2
[+nasal]
PP
vBE
<= -gai2
Possessor
P’
2
Possessee
PHAVE
!
[+nasal][+inalienable]
Root
√kaniA question might arise of whether features can spread from one head to the other
even when they are not adjacent, since usually feature percolation is local and features
spread from the immediately preceding morphemes. However, in some cases the feature
can spread further on, as the nasalization feature in the example (27) below: root √hoko is
marked [+nasal] and the feature spreads not only to the immediately following
morphemes -tü in (27a) and -gai23 in (27b), but also to -tu’i in (27b). As long as all head
involved are positioned below the Agent-projecting Voice head, the features of the root
or the possessive element can spread up.
(27) a. hoko-ntü
big-nomin
‘big’
22
Chemehuevi possessive predicates are nominalized relative clauses and projected by the ‘little’n head;
more on that in chapter 4.
23
This is a case of historical process: nasalization no longer affects –gai in Press’s (1979) dataor in the
speech of my consultant.
100
b. hoko-ngai-ntu’i-ngu
big-be-caus-mom
‘made her big’
(JPH&CL, Bluebirds Went To War With Wolf, 4)
Furthermore, in Chemehuevi there is a group of possessive constructions that can
be characterized as existential locatives and they contain an element that might be an
overt realization of PHAVE (see Freeze (1992) for the original proposal). In the Online
Chemehuevi Dictionary these occur with the morpheme -agantü ‘place where there is,
place with’. Consider the following group of examples: in all of them the root is followed
be suffix –a that can be roughly translated as a possessive marker.
(28) kukwa-a-ga-ntü
wood-poss-be-nomin
‘place that has wood’
(29) napay-a-ga-ntü
slope-poss-be-nomin
‘slopy, having slopes’
(30) namü-kani-a-ga-ntü-na
first-house-poss-be-nomin-nomin
‘the place with the first house’
(OCD)
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 15)
(31) awüwüga-a-ga-ntü
clay bank.pl-poss-be-nomin
‘place that has clay banks’
(32) nantapü-a-ga-ntü
mescal plant-poss-be-nomin
‘place where there is mescal, Turtle Mountains (place name)’
(33) mono-mpaa-a-ga-ntü
bunch grass-water-poss-have-nom
‘place having bunchgrass and water, Vontrigger Springs (place name)’
(OCD)
101
A similar element is attested in Ute and Southern Paiute. Sapir characterizes this
morpheme –a in Southern Paiute as ‘nominal possessive suffix’ (1930:151) that indicates
alienable possession, and lists several participial examples similar to the Chemehuevi
ones in (28)-(33) above. Ute has a ‘locative possessive’ construction (Ute Reference
Grammar, 1980:276) with the same structure. A representative example from each
language is presented in (34)-(36) below:
(34) Southern Paiute
qani-a-γantï
house-possessed-having
‘camp’
(35) Ute
kani-aaĝa-tü
house-have-nomin
‘place with houses’
(36) Chemehuevi
kani-a-ga-ntü-pa
house-poss-be-nomin-at
‘at where there are houses’
(Sapir 1930: 152)
(Ute Reference Grammar, 1980: 276)
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 25)
Even though in each language the morpheme-by-morpheme analysis of these
words are different, they all contain the same underlying structure: possessive –a + -ga
‘be, have’ + participle -tü (spelling differs depending on the language orthography).
102
(37)
…
nP24
2
vP
n <= -ntü
2
[+nasal]
PP
vBE
<= -gai2
Possessor
P’
2
Possessee
PHAVE <= -a
!
[+nasal][+alienable]
Root
√kaniAs to the question why PHAVE has an overt realization with the existential
locatives, but not with the regular possessive constructions, the answer might lie in the
fact the former are instances of alienable possession, whereas the latter are inalienable,
hence the features on the PHAVE in the diagrams (26b) and (37) above.
(38) VIs for PHAVE
a. –a <> PHAVE[+nasal] / [+alienable]
b. -Ø <> PHAVE[+nasal] / elsewhere
Support for the incorporated postposition analysis of have in Chemehuevi comes
from the fact that postpositional phrases in Chemehuevi can function as verbs of motion
(Press 1979), i.e., there is evidence that postpositions can be incorporated into a verbal
head. In the examples below a postposition is followed by a functional element –tua,
alternating with –ntua and –rua, possibly corresponding to the light verb ‘become’. These
24
We will consider the full derivation of possessive nominal predicates in chapter 5.
103
verbs are derived through successive incorporation of a root into a PLOC and a verbal
functional head that licenses the verbal morphology (imperative marker –ngu).
(39) Tükatüa-ruka-tua-ngu.
table-under-become-imper
‘Go under the table’.
(40) Maha-vü-a ma-va’a-ntua-ngu.
tree-NPN-obl that-on-become-imper
‘Get on top of that tree’.
(Press 1979:83)
(Press 1979:82)
In this section, I have demonstrated that Chemehuevi verbs have complex syntax:
they are formed by the incorporation of roots into verbal functional heads, several of
which are pronounced in Chemehuevi. The heads discussed in this section are subject to
root-conditioned allomorphy because they attach directly to the roots. In the next section,
we turn to high attachment verbal heads.
3.2.2
Chemehuevi high attachment functional verbs
In the next group are bound light verbs that affix to verbal stems (as opposed to roots)
and modify the verb’s argument structure. These are the high attachment causative vCAUS,
the applicative vAPPL, and the passive vPASS. All three are associated with a change in the
number of arguments of the base verb. If paired with a Voice projection, the causative
head vCAUS is associated with the presence of an additional external argument Causer
(examples (41)-(44)):
104
CAUS -tu’i
(41) Nüü-k
John-i
puusi tukuavi
1sg-cop John-obl cat-obl meat-obj
‘I made John give the cat meat’.
maga-tu’i-vü.
give-caus-past
(Press 1979:67)
(42) Maru-k
tüka-pi
manga-y
piso-tsi-a
nagamü-tu’i-ka-tü.
3sg.inanim.vis food-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl child-NPN-obl sick-caus-perf-nomin
‘The food made the child sick’.
(JHJ)
(43) Manga-k
pavi-ing
manga-y
nanga-ya-tu’i-ka-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop brother-3sg.anim.here 3sg.anim.vis-obl angry-be-caus-perf-nomin
‘His brother made him angry’.
(JHJ)
(44) Ann Johni
na-ha’üsu-tu’i-ngu-tu’i-vü.
Ann John.obl refl-good-caus-mom-caus-past
‘Ann made John like her/himself’.
(Press 1979: 49)
In some cases vCAUS only introduces a causing event without an external Causer,
in which case the Voice projection is empty, as in the examples (45)-(46) below.
(45) Iva asi-huvi-tu-wa.
here salt song-caus-pres
‘Salt song is going on’.
(JHJ)
(46) Sünawa-vi
kani-gai-mi-yü
yunakaimü-wa’i-vü,
coyote-NPN.nom house-have-usit-past company-with-3sg/poss
‘Coyote was dwelling with his company
tüvi-pü-a
tügü-tu’i-kwa’i-kya.
earth-NPN-obl hungry-caus-away-perf
when it was hungry times on earth’.
(JPH&CL, Gila Monster Gets Killed: 1)
Chapters 6 and 7 will be devoted to the study of the Chemehuevi causative verbs,
so here we will only consider them very briefly. For the purposes of this discussion, the
following observations will suffice: (i) there is intervening verbal morphology between
the root and causative head (example (43)), (ii) it is possible to have re-iterating
105
causatives (example (44)), and (iii) this high causative head does not have allomorphs.
All of these indicate that vCAUS attaches to verbal stems, not roots (see chapter 7 for a
detailed discussion).
The applicative and passive verbs, however, deserve some more discussion here.
The applicative head vAPPL projects an additional argument, the Benefactor. Notice that
the applicative morpheme can be added to both transitive and unergative verbs (like smile
in (47)), the fact that suggests that the Chemehuevi applicative head is a High applicative
in the terms of Pylkkanen (2002), i.e., it attaches above the vP, adds another participant,
the Benefactor, to the event introduced by the verb, and denotes “a relation between an
event and an individual” (19).
APPLICATIVE, or Transitivizer -ngkü
(47) Manga
puusi-a kiyasui-ngkü-ka.
3sg.anim.vis.nom cat-obl smile-appl-perf
‘He is smiling at the cat’.
(Press 1979:66)
(48) Nüü-k manga-ya
mavatciki-ngkü-vü.
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl clap-appl-past
‘I slapped him.’ (Lit. ‘I clapped at him’)
(Press 1979:66)
(49) Piwa-ya-vü
mai-ngkü-yü pü-rua-’ungwa
wife-obl-poss say-appl-past road-to-3sg.anim.invis
‘He told his wife which way she should go’.
‘urua-vaa-na.
walk/sg-fut-nomin
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 3)
(50) Tünia-ngkü-yü-’üngwa
kuma-ya-vü
tell-appl-pres-3sg/anim/invis husband-obl-poss
‘She told her about her husband’s death’.
ya’ai-kai-na.
dead-perf-nomin
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 4)
(51) Mamau’u-ya-ungwa-ya
woman-obl-3sg/anim/invis-obl
‘The woman, he cured first’.
namü-maravoaa-ngkü.
first-cure-appl
106
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 13)
Another indication that the applicative head is high is that it attaches above the
low causative head, spelled out as –ru’i in example (52) below:
(52) huvi-ya-ru’i-ngkü-miya-’ungwa
song-obl-caus-appl-usit-3sg.anim.invis
‘she would make a song for him’
(JPH&CL, Gila Monster Gets Killed: 7)
As for the functional head forming passive, it forms an intransitive verb from a
transitive verbal stem and its presence makes it impossible to mention an overt Agent. It
is realized as Voice functional head that has [+pass] features, VoicePASS. None of the
sentences below have an Agent, even though the verbs are transitive (hit, bewitch, tie). It
can attach either directly to the verb (53)-(54), or be separated from it by some
intervening verbal morphology (55)-(56). Notice that aspect markers can surface either
before or after the passive head and in some cases both (55).
PASSIVE, or Intransitivizer -tü
(53) Haita’-umü
tü’ani-ka-ga’i-ukwa-ya,
then-3pl/anim/invis gamble-perf-while-3sg/inanim/invis-obl
‘While they were gambling,
Ponogwai-ya’-ungwa
Blue Beetle-obl-3sg/anim/invis
the Blue Beetle was beaten’.
kwaha-tü.
hit-pass
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Painted Black: 16)
(54) Haita’-ungwa
Ponogwai-ya-ungwa
kwaha-tü-kai-yu…
then-3sg/anim/invis Blue Beetle-obl-3sg/anim/invis hit-PASS-perf-while
‘Then he, the Blue Beetle, having been beaten…’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Painted Black: 17)
107
(55) …puhwa-voa-ka-tü-kai-na-nga-aika
maru’wa-va’-aika,”
spiritual power-towards-perf-pass-perf-nomin-3sg/anim/vis resemble-at
‘…that he has been bewitched, it might be.’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Painted Black: 3)
(56) “Kotsiakai
to-tümaa-ngkü-yaaka,”
(cry of a bird) RED-close-appl-bird cry
“Close it up,”
mai-ngu ‘ünga’api-tci
kukwa-pima witsa-ka-tü.
say-mom baby-NPN.nom wood-to
tie-perf-pass
said a baby that was tied to a pole’.
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 18)
The passive head is also attested following the high causative head, another
indication that VoicePASS subcategorizes for verbal stems, not roots.
(57) Atapü-tsi-a
tupa-ga-tu’wi-tü-pü.
crow-NPN-obl black-be-caus-pass-pst
‘Crow’s being made black’.
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Painted Black: 1)
(58) Nanagaru’apü-tsi-a tüka-tu’i-tü-na-’umü-vü
katsu-’umü
anything-NPN-obl eat-caus-pass-nomin-3pl/anim/invis-poss neg-3pl/anim/invis
‘Anything that they were given to eat, they
tüka-ka-wa’i-kwa
Sünawa-vi-a
yuma-’kai-mü,
eat-anim.pl-neg-3sg.here.inanim coyote-NPN-obl partner-be/have-pl/anim
did not eat, the Coyote’s
company.’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Painted Black: 16)
Also notice that the passive morpheme -tü does not undergo any of the morphophonological processes that can affect morphemes with the initial /t/, like the nominalizer
-tü with allomorphs –ntü, -rü and –tcü that surface depending on the presence of [+nasal],
[+spirnt] features of the preceding morpheme or a front vowel. The explanation follows
from my definition of a phase: as a spellout of Voice, passive –tü lies outside of the
domain of idiosyncratic phonology.
108
Based on these data and observations, I suggest the following structures for the
Chemehuevi high attachment functional verbs.
(59) Table #13. Chemehuevi high attachment functional verbs
a. vCAUS
b. vAPPL
c. VoicePASS
nanga-ya-tu’i
kiyasui-ngkü
witsa-ka-tü
angry-be-caus
smile-appl
tie-perf-pass
‘y smile for x’
‘x was tied’
‘y make x angry’
VoiceP
VoiceP
VoiceP
2
2
2
AspP VoicePASS
Causer(y)
Voice’
Agent(y) Voice’
2
2
2
-tü
vP
Voice
vP
Voice
vP
Asp
2 [-pass]
2 [-pass]
2
-kavP
vCAUS
Benefector(x) v’
RootP
vDO
2
2
-tu’i
2 -ØvP
vAPPL
RootP
vBE
Patient(x) Root
2 -ngkü
2 -ya
√ witsaRootP
v
Patient(x) Root
DO
!
-Ø√ nangaRoot
√ kiyasuiThe relative order of verbal functional morphemes in Chemehuevi is presented in
the diagram below (the shaded projections are optional, i.e., in case of non-agentive verbs
vBE /BECOME no Voice is projected, and high vAPPL or vCAUS are also options in the
language that are not always activated). However, for a verb to be formed the lower vP
has to be present, with the root incorporated into a ‘little’ v, and the lower Voice
projection is also a possibility, as Chemehuevi has causativized agentive verbs (like the
one in 41). The phase boundary is marked just above the first vP.
109
(60)
VoiceP
2
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2 [+pass]
Benefactor
v’
2
VoiceP
vAPPL/ CAUS
2
AAgent/Causer Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
RootP
vBE/ BECOME/ CAUS/ DO
2
Theme/ Root
phase in Chemehuevi
Agent/Causer
Patient
In terms of Vocabulary Insertion, the high attachment verbal heads will have the
following representation:
(61) VIs for the high attachment verbal heads:
a. -tu’i <> vCAUS (to be revised in chapter 7)
b. -ngkü <> vAPPL
c. -tü <> Voice / [+pass]
d. Ø <> Voice / elsewhere
110
3.3 Conclusion
In this chapter we have focused on functional heads that derive verbs in Chemehuevi. We
have examined two types of heads, those that attach directly to roots and those that select
for some functional material above the root. Such an approach, known as the Low vs.
High Attachment Hypothesis, successfully accounts for systematic differences between
root-derived and non-root derived words. We have also seen plentiful support for a
complex syntax of verbs: not only there are different flavors of verbal functional head
‘little’ v in Chemehuevi resulting in agentive, eventive and stative verbs, but there are
also several layers in the composition of possessive and locative verbs. We have also
provided further evidence that in Chemehuevi the phase contains vP and only material
above Voice lies outside the first phase.
Overall, Chemehuevi provides a fruitful ground for research on verbal
morphology because many of the functional heads are pronounced and there are
transparent morpho-phonological processes that help distinguish between root-derived
and stem-derived verbs. In the next chapter we will take a close look at another lexical
category – Chemehuevi adjectives -- with a focus on the functional heads that derive
them.
111
3.4 Notes for community use: How to build verbs in Chemehuevi
Recall from our discussion in chapter 2 that in Chemehuevi many related words share the
same core meaning and pronunciation, defined as the word’s root. We saw that nouns are
formed when the root appears with a certain ending, like –tsi in pungku-tsi ‘dog’ or –vi in
süna’a-vi ‘coyote’. There are certain endings in Chemehuevi that can turn the root into a
verb, a word that describes an action or activity. In (62), I list these special endings that
can be added to the core.
(62) Endings that form verbs in Chemehuevi
a. –tu
b. –tu’a
c. -tükaw’i
d. -gai
e. –wai
‘make, cause’ (with variants –tsu, -ru, -ntu)
‘become’ (with variants –tsu’a, ru’a, ntu’a)
‘turn into’ (with variants –tsükaw’i, -rükaw’i, -ntükaw’i)
‘be’, ‘have’ (with variant –kai)
‘get’
To illustrate this process, I group several words that share the same root in (63)
through (68): the core concept, listed in bold, is followed by a variety of endings, some of
which turn it into a noun, others making a verb.
(63) a. pa’aa-vi
‘worm’
b. pa’aa-rua
‘become wormy’
c. pa’aa-ga-ntü
‘the one having worms’
d. pa’aa-gai-yu
‘being wormy’
(OCD)
112
(64) a. huvi-a-vi
‘song’
b. huvi-tu
‘make a song, sing’
c. huvi-a-ga-ntü
‘the one having a song, owner of the song’
(OCD)
(65) a. hoko-ntü
‘big’
b. hoko-ngai-ntu’i-ngu
‘made someone/something big’
(JPH&CL, Bluebirds Went To War With Wolf, 4)
(66) a. Itch-uk kani.
‘This is a house’.
b. Nüü-k kani-ga-ntü.
‘I have a house’.
c. kani-gai-mü-umü
‘the house owners’
(JHJ)
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 24)
d. kani-tsu
‘make/build a house’
(67) a. muhu-mpi-tsi
‘owl’
b. muhu-ntükaw’i-tsi
‘turning someone into an owl’
(68) a. angaa-vi
‘ant’
b. angaa-rükaw’i-tsi
‘turning someone into an ant’
Sometimes it is useful to learn whole structures together from a list of words that
have similar endings, since the same rules of formation apply to all of them. Once you
113
learn the structure, it will be easier to insert any new compatible word into it. Take
expressions of possession, like the ones in (69) below: in all of these the root in bold is
followed by the ending –gantü which literally means ‘the one that has’.
(69) a. Nüük tcaka’i’-gantü.
‘I have a younger brother’.
b. Nüük pungku-gantü.
‘I have a dog’.
c. Nüuk mi’aupitci kani-gantü.
‘I have a small house’.
d. Nüük mutchu-ntü angavi-gantü.
‘I have strong arms’.
e. Nüük waha pisotci-gantü.
‘I have two children’.
(based on JHJ)
In this chapter, I also discuss endings that can be added to existing verbs to add
something to their meaning, like –ngkü, a part of the word that indicates the something is
being done for someone.
(70) kiyasui-ngkü
‘smiling at someone’
(71) mai-ngkü
‘say to someone’
(72) tünia-ngkü
‘tell to someone’
(73) maravoaa-ngkü
‘cure someone’
In chapters 6 and 7, we will discuss two endings that add the causative meaning to
the root of the word or to the existing verb, like sing or dance.
114
CHAPTER FOUR
LEXICAL CATEGORIES: CHEMEHUEVI ADJECTIVES
4.1 Theoretical background: A non-uniform class of adjectives
In the previous chapters, we considered several functional heads that form lexical
categories in Chemehuevi. Our focus was on the distinction between the words formed
from roots and those based on previously derived stems. We have seen a variety of
functional heads that form nominals (NPN markers, possessive markers – allomorphs of
‘little’ n) and several instantiations of a verbal head ‘little’ v that attach either to the root
or above it, to a derived stem. In this chapter, I will provide further support for the Root
Hypothesis and show that roots with adjectival meanings can be derived either into
stative verbs and form predicates, or they can be derived into adjectival nominalizations
and act as attributes modifying nouns. In fact, I will claim that there are no ‘true’
adjectives in Chemehuevi.
The lack of independent lexical category of adjectives in a language is not
surprising. In fact, cross-linguistically the category of adjectives is problematic, largely
due to the fact that unlike nouns and verbs, adjectives do not easily fit into a prototype.
Payne (1997) summarizes the issue in the following way, “…There is no semantically
definable class of concepts that universally falls into a category that we would want to
call adjectives; rather, they stand “between” nouns and verbs, lexicalizing properties or
115
characteristics that are indeterminate or variable in terms of time stability. Some
languages have no formally distinct category of adjectives” (63). He continues to point
out that in some languages (Acehnese and other Austronesian languages), property
concepts are lexicalized as verbs; in others (Finnish) they are lexicalized as nouns. In
Dutch, depending on the discourse, property concepts can be either nouns or verbs; in
Yoruba, some adjectival concepts appear as nouns and others as verbs (Payne 1997: 65).
Even in English, where adjectives form a distinct class, we find examples when
adjectives function as nouns (The rich just don’t understand or Mammals care for their
young).
As for the formal representation of lexical categories, within generative syntax
there is a tradition of representing each lexical category with bundles of binary features.
Chomsky’s (1970) original proposal defines nouns as [+N, -V], verbs as [-N, +V,],
adjectives as [+N, +V], and adpositions as [-N, -V]. Baker (2003) points out that within
linguistic typology there are many mismatches between the existing lexical categories
and the features that should represent them, particularly when it comes to adjectives,
largely due to the fact that many languages lack a uniform class of adjectives. From this
cross-linguistic perspective, it is useful to consider Baker’s (2003) theory of lexical
categories and its applications to non-western languages, like Mohawk and Chemehuevi.
Following Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998), who were one of the first to offer a
structural approach to lexical categories, Baker (2003) argues that each lexical category
has a unique set of characteristics (some structural, some semantic) that sets it apart from
others. Under his view, verbs are the only category that can license an argument, project a
116
specifier and form a predicate independently; nouns and adjectives need a separate
functional projection Pred to form predicates (more on this in chapter 5). Nouns, in
Baker’s framework, are unique in that they have a referential index, because they have
“criteria of identity that allows them to bind anaphors, traces and theta-roles of verbs
(Baker 2003:21). As for adjectives, Baker reaches conclusions opposite to Chomsky’s
(1970) featural representation: he argues that adjectives are neither verbs nor nouns, [-N,
-V], because they neither project specifiers, nor bear referential indices. He calls them a
default category, claiming that because adjectives lack the theta-role assigning properties
of verbs and referential indices of nouns, they can occur in contexts where neither verbs
nor nouns can occur due to their specifications25. In this Baker also argues against Hale
and Keyser’s view of adjectives, since they claim that predicative adjectives project
specifiers and license ‘internal subjects’ or Themes (Hale and Keyser 1993:30).
To illustrate his point, Baker turns to attributive modification, one of the classic
adjectival functions. He points out that adjectives, but not nouns or verbs, can modify
nouns directly, without intermediary functional structure. Below are examples repeated
from Baker (2003:192):
(1) a rich man; a shiny coin
(2) *a wealth man; *a genius man (OK: a man of wealth; a boy-genius)
(3) *a shine coin; *a hunger man (OK: a coin that shines; a shiny coin; a hungry man)
25
Baker groups both adjectives and adverbs into the same class. As for adpositions, in his framework they
are treated as a functional, not lexical category.
117
Baker then argues that adjectives have an option that is unique to them – they, as
heads, can be merged directly with the head noun, with no functional structure mediating
the relationship. He suggests the following structure for attributive modification,
mentioning that it violates the familiar X-bar theory and goes more along the lines of the
Bare Phrase Structure framework of Chomsky (1995b).
(4)
VP
3
NP(j,n)
V
3
!
A
N(j,n) fall
!
!
<Thn>
smart woman
(Baker 2003:195)
Baker supports this structure for adjectival modification with the observation that
if the structure really is the X-bar compliant [DP D [NP AP [NP N]]], it is unclear why
attributive adjectives cannot take a complement (*the proud of Mary parent), or why they
cannot be preceded by a degree element (*the too/so proud parent) (Baker 2003:196). He
also mentions that Abney’s (1987) analysis of attributive modification as an AP -- [DP D
[AP AP [NP N]]] – is problematic in that A+NP constituent has a distribution of an NP: it
can be a complement of a determiner, not a degree head (the proud parent, *too proud
parent), and it can be selected by NP-selecting verbs but not AP-selecting verbs like seem
(I respect proud parents; *John and Mary seem proud parents).
For the purposes of our discussion of Chemehuevi adjectives, it is important to
distinguish between attributive adjectives, which we discussed above, and predicative
118
adjectives. While the former modify nouns (example (5a)), the latter form predicates
(example (5b)):
(5) a. a hungry dog
b. The dog is hungry.
In English, the two types of adjectives are virtually identical (with the exception
of a few adjectives that can be only predicative like asleep and ready (Baker 2003:194)).
In other languages, like Mohawk and Chemehuevi, attributive and predicative adjectives
have completely different structures. In Mohawk, for example, adjectives in their
predicative use inflect like verbs, carry the same tense/aspect/agreement morphology, and
form predicates like verbs – without intermediary Pred projection. As we will see later in
the chapter, Chemehuevi predicative adjectives behave in the same way. Below are
examples of ‘adjectival’26 stative verbs from both languages, both appearing with a finite
tense marker.
(6) Mohawk
Ra-kowan-˄ˊ-hne’ ne Sak.
MsS-big-stat-past NE Sak
‘Sak used to be big’.
(7) Chemehuevi
Müga’i-n pa’a-yü.
very-1sg tall-pres
‘I am very tall’.
(Baker 2003:249)
(Press 1979:99)
In Chemehuevi, the verbal character of predicative adjectives goes even further:
even though some adjectives (like color terms) have an overt stative head, most
26
The term ‘adjectival’ in this context refers only to the corresponding English meaning.
119
‘adjectival’ verbs have a null stative head, so on the surface they look exactly like their
‘non-adjectival’ counterparts. Compare (8) and (9) below:
(8) Müga’i-n pa’a-yü.
very-1sg tall-pres
‘I am very tall’.
(Press 1979:99)
(9) Nüü-(k) nukwi-yü.
1sg-cop run-pres
‘I am running’.
(JHJ)
The situation gets more complex structurally, when Mohawk and Chemehuevi
adjectives modify nouns, i.e., are used attributively. As Baker puts it about Mohawk,
“There seems to be no special attributive modification of nouns distinct from the
possibility of forming a relative clause that is open to all verbs” (250). He illustrates the
point with the two examples from Mohawk repeated below, where the modificational
structure of white is identical to that of the verb buy, both forming a type of relative
clause (marked with square brackets) and inflected for the same aspect and similar
agreement:
(10) Mohawk
a. Tyer [ka-rák-˄
atyá’tawi] wa-ha-hnínu-‘
Tyer NsS-white-stat shirt
fact-MsS-buy-punc
‘Tyer bought a white shirt’.
b. Sak wa-hó-[a]ti-‘
ne [wak- hnínu-Ø áthere’].
Sak fact-MsS-lose-punc NE 1sg.obj-buy-stat basket.
‘Sak lost the basket I bought’.
(Baker 2003:250)
Choctaw is another example of a language in which adjectives must form a
reduced relative clause in order to modify a noun (Broadwell 1990, Baker 2003).
120
(11) Choctaw
[Hattak chaaha-mat] chahta kiiyoh.
man tall-dem/nom Choctaw not
‘That tall man is not Choctaw’.
(Broadwell 1990, as cited in Baker 2003:252)
Baker argues that in (11) the bracketed material is a bare noun merged with a bare
adjective and then the whole attributive construction is embedded and incorporated into a
phonologically null Pred, forming a minimal small clause structure. Baker’s diagram for
the relative clause in (12) is repeated below:
(12)
DP
3
PredP
D
3
!
DP
Pred’ -mat
!
2
pro NP
Pred
2 !
NP A Ø
!
!
N chaaha
! ‘tall’
hattak
‘man’
(Baker 2003:253)
We find a similar, albeit not identical, situation in Chemehuevi: attributive
adjectives are relative clauses (example (13)), formed similarly to relative clauses based
on other verbs (example 14)27.
(13) [Pa’a-ntü-m]
aipa-tci
nukwi-yü.
tall-nomin-anim boy-NPN.nom run-pres
‘The tall boy is running’= ‘The boy that is tall is running’.
27
(Press 1979:57)
Adjectives are marked with agreement morphology depending on their animacy; verbs, however, do not
have animacy agreement but must co-occur with a demonstrative determiner.
121
(14) [Nukwi-tcü
ang]
aipa-tci
pa’a-yü.
run-nomin
this.anim.vis boy-NPN.nom tall-pres
‘The running boy is tall’= ‘The boy that is running is tall’.
(Press 1979:58)
Here I would like to point out a mismatch in terminology: Press (1979), following
Sapir (1930), calls –tü and its allomorphs -ntü, --tcü, and -rü ‘active present participles’
(109). This terminology is misleading since participles are usually associated with verbal
morphology only, but as we will see in Chemehuevi the forms ending in –tü exhibit
nominal behaviors. Press herself mentions that in some contexts these so called
participles are lexicalized as nouns and points to words like teacher, doctor and
policeman in Chemehuevi (110):
(15) nü-mpo’o-tu’i-ka-tü
person-write-caus-perf-nomin
‘teacher, the one who makes people write’
(Press 1979:171)
(16) nü-nkwü-tui-ka-tü
person-catch-cause-perf-nomin
‘the one who catches people’ = ‘policeman
(Press 1979:168)
(17) pu’ha-ga-ntü
power-have-nomin
‘the one who has power’= ‘doctor’
(Press 1979:162)
In the related language Ute a similar morpheme is viewed as a nominalizer,
having a “nominal habitual” meaning, similar in meaning to the English -er in worker.
(18) wu̹ u̹ ka-ru̹
work-habit-nomin
‘he/she habitually works, worker’
(Ute Reference Grammar 1980:88)
Furthermore, in subject relative clauses in Ute, the verb is said to “take the
nominal suffix -tu̹ ” (Ute Reference Grammar 1980: 185), which is clearly the same
122
suffix that forms the so called participles in the relative clauses in Chemehuevi. Compare
the Ute example of a relative clause in (19) with the Chemehuevi example in (20):
(19) Ute
‘ aapa-ci ‘u wu̹ u̹ ka-vaa-tu̹
boy-subj he work-fut-nomin
‘The boy who will work…’
(Ute Reference Grammar 1980: 187)
(20) Chemehuevi
Nüü-k uni-vaa-ntü.
1sg-cop do-fut-nomin
‘I’m the one who will do it’ = “I’m going to do it”
(Press 1979:81)
To avoid confusion, I will refer to the forms in question as ‘adjectival
nominalizations’ and ‘verbal nominalizations’/‘verbal nouns’. I will examine the
structure of the Chemehuevi nominalizations and relative clauses in sections 4.3.3 and
4.3.5 below and show that the adjectival and verbal stems they are based on are indeed
nominalized/relativized.
Another complicating factor is that on the surface it seems that Chemehuevi
adjectival nominalizations not only modify nouns, but can also form predicates. Compare
the stative verb and the adjectival nominalization in examples (21) and (22). There is no
difference in meaning in the two sentences – just two different ways of saying the same
thing. The predicative function of the adjectival form in (22) is misleading, however: as
we will see later in the chapter pa’antüm ‘tall’ is a relative clause that modifies a
phonologically null head noun. Technically, it is this complex nP that forms the main
predicate in (22), and pa’antüm is an attributive adjective, literally meaning ‘He is a tall
one’.
123
(21) Mang
pa’a-yü.
3sg.anim.vis tall-pres
‘He is tall’.
(Press 1979:58)
(22) Manga-k
[pa’a-ntü-m].
3sg.anim.vis-cop tall-nomin-anim
‘He is tall’.
(JHJ)
In order to explain this ability of adjectives to appear in different syntactic
contexts, we will again turn to the Root Hypothesis. Clearly, the root pa’a does not
belong to any lexical category. When inserted into a verbal context, it produces a stative
verb; when inserted into an attributive structure, it acquires adjectival characteristics
(such as agreement, for example) and is further nominalized as a part of a reduced
relative clause. In section 4.3.4, we will turn to theory of relative clauses, particularly of
the headless variety, in order to understand the internal structure of attributive
modification in Chemehuevi. But before we do that, let us consider Chemehuevi
adjectives in their guise as stative verbs.
4.2 Chemehuevi predicative adjectives as stative verbs
Sapir (1930) in his seminal work on Southern Paiute states, “Most adjectives are really
verbs (predicative), or participles of verbs (attributive)” (95). The same is true for the
Chemehuevi adjectives. In predicative use they often function as verbs: they take tense
markers (which are unattested with adjectival participles), their agreement patterns differ
from those of adjectival participles, and they do not require the copula to form predicates.
Consider the examples below: the adjectival stems pa’a- ‘tall’, nagami- ‘sick’, nangaya
124
‘angry’, ‘üü- ‘pretty’ all take the present tense marker –yü, and neither of them require
copula –uk to form the predicate (in (26) –k is optional).
(23) Müga’i-n pa’a-yü.
very-1sg tall-pres
‘I am very tall’.
(24) Müga’i-a’anga
nagami-yü.
very-3sg.anim.vis sick-pres
‘He is very sick’.
(Press 1979:99)
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 2)
(25) Manga
naapu-wü
nangaya-yü.
3sg.anim.vis old man-NPN.nom angry-pres
‘The old man is angry’.
(JHJ)
(26) Ümi-(k) ‘üü-yü.
2sg-cop pretty-pres
‘You are pretty’.
(RM)
One indication that ‘adjectival’ verbs are stative is the fact that the present tense
marker –yü which is common on adjectives can only appear on [-momentaneous] stems
(Press 1979:71), which suggests that adjectival verbs are durative or have a [-mom]
feature. Momentaneous verbs are usually inceptive or are accomplished instantaneously;
[-mom] verbs are durative (run vs. dash off, feel vs. touch, be afraid vs. get a scare).
Press also reports that ‘adjectival’ stative verbs can take simple past markers -vü
in the meaning of ‘was Adj’ and -mpü in the meaning of ‘got Adj’ (71), which stems
from the fact that –vü attaches to durative or [-mom] verbs, but –mpü attaches to [+mom]
verbs. Adjectival verbs are also attested with the future tense marker –vaa.
(27) Miauntsi-vü-ang.
small-past-3sg.anim.vis
‘He was small’.
(MP)
125
To summarize, the Chemehuevi predicative adjectives behave like stative verbs:
they are durative non-momentaneous verbs; they denote a continuous state that does not
have an instantaneous end point. Recall from our discussion of different flavors of ‘little’
v in chapter 3 that stative verbs meaning something like be tall in English are formed by
the incorporation of the root into the functional head vBE, the one that forms unaccusative
non-eventive /stative verbs. Based on these assumptions, the derivation of an adjectival
stative verb in Chemehuevi will be as follows:
(28) a. Mang
pa’a-yü.
3sg.anim.vis tall-pres
‘He is tall’.
(Press 1979:58)
b.
TP
2
vP
T
2
-yü
RootP
vBE
-Ø2
Theme Root
mang √ pa’aThere are also adjectives that demonstrate an overt realization of stative ‘little’
vBE: they consist of a root followed by obligatory suffix –gai/-kai ‘be’. The most
prominent of these are color adjectives (29)28, but there are words of other semantic
classes there as well (30).
(29) a. tupa-ga(i) ‘black’
b. tosa-ga(i) ‘white’
c. owasia-ka(i) ‘yellow’
d. anka-ga(i) ‘red’
e. sawa-ga(i) ‘green/blue’
28
Laird (1976) mentions that the color names are verbal derivatives: “…tosa- white; but independently
tosagarï, white, deriving from tosagah, is white, being white, having the quality of whiteness” (286).
126
f. kutca-ka(i) ‘gray’
g. parowa-ga(i) ‘purple’
(Press 1979, Lexicon)
(30) a. tutca-gai ‘dirty’
b. küwa-gai ‘sharp’,
c. yum’i-gai ‘weak’
(OCD)
Predictably these roots can also appear without –gai-/-kai-, but these cases are
limited to incorporation, as is illustrated in the examples below:
(31) tupa-ma’a-ngump-anga-ukwaya
black-paint-instr-3sg.anim.vis-2sg
‘You will paint him black’.
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 4)
(32) tupa-tatsitsi’i-gai
black-shine-have/be
‘glittering black’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 7)
(33) anka-nampa
‘red foot’
(34) anka-pah
‘red water’
(OCD)
Based on our previous discussion of stative verb formation, color adjectives are
derived in the following way:
(35)
vP
2
RootP
vBE
-gai2
Theme Root
√ angkaOnce an ‘adjectival’ stative verb is formed it can appear with all legitimate finite
and non-finite verbal morphology, as is demonstrated in the examples below: the color
127
verb appears with a simple present tense marker –yü and forms a predicate in (36), or
with a present participle marker –rü in (37) as an attributive modifier.
(36) Pavi-a-n
naro’o-ong angka-ga-yü.
brother-obl-1sg shirt-his
red-be-pres
‘My brother’s shirt is red’.
(Press 1979:60)
(37) Nü angka-ga-rü
wihi
puni-vü.
1sg red-be-nomin.obl knife.obl see-past
‘I looked at the red knife’.
(Press 1979:57)
Whereas the formation of predicative adjectives is fairly easy to grasp, attributive
adjectives have a more complex structure. Let us turn our attention to these.
4.3 Chemehuevi attributive adjectives
4.3.1
Attributive adjectives as nominalizations
As I mentioned before, the majority of adjectives in Chemehuevi, when elicited in bare
form, appear with the nominalizer –tü with allomorphs nasalized -ntü, palatalized –tcü/tsü and spirantized –rü. Below are examples of bare adjectives from word lists elicited by
Tylor and Major who worked with several Chemehuevi speakers in late 1960s – early
1970s.
(38) Table #14. Chemehuevi adjectives in bare form
Data collected by Tylor (1972)
Data collected by Major (1969)
straight
mukuta-tü
big
hoko-ntü
crooked
kwampani-tcü
dirty
tutsaga-rü
smooth
suunaava-ntü
clean
katc tutsaga-rü
rough
tsinkaga-rü
dull
katc küwa’wa
lazy
mawaga-ntü
sharp
küwa-ga-ntü
not lazy
kaatc mawa-tü
heavy
pü’ütüya-ntü
clean
kaats tutsaga-tü
light
katc pütüya-wa-tü
128
dirty
long
short
thick
thin
heavy
light
tall
low
deep
shallow
old
new
rich
tutsaga-tü
pa’a-ntü
tovipi-tsü
tumunda-tü
takünapi-tcü
pütüya-ntü
katcu pütüya-wa-tü
pa’a-ntü
tavüypi-tcü
tukwa-ntü
tukowa-tü
hüa-tcü
aya-rü
tümpika-tü
narrow
wide
long
crooked
strong
weak
pregnant
different
different
tsiau-tcü
awaa-ntü
pa’antogantü length-having
makatcürüpütcü
mutcu-ntü-m (anim)
katc mutcu-wa’a-tü-m (anim.)
no’o-ga-ntü
kümatcua-tü-m (anim)
kümatcua-tü
There are a number of what Sapir refers to as ‘true’ adjectives, i.e., adjectives that
are not derived with -tü. However, this term is misleading because these words also have
nominal endings, the familiar NPN markes –tsi, -ntsi, -pü, -pi as in (39), or they end in –
ni, an adverbial suffix with the meaning of ‘like’ that is added to verbal stems as in (40)
below.
(39) Adjectives ending with an NPN marker
a. miaupi-tsi ‘small’
b. mi’au-ntsi ‘small’
c. mi’au-pi
‘small, little’
d. ha’ü-pü
‘good’
e. ha’ü-tsi
‘good’
f. üitü-pü
‘old’
(40) Adjectives ending in –ni ‘like’
a. üvü-ni
‘bad’
b. üvü-pü-ni ‘bad’
c. üvü-yü-ni ‘bad’
d. tüwü-ni
‘fast’
(GT)
(OCD)
(OCD)
(OCD)
All adjectives in Chemehuevi can modify a noun, i.e., be attributive. Below are
examples from the recordings of Tyler and Major:
129
(41) Data collected by Tyler (1972)
a. aya-rü ayamovitsi
b. hoko-ntü kani
c. miaupi-tcü kani
d. tosaga-rü kani
e. angkaga-rü kani
f. pa’a-ntüa totsivagantü
g. tovipi-tsü totsivigantü
‘new automobile’
‘big house’
‘little house’
‘white house’
‘red house ‘
‘having long hair’
‘having short hair’
(42) Data collected by Major (1969)
a. ha’ü-pü tawatsi
b. ha’ü-tsi mamau
c. ha’ü-tsi pungutsi
d. mi’aupü-tsi aipatsi
e. mi’aupü-tsi na’üntsitsi
f. aü-rü tukvovi
‘good man’
‘good woman’
‘good dog’
‘small boy’
‘small girl’
‘fresh meat’
As for the word order of attributive modification, Press (1979) reports that as
modifiers adjectives appear either before or after the head noun:
(43) a. Pa’a-ntü-m
aipa-tci
nukwi-yü.
tall-nomin-anim boy-NPN.nom run-pres
b. Aipa-tci
pa’a-ntü-m
nukwi-yü.
boy-NPN.nom tall-nomin-anim run-pres
‘The tall boy is running’.
(Press 1979:57)
Attributive adjectives agree with the head noun in case, number and animacy. In
(44), both head noun puusi ‘cat’ and the adjective that modifies it are marked with the
oblique case marker –a.
(44) Puusi-a-n süya’i-tcü-a
mavo’a-mpü.
cat-obl-1sg cold-nomin-obl cover-past
‘I covered the cat which was cold’.
(Press 1979:109)
In (45), the plurality and animacy of the head noun aipatciw ‘boys’ is reflected in
the adjectival form that modifies it:
130
(45) Aipatci-w pa’a-ka-rü-m
nukwi-ka-yü-‘üm29.
boy-pl
tall-sev-nomin-anim run-sev-pres-anim
‘The tall boys are running’.
(Press 1979:57)
Verbal nominalizations are formed in the same way and can be used attributively.
In the examples below, verbal nouns modify an overt noun (example (46)) or a
phonologically null pronoun (examples (47)-(48). They can be marked with the
nominative case (examples (46)-(47)), or with the accusative case (as in example (48)),
depending on the grammatical relation of the noun they modify (subject or object,
respectively).
(46) Nukwi-tcü
ang
aipa-tci
pa’a-yü.
run-nomin.nom 3sg.anim.vis.nom boy-NPN.nom tall-pres
‘The running boy is tall’= ‘The boy that is running is tall’.
(Press 1979:58)
(47) Nukwi-tcü
ang
wü’iku-vü.
run-nomin.nom 3sg.anim.vis.nom fall-past
‘The running one fell’.
(Press 1979:58)
(48) Nüü-(k) nukwi-tcü
unga-y
kwipa-vü.
1sg-cop run-nomin.obl 3sg.anim.invis-obl hit-past
‘I hit the running one’, ‘I hit the one who was running’.
(MP)
Press (1979) makes an observation that the verbal nouns do not show animacy
agreement with the head noun, as do adjectival nouns. So in the examples below the two
relative clauses modify the subject of the sentence mang, but the verbal nominalization in
(49) lacks the animacy agreement:
29
Adjectives are marked [+anim] with both singular and plural head nouns. The animacy marker
-‘üm (the glottal stop is deleted after the participle ending, allowing /ü/ to assimilate and delete resulting in
-m on the surface) indicates that the head noun is an animate entity whether human or animal.
131
(49) Mang
tüka-rü
ang
saarontci hivi-sua-ngu.
3sg.anim.viv eat-nomin that one beer-obl drink-finish-mom
‘The eating one drank up the beer’.
(50) Mang
pa’a-ntü-m
saarontci hivi-sua-ngu.
3sg.anim.vis tall-nomin-anim beer-obl drink-finish-mom
‘The tall one drank up the beer’.
(Press 1979:57)
In the sections that follow, I will demonstrate that these differences are indicative
of two different underlying structures. The verbal nominalizations have an embedded
‘little’ v in their structure, while the adjectival nominalizations have an embedded ‘little’
a, a functional head that is selected by a dissociated Agreement head. To understand these
differences let us turn to some literature on the structure of derived nominalizations.
4.3.2
Theoretical background: Nominalizations within DM
Recall that within DM lexical categories in general are viewed as structurally determined
realizations of category-neutral roots. From this perspective, simple nouns and
nominalizations are words derived with the help of the category-forming functional head
‘little’ n0. The original proposal dates back to Marantz (1997), who revives Chomsky’s
(1970) discussion of nominalizations in English30. Marantz’s main proposal was to move
the derivation of nominalizations out of lexicon and into the syntax, while preserving
Chomsky’s idea of a transformational approach to their formation. Marantz focuses on
roots like √DESTROY and √GROW and argues that when they are placed in nominal
30
For other work on mixed categories, see Borsley and Kornfilt (2000); Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001)
among others.
132
environment, the result is a nominalization (destruction and growth); when the roots are
found in a verbal environment, they surface as verbs (destroy and grow). By the nominal
environment he originally meant a Determiner; in later work (Marantz 2000), he
introduced the category forming head ‘little’ n0.
Harley and Noyer (1998) built on Marantz’ original proposal to show that
differences between gerunds and derived nominalizations in English can be accounted for
by looking closely at their internal syntactic structure. They show that gerunds, being
verbal derivatives, have a vP layer in their structure, while derived nominalizations lack
this verbal component. Thus, gerunds, like the one in (51a), will have the structure in
(51b):
(51) a. The barbarian army’s suddenly destroying the city upset Caesar.
b.
SC
3
DP
vP
3
v
FP
3
DPi
RootP
3
√Root
ti
destroying
(based on Harley and Noyer 1998:11)
Derived nominalizations, like the ones in (52a) and (52b), lack the vP layer and in
the environment of the D determiner are spelled out as nominals.
(52) a. The barbarian army’s sudden destruction of the city upset Caesar.
b. Belushi’s mixing of drugs and alcohol proved fatal.
133
(53)
DP
3
DP
D’
3
D
RootP
‘s
3
√Root
DP
destruction
mixing
(based on Harley and Noyer 1998:12-13)
Under this analysis the English suffix –ing is viewed as a multifunctional Vocabulary
Item, inserted as the gerundive affix or as a nominalizer. In fact, Harley and Noyer (1998)
argue that as a nominalizer –ing is a default, or Elsewhere Vocabulary Item, inserted in
the environments where no other more specified item is available. For example, the root
√DESTR in the nominal environment is specified for the nominalizer –tion (plus some
readjustment rules that modify the phonological form of the root). The root √MIX,
however, is not specified for any nominalizer, and in the nominal environment it is
spelled out with the default –ing.
Harley (2006b) provides an updated version of this analysis while bringing up
some of the unresolved issues in the morphology of nominalizations. Her main focus is
on verb-particle constructions in English and their behavior in so called ‘mixed’
nominalizations. For the purposes of our discussion, I will focus on Harley’s treatment of
derived nominalizations that have an embedded verbal layer.
In her discussion of nominals that contain verbal affixes, like the one in
nominalization of verbs, Harley considers several of their properties: (i) they do not
assign accusative case and need the preposition of to ‘rescue’ the DP in their argument
134
position; (ii) they can be modified by adjectives, but not adverbs; and (iii) they can cooccur wit determiners and be pluralized. All of these characteristics are indicative of the
nominal nature of these nominalizations. However, as Harley points out, the word
nominalization itself clearly contains a verbalizer, -iz-, that is under her analysis is a
Spell-out of a ‘little’ v, a head that can introduce an Agent (vDO) and assign accusative
case to its internal argument. If the v0 is present, why cannot it license the accusative
case? Following Kratzer (1996) and Pylkkanen (2002), Harley suggests that the ‘little’ v
must be distinct from the Voice, a functional head that introduces Agents and selects for
FP, the accusative case licenser. So, in the derivation of the word nominalization the
‘little’ v is present, but the Agent/Accusative case licenser heads (VoiceP and FP) are
excluded.
(54) a. nomin-al-iz-ation
b. nP
2
n°
vP
-ation 2
v°
aP
-iz- 2
DP
a'
2
a°
√
-al- nomin-
(Harley 2006b: 22)
Harley makes an important point relevant to our discussion of the Chemehuevi
adjectival forms: “The key point… is that wherever you see a morpheme, there must be a
corresponding terminal node in the structural analysis of the sentence” , whether this
135
terminal node is “originally syntactic (i.e., has originated as part of the Numeration and
been added to the structure via syntactic Merge), or inserted as a ‘dissociated’
morpheme/terminal node at Morphology, prior to vocabulary insertion” (3). From our
discussion of adjectival and verbal nominalizations in Chemehuevi, we have seen that
there is a morpheme they have in common, nominalizer –tü. We have also seen that they
differ with respect to the presence/absence of the Agreement head, a dissociated terminal
node that selects for aPs, but not vPs, in the language. Now let us turn to the analysis of
Chemehuevi adjectival and verbal nominalizations, as part of attributive modification.
4.3.3 Chemehuevi adjectival and verbal nominalizations
We have seen earlier that the Chemehuevi attributive adjectives agree with the
nouns they modify in animacy, case and number. These features are common for
adjectives crosslinguistically. To account for these agreement facts, suppose that in the
structure of adjectival nominalizations, the root incorporates into the adjective-forming
‘little’ a head, and then is nominalized by incorporating into an n0 head. Following
Embick (2000) and Bobaljik (2008), I claim that agreement is a morphological process
and that merging of phi-features (like animacy in Chemehuevi adjectives) takes place
after syntax. Similarly to cliticization of the possessive agreement markers discussed in
chapter 3, I assume that the animacy agreement marker is merged as an Agr head in the
morphological compenent of the grammar (shaded parts of the derivation in (55b)). In
136
section 4.3.5, we will discuss how nominalizations form relative clauses, but for now
consider a partial derivation for the adjectival nominal in (55):
(55) a. aipatci pa’a-ntü-m
boy tall-nomin-anim
‘a tall boy’
(Press 1979:57)
b. (partial derivation)
nP
3
aP
3
DP
a’
[+anim] 2
aipatci RootP a
!
‘boy’
Root
√pa’a
‘tall’
n0
3
no
Agr
-ntü
[+anim]
-m
Verbal nominalizations lack the agreement marker because they do not have an
underlying ‘little’ a head: the root incorporates directly into the verbal head ‘little’ v.
There are several indications that the vP layer is indeed present in these nominalizations:
(i) they may contain verbal morphology, like the aspectual marker –ka- in example (56),
and (ii) they can contain an object, as in (57), the object of the verb tüka- ‘eat’ (marked
oblique by the ‘little’ v) is fronted to the sentence initial position, possibly for emphatic
reason.
(56) Tüü-mpi
ar [RC wü’iku-ka-tü] pütüya-ntü
rock-NPN.nom that
fall-perf-nomin heavy-nomin
‘That rock which fell was/is heavy’.
uru’a-yü.
be-pres
(Press 1979:109)
137
(57) a. Pagü-tci-yai-uk
mang
[RC ti tüka-rü].
fish-NPN-obl-cop 3sg.anim.vis
eat-nomin
‘He eats fish’ = ‘He is a fish-eating one’.
b.
(based on Press 1979:75)
(partial derivation)
nP
3
vP
n0
2
-rü
[obl]
v’
3
RootP
v
3 [obl]
NP
Root
pagütci √tüka
‘fish’
‘eat’
A note on the availability of allomorphy: recall that earlier I argued against the
strong definition of phase (Arad 2003, 2005) as the first vP/nP/aP. Adjectival and verbal
nominalizations discussed here clearly contain an embedded aP and vP level;
nevertheless, the nominalizer -tü is still subject to morpho-phonological allomorphy that
is supposed to be available only within the domain of a phase. I argued earlier that it is
Voice that defines a phase in Chemehuevi and it is the projection that is not available in
these nominalization.
Before we turn to the structure of attributive modification and reduced relative
clauses in Chemehuevi, let us not forget the so called ‘true’ adjectives like mi’au-ntsi
‘small’, ha’ü-pü ‘good’, or üvü-yü-ni ‘bad’. These are not adjectival in their structure –
they do not have an adjective forming head in their derivation. The first group is derived
with a noun forming ‘little’ n (an NPN marker –pü, -tsi, etc.) and when these items occur
138
as modifiers of a head n, the resulting attributive phrases act as N+N compounds (notice
the absence of agreement morphology typical for adjectival attributes):
(58)
a. ha’ü-pü tawatsi
b. ha’ü-tsi mamau
c. ha’ü-tsi pungutsi
d. mi’aupü-tsi aipatsi
e. mi’aupü-tsi na’üntsitsi
‘good man’
‘good woman’
‘good dog’
‘small boy’
‘small girl’
(59) nP
2
RootP
n
!
-pü
Root
√ha’ü
‘good’
The words in the second group are derived with a suffix –ni, translated as ‘like’ in
OCD, which most likely attaches to verbal stems: consider example in (60c) below – the
root is followed by a tense marker –yü, an indication that we are dealing with a verb.
(60) a. üvü-ni
b. üvü-pü-ni
c. üvü-yü-ni
d. tüwü-ni
(61)
vP
2
vP
Adv
2
-ni
RootP
v ‘like’
!
Root
√üvü
‘bad’
‘bad, evil’
‘bad, evil’
‘bad, evil’
‘fast’
(OCD)
139
Before addressing the structure of attributive modification, we need to address
several theoretical issues. First, Press (1979) states that participles (nominalizations in
our terminology) are the only source of relative clauses in the language. Secondly, both
verbal and adjectival nominalizations can form headless relative clauses, in which case
they do not modify any overt noun, but an implied indefinite third person pronoun pro
(Press 1979:58). Before considering the Chemehuevi data and the structure of attributive
modifications, let us deviate into some theoretical questions about the structure of relative
clauses in general and headless relatives in particular.
4.3.4
Typology and internal structure of relative clauses
Relative clauses (henceforth, RCs) are modifying clauses that typically consist of a head
and a modifying clause with a shared referent. The prototypical RC can be exemplified
by the English the book [that I ordered e] where the book is the head and that I ordered e
is a relative clause modifying the head. This type of an RC is known in the literature as
an Externally Headed Relative Clause (EHRC) due to the fact that the nominal head
appears outside of the modifying clause. The English RCs are postnominal because they
follow the head noun (as in the sweater that I made where the head is in bold), which is
the case for verb-medial (SVO) and verb-initial languages. In verb-final language, RCs
tend to be prenominal as shown in the example from Finnish below:
140
(62) Finnish
[minun teke-mä-ni]
villatakki
1sg.gen make-part-1sg sweater
‘the sweater (that) I made’
(Nikolaeva 2006:503)
There are three major approaches to the structure of EHRCs. The Head External
Analysis (Montague 1974, Partee 1975, Chomsky 1977, Jackendoff 1977) suggests that
the head of the RC originates outside of the RC. The relative clause CP is adjoined to the
head NP; there is also an A’-movement of a relative operator Op from the clause internal
position to Spec-CP (see Bhatt 2002 for a detailed discussion).
The Head Raising Analysis (Brame 1968, Schachter 1973, Vergnaud 1974, Kayne
1994, Bhatt 2002) assumes that the head of the RC originates inside the relative clause
CP and undergoes raising to a clause external position. The advantage of this analysis is
that it explains reconstruction effects and binding of variables within the RC31 (Schachter
1973, Vergnaud 1974) and the interpretation of idiom chunks32 (Brame 1968, Schachter
1973), facts that are unexplained by the Head External Analysis. However, the Raising
Analysis is not without its own problems. One of these is the case clash problem that
arises in languages in which NPs can get case from the embedded verb and the externally
assigned case on the head noun outside the RC is unexplained.
The Matching Analysis (originated in Carlson 1977) helps to avoid this problem,
and accounts for binding facts. It claims that there’s no transformational relationship
31
As representative example is in (i) when the anaphor must be interpreted in the lower clause, i.e.,
reconstructed:
(i)
The portrait of himselfi that Johni painted was extremely flattering. (Schachter 1973)
32
Idiom chunks such as a verb and its object must be interpreted as a constituent, hence it has been argued
that the NP headway must originate within the RC and raised to its external position in (ii) below:
(ii)
The headway that we made was satisfactory. (Schachter 1973)
141
between the head NP and the RC internal trace position. Instead it argues that a
phonologically null operator Op raises from the relative clause internal position to the
Spec-CP position, and mediates the semantic relationship between the relative clause
internal position and the head. In more recent work (Sauerland 1998, 2000, 2002, Hulsey
and Sauerland 2006), there is a version of the Matching Analysis that involves two
instances of the head NP, one outside and one inside the relative clause CP. The internal
head NP is phonologically deleted under identity of meaning with the external head, but
crucially the two copies are not related by movement. Sauerland (2002) argues for the
process of relative deletion, an obligatory ellipsis process that deletes the lower copy of
the NP when the two NPs are different tokens of the same noun and are identical in
meaning. Admittedly, his approach aims to reconcile the Raising and Matching analyses,
and stems from the observation that the interpretation of the head noun in an RC is
ambiguous between external and internal position. This is how Sauerland (2002)
compares to Raising analysis in (63) with Matching analysis in (64). In (63) he shows a
raising structure where after initial movement to Spec-CP of the relative clause, the NP
pandas is moved out of the internal clause to the clause-external position. Since lower
copies in movement chains are deleted in PF, only the higher copy of pandas is
pronounced. In (64) however, there is no raising of pandas out of the RC, and the
intermediary copies are deleted under relative deletion by identity (Sauerland 2002:4).
movement of Op pandas
(63) The pandas [Op pandas] we saw [Op pandas] at Ueno …
raising of pandas
142
movement of Op pandas
(64) The pandas [Op pandas] we saw [Op pandas] at Ueno …
relative deletion of pandas
(Sauerland 2002:4)
The strength of this analysis is that the head NP can be present both outside and
inside the relative clause, thus resolving the case clash problem, as well as explaining
reconstruction of pronouns and anaphors and interpretation of idiom chunks33.
One of the advantages of the Raising Analysis of EHRCs is that it can be easily
extended to RCs that are headed internally. Internally Headed Relative Clauses (IHRCs)
are favored by verb-final languages and can be exemplified by the sentence from Udihe
in (65) below where again the head is bolded:
(65) Udihe
si anda-i
ŋene:-ni [bi ag’a-i xoton-du bagdi:-tigi-ni]
you friend-2sg went-3sg brother-1sg city-loc living-lative-3sg
‘Your friend went to the city where my brother lives.’
(Nikolaeva 2006: 503).
It has been argued that in these RCs, the head noun is raised covertly at LF, either
to a clause external position (see Barss et al. 1989 on Navajo RCs), or to the Spec-CP
position of the lower clause ( see Basilico 1996 on RCs in several Yuman languages).
In some languages with IHRCs there is evidence that RCs demonstrate some
degree of nominalization. Such RCs make use of non-finite forms that show tense-aspect33
McCloskey (1990, 2002) offers another way of combining two patterns of RC formation in the same
language. He argues that in Irish there are two patterns that form RCs: one involving Operator movement
(A’-movement) that leaves a gap within the RC, and the other one involving no movement but a binding
relationship between the head and a resumptive pronoun within the RC.
143
mood and agreement reduction and resemble simple attributes (adjectives and
participles). The more strongly the RC is nominalized, the fewer grammatical functions it
can relativize and the less likely it will allow the full representation of the head noun
(Nikolaeva 2006:505). These are the cases when the representation of the modified noun,
i.e., the head, often reduces to a gap, as is the case of headless RCs. As we will see in the
sections below, this is the case of the Chemehuevi RCs – they display a high degree of
nominalization and can be headless. Moreover, in some languages there is no distinction
between RCs and attributive modification and adjectives and RCs show identical
patterns. Again this is the case of the Chemehuevi RCs.
Quechuan languages present a good example of nominalized RCs. Cole et al.
(1982) states that in Imbabura, RCs appear in nominalized form, with the nominalizer
determined by the temporal relationship between the RC and the matrix clause. In the
examples below the nominalizer can be either present or past:
(66) [ei punu-ju-j]
wawai mana cai-pi-chu
sleep- progr-pres.nom child not this-in-neg
‘The child who is sleeping is not here’.
(67) [ei punu-shca]
wawai mana cai-pi-chu
sleep- past. nom
child not this-in-neg
‘The child who was sleeping is not here’.
(Cole et al.1982:115-116)
Interestingly Imbabura has both EHRCs, as the ones in (66)-(67) above and
IHRCs as in the example below:
(68) [wambra wagra-ta randi-shca ] ali wagra –mi
boy
cow-acc buy-past nom good cow-validator
‘The cow that the boy bought is a good cow’.
(Cole et al.1982:118)
144
Cole (1987) points out that IHRCs are found only in OV languages and only in
languages with null anaphors (in argument positions). These languages have leftbranching NP structure and the RC structure looks like the one in (69) below where e is a
phonologically null pronoun co-indexed with a non-null NP antecedent inside the
modifying clause.
(69)
NP
2
S
NP
6 !
….NPi …
ei
(Cole 1987:278)
So far we have discussed examples of languages where the RCs modify nominals
that appear either outside of the RC or within it. However, in some languages there are
RCs that do not have an obvious syntactic head. Nikolaeva (2006) states that “such
clauses serve for concept formation rather than identification and are referred to as free
relatives” (502). Free relatives do not have to modify a noun (i.e., a whole clause in the
example (70) below) and, as all RCs, they can serve a number of syntactic functions (i.e.,
subject in (70) and object in (72) below).
(70) [Whatever you say] is wrong.
(71) He arrived late, [which I didn’t like].
(72) I like [who Fred married].
(Nikolaeva 2006:502)
(Roberts 1997:78)
Depending on the analysis such RCs are considered either to be headless or have a
phonologically empty head. Modini (1995:179) proposes that headless RCs are a subtype
of EHRCs in that in both the relativized NP and the head occupy separate positions
(unlike the IHRCs), but within the headless RCs the head is pronominalized, whereas in
145
the headed RCs the relativized NP is pronominalized. In fact this is the analysis that
proves fruitful with the Chemehuevi data as we will see below.
There are several syntactic approaches to headless RCs. According to the Comp
Hypothesis, a headless RC is headed by a base-generated empty nominal category and the
wh-word appears in Spec-CP via regular wh-movement (Groos & Riemsdijk 1981).
(73) I like [NP e [CP whoi Fred married ti]].
In the alternative analysis of free relatives, known as the Head Hypothesis
(exemplified by Bresnan and Grimshaw 1978), the wh-word is base-generated in the
position of the head, and Spec-CP is occupied by an empty operator Op, binding the trace
in the embedded clause:
(74) I like [NP who [CP Opi Fred married ti]].
Kayne (1994) suggests a unifying analysis for headed and headless RCs as part of
his version of the Raising Analysis. This analysis suggests that the RC is a syntactic
complement of the D0 head of the DP. The modified head noun is generated internally to
the RC from where it raises to the Spec-CP position:
(75) [DP the [CP [DPi dog [that you saw ti]]]
In case of wh-RCs, the relative selector is also a D0 (the in the example () below) that
selects a complement CP; the larger DP which book is base-generated in the lower clause
and is raised to the Spec-CP position (first the wh-movement applies to the [+wh] DP
which book, and then the NP book further raises to the Spec-DP in order to be governed
by the higher D0):
(76) [DP the [CP [DP [NP book]j [D’ which tj]]i [IP I read ti]]]
146
Headless RCs are analyzed as CP complements of a phonetically null determiner D0,
corresponding in some sense to Groos and Reimsdijk’s empty nominal category, and are
internally headed. Kayne (1994: 154 n.13) points out that they differ from the headed
variety in that the complement of the wh-word does not need to rise to the position
governed by the higher D0, i.e., only the wh-movement part applies. Thus the headless
RC in we gave them what little money we had will have the following structure:
(77) [DP [CP [DP what little money]i [IP we had ti]]]
(Roberts 1997:82)
With these theoretical points in mind, let us turn to the Chemehuevi relative
clauses, particularly the headless RCs and attributive modification.
4.3.5
Chemehuevi relative clauses and attributive modification
First let us consider headed RCs in Chemehuevi to establish the order of the head
noun and the modifying relative clause. Chemehuevi is an OV language, so we would
expect to have either prenominal or Internally Headed RCs, or both. However, this is not
the case. Consider the examples below: the heads of the RCs (in bold) precede the
modifying clause and are positioned outside the RC. The reason is that the subjects of
embedded clauses are always marked oblique (Press 197:53). Thus the nominative case
marking in the head nouns in (78)-(79) indicates that they are positioned outside of the
embedded clause and thus act as subjects of the main clause, not the subject or object of
the embedded clause.
147
S
V
(78) Waampakwi-tci
[RC nüüni paka-mpa-na] aipa-tci-a
kwipa-vü.
scorpion-NPN.nom
1sg.obl kill-fut-nomin boy-NPN-obl sting-past
‘The scorpion I am going to kill stung the boy’.
(Press 1979:111)
S
V
(79) Tükatüaa [puusi-a pü-vaan karü-kai-na ]
table.nom cat-obl which-on sit-perf-nomin
‘The table on which the cat sat collapsed’.
yokoki-vü.
collapse-past
(Press 1979:127)
This pattern of postnominal EHRC is observed in other examples as well. The
relative clause itself is formed by the nominalized form of the verb (as in (80)) or an
adjective (as in (81)):
(80) Tüü-mpi
ar [RC wü’iku-ka-tü] pütüya-ntü
rock-NPN.nom that fall-perf-nomin heavy-nomin
‘That rock which fell was/is heavy’.
(81) Puusi-a-n [RC süya’i-tcü-a]
mavo’a-mpü.
cat-obl-1sg
cold-nomin-obl cover-past
‘I covered the cat which was cold’.
uru’a-yü.
be-pres
(Press 1979:109)
(Press 1979:109)
Adopting Sauerland’s (1998, 2000, 2002) version of the Matching Analysis of
RCs, I suggest the following derivation for the headed RCs in Chemehuevi: a silent copy
of the head NP is a complement of the phonologically null relative Operator Op that is
raised to the clause internal Spec-CP position to check its features against C0; the lower
copy of the NP is then elided due to the obligatory process of relative deletion since the
external and the internal NPs are identical in meaning. The Operator is assigned the
oblique case assigned by the verb of the RC; the head NP, base generated outside the RC
and coindexed with the lower copies, is marked nominative by the T of the main clause.
The head NP is a complement of the D head that can be null as in examples (78)-(79), or
overtly realized in cases of demonstratives as in example (80) above. The full
148
demonstrative pronoun always appears to the left of the NP, but it can also follow the NP
in which case it appears in an abbreviated form (-ar vs. mar)34.
(82)
DP
3
D
NP
[3.inanim.vis]
3
=ar
NPi
CP
tüümpi
3
‘rock’ [Op tüümpi]i
C’
‘rock’
3
nP
C
3
[+rel]
AspP
n0
3 -tü
Asp’
3
vP
Asp
3 -kav’
3
RootP
v
3
NP
Root
[Op tüümpi]i √wü’iku‘fell’
Now let us consider the structure of relative clauses formed by an adjectival
nominal. The headed variety is exemplified by the sentence (83) below: the head noun
aipatci ‘boy’ (in bold) is base generated outside the RC and is matched with its copies
within the RC. The head noun is marked with nominative case – a clear indication that
34
Press (1979) gives some evidence that these post-nominal demonstratives are affixes (56); however, I
suggest that they are clitics and as such must attach to the first word of the clause to be pronounced (hence
the word order in (80)).
149
the noun is outside of the embedded clause; the adjectival nominal pa’antüm ‘tall’ is the
only constituent pronounced within the RC.
(83) a. Aipa-tci
[RC pa’a-ntü-m
]
nukwi-yü.
boy-NPN.nom
tall-nomin-anim run-pres
‘The tall boy is running’.
b.
(Press 1979:57)
DP
3
D
Ø
NP
3
NP
CP
aipatcii
3
‘boy’ [Op aipatci]i
C’
3
nP
C
3
[+rel]
0
aP
n
2
2
[Op aipatci]i a’
n0
Agr
[+anim] 2 -ntü [+anim]
RootP
a0
-m
!
Root
pa’a‘tall’
Adjectival nominals also form headless relatives (examples (84)-(85) below), in
which case the relative clause consists of the nominal itself. Press (1979) says of these
RCs that they act like ordinary nouns and “modify some sort of indefinite third person
pronoun (‘one who’)” (110).
(84) [RC Pa’a-ntü-m]
nukwi-yü.
tall-nomin-anim run-pres
‘The tall one is running’.
(85) Nüü-(k) [RC hoko-ntü-m] kwühü-vü.
1sg-(cop) big-nomin-anim catch-past
150
‘I caught a large one’.
(Press 1979:110)
In fact, sentences like these are very common in the language and we find many
examples of headless RCs acting like nominalizations. The examples below illustrate the
formation of such headless RCs. In (86), the relative clause is headed by a phonologically
null pronoun (based on Modini 1995). This pronoun must have some ɸ-features -- [3
person, singular, animate, visible] in the example under discussion-- because the
demonstrative head D, as well as the adjectival nominal within the relative clause agree
with it. The D head is overt in this example and null in the example (87) below. The head
NP consists of a phonologically null pronoun, little n0 that has some ɸ-features.
(86) a. Mang
[RC pa’a-ntü-m]
saaron-tci-a hivi-sua-ngu.
3sg.anim.vis.nom
tall-nomin-anim beer-NPN-obl drink-finish-mom
‘The tall one drank up the beer’.
(Press 1979:57)
b.
DP
3
D
nP
[3sg.anim.invis]
3
mang
nPi
CP
!
3
n0
nP
C
[3sg.anim.invis] 3
[+rel]
0
Ø
aP
n
2
2
nPi
a’ n0
Agr
2 -ntü
-m
0
RootP a
!
Root
pa’a‘tall
151
(87) a. [RC Pa’a-ntü-m] wü’iku-vü.
tall-nomin-anim fall-past
‘The tall one fell’.
b.
(Press 1979:58)
DP
3
D
nP
Ø
3
nPi
CP
!
3
n0
nP
C
[3sg.anim.invis]
3 [+rel]
Ø
aP
n0
2
2
nPi
a’
n0
Agr
2 -ntü -m
RootP
a0
!
Root
pa’a‘tall’
These headless RCs behave like nominals because structurally they are nPs: they
can co-occur with determiners (the demonstrative mang in example (86) above);
moreover, once merged with a D0 head, they act like subjects or objects. They bear
agreement morphology because they are formed by the adjectival head ‘little’ a.
4.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have investigated another lexical category in Chemehuevi –
adjectives, and we have seen evidence that words that fall under one category in one
152
language can belong to two different categories in another. The Chemehuevi adjectives
are not a homogeneous class: the same root can co-occur with verbal or adjective-/ nounforming functional heads, resulting in formation of two different lexical categories,
stative verbs on the one hand and adjectival nominals on the other. We have also seen
that Chemehuevi lacks so called ‘true’ adjectives: all words with ‘adjectival’ meanings
are derived. However, I have shown that there are strong indications that the Chemehuevi
attributive adjectival forms contain a category forming functional head ‘little’ a: they
agree with their head nouns in case, number and animacy, as do adjectives crosslinguistically.
This chapter also demonstrated that in Chemehuevi attributive modification
involves reduced relative clauses. In order to modify a noun, an adjectival form is derived
into a nominal that forms a relative clause that can modify an overt noun or a
phonologically null one. We have also compared adjectival nominalizations with their
close relatives, verbal nominalizations, and have identified the structural reasons for their
similarities and differences. The purely syntactic approach to the derivation of these
nominalizations argued for in this dissertation provided explanations for a cluster of
previously unexplained facts about adjectival and verbal forms ending in –tü. I have
shown that both adjectival and verbal derivatives are derived nominalizations (not
participles as in previous terminology) and both form relative clauses to modify nouns.
The differences between the two (absence/presence of animacy agreement) stem from
their internal structure, i.e., whether or not the form in question has an embedded vP or
aP layer. The fact that both adjectival and verbal nominalizations are subject to morpho-
153
phonological allomorphy (alternations of nominalizer –tü) also provides support for my
suggestion that the Chemehuevi initial phase is determined not by aP or vP, but by the
Agent-projecting Voice, since Voice is not present in these nominalizations.
Overall, this chapter provides strong evidence in favor of the Root Hypothesis:
roots are acategorial and lexical categories are formed by the combinations of roots with
category forming functional heads. Furthermore, these functional heads determine the
ways in which lexical categories form predicates, as we are about to learn from chapter 5.
4.5 Notes for community use: How to build adjectives in Chemehuevi
Adjectives are words that describe certain qualities or properties of objects, people or
animals in the world, like smart, pretty, wooden, or brown in English. For the purposes of
our discussion of the Chemehuevi adjectives, it is important to distinguish between
adjectives that form phrases like a brown dog or a tall boy, and adjectives that form
sentences like The dog is brown, or The boy is tall, because in Chemehuevi these two
types of adjectives are formed differently. Let us consider the first type first. Similarly to
Chemehuevi nouns, adjectives can have four different endings that have to be
memorized. Below I include some adjectives grouped according to the type of ending
they take: -tü, -tcü/tsü, -ntü, or –rü:
(88)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Adjectives ending in -tü
mukuta-tü
straight
tumunda-tü
thick
tukowa-tü
shallow
tümpika-tü
rich
154
(89)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Adjectives ending in –tcü/-tsü
kwampani-tcü crooked
tovipi-tsü
short
takünapi-tcü thin
tavüypi-tcü low
hüa-tcü
old
(90)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Adjectives ending in -ntü
suunaava-ntü smooth
mawaga-ntü lazy
pa’a-ntü
long, tall
pütüya-ntü
heavy
tukwa-ntü
deep
(91)
a.
b.
c.
Adjectives ending in -rü
tutsaga-rü
dirty
tsinkaga-rü
rough
aya-rü
new
These adjectives can be used to describe nouns in pharses like in the examples
below:
(92)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ayarü ayamovitsi
hokontü kani
miaupitcü kani
tosagarü kani
angkagarü kani
‘a new automobile’
‘a big house’
‘a little house’
‘a white house’
‘a red house ‘
(GT)
If an adjective describes a person, we add ending -m to it:
(93) pa’antü-m aipatci
‘a tall boy’
(Press 1979)
(94) mutcuntü-m aipatci
‘a strong boy’
Phrases like the ones in (92)-(94) can also be made into full sentences, but the
order of words will be different, similarly to when we change the English phrase a tall
155
boy into a sentence The boy is tall. Compare the Chemehuevi phrases in (93) and (94) to
corresponding sentences in (95) and (96). We have to add copula –k35 (sometimes
pronounced as –uk) to the first word of the sentence, so in (95a) –k attaches to aipatci
‘boy’, but in (95b) to manga ‘that’.
(95) a. Aipatci-k pa’antüm.
‘The boy is tall’.
b. Manga-k aipatci pa’antüm.
‘That boy is tall’.
(96) Aipatci-k mutcuntüm.
‘The boy is strong’.
We will see more examples of the use of –k in the next chapter because it is
required not only in sentences formed by adjectives but also in the ones formed by nouns.
35
The uses of –k (-uk) are similar but not identical to the uses of is in English.
156
CHAPTER FIVE
PREDICATION AND LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN CHEMEHUEVI
5.1 Introduction
In previous chapters we have examined lexical categories in the Chemehuevi language.
In this chapter, we consider the predicational properties of nouns, adjectives and verbs.
Following Baker (2003), I show that the Chemehuevi nouns require a copula to form
predicates, whereas verbs do not. I also examine the syntactic behavior of the enclitic
copula –uk in different contexts and demonstrate that it is required with all nominal
predicates, including those formed not only by nouns, but also by reduced relative clauses
(based on adjectival and verbal nominalizations), or by any constituent that has an
underlying nP structure. The analysis given in this chapter provides an explanation for the
previously unexplained role of the enclitic –uk, and answers the questions of why it is
required in some contexts and is optional in others.
5.2 The puzzle of the enclitic –uk
Press (1979) provides a detailed description of the enclitic –uk that has a number of
puzzling properties that on the surface seem rather random and disconnected from one
another. She refers to this element as an enclitic and glosses it as ‘K’ in her examples,
157
hinting that it “might be related to some copular verb” (74). Phonetically, this element is
realized as either [uk] or [k] depending on whether it follows a consonant as in (1) or a
vowel as in (2); however the vowel following the [k] is undeterminable since all final
vowels in Chemehuevi are voiceless36.
(1) Pagü-tci-ya-uk
fish-NPN-obl-K
‘He eats fish’.
mang
3sg.anim.vis
tüka-rü.
eat-nomin
(2) Nüü-k nain-tci.
1sg-K girl-NPN.nom
‘I am a girl’.
(Press 1979:75)
(Press 1979:75)
Press points out that John P. Harrington associated –uk with the 3rd person inanimate
invisible affixal pronoun –uka or -ukwa (74)37. Here are two examples from Harrington’s
unpublished field notes:
(3) ’Ümi-tsu’a-tü-müwüra’-ukwa ‘ampaga-rü?
2sg-become-nomin-kind-cop speak-nomin
‘Are you the kind that talks?’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 25)
(4) ‘Ava’ana-’ukwa ‘ümi hiwa-wü-gaipü-ga-ntü…
many-cop
2sg relative-pl.anim-deseased-have-nomin
‘You have many deceased relatives…’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 5)
We also find the same association in the work of Laird (1976), who refers to the
copula use of the pronominal -‘ukwa ‘that inanimate invisible’ or -‘ikwa ‘this inanimate
here’ in the following examples:
36
Historically, the copula might have been related to –uka ‘this inanimate invisible’, but since the final
vowels are unpronounced and the copula is an enclitic, it is impossible to determine whether there is a
vowel and which one it is.
37
I reject a possibility that –uk is an agreement pronominal copula similar to pronominal copulas in
Hebrew and Arabic (Doron 1986), mainly due to the fact that none of the other pronominal
person/number/animacy clitics appear in this context, only ‘3sg.inanim’ and Chemehuevi has robust
agreement morphology.
158
(5) ‘Ünü-pi-’ikwa.
bad/demon-NPN-3sg.inanim.here
‘It is a demon’.
(6) Nü’ü-k
nüwü.
1sg-3sg.inanim person
‘I am a person, I am a Chemehuevi’.
(Laird 1976:286)
Press also points out that -uk is always attached to the first word in a sentence,
regardless of the phrase boundaries. Consider the example in (7): when the possessor is a
full DP, the enclitic –uk attaches to the determiner, i.e., the first word in the sentence, and
clearly demonstrates that it is a second-position clitic.
(7) Ing-uk
tava-tci
3sg.anim.here-K man-NPN.nom
‘This man has an older sister.’
patci-ga-ntü.
older sister-have-nomin
(JHJ)
The puzzles of –uk begin to surface when we consider the contexts in which it
appears. Here is how Press summarizes the uses of the enclitic K:
“K can optionally appear in almost any sentence, provided the word order is such
that K’s own constraints can be met. I am not certain exactly what K is; it is
prohibited in imperatives, required in certain kinds of cleft sentences, obligatory
in predicate nominative constructions with no overt copula, and obligatory with at
least one aspect (with non-adjective verbs, which without K are interpreted as an
active participle)”.
(Press 1979:124)
Below are instances of –uk illustrating its distribution. The first three cases are
when –uk is obligatory: in (8) it appears with a verbal nominalization (‘participle’ in
159
Press’ terminology) that incidentally gives the verb a habitual meaning, in (9) with a cleft
construction, and in (10) with a nominal predicate.
(8) Tüka-rü-k nüü.
eat-nomin-K 1sg
‘I eat’.
(Press 1979:125)
(9) Marü-k huvavi tüka-kai-na-n.
that-K soup eat-perf-nomin-1sg
‘That soup is what I ate’.
(Press 1979:111)
(10) Itcü-k wii.
this-K knife
‘This is a knife’.
(Press 1979:125)
Compare the last example in this group to the one in (11) below: this is an
instance when –uk is prohibited with an imperative:
(11) Itcü-(*k) hivi-ngu.
this-K drink-imp
‘Drink this!’
(Press 1979:93)
In the next context the presence of –uk is optional; both (12) and (13) have
predicates formed by finite verbs, whether stative/adjectival or eventive/verbal:
(12) Ümi-(ka) ‘üü-yü.
2sg-(K) pretty-pres
‘You are pretty’.
(RM)
(13) Nüü-(k) nuwki-yü.
1sg-(K) run-pres
‘I am running’.
(JHJ)
The optionality of an element in some cases and its requirement in others posits
certain challenges for a uniform account of its function and structural position. In the
following sections, I will demonstrate that in Chemehuevi there are two elements that are
160
phonologically realized as –uk: one is the functional head that forms predicates, and the
other a focus particle.
5.3 Theoretical background: Predication
In this section we will briefly consider several related theoretical approaches to the
formation of predicates by different lexical categories. In particular, we are interested in
differences between verbs, adjectives and nouns in the way they form predicates. Two
main principles of these approaches are that (i) every proposition contains a predicational
core, which expresses predicate argument relations; (ii) the semantics of predication is
read off a particular syntactic structure. The particulars of this syntactic structure differ
from author to author: for example, in early work by Stowell (1981), lexical categories
were considered predicational in that they independently assigned thematic roles to their
arguments. Later, predication was understood as a function of a functional element that
acted as a mediator between lexical categories and their arguments (e.g. Hornstein and
Lightfoot 1987, Raposo and Uriagereka 1990). This approach has been applied not only
to English but also to data from number of languages including European Portuguese
(Raposo and Uriagereka 1990), Scottish Gaelic (Adger and Ramchand 2003), Edo,
Chichewa and Mohawk (Baker 2003), among others.
For the purposes of our discussion of Chemehuevi predication, I will focus on the
predicate argument structure in the works of Bowers (1993) and Baker (2003).
161
5.3.1
Bowers (1993): functional category Pr for predication
In order to unify predicate formation of main and small clauses as well as predication
formation across lexical categories, Bowers argues for a functional category Pr,
mnemonic for predication, whose semantic function is predication and which projects an
external argument and takes a VP, AP, NP or PP as its complement. The predication
relation, in this configuration, holds between the argument in SpecPrP and the
complement of Pr. On this view, none of the lexical categories can assign a theta role to
an element in its specifier, and all need an intermediate projection Pr in order to take a
subject. Bowers’ configuration for PrP is repeated in (14):
(14)
PrP
2
(subject) NP
Pr’
2
Pr
XP (predicate)
where X = {V, A, N, P}
(Bowers 1993:595)
Bowers shows that this configuration can be applied to a variety of predicates:
main clauses, small clauses (SC), predicates formed by verbs, nouns, adjectives and
prepositions. Here are some example sentences that illustrate a derivation of a predicate
according to Bowers.
(15) [IP e [I is [PrPJohn [Pr e [NP a genius]]]]].
(16) [IPThey consider [PrPJohn [Pr e [NP a genius]]]].
(17)[IP e [PrP John [Pr e [VP overestimates his abilities]]]].
(18)[IP e [I is [PrPJohn [Pr e [AP full of himself]]]]].
162
As we can see from the examples above, Bowers’ functional projection Pr
parallels other functional elements suggested in the literature for verbal predicates: it is
similar to the functional head Voice projecting an external argument in the work of
Kratzer (1996), as well as Chomsky’s (1995) little v. However, Bowers extends the need
for Pr to predicates formed by nouns, adjectives and prepositions. Bowers points out
several advantages of this analysis: (i) it suggests a uniform structural definition of the
external argument and of the predication relation for both small and main clauses; (ii) it
situates the SC within the framework of X-bar theory: a SC is PrP, the maximal
projection of Pr; (iii) it explains the status of the element as in SC complements of verbs
like regard – in the sentence I regard John as crazy/an idiot, as is a realization of Pr; (iv)
it makes the relation between syntax and semantics of predication transparent (Bowers
1993:596-597).
5.3.2
Baker (2003): functional category Pred for predication
Baker (2003) takes the differences between lexical categories further. He argues that only
adjectives and nouns require a functional head Pred to project a subject; verbs, on the
other hand, take subjects either independently (if they are unaccusative), or through the
mediation of a little v projecting an external argument (if they are transitive). To be more
precise, his theory of predication is based on structural differences between verbs on the
one hand and adjectives and nouns on the other. For Baker, only verbs can project a
specifier and thus have a subject; nouns and adjectives cannot have a specifier and thus
163
need an extra functional projection which he calls Pred that projects a specifier and
provides an argument for the N/Adj in its complement position. Baker’s configurations
for VPs as opposed to APs/NPs are repeated in below:
(19) Table #15. Baker’s (2003) structures for unaccusative VP vs. PredP (35).
a. Chris hungers.
b. Chris is hungry/ a teacher.
TP
TP
2
2
e
T’
e
T’
2
2
T
VP
T
PredP
2
2
NP
V
NP
Pred’ <Th>
!
!
!
2
Chris
hunger
Chris Pred AP/NP
!
<Th>
hungry/ a teacher
Baker supports this distinction between verbs on one side and adjectives and
nouns on the other, by pointing out that it is impossible to conjoin two small clauses of
different categories that are complements of the verb made.
(20) *Eating poisoned food made Chris [sick] and [die].
(Baker 2003:38)
In Bowers’ analysis, both sick and die form a PredP and thus conjunction should
be grammatical. For Baker they are different categories – the former is a PredP [sick] and
the later is an unaccusative VP [die], and that is how he explains the ungrammaticality of
(20).
A similar distinction is illustrated when a predicate formed by a transitive or
unergative verb is coordinated with a predicate formed by an adjective or noun phrase.
For Bowers each phrase in brackets in (21)-(22) below is a PredP and thus should be able
164
to coordinate with another PredP. Baker shows that the coordination is ungrammatical
because thirsty and champion of the chess class are PredPs, whereas drink a can of soda
and celebrate are vPs.
(21)*Sitting in the hot sun made Chris [thirsty] and [drink a can of soda].
(22)* Winning the game made Chris [champion of the chess club] and [celebrate].
(Baker 2003:38)
5.3.3
Overt realization of Pred
Both Baker and Bowers agree that in English Pred has no overt realization (aside from as
in SC complements of verbs like regard mentioned above). Even though the verb to be
appears with both adjectival and nominal predicates in (23a) below, it disappears in small
clauses (23b):
(23) a. Chris is intelligent/ a genius.
b. I consider Chris intelligent/ a genius.
(Baker 2003:40)
It also shows up with participial verbs, even though as Baker points out they
should be able to theta-mark their subjects independently:
(24) Chris *(is) dying.
(Baker 2003:40)
As predicted by any syntactic theory with cross-linguistic aspirations, an element
whose presence is hypothesized in the abstract syntactic structure might have an overt
realization in some languages, but not in others. Baker gives examples of languages that
have an overt realization of Pred. In a Nigerian language Edo, when Ns and As act as a
165
main clause predicates, they must appear with a copula element –yé for adjectives and rè
for nouns.
(25) Edo
a. Èmèrí mòsé.
Mary be.beautifulV
‘Mary is beautiful’.
b. Èmèrí *(yé) mòsèmòsè.
Mary PRED beautifulA
‘Mary is beautiful’.
c. Úyì *(rè) òkhaèmwèn.
Uyi PRED chiefN
‘Uyi is a chief’.
(Baker 2003:40)
Crucially, unlike the English copula be, these copula elements are never used as
auxiliaries to accompany verbs in Edo; the language has a completely distinct set of
verbal auxiliaries. Baker also shows that neither yé nor rè inflect for tense or subject
agreement, a fact that further supports the idea that they are non-verbal copulas.
Baker lists several other languages that have an overt realization of Pred: NigerCongo languages, Hausa, Kanuri, Gude, Mande, Somali, and Berber (in Africa); Parji,
Chinese, Vietnamese (in Asia); Samoan and Niuean (in Oceania); Canela-Kraho,
Chacabo, Paumari (in South America); and finally Wappo, Popoloc and Chemehuevi (in
North America). In the following section we consider Baker’s claim about the overt Pred
head in Chemehuevi.
166
5.4
Pred in Chemehuevi
Baker’s claim about the overt realization of Pred in Chemehuevi is based on
Wetzer’s (1996) discussion of Chemehuevi color adjectives. According to Wetzer, color
terms require what Press (1975) calls a stative suffix -ga~-ka to be used predicatively
(11). The example (from Press 1975) he uses to illustrate this paradigm is repeated
below:
(26) Pavi-a-n
naro’o-ong angka-ga-yü.
brother-obl-1sg shirt-his
red-stat-pres
‘My brother’s shirt is red’.
(Press 1975:113)
In fact all color adjectives require the suffix -gai, as is shown in (27) below:
(27) a. tupa-ga(i) ‘black’
b. tosa-ga(i) ‘white’
c. owasia-ka(i) ‘yellow’
d. anka-ga(i) ‘red’
e. sawa-ga(i) ‘green/blue’
f. kutca-ka(i) ‘gray’
g. parowa-ga(i) ‘purple’
(Press 1979, Lexicon)
Based on the Chemehuevi color terms, it is feasible that -gai is the overt
realization of Pred. As you will recall from chapter 3, suffix -gai has a meaning of
‘be/have’, and that is exactly what Baker suggests the interpretation of Pred might be in
some languages. However, I claim in the following sections that even though Baker’s
intuition is right in that Chemehuevi does have a realization of Pred, it is not -gai, but the
mysterious clitic copula –uk, discussed in the beginning of the chapter.
167
5.4.1
Verbal predicates in Chemehuevi
In Baker’s (2003) theory of predication, verbs are special in that they do not require Pred
to form predicates, whereas adjectives and nouns do. As we shift our focus to
Chemehuevi, recall that in this language the class of adjectives is not uniform: the same
root in most cases can form a stative verb or an adjectival nominalization. As we saw in
chapter 4, these two instantiations of roots have different syntactic behaviors. They also
differ with respect to predicate formation. Chemehuevi verbs, both adjectival/stative and
non-adjectival, form predicates without Pred, whereas adjectival nominalizations like
other nouns require Pred to form predicates. Consider the examples below: in (28) and
(29) the predicates are formed by finite verbs nuwkiyü ‘is running’ and pa’ayü ‘is tall’
without a copula.
(28) Pa’a-ntü-mü
aipa-tci
nukwi-yü.
tall-nomin-anim boy-NPN.nom run-pres
‘The tall boy is running’.
(Press 1979:57)
(29) Nukwi-tcü ang
aipa-tci
pa’a-yü.
run-nomin this.anim.vis boy-NPN.nom tall-pres
‘The running boy is tall’.
(Press 1979:58)
Here are more examples of verbal predicates, form earlier texts, with no copula
attested:
(30) Ma’üpütsi ‘uva
nüng-karü-yü…
old woman there weave basket-sit-pres
‘An old woman there is sitting weaving a basket…’
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl, 4)
(31) Pia-ya-vü
kwühü tugun-tu’a wü-wünü-tu’i-ngu.
mother-obj-poss take up-toward mom-stand-caus-mom
‘Picking up his mother, he stood her up’.
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl, 6)
168
When the predicate is formed with an adjectival or verbal nominalization, as in
the examples (32)-(33) below, the copula –uk is required.
(32) Aipa-tci-k
boy-NPN.nom-cop
‘The boy is tall’.
pa’a-ntü-m.
tall-nomin-anim
(33) Nüü-k nukwi-tcü.
1sg-cop run-nomin
‘I run’.
(Press 1979:74)
Finite verbs can appear with copula –uk optionally, in which case the subject
appears to be slightly focused (Press 1979:75).
(34) Nüü-(k) nuwki-yü.
1sg-(cop) run-pres
‘I am running’.
(JHJ)
(35) Manga-(k)
na’üntci-tci wünümi-yü.
3sg.anim.vis-(cop) girl-NPN.nom dance-pres
‘This girl is dancing’.
(JHJ)
We return to the emphatic functions of –uk in section 5.5; but for now our main
observation is that finite Chemehuevi verbs do not require a copula to form a predicate.
5.4.2
Chemehuevi color terms and predicates formed from them
Now let us consider color terms mentioned by Baker as potential candidates for predicate
formation through the functional head Pred. As mentioned above, these adjectives consist
of a root and an obligatory suffix –gai/-kai ‘be/have’.
(36) a. tupa-ga(i) ‘black’
b. tosa-ga(i) ‘white’
169
c. owasia-ka(i) ‘yellow’
d. anka-ga(i) ‘red’
e. sawa-ga(i) ‘green/blue’
f. kutca-ka(i) ‘gray’
g. parowa-ga(i) ‘purple’
(Press 1979, Lexicon)
Laird (1976) mentions that the color names are derivatives: “…tosa- white; but
independently tosagarï, white, deriving from tosagah, is white, being white, having the
quality of whiteness” (286). Wetzer (1996) also talks about “the nominal affiliation” of
color adjectives across languages and suggests that they may be “the result of semantic
bleaching of nouns which originally referred to objects characterized by a specific colour”
(11). Recall from our discussion of the Chemehuevi color terms in chapter 3 that these
forms are stative verbs and are derived by the incorporation of a root into the verbal
functional head ‘little’ vBE, spelled out as the suffix –gai/-kai ‘be’. Color roots can appear
without –gai/-kai, but these cases are limited to incorporation into other verbal roots as in
examples (37)-(38) or cases of compounding as in (39)-(40):
(37) tupa-ma’a-ngump-anga-ukwaya
black-paint-instr-him-you
‘You will paint him black’.
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 4)
(38) tupa-tatsitsi’i-gai
black-shine-have/be
‘glittering black’
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 7)
(39) anka-nampa
‘red foot’
(40) anka-pah
‘red water’
(OCD)
(OCD)
Besides color terms, there are other roots that must combine with -gai to form
adjectives. Among these are tutca-gai ‘dirty’, küwa-gai ‘sharp’, yum’i-gai ‘weak’. These
170
adjectives, together with color terms, have a high degree of compositionality: they are
bound roots that have to incorporate into other stems (verbal or nominal). In fact, they do
look a lot like nominal roots incorporated into –gai ‘be/have’:
(41) a. kani-gai
house-have
‘to dwell, have a house’
(OCD)
b. nüwü-gai
person-be
‘to live’
c. süna’avi-gai-ngu
coyote-be-mom
‘became a coyote’
(OCD)
(JPH&CL, Coyote Kills His Mother-in-Law, 18)
Aside from their derived nature, color adjectives with –gai~-kai behave
syntactically exactly like other adjectives. As we see from textual examples in (42)-(45)
below, color roots form attributive constructions with the nominalizer –rü and have an
agreement marker –m/mü [+anim] (which shows agreement between the ‘adjective’ and the
animate noun it modifies).
(42) Iwa’a-mi ‘oasia-ka-rü-m
ma’a-ngumpa-su.
now-you yellow-be-nomin-anim paint-instr-again
‘Now (I) will paint you yellow’.
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 5)
(43) Aüvisu angka-ga-rü-m
ma’a-ngumpa-’ami.
soon
red-be-nomin-anim paint-instr-you
‘Soon (I will) paint you red’.
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 6)
(44) Haita-ungwa angka-ga-rü-mü-’ungwa
then-he
red-be-nomin-anim-him
‘Then he painted him red’.
ma’a-yü.
paint-past
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 6)
171
(45) Haita-‘ungwa tupa-ga-rü-mü-’ungwa
then-he
black-be-nomin-anim-him
‘Then he painted him black’.
ma’a-ngu.
paint-mom
(JPH&CL, The Crow is Made Black, 7)
Recall that similar morphology is attested on other adjectival nominalizations
within reduced relative clauses, such as the one in (46) repeated below:
(46) Aipa-tci-k
boy-NPN.nom-cop
‘The boy is tall’.
pa’a-ntü-m.
tall-nomin-anim
(Press 1979:74)
Like other adjectives and verbs, color terms can occur with finite morphology
(47) or as nominalizations within a reduced relative clause (48):
(47) Pavi-a-n
naro’o-ong angka-ga-yü.
brother-obl-1sg shirt-his
red-be-pres
‘My brother’s shirt is red’.
(48) Nü angka-ga-rü
wihi
1sg red-be-nomin
knife.obl
‘I looked at the red knife’.
(Press 1979:60)
puni-vü.
look-past
(Press 1979:57)
The last example is particularly revealing with respect to the predicate formation.
Here the color term angkaga ‘red’ appears in the attributive use modifying the noun wihi
‘knife’ and the predicate itself is the verb puni- ‘to see’. Still the suffix -gai is present.
Clearly if it were the realization of Pred as is suggested by Baker, it would have no
syntactic reason for being there, since Baker himself believes that “the Pred head is not
present in the attributive constructions” (2003:193).
It seems therefore that Baker’s notion that –gai is the overt realization of Pred
head in Chemehuevi is wrong, so let us consider another candidate for Pred this time
referring to the data from nominal predicates.
172
5.4.3
Nominal predicates in Chemehuevi
The most basic kind of a nominal predicate is the equative nominal predicate such as the
ones below. The predicate is formed by a noun that appears with either the non-possessed
noun marker (50)-(51) or a possessive marker (52)-(55); the subject is a demonstrative
pronoun followed by the enclitic copula –uk.
(50) Itc-uk
nüüni tamu-pi.
3sg.inanim.vis-cop 1sg.obl car-NPN.nom
‘This is my car.’
(51) Itc-uk
kani-Ø.
3sg.inanim.vis -cop house-NPN.nom
‘This is a house.’
(52) Itc-uk
nüüni kani-n.
3sg.inanim.vis-cop 1sg.obl house-1sg
‘This is my house.’
(53) Ing-uk
tava-tci
nüüni
pavi-n.
3sg.anim.vis-cop man-NPN.nom 1sg.obl older brother-1sg
‘This man is my older brother.’
(54) Ing-uk
nüüni tcaka’i-n.
3sg.anim.vis-cop 1sg.obl younger brother-1sg
‘He is my younger brother.’
(55) Itc-uk
nüüni pungu-n.
3sg.inanim.vis-cop 1sg.obl dog-1sg
‘This is my dog.’
(JHJ)
Another kind of a nominal predicate that we find in Chemehuevi is possessive
nominal predicates. In the sentences below the pronominal possessor nüü- ‘1sg’ is
immediately followed by the copula –uk/-k and the possessee is augmented by -gai
173
‘be/have’ and the familiar nominalizer –ntü, an allomorph of -tü. In a way the sentences
(56)-(60) have the meaning ‘I am the one that has X’ or ‘I am the one having X’38.
(56) Nüü-k pavi-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop older brother-have-nomin
‘I have an older brother.
(57) Nüü-k tcaka’i’-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop younger brother-have-nomin
‘I have a younger brother.’
(58) Nüü-k pungu-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop dog-have-nomin
‘I have a dog.’
(59) Nüü-k kani-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop house-have-nomin
‘I have a house.’
(60) Mango-k
o’ntokoro pu’i-ga-ntü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop brown
eye-have-nomin
‘He has brown eyes.’
(JHJ)
If you recall our discussion of these predicates in chapter 3, Section 3.2.1, I have
argued that these predicates consist of a nominal root (Possessee) that incorporates into a
functional head PHAVE that further incorporates into a verbal functional head vBE, giving
us the possessive meaning (based on Freeze 1992, Harley 1995). In the example below,
the root kani- ‘house’ successively incorporates into a PHAVE and then ‘little’ vBE (spelledout as -gai) and is nominalized by nominalizer -ntü due to [+nasal] feature on the PHAVE.
(61) Partial derivation of a possessive nominal predicate
a. Nüü-k kani-ga-ntü.
38
The Online Chemehuevi Dictionary cites the form -gantü as a single morpheme with the meaning ‘the
one who has’ or ‘having’: aapü-gantü ‘being that has horns’, huvi-a-gantü ‘song owner’, kukwa-gantü
‘place or person having wood’, noo'ovi-gantü ‘pregnant, fetus having’.
174
1sg-cop house-have-nomin
‘I have a house’ = lit. ‘I am the one having a house’.
b.
(JHJ)
DP1
3
D
nP
Ø
3
nPi
CP
!
3
n0
nP
C
2
[+rel]
0
vP
n <= -ntü
2
PP
vBE
<= -gai
2
nPi
P’
2
Possessee
PHAVE
!
√kani-
However this is only part of the picture, as we have to explain the presence of the
copula –uk. Before we consider the full analysis, let us return to adjectival predicates
because they have the same structure as the possessive nominal predicates.
175
5.4.4
Predicates formed by adjectival nominalizations
When used predicatively, adjectival nominalizations always require the enclitic copula
–uk. Below are examples of predicative adjectival nominalizations from several sources
(recorded interviews done by Tylor and Major in 1960s).
(62) Data from Tylor’s interviews
a. Itcu-k
tutsa-ga-tü.
3.inanim.here-cop dirty-be-nomin
‘It is dirty’.
b. Ümi-k mugua-tü.
2sg-cop crazy-nomin
‘You are crazy’.
c. Umango-k
hüga-tcü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop old-nomin
‘He’s old’.
d. Tümpi-ka-tü-k
mang,
üvüsi-tu’i-yü-ang.
money-have-nomin-cop 3sg.anim.vis bad-caus-pres-3sg.anim.vis
‘He is rich, but I dislike him.’
e. Nüü-k tawaya-ntü.
1sg-cop ready-nomin
‘I’m ready’.
(63) Data from Major’s interviews
a. Umarü-k
küwa-ga-ntü.
3.inanim.vis -cop edge-have-nomin
‘It’s sharp’.
176
b.Mango-k
no’o-ga-ntü-m39.
3sg.anim.vis-cop fetus-have-nomin-anim
‘She is pregnant’.
c. Mango-k
yuhu-ga-ntü-m.
3sg.anim.vis fat-have-nomin-anim
‘He is fat, that person is fat’.
The so called ‘true’ adjectives, derived by NPN-markers, consistently form
predicates with the copula –uk.
(64) Data from Tyler’s interviews
a. Marü-k
haü-pi.
3.inanim.vis-cop good-NPN
‘That is good’.
b. Marü-k
üvüpü-ni.
3.inanim.vis bad-like
‘That is bad’.
(65) Data from Major’s interviews
a. Umanga-uk
üvüpü-wü-ni.
3sg.anim.vis-cop bad-anim-like
‘He’s bad’.
Counter to these examples, Press (1979) maintains that with adjectives the enclitic
copula is optional40. However, the examples from Press’s recorded interviews clearly
demonstrate that –uk is consistently present with adjectival predicates:
39
Notice that the animacy marker is attested only in two out of eight examples with an animate subject. The
animacy marker appears in [+sing] contexts in the speech of Pearl Eddie, but is missing in examples given
by Bessie Waco whose Chemehuevi dialect might have been influenced by Southern Paiute (her first
language was reportedly S. Paiute). These examples are consistent with Sapir’s description of use of
‘animate plural’ in S. Paiute.
40
(i) Aipatci-(k) pa’a-ntü-m.
boy-(K) tall-nomin-anim
‘The boy is tall’.
(Press 1979:74)
177
(66) Data from Press’s interviews
a. Mutcu-k nukwi-pi haü-pi.
fast-cop run-NPN good-NPN
‘Fast running is good’.
b. Sampava-uk nukwi-pi haü-pi.
slow-cop
run-NPN good-NPN
‘Slow running is good’.
c. Miauntsi-vaa-ntü-k
small-fut-nomin-cop
‘He will be small’.
mang.
3sg.anim.vis
d. Nüü-k pitanga-rü-m.
1sg-cop fast-nomin-anim
‘I’m fast’.
(Press 1979:100)
An interesting example showing that –uk appears with a predicative adjective, but
not with a verbal predicate is repeated below:
(67) Johni-k utusamp mutcu-ntü-mü,
aüvi-ang yum’i-ga-yü.
John-cop always strong-nomin-anim, now-he weak-be-pres
‘John is always strong, but now he is weak’.
(Press 1979:74)
The copula –uk is also consistently attested in the speech of my consultant,
Johnny Hill Jr.. Below is a representative sample:
(68) Manga-k
piso’o-tci
nagamü-tcü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop
child-NPN.nom sick-nomin
‘The child is sick’.
(69) Marü-k
tüvi-pü
mutcu-ntü.
3.inanim.vis-cop ground-NPN.nom hard-nomin
‘The ground is hard’.
A possible explanation of this reported optionality lies in the fact that the same content can be elicited
either as a predicate/sentence when –uk is required (as in (i) above) or as an attributive phrase aipatci
pa’antüm ‘a tall boy’ and no copula is necessary there. It could have been be a simple misunderstanding of
what is being said.
178
(70) Marü-k
pavon’okwi-tcü
naakü-hoko-ntü.
3sg.inanim.vis-cop watermelon-NPN.nom very-big-nomin
‘The watermelon is big’.
(71) Itch-uk
nüüni kani-’n tosaga-rü.
3.inanim.here-cop 1sg.obl house-1sg white-nomin
‘My house is white’.
(72) Itc-uk
nüüni tamu-pi
ha’ü-pi.
3.inanim.here-cop 1sg.obl car-NPN.nom good-NPN
‘My car is nice’.
(73) Mango-k
anga-vü-ing
naakü-mutcu-ntü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop arm-NPN-3sg.anim.vis very-strong-nomin
‘His arms are strong’.
(74) Mango-k
kani-ing
mi’aupi-tci.
3sg.anim.vis-cop house-3sg.anim.vis small-NPN
‘His house is small’.
5.4.5
(JHJ)
Analysis: copula –uk as the overt realization of Pred
I claim that the enclitic copula -uk in Chemehuevi is the overt realization of Pred (in the
sense of Baker 2003), a functional head that enables nominals to make predicates. Pred
takes a nominal as its complement and projects a specifier, which hosts the external
argument. In Chemehuevi, Pred is required in all nominal predicative contexts: simple
nominal predicates and possessive nominal predicates, as well as predicates formed by
nominalizations (i.e., reduced relative clauses). Finite verbal predicates, however, do not
require Pred. Since Chemehuevi does not have underived adjectives, we cannot test his
theory of predication in relation to them.
179
Consider a finite verbal predicate, like the one in (75): the predicate is projected
by a stative functional verb vBE, spelled out as –ga, into which the root incorporates.
(75) Derivation of a verbal predicate
a. Pavi-a-n
naro’o-ong angka-ga-yü.
brother-obl-1sg shirt-his
red-be-pres
‘My brother’s shirt is red’.
b.
TP
3
T’
3
vP
T
3
-yü
RootP
vBE
3
-ga
Root
DP
6
angkapavian naro’ong ‘red’
‘my brother’s shirt’
This analysis also explains why copula –uk is prohibited with imperatives in
Chemehuevi: a predicate formed by a verb (imperative or indicative) does not require
Pred:
(76) Itcü-(*k) hivi-ngu.
this-cop
drink-imp
‘Drink this!’
(Press 1979:93)
Now let us turn to a derivation of a nominal predicate as in (77) below: NP1
merges with Pred, which in turn projects a specifier occupied by NP2, a predicate is
formed. NP2 may further rise to Spec-TP for case reasons. I adopt ‘the Weak Phonology’
view of 2nd position clitics defended by Bošković (2001, 2004), who argues that syntax
controls the position and movement of all elements (including clitics), but phonology
180
filters out otherwise grammatical sentences to enforce a 2nd position requirement. Under
this view Pred is base-generated on the right (as all heads in Chemehuevi, a head final
language), but its phonological realization, clitic copula -k, surfaces in the second
position due to PF requirements on clitics, stating that “clitics occur in the second
position of their intonational phrase” (Bošković 2004: 39), roughly defined as a unit of
prosodic structure with one main phrasal stress, and whose rightmost boundary is usually
followed by a pause.
(77) Derivation of a simple nominal predicate
a. Nüü-k nüwü.
1sg-cop person.NPN.nom
‘I am a person/Chemehuevi’.
b.
PredP
2
NP2
Pred’
nüü2
‘I’
NP1
Pred
nüwü
=k
‘person’
Both possessive nominal and ‘adjectival’ predicates share one feature – the
predicate is formed by a headless relative clause containing a nominalizer –tü. Compare
the following sentences: in both the subject is followed by the enclitic copula –k and the
predicate consists of a headless relative clause. This RC has a null head and can be
roughly translated into English as ‘the one having a brother’ in (78) and ‘the one being
tall’ in (79).
(78) Nüü-k pavi-ga-ntü.
1sg-cop brother-have-nomin
‘I have a brother’.
181
(79) Aipa-tci-k
pa’a-ntü-m.
boy-NPN-cop tall-nomin-anim
‘The boy is tall’ = ‘The boy is the one that is tall’.
(JHJ)
The relative clause that forms the predicates in (78) and (79) has a strong
nominalized flavor. This is due to the fact that RCs have an nP head that is
phonologically null but structurally behaves as a nominal. Thus it is not surprising that
the predicate formed by such an RC requires the Pred head to project a specifier/subject,
similarly to other nominal predicates. Recall from chapter 4 the structure of the headless
RC with the adjectival nominalization: the head is a null head n0 with some φ-features
matched with an identical head within the aP; the root is embedded under adjectival head
‘little’ a, and is further nominalized by n0 –ntü.
(80) Derivation of an adjectival headless relative clause
DP
3
D
nP
Ø
3
nPi
CP
!
3
n0
nP
C
[3sg.anim.invis]
3 [+rel]
Ø
aP
n0
2
2
nPi
a’ n0 Agr
2-ntü -m
RootP
a
!
Root
pa’a‘tall’
182
Predicate formation in (81) is identical to what occurs with simple nominal
predicates: the Pred head is merged with DP1 and projects a specifer that hosts the
subject (DP2) of the predicate.
(81) Derivation of a predicate formed by a reduced relative clause
PredP
3
DP2
Pred’
aipatci3
‘the boy’
DP1
Pred
pa’antüm
=k
‘the one that is tall’
The possessive nominal predicates have the same derivation: the only difference
is the absence of the animacy marker that marks adjectives and indicates that the category
forming ‘little’ a is embedded somewhere in the derivation of an adjectival predicate.
(82) Derivation of a possessive nominal predicate
PredP
3
DP2
nüü‘I’
Pred’
3
DP1
Pred
pavigantü
=k
‘the one having a brother’
Thus far we have seen that a clear pattern has emerged: finite verbs in
Chemehuevi do not require the functional Pred head to form predicates; nominals do
including simple nouns and nominals with a complex structure. As such we came closer
183
to understanding the functions and nature of the enclitic copula –uk: it is used to form
predicates in nominal contexts.
Now we are in the position to address the obligatory nature of copula –uk with
verbs in so called ‘habitual aspect’, i.e., verbal ‘participles’ in old terminology. Press
points out that this is the only case when verbs require the copula, but does not provide
any explanation for such a requirement. The exemplary sentences are repeated in (83)(84):
(83) Nüü-k tüka-rü.
1sg-cop eat-nomin
‘I eat’.
(84) Nüü-k nukwi-tcü.
1sg-cop run-nomin
‘I run’.
(Press 1979:199)
In chapter 4, we have established that the verb forms like the ones above are not
participles but nominalizations that form reduced relative clauses and that is the reason
why they behave as nominals. Even though they contain a vP layer, these forms are
complex DPs and as such they require Pred to form predicates. The derivation of a
predicatein (84) will have the following representation:
(85) Derivation of a predicate formed by a verbal noun
PredP
3
DP2
nüü‘I’
Pred’
3
DP1
nukwitcü
‘running one
Pred
-k
184
5.5 Copula -uk as a focus particle: a complete picture
In previous sections we have examined in detail cases where copula –uk is obligatory,
namely predicates formed from nominals, whatever their internal structure may be. In this
section we will turn to the optional uses of –uk. Press (1979) mentions that when -uk cooccurs with finite verbs (as the ones in (85)-(86) below, it does not contribute anything
semantically, but the subject may be slightly focused.
(85) Nüü-(k) huvitu-wa.
1sg-(cop) sing-pres
‘I am singing’.
(86) Manga-(k)
na’üntci-tci wünümi-ya.
3sg.anim.vis-(cop) girl-NPN.nom dance-pres
‘This girl is dancing’.
(JHJ)
She also mentions the uses of –uk with cleft constructions (‘It was John who cut
the wood) or in responses to questions like ‘Who caught the fish?’ (Press 1979:75). We
find plentiful examples of such focused use in the traditional Chemehuevi stories
recorded by Harrington and Laird in their field notes. Below are several of such
examples, in which the element followed by –ukwa is focused (emphasis is mine). In each
case the speaker is either emphasizing an element in a sentence as in (87)-(90) or
juxtaposing two propositions as in (91)-(92).
(87) Manga-’ukwa
pi-piso’a-ni-anga
‘üvüpüwüni’a…
3sg.anim.vis-cop RED-child-1sg-3sg.anim.vis bad
‘THAT one, that child of mine, is bad…’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 4)
185
(88) ‘Ava’ana-‘ukwa juhu-wüwai-kya-ku kani-pa-’ukwa-ya.
much-cop
fat-hang-perf-res house-in-3.inanim.invis-obl
‘MUCH fat was hanging in that house’.
(JPH&CL, Two Yucca Girls, 4-5)
(89) Hu-’umü-ukwa
püva-ni’i-kyai-pagai-kyai-nya-rami-’umü
emph-3pl.anim.invis-cop stay-cont-perf-travel-perf-nomin-1dual-3pl.anim.invis
‘THOSE with whom we stayed while traveling,
hu-maru’wa-vü-wa’i-mü.
emph-3sg.inim.invis-poss way-without-anim
were not that way.
(JPH&CL, Two Yucca Girls, 13)
(90) Hu-’wingya-su-’ukwa
püva-ni’i-vya-na-rami-’ungwa.
emph-3sg.anim.here-one-cop stay-cont-fut-nomin-1dual-3sg.anim.invis.
‘THIS ONE, we are going to stay with’.
(JPH&CL, Two Yucca Girls, 13)
(91) Nü-nia-’ukwa püva
karü-kai-na,
1sg-poss-cop in this position sit-res-nomin
‘It is MY place where I was sitting,
‘itsü-’ükwa
püva-ni
‘aüvi ka-karü-kai-na.”
3.inanim.here-cop in this position-1sg now mom-sit-res-nomin
THIS is where I have just now sat.’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl, 5)
(92) Hü’ü-aika41, nü’ü-kwa-aika pagai-ni’i-gai
yes
1sg-cop
walk-cont-be
‘All right, I will live by traveling around,
nüwü-gai-va-aika…,
person-be=live-fut
‘ümi-’ikwa kani-va-ni’i-va-ntü-aika…
2sg-copula house-at-cont-fut-nomin
YOU are the one that is to stay at house…’.
(JPH&CL, Exchanging of Noses, 1)
I found that the use of –uk for the expression of emphasis has parallels in
languages related to Chemehuevi. Sapir (1930) mentions a similar enclitic that occurs in
41
Aika is the Mythical Coyote’s speech signature which usually appears after his words in quoted speech.
186
Southern Paiute in focus constructions, and similarly to Chemehuevi this focus element
has the meaning of “that inanimate invisible” –aqa-:
(93) Southern Paiute
a. Nï’-aq ‘ɔai’ ‘It is I’.
b. umwa’ng-aqa ‘It is he (vis.)’.
c.umwa’ng-aqa nï’ni pïnikaikaina ‘It is he is whom I saw’.
(Sapir 1930:270)
One difference between the Chemehuevi –uk and the Southern Paiute -aqa-: the
latter can be used with imperatives, whereas the former is prohibited with imperatives:
(94) qa-aqa ‘Sing!’
(Sapir 1930:254)
A similar emphatic suffix is attested in Ute (Ute Reference Grammar, 1980),
where it marks a focused constituent (focusing on a type, rather than identity of the
individual):
(95) Ute
Ta’wa-ci-ku (‘ura-‘ay) sivaatu-ci paxa-qa-tu
man-EMP
be-imm goat-obj kill-anter-nomin
‘It was a man who killed the goat’ (rather than a woman).
(Ute Reference Grammar, 1980:207)
There is a significant difference from the Chemehuevi use of emphatic –uk in Ute:
The use of the suffix –ku in Ute precludes the use of the definite article/demonstrative
(which marks the noun as being a specific individual), whereas in Chemehuevi –uk can
co-occur with demonstratives.
(96) Ute
a. ‘u ta’wa-ci ‘ura-‘ay sivaatu-ci paxa-qa-tu
that man-subj be-imm goat-obj kill-anter-nomin
‘It was that man who killed the goat’.
b. * ‘u ta’wa-ci-ku
that man-emph
‘ura-‘ay sivaatu-ci paxa-qa-tu
be-imm goat-obj kill-anter-nomin
187
‘It was that man who killed a goat’ (rather than a woman).
(Ute Reference Grammar, 1980:207-208)
Furthermore, we find references to phonologically similar emphatic elements in
other Uto-Aztecan languages, further removed from the Southern Numic Chemehuevi,
Southern Paiute and Ute. In his survey of Uto-Aztecan languages, Langacker (1977)
mentions “an affirmative particle” that appears in focus constructions similar to the
English cleft sentences (29). In Classical Nahuatl and Tarahumara this particle is realized
as –ka- and –kwa- respectively:
(97) Classical Nahuatl
ka ye’waatl in
ni-k-čiya
aff he
subj.rel I-him-wait
‘It’s him that I’ve been waiting for’.
(98) Tarahumara
Q: yeruka ani-re=ke
Who say-past=emph
‘Who said it?’
(Langacker 1977:29)
A: rioši kwa ani-re-ke
god aff say-past=emph
‘God said it’.
(Langacker 1977:30)
Langacker suggests that this affirmative particle can be reconstructed to ProtoUto-Aztecan and adds that “affirmative and emphatic elements in UA present a complex
picture both synchronically and diachronically” (32).
In this section we have seen evidence from other UA languages that they employ
a clitic realized as *kwa ~aqa ~ kwa ~ ka ~ ku ~ ukwa ~ uk, which has emphatic or
affirmative meaning and tends to attach to the first word in a sentence. Clearly, there is a
connection between these forms used across languages of this family in cleft sentences
and for emphasis. For now, I will leave the investigation of focus/topic structure in
Chemehuevi and its correlates in related languages for future research.
188
5.6 Conclusion
In the beginning of this chapter we have revisited several puzzles of the enclitic –uk in
Chemehuevi, first mentioned in the work of Press (1979). We have seen that this element
is obligatory in some contexts but optional in others. An investigation of the predicational
properties of lexical categories in Chemehuevi in light of Baker’s (2003) theory of
predication showed that this copula is required with nominal predicates, such as
possessive and equative predicates, as well as with predicates formed by relative clauses;
however, finite verbs form predicates independently. Under this analysis the copula –uk
is viewed as the overt realization of a functional head Pred that facilitates predicate
formation of nominal elements. This copula does not inflect for Tense or Aspect, not does
it show subject agreement. Historically it is related to the 3rd person inanimate invisible
postfix pronoun -uka (Press 1979:74, Laird 1976). As for the contexts where –uk appears
optionally, we have seen indications that such uses are emphatic and have parallels in
other Southern Numic language, as well as in other languages of the Uto-Aztecan family.
Overall the analysis argued for in the chapter helps understand not only predicate
formation in Chemehuevi, but also sheds light on previously unexplained behavior of
clitic copula –uk and its occurance with verbal nominalizations.
189
5.7 Notes for community use: How to build sentences in Chemehuevi
In chapter 4, I mentioned that when we form sentences from adjectives, we need to use
copula -k/-uk after the first word in the sentence. The same copula is used to form
sentences from nouns. Compare adjectival sentences in (99) to sentences based on nouns
in (100): both types have –k/-uk attached to the first word in the sentence; however,
sentences in (99) are based on adjectives (sick, hard, big, etc.) and describe a property,
whereas sentences in (100) are all based on nouns (house, car, brother, dog, etc.) and talk
about a person, object or animal.
(99) a. Manga-k piso’otci nagamütcü.
that-cop child
sick
‘The child is sick’.
b. Marü-k tüvipü mutcuntü.
that-cop ground hard
‘The ground is hard’.
c. Marü-k pavon’okwitcü naakühokontü.
that-cop watermelon
big
‘The watermelon is big’.
d. Itch-uk nüüni kani’n
tosagarü.
this-cop my house-my white
‘This house of mine is white’.
e. Itc-uk nüüni tamupi ha’üpi.
this-cop my car nice
‘This car of mine is nice’.
(100) a. Itc-uk nüüni tamupi.
this-cop my car
‘This is my car.’
(JHJ)
190
b. Itc-uk kani.
this-cop house
‘This is a house.’
c. Itc-uk nüüni kani’n.
this-cop my house-my
‘This is my house.’
d. Ing-uk
tavatci
nüüni
this-cop man my older brother-my
‘This man is my older brother.’
pavi’n.
e. Ing-uk nüüni tcaka’i’n.
this-cop my
younger brother-my
‘He is my younger brother.’
f. Itc-uk nüüni pungu’n.
this-cop my dog-my
‘This is my dog.’
(JHJ)
As for the choice of copula, -k is used when the word it attaches to ends in a
vowel. This can be seen in (99 a-c), where –k follows manga- or marü-, both ending in
vowels. Copula –uk is used when it attaches to a word ending in a consonant: the first
word in all examples in (100) ends in a ‘hard’ sound itc- or ing-, that is why –u is inserted
before –k.
The same rules apply when we talk about possession: sentences in (101) talk
about something or someone belonging to a person or family. The ‘possessor’, i.e., the
person who has something, is mentioned first. Then follows the copula –k, followed by
the person or object being possessed, together with ending –gantü, which is means ‘the
one having something’. To be more precise, all sentences in (101) follow the pattern ‘I
am the one that has something’, where –k roughly corresponds to the English ‘am’.
191
(101) a. Nüü-k pavi-gantü.
I-cop
older brother-having
‘I have an older brother.’
b. Nüü-k tcaka’i’-gantü.
I-cop younger brother-having
‘I have a younger brother.’
c. Nüü-k pungu-gantü.
I-cop dog-having
‘I have a dog.’
d. Nüü-k kani-gantü.
I-cop house-having
‘I have a house.’
e. Mango-k o’ntokoro pu’i-ga-ntü.
He-cop brown
eye-having
‘He has brown eyes.’
(JHJ)
Finally, let us turn to sentences made up by verbs. These describe actions or
activities, like running, dancing, or working. As a rule, we do not find copula –uk in this
context. As you can see in (102) below, the action words sing, dance and run are
followed by endings –wa and -yü indicating that the action is taking place in the present,
or by the ending –vü in (103), if the action took place in the past.
(102) a. Nüü huvitu-wa.
I
sing-present
‘I am singing’.
b. Manga na’üntcitci wünümi-yü.
that
girl
dance-present
‘The girl is dancing’.
c. Manga aipatci nukwi-yü.
that
boy run-present
192
‘The boy is running’.
(103) a. Nüü namantua-umü
tco-kwipatu’i-vü.
I
together-them
head-bash-past
‘I bashed them together on the head.’
b. Nüü nukwi-vü.
I
run-past
‘I ran’.
(JHJ)
(Press 1979:51)
(JHJ)
In this section, I described the most common and simple types of sentences in
Chemehuevi. We find much more complex structures in connected speech, and especially
in traditional oral narratives and songs.
193
PART TWO
CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVE VERBS
194
CHAPTER SIX
CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVES: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
6.1
Introduction
The study of causative constructions in the languages of the world has been one of the
most recurrent topics of linguistic inquiry. Linguists from different theoretical
backgrounds have been drawn to causatives for a number of reasons. First of all, any
analysis of causatives requires a careful integration of syntax, morphology and semantics.
Secondly, causative constructions across languages share a surprising uniformity, which
makes them an interesting subject for those who study language universals. Thirdly, the
typology of causatives sheds light on crosslinguistic restrictions on possible causative
structures, which in turn help linguists understand rules of morphosyntax on a larger
scale. Lastly, the study of causation goes beyond strict linguistic inquiry, into the spheres
of philosophy and cognitive science.
This part of my dissertation focuses on morphosyntactic aspects of causatives in
Chemehuevi, an area that has never been a subject of theoretical exploration. In chapter
6, I present the data on the Chemehuevi causative verbs and outline major theoretical
concepts and issues in the theory of causative constructions, including typology of
causatives and a sample of syntactic approaches to it. I focus on structural approaches to
lexical vs. syntactic causatives in order to build a theoretical foundation for the analysis
of the Chemehuevi causative verbs in chapter 7. As in the previous chapters, I view the
195
Chemehuevi data from the perspective of Distributed Morphology with the focus on how
the relative distance of the causative affix from the root influences its distribution and
morphosyntactic behavior.
6.2
Variants of the causative morpheme in Chemehuevi
In Harrington’s unpublished field notes the most commonly attested causative marker in
Chemehuevi is -tu’i-42. Laird (1976:326) also lists –tu-, -ru-, -ro-, -tcu- as instantiations
of the causative morpheme. The Online Chemehuevi Dictionary (Elzinga 2006) cites
several instances of the causative morpheme: -tu-, -tui-, -tu’i-, -tcu-, -ru-, and -ro-43. The
picture seems to be rather complicated due to the presence of allomorphy as well as the
effects of several phonological processes.
Press (1979) identifies -tu’i- and -tu- as two primary causative morphemes in
Chemehuevi and mentions that “they may be two separate suffixes, though they vary
freely when suffixed to nouns” (63). She also points out that -tu’i- is used with verb
stems, in which case it does not alternate with -tu-. Press’s examples of alternation
between -tu’i- and -tu- are repeated in (1) below, where both suffixes are attested with a
noun wihi- ‘knife’:
(1) a. wihi-tcu’i44
knife-make
‘make a knife’
42
In some versions of Harrington/Laird’s texts /-tu’i-/ is labialized -tu’wi-. According to Laird this was the
‘old’ way of speaking, and I assume that tu’i~tu’wi alternation is a diachronic one.
43
-ro- is a variant of –ru- due to vowel harmony.
44
Front vowel /i/ causes the palatalization of /t/.
196
b. wihi-tcu
knife-make
‘make a knife’
(Press 1979:63)
We find another example of -tu’i-~-tu- alternation with a root ta- ‘heat of the
sun’; this root has a spirantization feature which triggers spirantization of the initial
consonant of the causative affixes (i.e., t > r/Root[+SPRNT] __):
(2) a. ta-ru’i-ga
heat-caus-prt
‘It’s hot (outside).’
b. ta-ru-ga
heat-caus-prt
‘It’s hot (outside).’
(Laird 1976:322)
(JHJ)
This alternation between -tu’i- and -tu- is attested in very few examples, and at
this point it is unclear whether the two forms were in free variation within one speaker,
variants employed by different speakers in the same way, or diachronic variants. One
thing is clear, however: when -tu’i- and -tu- are attached directly to roots, they become
subject to morpho-phonologically conditioned allomorphy, with palatalized -tcu-,
nasalized -ntu-/ntu’i-, and spirantized -ru-/-ru’i- as corresponding variants. Table #16
illustrates this allomorphy with examples from Laird (1976), Harrington’s unpublished
field notes, as well as the Online Chemehuevi Dictionary.
197
(3) Table #16. Chemehuevi causative affixes attached directly to roots - allomorphy
Allomorphs of vCAUS
√+ vCAUS /-tu-/
√ + vCAUS /tu’i-/
Base forms
a. huvi-tu45song-caus
Spirantized
b. wana-rup. tugwa-ru’iweb-caus
night-caus
‘make a web’
‘camp for the night’
c. ta-ru-ga
q. ta-ru’i-ga
heat/sun-caus-prt
sun-caus-prt
‘it’s hot’
‘it’s hot’
d. patsa-rumoccasin-caus
‘make moccasins’
e. havitüaa-ru
bed-caus
‘make beds’
f. paga-pü-rushoe-NPN-caus
‘make shoes’
g. tsotsivü’a-ru
hair-caus
‘make one’s hair’
h. huu-ru
arrow-caus
‘make an arrow’
Nasalized
i. naro’o-ntu
r. takwi-ntui
shirt-caus
circle-caus
‘make a shirt’
‘to encircle’
j. kwasu-ntu
dress-caus
‘put on a dress’
45
For some reason unknown to me, in this example –tu is not palatalized by the front vowel i.
198
Palatalized
k. wihi-tcuknife-caus
‘make a knife’
l. soni-tcunest-caus
‘make a nest’
m. movi-tsubeak-caus
‘make a beak’
n. kani-tsuhouse-caus
‘make a house’
o. pihi-tsubreast-make
‘make breasts’
s. wihi-tcu’iknife-caus
‘make a knife’
Notice that in all of the examples in Table #16 the causative affix –tu- follows the
root without an NPN marker, a clear indication that these causative verbs are formed
from bare roots, not derived nominal stems. In the case of the causative –tu’i-, we know it
attaches to a verbal stem because in many examples in Table #17 below there is
intervening verbal morphology between the root and the causative affix (example 4aa,
4bb, 4pp among others). When a causative verb is formed from a verbal stem, only –tu’iis attested and none of the morpho-phonological processes illustrated in Table #16 apply.
In some cases –tu’i- surfaces without the glottal stop as -tui, but these forms are clearly in
free variation: for example, both are attested with the same stem –poo- ‘write’, in
examples (4c) below. Table #17 summarizes most of the attested examples of causatives
based on verbal stems.
199
(4) Table #17. Chemehuevi causative affix attached to verbal stems: invariant -tu’iNon-causative verb stem
v+vCAUS
a. yawi‘carry’
aa. yawi-kai-tu’i
carry-perf-caus
‘made carry’
b. puni-
c. po’o-
‘see’
‘write’
d. kwipa-
‘hit’
e. na’ai-
‘burn’ (intrans)
f. noyogwa-
‘boil’ (intrans)
g. wüyuwa-
‘hang’ (intrans)
h. havi-
‘lie down’ (sg)
i. kwavi
‘lie down’ (pl)
aaa. na-yawi'i-tui
self-carry-caus
‘send’
bb. puni-kai-tu’i
see-perf-caus
‘make look, make show, show’
bbb. nü-mpuni-tu'i
person-see-caus
‘show’
cc. po'o-tu'i
write-caus
‘teach school’
ccc. nü-mpo'o-tui
person-write-caus
‘teach school’
dd. tco-kwipa-tu’i
head-hit-caus
‘bash together’
ee. na’ai-tu’i
burn-caus
‘make fire’, ‘make burn’
ff. noyogwa-tu’i
boil-caus
‘make boil’
gg. wüyuwa-tu’i
hang-caus
‘make hang’
hh. havi-tu’i
lie-caus
‘make lie down’
ii. kwa-kwavi-tu’i
mom-lie-caus
‘make them lie down’
200
j. tüka-
‘eat’
k. maga-
‘give’
l. nukwi-
‘run’
m. huvitu-
‘sing’
n. wünümi-
‘dance’
o. nagami-
‘being sick’
p. ha’üpiyuwa ‘being well’
q. wünü-
‘stand
r. ‘awa’anu-
‘being wide’
s. pagai-
‘go along’
t. karü-
‘sit down’
u. wü’i-kuv. naruga
w. nüa-gah
‘have fallen’
‘buy’
‘wind blowing’
jj. tüka-tu’i
eat-caus
‘feed, make eat’
kk. maga-tu’i
give-caus
‘make give’
ll. nukwi-tu’irun-caus‘make run’
mm. huvitu-tu’ising-caus‘make sing’
nn. wünümi-tu’idance-caus
‘make dance’
oo. nagami-tu’isick-caus
‘make sick’
pp. ha’üpi-yu-wai-tu’igood-be-become-caus
‘make well’
qq. wünü-tu’istand-caus
‘make stand
rr. ‘awa’anu-tu’iwide-caus
‘making wide’
ss. pagai-tu’i
go along-caus
‘let go along’
tt. karü-tu’i
sit-caus
‘make sit down’
uu. wü’i-ku-tu’ifall-perf-caus
‘caused to fall’
vv. naruga-tui-kani
buy-caus-house
‘store, shop’
ww. nüa-tu'i-ga
wind blow-caus-prt
‘causing wind to blow’
201
x. pitsü
‘suck’
y. paya’ai
‘drown’
xx. pitsü-tu’i
suck-caus
‘make nurse’
yy. paya’ai-tu’i
drown-caus
‘make drown’
Below are several contextual examples of both -tu- and -tu’i- from the stories
collected by Harrington and Laird, and the same distribution is attested there:
(5) Kani-vinapa-yu-’ungwa
tokwam’i-karü-gu ponia-ya-ungwa-ya
house-behind-obl-3sg.anim.invis sew-sit-pres.ptr skunk-obl-3sg.anim.invis-obl
‘Behind the house, the Skunk was sitting and sewing,
usukwi-huvi-tu-kwarü-gai,
kavü-a
patsa-ru-gwa’i.
whistle-song-make-sit-while wood rat skin-obl moccasin-make-prt.
whistling a song, while making moccasins out of wood rat skins’.
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 4)
(6) Haita-’unga
patsa-ru-ngu-su
‘aüga-rü-na,
then-3sg.anim.invis moccasin-make-mom-again new-nomin-nomin
‘Then he put on moccasins again, the new ones,
kani-a-vü
takwai-tu’wi-ngu.
house-obl-poss winding-caus-mom
and circled around his house’.
(JHJ&CL, Horned Owl: 6)
(7) Kümantsi-a paga-pü-ru-ngu-su.
other-obl shoe-NPN-make-mom-again
‘Other moccasins he put on again’.
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 7)
(8) Haita-’umü
kani-a-ukwa-ya
puni-kai-wa’i-ngu-’umü,
then-3pl.anim.invis house-obl-3sg.inanim.invis-obl
see-perf-go to.pl-mom-3pl.anim.invis
‘Then they went over to look at the house,
novi-pü-a
‘u-agarua
hüpü-ka-tu’i-tsi
puni-kai-ngu.
windbreak-NPN-obl 3.inanim.invis.obl-through holey-be/have-make-after see-perf-mom
made a hole through the windbreak and they looked inside’
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 22)
(9) ‘Upa’-umü
na’ai-tu’wi-kyai-yu
in-3pl.anim.invis burn-make-perf-past
na-yu’wai-kya-rü-ni’i-yü-’ümü.
refl-warm-res-nomin-cont-past-3pl.anim.invis
202
‘Inside they made a fire and were warming themselves’.
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 17)
(10) Haita-’umü
havitü-aa-ru-ngu-ntsi
ha-havi.
then-3pl.anim.invis bed-obj-make-mom-after mom-lie down
‘Then having made their beds, they lay down’.
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 17)
So far we have seen that there are two main causative forms in Chemehuevi: -tu’i,
which with a few exceptions attaches to verbal stems, and -tu-, which attaches directly to
roots. The first form seems rather invariant (with the exception of free variation between
speakers), whereas the second form is subject to several morpho-phonological processes.
In the next section I will review basic theory of causative verbs as well as frameworks
that will help us sort out differences between the two classes of causative constructions in
Chemehuevi.
6.3
Theoretical background
Let us turn to several typological and theoretical issues raised in the literature on
causative constructions. The focus is on generative approaches to causatives, particularly
on the structural/syntactic explanations of cross-linguistic differences between causatives
of different types.
6.3.1
Causatives: definition, valence and argument structure
Causative constructions are the linguistic expression of the conceptual notion of
causation. As such, they contain the expression of both cause and effect, and their
203
argument structure includes participants or entities that initiate either the cause or the
caused event. Payne (1997:176) gives the following definition of a causative:
(11)
Definition: a causative is a linguistic expression that contains in semantic/logical
structure a predicate of cause, one argument of which is a predicate expressing an
effect, [where] the predicate of cause […] contains the notion of causation [and]
the predicate of effect […] expresses the effect of the causative situation.
An example from English illustrates this definition:
(12) CAUS (Duck, FETCH (Coyote, ever-lasting water)) = Duck caused Coyote to fetch
ever-lasting water.
In this example, the causing predicate takes two arguments, Causer or Agent of
the predicate of cause (Duck) and the predicate expressing the effect (FETCH (Coyote,
ever-lasting water)); the predicate of effect in turn has two arguments, Causee or the
Agent of the caused event (Coyote) and Theme (ever-lasting water). Causer and Causee
are not the only thematic roles licensed by causative predicates. In the cases when the
instigator of the causing event is inanimate, its thematic role is that of Cause, as in the
example below:
(13) Education makes people reach their dreams.
Causative morphology increases the valence of a verb, since in most languages it
adds a participant to the existing argument structure46. For example, addition of a
causative affix to an intransitive monadic verb results in a transitive causative form,
46
According to Pylkkanen (2001), in some languages (Finnish, Japanese and as we will see Chemehuevi)
there are causatives without Causer (desiderative and adversity causative constructions).
204
whose argument structure contains the original subject (Causee) and the subject
introduced by the transitivizer (Causer). Causatives formed from transitive verbs have
three participants: the original subject and object, interpreted as Causee and Theme, and
the subject introduced by the transitivizer, the Causer.
In English, both unaccusative and unergative verbs can be transitivized by
conversion (examples (14) - (17)), but this process is not fully productive:
(14) English
a. Anne walked.
b. John walked Anne to the school.
(15) a. The ship sank.
b. The captain sank the ship.
(16) a. The tree fell.
b. The lumberjack felled the tree.
(17) a. The door slammed.
b. John slammed the door.
Examples from Classical Nahuatl demonstrate a productive formation of
causatives from unaccusative and unergative verbs:
(18) Classical Nahuatl
a. ∅-mitz-huetzi-tia
3sSubj-2sObj-fall-caus
‘He makes you fall’.
b. Ti-nech-tza’tzi-tia
2sSubj-1sObj-shout-caus
‘You make me shout’.
(Launey 1981:190)
(Launey 1981:181)
In many languages causative affixes can also be added to transitive verbs, as is
well demonstrated by an example from Classical Nahuatl below:
205
(19) Classical Nahuatl
Ni-mitz-cua-l-tia
in nacatl.
1sSubj-2sObj-eat-NonActive-caus the meat
‘I made you eat the meat’.
(Launey 1981:181)
Cross-linguistically the logical/semantic structure of causatives gives rise to a
variety of causative constructions.
6.3.2
Typology of causatives: lexical, affixal and syntactic causatives
The traditional typology of causatives recognizes three prototypical types – lexical,
morphological, and syntactic. In the lexical causative type, the notion of cause “is
wrapped up in the lexical meaning of the verb itself” (Payne 1997:177). According to
Payne, morphologically this type of causative can involve (i) no change in the verb (as in
the English verb close: The doors closed, vs. The boy closed the doors), (ii) some
idiosyncratic change in the verb (rise vs. raise), (iii) different verb /suppletion (eat vs.
feed, see vs. show, die vs. kill, learn vs. teach).
Morphological or affixal causatives are derived from non-causative stems with
the help of causative affixes. In some languages (Chukchee) such formation of causatives
is lexically restricted and non-productive; in others (Turkish, Japanese, Malayalam, and
Chemehuevi, among others) any verb can form a morphological causative. Examples
below illustrate such productivity in Japanese: a causative morpheme -(s)ase is added to
an intransitive verb in (20a) and to a transitive verb in (20b).
206
(20) Japanese
a. Hanako ga Ziroo o ik-ase-ta.
Hanako nom Ziroo acc go-caus-past
‘Hanako made Ziroo go.’
b. Yakko-ga Wakko-ni pizza-o tabe-sase-ta.
Yakko-nom Wakko-dat pizza-acc eat-caus-past
‘Yakko made Wakko eat pizza.’
(Song 1996:9)
(Harley 1995:52)
Syntactic, or periphrastic, causatives involve two separate predicates, one
expressing the notion of cause, the other the notion of effect. Most causatives in English
involve a separate causative verb, e.g. make, cause, force, etc. In Korean periphrastic
causatives, there is a complementizer –ke that clearly separates the two predicates:
(21) Korean
a. cini-ka
wus-əss-ta
Jinee-nom smile-pst-ind
‘Jinee smiled.’
b. kiho-ka
cini-ka wus-ke
ha-əss-ta
Keeho-nom Jinee-nom smile-comp caus-pst-ind
‘Keeno caused Jinee to smile.’
(Song 1996:3)
6.3.2.1 Affixal causatives and case marking – typological distinctions
We will focus on the affixal or morphological causatives in the remainder of this chapter,
due to a variety of distinctions that are present within this class, which are relevant to the
study of the Chemehuevi causatives.
207
Spencer (1991) identifies three possibilities of case marking for arguments in a
causative predicate. The first case is exemplified by Chamorro, where after
causativization the original subject is marked accusative and the original object oblique47:
(22) Chamorro
Ha
na’-taitai
häm
[i ma’estru] [ni esti na
lebblu].
3sg.subj caus-read
us-obj
the teacher obl this ptcl book
‘The teacher made us read this book’.
(Spencer 1991:253)
For the ease of exposition, I will represent a causative derived from a transitive
verb in a schematic fashion (adopted from Spencer 1991), where NP0 is the Causer, NP1
is the Causee and the subject of the original non-causative clause, and NP2 is the Theme
and the direct object of the original clause. Thus the Bantu type of causative case marking
is schematized below:
(23) NP1 V NP2 -> NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-ACC NP2-OBL
The second option, exemplified by Swahili, is when the original subject becomes
the direct object of the causative, and the original object remains accusative.
(24) Swahili
Maria a-li-m-lip-isha
Johni pesa kwa watoto.
Mary she-past-him-pay-caus
John money to
children
‘Mary made John pay the money to the children’.
(Spencer 1991:253)
(25) NP1 V NP2 -> NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-ACC NP2-ACC
The last option, exemplified by Turkish, is the one in which the old object
remains the object and the old subject is demoted to an optional adjunct:
47
Harley (pc) points out that this case marking pattern is representative of both morphological causatives
(as in Chamorro example) and some periphrastic causatives (as in Romance languages).
208
(26) Turkish
Dis̹ c̹ imektub-u müdür-e
imzala-t-tɨ.
Dentist letter-acc director-dat sign-caus-past
‘The dentist made the director sign the letter’.
(Spencer 1991: 253)
(27) NP1 V NP2 -> NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-DAT NP2-ACC
As we will see in chapter 7, in Chemehuevi only the subject of the main clause
(Causer) is marked with the nominative case, while all the other arguments (Causee,
Theme) are oblique.
6.3.2.2 Case marking, true objecthood and clause structure of affixal causatives
Case marking of the NPs in causative predicates is only one indicator of their clause
structure. An issue related to case marking is the thematic identity of the ‘true’ object of
the causative verb. From what we have seen in the previous section, in some languages
(as in Turkish) Theme is the true object of the derived verb, but in others (as in
Chamorro) Causee is the true object. Marantz (1984) discusses several features of true
objecthood and relates them to the clausal structure of causatives. Monoclausal
causatives behave like regular transitive verbs, i.e., syntactically they are a single clause.
Some properties of the monoclausal type of causatives are: (a) the Causee (NP1) appears
as an oblique or indirect object (not the true object) and if there is Verb-Object agreement
in a language, the derived verb agrees with the original Theme (NP2); (b) if the lower
object (NP2), Theme, is a reflexive, only the matrix subject (NP0) can be its antecedent;
(c) if the causative is passivized, Theme (NP2) is promoted to the matrix subject position
(Spencer 1991:268). The corresponding derivations are schematically represented in (28).
209
(28) a. NP1-NOM V NP2-ACC -> NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-OBL/DAT NP2-ACC
b. NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-OBL/DAT SELF0/*1-ACC
c. NP2-NOM V-CAUS-PASS (NP1-OBL) (NP0-OBL)
Malayalam, a Dravidian language of Southern India, exemplifies the monoclausal
type of causative. Here the Theme is the true object: it is marked with the accusative case
(29a), when the Theme is a reflexive, only Causer can be its antecedent (29b), and it
when the verb is passivized, the Theme is promoted to the subject position (29c).
(29) Malayalam
a. Amma
kut̩ t̩ iyekkon̩ t̩ ǝ aanaye
n̠ ul̩ l̩̩ iccu.
mother-nom child-instr
elephant-acc pinch-caus-past
‘Mother made the child pinch the elephant’.
b. Amma
kut̩ t̩ iyekkon̩ t̩ ǝ aanaye
mother-nom child-instr
(Marantz 1984:276)
swantam wit̩ t̩̩ il weccǝ
elephant-acc self’s
house at
n̠ ul̩ l̩̩ iccu
pinch-caus-past
‘Mother made the child pinch the elephant at mother’s/*child’s/*elephant’s
house’.
c. Ammayaal
aana
n̠ ul̩ l̩̩ ik’k’appettu.
mother-instr elephant-nom pinch-caus-pass-past
‘The elephant was caused by mother to be pinched’.
(Marantz 1984:282)
The biclausal causatives have a different distribution with regards to the ‘true
object’: (a) the Causee (NP1) is the true direct object of the derived verb and the Theme,
NP2, appears as a ‘frozen’ direct object or is marked with an oblique case; the verb agrees
with the Causee, if it shows object agreement; (b) if the Theme (NP2) is a reflexive, only
the Causee (NP1) can be its antecedent; (c) if the causative is passivized, the Causee is
promoted to the matrix subject position.
(30) a. NP1-NOM V NP2-ACC -> NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-ACC NP2-OBL
210
b. NP0-NOM V-CAUS NP1-ACC SELF1/*0-OBL
c. NP1-NOM V-CAUS-PASS (NP2-OBL) (NP0-OBL)
The Bantu language, Chi-Mwi:ni, has biclausal causatives, in which the Causee is
the true object. Only the higher object (Causee) can serve as the antecedent to the lower
object (Theme) reflexive (31b), and can become the subject when the causative verb is
passivized (31c):
(31) Chi-Mwi:ni
a. Mwa:limu ∅-wa-ánd̩̩ ik-ish-iz-e
wa:na xat̩ i.
teacher SP-OP-write-caus-T/A children letter
‘The teacher made the children write the letter’.
(Abasheikh 1979 as cited in Marantz 1984:267)
b. Wa:na wa- ánd̩̩ ik -ish-iz-a: xat̩ i na mwa:limu.
children SP-write-caus-pass-T/A letter by teacher
‘The children were made to write a letter by the teacher’.
c. Mi ni-m-big-ish-iz-e mwa:na ru:hu-y-é.
I SP-OP-hit-caus-T/A child
himself
‘I made the child hit himself’.
(Marantz 1984:270)
(Marantz 1984:271)
In chapter 7, I use these diagnostics to determine the clausal structure of the
Chemehuevi causatives. It is also useful to point out that since there are different ways in
which one might construe of the term ‘clause’ (vP, IP, CP), in my discussion of the
Chemehuevi causatives by ‘monoclausal’ I mean containing one vP, one event and by biclausal two vPs, two events.
211
6.3.3 Early syntactic analyses of the typology of affixal causatives: Marantz (1984) and
Baker (1988)
In the previous sections we have examined several aspects in which affixal causatives can
differ and saw that these differences are related to mono- or biclausal structure of the
causative predicates. In this section we will consider two theories that attempt to explain
these clusters of properties across languages, both of which sprang from the framework
of Government and Binding in early 1980s.
6.3.3.1 Marantz (1984): Morphological merger of causative affixes
Marantz (1984) offers one of the first structural solutions to differences in case marking
and agreement between mono- and biclausal causatives. He argues that the difference
comes from the timing of the morphological merger of the causative affix with the stem.
In his theory of grammatical relations, there are several levels of representation: (i)
logico-semantic structure (l-s structure), which represents “the syntactically encoded
semantic dependencies among sentential constituents” (6), (ii) the syntactic structure (sstructure), an intermediary between l-s representation and the surface representation,
which is essentially a “constituent structure tree” that displays the grammatical relations
among constituents, encoded in the l-s structure, (iii) the surface structure where all
syntactic operations happen. Crucially, Marantz’s theory does not derive the s-structure
from l-s structure, but rather determines whether there is a valid mapping relationship
212
between the two. Affixes, like other lexical entries, carry features. The features of a
derived word are determined by the features of its constituents through the process of
percolation: features of every morpheme percolate up the word tree, and features of
affixes take precedence over the features of roots, unless an affix is unspecified for any
features (Marantz 1984:9).
For Marantz (1984:264), a causative affix has an argument structure and a lexical
entry:
(32) ‘cause’ (caused), [+log subject], [+transitive]
Like any other affix with an argument structure, a causative affix is independent
at some level and must merge with a root or a stem. The level at which the merger takes
place determines whether a language has mono- and biclausal causatives.
Marantz (1984) claims that cross-linguistically all derived causatives, both monoand biclausal have the l-s structure in (33).
(33) l-s representation of a derived causative (based on Marantz 1984:262)
S
3
NP0
VP
causer
3
V
S
causative
3
verb/affix
NP1
VP
causee 3
V
NP2
theme
213
The monoclausal causative type results when the merger of the causative to the
root occurs at l-s structure. Recall that in this type, the lower object is marked as direct
objects are marked, and the causee has an oblique marking (instrumental in Malayalam).
(34) Table #18. Monoclausal causative structure (based on Malayalam, Marantz
1984:279, 281)
(a) l-s relations
(b) merger at l-s structure
S
S
3
3
NP0
VP1
NP0
VP1
causer
3
causer
9
S
V1
NP1 NP2
V3
3
CAUS
causee theme 2
NP1
VP2
V2
V1
CAUS
causee 3
amma
kut̩
t̩
iyekkon
t̩
ǝ
annaye
n
ul̩
l̩̩ i –ik’k’̩
̠
NP2
V2
mother-nom
child-instr
elephant-acc
pinch-caus
theme
The causative predicate (V1) does not take an object because only the root can
assign a syntactic role to its argument, so the only object is that of the root verb (V2). The
causee becomes an indirect argument of the derived verb (V3) and is marked with the
instrumental case in Malayalam. In other languages with the l-s merger, the causee can be
expressed as a goal or however the displaced subject of a passive is expressed (Marantz
1984:282).
In languages like Chi-Mwi:ni, the merger of the causative affix with the root takes
place at s-structure. Recall that in this case the causee acts like a direct object of the
derived causative verb, and the original object is marked as oblique. Marantz argues that
the causative morpheme is an ECM predicate, in that it takes the lower proposition as a
complement. This ECM construction is Raising-to-Object, in which NP1 is the subject of
214
the lower clause and the object of the upper clause. Both the causative and the root verb
take objects in l-structure, but only the causee can receive a syntactic role from the
derived verb, since Chi-Mwi:ni verbs assign only one role each. The l-s representation,
merger at s-structure and the post-merger representation are summarized in (35):
(35) Table #19. Biclausal causative structure (based on Chi-Mwi:ni, Marantz 1984:268269)
(a) l-s representation
(b)Merger at s-structure
(c) post-merger
S
S
S
3
3
3
NP0
VP
NP0
VP
NP0
VP
Causer
causer 3
causer 9
V
S
V
NP1 NP2
V
NP
[S,
VP]
S
1
2 causee theme
CAUS 3
2
CAUS
causee
V CAUS
NP1
VP
NP1 VP
causee3
2
causee
V
NP2
V
NP2
theme
theme
So for Marantz (1984), all causatives are formed by morphological merger, but
mono-clausal causatives are formed before syntax (which makes them closer to a regular
transitive verb), while biclausal causatives are formed in the syntactic component. In the
theory we will consider next, developed by Baker in his dissertation, both types of
causatives are derived in the syntax, and the differences between mono- and biclausal
causatives are the result of two different derivations.
215
6.3.3.2 Baker (1988): incorporation analysis of affixal causatives
Baker (1988) argues for an incorporation analysis of morphological causatives, in which
the V that heads the lower VP incorporates into the causative V head via head movement.
The crucial assumptions of this approach are that all morphemes (including the causative
affix) are input to the syntax and that the causative morpheme is a Verb projecting the
matrix VP. The incorporation of the lower verb into the matrix causative V is subject to
independent syntactic principles such as:
(i)
Head Movement Constraint: X may move into Y, where X and Y are zero
level categories, only if Y governs the position of X (Travis 1984),
(ii)
Empty Category Principle: All traces must be properly governed,
(iii)
The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis: Identical thematic
relationships between items are represented by identical structural
relationships between those items at the level of D-structure (Baker 1988:46).
In essence the UTAH guarantees that the same relationship holds between the verb
like melt and its argument the ice (Theme) at D-structure, regardless of whether the
Theme surfaces as the subject (The ice melted) or as the object (John melted the ice). The
main significance of the UTAH is in that it “points away from a lexical analysis of
causative, applicative, and noun incorporation structures and gives theoretical motivation
for analysis in terms of syntactic X0 movement” (Baker 1988:49).
Baker argues that crosslinguistically two types of causative structures result from
differences in Case-marking (173). Monoclausal causatives are attested in languages that
lack double object constructions because their verbs cannot assign (structural or inherent)
case to more than one NP. So for the Theme in the lower clause to get case, it must tag
216
along with the whole VP to form a morphological causative, resulting in structure (36a)
below. Baker includes Malayalam, Chichewa, Turkish, Jacaltec, Finnish and Quechua in
this group (191). Languages that have biclausal causatives must allow their verbs to
assign structural or inherent case to more than one NP and consequently also allow true
double objects. This is the case in some Bantu languages (Kinyarwanda, Luyia, Mashi,
Kimeru, Chimwiini), Choctaw, and Japanese (dative and accusative cases are assigned by
triadic verbs). In the biclausal causative, the NP1 receives the accusative case from the
derived verb, while the NP2 remains in the lower VP with oblique case.
(36) Table #20. Formation of mono- vs. biclausal causatives (based on Baker 1988:173)
a. Monoclausal
b. Biclausal
S
S
2
2
NP0
VP
NP0
VP
2
2
VCAUS
CP
VCAUS CP
2
2
VPi
IP
C
IP
2 2
!
2
V
NP2 NP1 I’
Vi
NP1
I’
2
2
I
VP
I
VP
!
!
!
2
Ø
ti
ti
V
NP2
!
ti
Recall that in monoclausal causatives, the lower object NP2 (Theme) becomes the
direct object of the causative verb, while the lower subject NP1 (Causee) becomes
oblique. Baker reaches this result by raising the lower VP in its entirety to Spec-CP; the
lower V then incorporates into the causative V (structure 36a). In biclausal causatives, the
217
lower subject NP1 (Causee) is the true object of the causative verb (similar to the ECM
verb like believe), a fact that allows Baker to posit that in this case the lower V
incorporates directly into the causative V (structure 36b). The configuration in (36a)
allows for the accusative case marking of the NP2 by the derived causative verb that
governs into the VP in the Spec-CP position.
The strength of Baker’s theory is in deriving typological differences from
independent syntactic principles. He also demonstrates that morphological causative
formation through verb incorporation is parallel in many ways to the formation of
applicatives, complex verbs, noun incorporation and passive formation. He also offers
another testing technique for biclausality – the availability of double object constructions
in a language.
6.3.4
Japanese affixal causatives: lexical vs. syntactic
So far we have considered several planes in the typological classification of causatives.
Causatives can be lexical, morphological (affixal), or syntactic (periphrastic); they can be
either mono- or biclausal with respect to different properties such as case; and can have
various combinatorial possibilities across languages (i.e., can be restricted to intransitive
stems, or have no restrictions). In this section, we will see that the typology outlined
above is not always straightforward. It has been shown in the literature that even though
Japanese causatives belong to the morphological type, some of them behave as lexical
(unproductive) causatives, while others -- as syntactic (productive) causatives, a fact that
218
makes a uniform analysis of Japanese causatives quite problematic. Let us consider the
Japanese causatives in some detail.
To form a causative in Japanese, the causative morpheme –(s)ase is attached to a
non-causative verb, and the resulting causative verb acts as a single phonological and
morphological entity (Kitagawa 1986, Manning, Sag & Iida 1999). Morphologically all
V+sase causatives are very similar: they constitute a single phonological word, are
subject to phonological allomorphy, -sase is a bound morpheme, etc. However, there are
a number of clear distinctions that indicate that some V+sase causatives are lexical while
others are syntactic.
Several syntactic tests have been proposed in the literature on Japanese causatives to
distinguish between monoclausal and biclausal causatives (see Harley 2006a:5 for a
complete list). Among them are:
(i)
Scope: with biclausal causatives VP-modifying adverbials can take scope over
either the causing or the caused event (Shibatani 1976, Kitagawa 1994)); also
quantifiers on the object of the root can have both high and low scope; with
monoclausal causatives there is no ambiguity in scope (Kitagawa 1994);
(ii)
Control: subject control adjuncts, such ‘while Xing’ or ‘by means of Xing’
can be controlled by either Causer or Causee only in the case of biclausal
causatives;
(iii)
Binding: the subject-oriented anaphors can be anteceded by either high or low
subject only in bi-clausal causatives (Kuroda 1965, Shibatani 1976);
219
(iv)
Disjunction: only in the case of bi-clausals the causing and the caused events
can be conjoined by the disjunct ‘or’;
(v)
Negative polarity items: NPI licensed in a single clause domain and as such
can indicate a mono-clausal nature of a causative (Kuroda 1965).
Essentially all of these tests are based on the identification of the number of events in
a particular utterance. Mono-clausal causatives contain only one event, whereas biclausal causatives contain two.
Harley (2006a:6-7) provides the following summary of distinguishing properties
of the two typesof morphological causatives in Japanese:
(37) a. Lexical causatives:
monoclausal
can have idiomatic interpretation (Miyagawa 1980, 1984, Zenno 1985)
exhibit allomorphy with other lexical causative affixes (Jacobsen 1981)
strong speaker sense of ‘listedness’, non-productivity
may feed non-productive nominalization (Volpe 2005)
behaves syntactically, semantically, and morphologically like a single verb which
heads a single verb phrase
b. Syntactic causatives:
productive and compositional
biclausal by tests involving scope, adverbial control, binding, disjunction
monoclausal by tests involving negative polarity and tense
make-causative monoclausal by tests involving case
Causee must be animate/Agentive
Notice that syntactic causatives exhibit both monoclausal and biclausal properties,
another complication in the face of a uniform analysis. The following examples illustrate
a lexical (38) and a syntactic causative (39) in Japanese:
220
(38) Taroo-ga zisyoku-o
niow-ase-ta.
Taro-nom resignation-acc smell-caus-past
‘Taro hinted at resignation’. (Literally: ‘Taro made resignation smell.’)
(39) Hanako-wa Yoshi-o ik-ase-ta.
Hanako-top Yoshi-acc go-caus-past
‘Hanako made Yoshi go.’
(Harley 2006a:3)
The main problem for a uniform account of Japanese lexical and syntactic
causatives is that it is tempting to say that lexical causatives are formed in the lexicon,
but syntactic causatives -- in the syntax. Such approach would explain the idiosyncratic
behavior of lexical causatives, and the productivity of the syntactic ones, as well as the
mono-clausal vs. bi-clausal structures of the two. Within Principles and Parameters
framework, Baker’s (1988) incorporation analysis of affixal causatives is probably the
most representative of such an approach.
6.3.4.1 Baker’s (1988) incorporation analysis
Recall from the previous section, that Baker argues for two different derivations for
monoclausal and biclausal causatives. In his discussion of Japanese causatives, he
examines only the syntactic V+sase causatives and analyses them as biclausal. Below are
Baker’s (1988) example from Japanese and the corresponding derivation:
(40) Taroo wa Hanako ni sono hon o
kaw-(s)ase-ta.
Taro-top Hanako-dat that book-acc buy-caus-past
‘Taro made/let Hanako buy that book’.
(Baker 1988:177)
221
(41) Derivation for a Japanese syntactic causative (based on Baker 1988:185)
TP
2
NP0
T’
2
VP
T
2 -ta
CP
VCAUS
2
-sase
IP
C
2
NP1 I’
Hanoka-ni 2
VP
I
2
NP2
V
Taro-wa
sono hono
kaw
Baker’s analysis accounts for the behavior of syntactic causatives, but has nothing
to say about the lexical causatives, since it is assumed that they are formed in the presyntactic module, i.e., in the lexicon.
6.3.4.2 Harley (1995, 2005): Event structure and low vs. high-attachment causatives
Harley (1995, 2005) argues for a uniform account for lexical and syntactic causatives in
Japanese based on the fact (observed by Miyagawa 1984) that there is a systematic
relationship between the two types: “Lexical interpretations of –sase are possible only if
the root to which it is attached does not have a causative form derived in another way”
(Harley 2006a:20). In other words, V+sase can have a lexical interpretation only if a verb
in question does not have an irregular transitive or ditransitive form. For example, there
222
are 16 classes of verbs that have irregular inchoative/causative forms (extensively
documented by Jacobsen 1992), which involve affixes other than –sase to form causative
forms (-e- in ag-e-ru ‘rise’, -s- in hita-s-u ‘soak, -as- in hekom-as-u ‘dent’, -os- in horobos-u ‘ruin’, among others). The main point is that –sase is an ‘elsewhere’ morpheme: it
appears with both lexical and syntactic causatives, provided that no other causative affix
is assigned to that particular stem. Under these circumstances a unified treatment of all –
sase causatives is needed and, as Harley demonstrates, a syntactic account is the only
way to go.
Harley argues for a decompositional Late Insertion view of all Japanese causative
verbs, in which a verb is formed from combination of a root with a verbal functional head
that can come in different flavors. Causative verbs are formed when a root head-moves to
a functional head little vCAUS (which projects an external argument Agent/Causer),
whereas inchoative verbs involve head movement of the root to the little vBECOME (which
does not project an external argument). Harley shows that lexical causatives denote a
single event (similar to the English verb open) and are non-compositional, whereas
syntactic causatives consist of two events, the causing event plus an event resulting from
it, are productive and compositional (similar to the English periphrastic causatives cause
x to die or make x leave). One of the consequences of these structural differences is that
in the formation of a lexical causative, vCAUS is immediately adjacent to the root, but in a
productive causative, vCAUS takes a whole vP as a complement and is not adjacent to the
root. Consider Harley’s examples and corresponding structures repeated below:
223
(42) Table #21. Japanese lexical vs. syntactic causative structures (Harley 2006a:32)
Lexical causative
Syntactic causative
b.
vP
a.
vP
3
3
DP
v’
DP
v’
Taro-ga
Taro-wa
3
3
RootP
vCAUS
vP
vCAUS
3
-s
3
-sase
DP
Root
DP
v’
tenoura-o kae
3
Hanako-ni
RootP
vº
3
Ø
DP
Root
hansai-o tutae
Taro-ga tenoura-o kae-s…
Taro-wa Hanako-ni hanasi-o tutae-sase-ta.
Taro-nom palm-acc return-caus
Taro-top Hanako-dat story-acc convey-caus-past
‘Taro did it all at once’.
‘Taro made Hanako convey a story’.
Recall that in the case of lexical causatives there are many morphemes that can
compete for the realization of vCAUS (depending on the class the verb belongs to), and –
sase is the least specified one, an elsewhere morpheme. So in the example (42a) above
the VI that wins the competition has the following entry:
(43) –s- <> vCAUS / [√V+VI+VII_____v],
Since the verb kae belongs to class VI, -s- is the Vocabulary Item most specified
for this context; the elsewhere morpheme –sase- is blocked because a more specified
morpheme wins the competition. As for the syntactic causative in (335b), there are two
little vo heads, one introducing the external argument of tutae ‘convey’, and the other the
Causer of the causative clause. As Harley (2005) explains, “In a syntactic causative,
head-to-head movement of the root up through its own immediately c-commanding vo
and into the matrix –sase vo will create a complex structure in which the matrix vCAUS
224
will not meet the structural description for any special root-conditioned allomorphs of
vCAUS” (31). This is the reason why syntactic causatives in Japanese are always spelledout with –sase48.
This syntactic approach to both lexical and syntactic causatives successfully
accounts for monoclausal properties of the former and biclausal properties of the latter.
The presence of two vPs in syntactic causatives triggers the ambiguity of scope of
adverbials, quantifiers and subject control adjuncts, as well as the ambiguity of subject
oriented anaphors. vP has also been argued to be a locus of idiomatic interpretation
(Marantz 1997), a fact that explains why only lexical V+sase causatives can have
lexicalized meanings: vCAUS –sase is adjacent to the root and both of them appear within
a single vP. In a syntactic causative vCAUS –sase is not adjacent to the root and is
separated from it by another vP layer. This analysis also captures the fact that both lexical
and analytic causatives can contain –sase, unless there is a more specified form, i.e., –
sase is analyzed as an “elsewhere” morpheme. It also explains the impossibility of lexical
unergative causatives in Japanese: unergative verbs are essentially vP with an external
argument, and lexical causatives are always formed on stems lacking an external
argument.
Harley’s analysis also explains why productive causatives behave as monoclausal
by tests of tense, case and negative polarity items. These properties can be explained by
the size of the complement that vCAUS takes, which is either RootP or vP, neither of which
48
Arad (2003) argues that vP is also a locus for allomorphic conditioning: “roots can only condition
specific allomorphs of morphemes which are syntactically directly adjacent to them “ (Harley 2006a:36).
225
contains the TP projection, whose functional head T is responsible for licensing
nominative case and carrying tense features. Negative polarity items are licensed by Neg
head that also lies outside of vP. The unavailability of T and Neg heads in the lower
clause of productive causatives results in a single tense, case and NPI domain.
All of the diagnostic tests described above will prove to be instrumental in
determining the structure of the Chemehuevi causatives of two types. For additional
finer-grained analysis of morphological causatives, let us turn to Pylkkanen (2002).
6.3.4.3 Pylkkanen (2002): Complements of vCAUS and causative typology
Pylkkanen (2002) offers an analysis of affixal causatives in Japanese and other languages
that is also based on the size of the complement of the causative head. Crucially for her
analysis, the causative head vCAUS does not project a Causer argument, and
causativization does not always increase the number of arguments. According to her, one
source of crosslinguistic variation is Voice-bundling: vCAUS can occur either by itself or
be bundled with Voice, the functional head introducing the external argument. In nonVoice bundling languages, like Japanese and Finnish, the causing event is introduced by
vCAUS, but the Causer is projected independently by the Voice head. This is the reason
why non-Voice bundling languages have instances of causation without the external
argument, like desiderative causatives in Finnish and adversity causatives in Japanese. I
will show in chapter 7 that Chemehuevi is a non-Voice bundling language: it has
causatives without a Causer, as well as causatives based on unergative verbs. English, on
226
the other hand, is a Voice-bundling language: its zero-causatives (melt, burn, close)
depend on Voice and always have a Causer. The corresponding structures for Voicebundling are repeated in (44a) and (44b) below:
(44) Table #22. Variation: Voice-bundling of the causative head (based on Pylkkanen
2002:75)
a. Non-voice bundling causative
b. Voice-bundling
(Japanese and Finnish)
(English)
Chemehuevi
Causer
49
Voice
Causee
Causer
[Voice, vCAUS]
vCAUS
-
vCAUS introduces a causing event
Voice introduces an external argument
Adversity causatives in Japanese
Desiderative causatives in Finnish
Unergative causatives are available (SpecvCAUS)
-
English zero causatives (melt, burn) depend on
Voice for the external argument, and always
have a Causer
Unergative causatives are unavailable
Example (45) from Japanese illustrates a case when a causing event is present but
the Causer is missing. The sentence can have two meanings, one in which Taro causes his
son’s death (in which case Voice projects Causer) and the other in which Taro is affected
by his son’s death, but does not cause it (no Voice, no Causer):
(45) Taroo-ga musuko-o sin-ase-ta.
Taro-nom son-acc die-caus-past
(i) ‘Taro caused his son to die’.
(ii) ‘Taro’s son died on him’.
The second meaning is known as the adversity reading and is only available with
lexical causatives (Oerhle & Nishio, 1981). Pylkkanen shows that the availability of both
49
The little v is a category-defining functional head in the sense of Marantz (1997), and Voice is the
functional head projecting the external argument (Kratzer 1996).
227
meanings is due to two different structures associated with lexical and productive
causatives. She argues that vCAUS can combine with (i) a category-neutral root50, (ii) a vP
lacking an external argument, and (iii) a vP with an external argument51, termed a phaseselecting vCAUS. In Japanese, lexical causatives are root-selecting (46a), whereas
productive causatives are phase-selecting (46c). I will show in chapter 7 that Chemehuevi
vCAUS can select for both roots and VoiceP.
(46) Table #23. Variation: Selection of the causative head (based on Pylkkanen 2002:77 )
a. Root-selecting vCAUS
b. Verb-selecting vCAUS
c. Phase-selecting vCAUS
(English zero-causative,
(Finnish –tta causative,
(Japanese productive
Japanese lexical causative) Bemba -eshya causative)
causatives, Luganda and
Venda causatives)
Chemehuevi -tu
causatives
Chemehuevi -tu’i causatives
vP
vCAUS
-
-
√ Root
No adverbial VP
modification of the caused
event (*manner adverbs
beautifully)
No intervening verbal
morphology
Monclausal = one vP
vCAUS
-
v
√ Root
Manner adverbs are ok for
the caused event
*Agentive adverbs
(deliberately, on purpose)
Intervening morphology is
ok
VoiceP
vCAUS
-
θEXT
Voice
vP
All adverbial modification is
fine including agentive adverbs
All kinds of verbal heads can
intervene between CAUS and
the root
Biclausal = two vPs
With root-selecting causatives, neither adverbial VP-modification of the caused
event, nor verbal morphology between the causative morpheme and the root should be
possible.
For example, in Japanese the adversity causative meaning (a diagnostic for lexical
causatives) disappears as soon as a VP-adverb like bravely or quietly is added or when a
50
51
Similarly to Harley’s lexical causative.
Similarly to Harley’s syntactic causative.
228
desiderative morpheme –tai- intervenes between vCAUS and the root, i.e., as soon as the
complement of vCAUS is larger than the root:
(47) Taroo-ga musuko-o isagiyoku sin-ase-ta.
Taro-nom son-acc
bravely
die-caus-past
(i) ‘Taro bravely caused his son to die’.
(ii)* ‘Something caused Taro to be adversely affected by his son dying bravely’.
(48) Taroo-ga musuko-o sini-taku-sase-ta.
Taro-nom son-acc
die-des-caus-past
(i) ‘Taro made his son want to die’.
(ii) * ‘Taro was adversely affected by his son wanting to die’.
(Pylkkanen 2002:99)
Verb-selecting causatives require verbal morphology between the vCAUS and the
root, and also allow adverbial modification, except for agentive adverbs, since the
external argument is not part of the structure. Thus, Bemba causatives allow lower scope
for non-agentive manner adverbs like quickly and beautifully, but disallow lower scope
for agentive adverbs like on purpose or willingly. Also many verbal affixes (stative and
reciprocal heads) can intervene between vCAUS and the root.
(49) Naa-butwiish-ya Mwape ulubilo.
I.past-run-caus Mwape fast
(i) ‘I made Mwape RUN QUICKLY’.
(ii) ‘I QUICKLY MADE Mwape run’.
(Givon 1976:343, as cited in Pylkkanen 2002:105)
(50) Naa-mu-fuund-ishya uku-laanda iciBemba ku-mufulo.
I-past-him-learn-caus to-speak
Bemba on-purpose
(i) ‘I, on purpose, made him learn to speak Bemba’.
(ii) *‘I made him on purpose learn to speak Bemba’.
(Givon 1976:329, as cited in Pylkkanen 2002:105)
(51) a. Naa-tem-ek-eshya iciimuti.
I.past-cut-stat-caus stick
‘I caused the stick to be cut’.
(Givon 1976:332, as cited in Pylkkanen 2002:105)
229
b. Naa-mon-an-ya
Mwape na Mutumba.
I.past-see-rec-caus Mwape and Mutumba
‘I made Mwape and Mutumba see each other’.
(Givon 1976:335, as cited in Pylkkanen 2002:105)
Phase-selecting causatives should not exhibit any of the restrictions with regards
to adverb modification or intervening verbal morphology, since they select for VoiceP. In
Bantu languages, Venda and Luganda, many morphemes can intervene between CAUS
and the root causatives, including a high applicative morpheme (examples 52-53); also
both languages allow lower scope agentive modification for causative predicates
(examples 54-55).
(52) Venda
a. –tshimbila
b. –tshimbi-dza
c. –tshimbil-el-a
d. –tshimbil-e-dz-a
(53) Luganda
a. tambula
b. tambu-z-a
c. tambul-ir-a
d. tambul-i-z-a
‘walk’
‘make walk’
‘walk for’
‘make walk for’
‘walk’
‘make walk’
‘walk for’
‘make walk for’
CAUS
APPLIC
ALLPIC-CAUS
CAUS
APPLIC
APPLIC-CAUS
(54) Venda
Muuhambadzi o-reng-iz-a
Katonga mod9oro nga dzangalelo.
salesman
3sg.past-buy-caus-FV Katonga car
with enthusiasm
‘The salesman made Katonga BUY THE CAR EAGERLY’.
(Pylkkanen 2002:108)
(55) Luganda
Omusomesa ya-wandi-sa
Katonga ne obu nyikivu
teacher
3sg.past-write-caus-FV Katonga with the dedication
‘The teacher made Katonga WRITE WITH DEDICATION.’
(Pylkkanen 2002:109)
230
Pylkkanen’s typology also makes predictions about the availability of
causativizing unergatives within an all-syntactic framework. She argues that in English
unergative causatives are unavailable (*John cried the child) because Voice and CAUS
are bundled into one syntactic head and there is no available position for the Causee (x),
which in non-bundling languages appears in the specifier of vCAUS, as its other argument.
(56) Root-causativized unergative
y
Voice
x
vCAUS
√ cry
In non-bundling voice languages, like Japanese, causativized unergatives are
available:
(57) John-ga kodomo-o nak-asi-ta.
John-nom child-acc cry-caus-past
‘John made the child cry’.
Pylkkanen’s analysis of causatives is quite interesting especially because it
provides answers to crosslinguistic variation in the behavior of causative constructions. It
also captures the generalization that there is a systematic difference between causative
verbs based on roots and those based on verbal stems; in that it is compatible to Harley’s
low vs. high-attachment causatives. For the purposes of our discussion of the
Chemehuevi causatives, three main themes can be taken from Pylkkanen’s treatment of
crosslinguistic variation of vCAUS: (i) a language can have causatives of two different
types (root-selecting and phase-selecting causatives coexist in Japanese and as we will
see in Chemehuevi); (ii) in some languages causation is separate from the presence of an
231
external argument and I will show that Chemehuevi is one of the languages that have
causatives without a Causer; (iii) in some languages (like Chemehuevi) Voice (not vP) is
a phase, i.e., a domain of special meaning/phonology.
6.4
Conclusion: Low vs. high-attachment analysis of affixal causatives
The idea of high or low attachment of the causative affix has proved quite efficient in
explaining differences between lexical and syntactic causatives in Malagasy and Tagalog
(Travis 2000), and across several other languages (Svenonius 2005). The idea has also
been extended to word formation in general: based on data from Hebrew, Arad (2003)
demonstrates systematic differences between words formed directly from roots and those
formed from nouns, verbs and adjectives. As Harley puts it, “Attachment of a morpheme
to a higher functional projection results in regular morphology and compositional
meaning, while attachment of the same morpheme to a lower projection (often the root),
results in some allomorphy and potential meaning drift” (Harley 2006a:37). For example,
Travis shows that in Malagasy and Tagalog, lexical causatives exhibit a range of
idiosyncrasies:
(i)
Semantic idiosyncrasies: transitive forms of inchoative verbs often have a
non-compositional meaning (in Tagalog, inchoative sumabog means ‘X
explode’, but the transitive counterpart nagsabog means ‘Y scatters X’, not ‘Y
explodes X’ (158));
232
(ii)
Phonological idiosyncrasies: in Malagasy, when lexical causative morpheme
/an-/ is added to a root with an initial consonant, fusion occurs and the
consonant is deleted (an + p => am), whereas usually any combination of a
consonant with a nasal results in a nasalization of the consonant (n + p => mp)
(159);
(iii)
Lexical idiosyncrasies: sometimes verbs with causative meaning contain the
causative morpheme but have no inchoative counterpart (in Tagalog m-paghalo means ‘Y mix X’, but there is no *humalo ‘X incorporates’ (157);
sometimes the lexical causative is optional (in Tagalog both hiwa and paghiwa ‘X cut Y’ are possible (160)); often a transitive verb does not have a
causative morpheme in it (Malagasy mividy ‘X buy Y’ (160)).
The syntactic causatives in both languages have none of these idiosyncrasies and are
truly productive: they always add an additional Causer, their meaning is always
compositional ‘X causes Y to V’, and they trigger regular phonological processes (ex.
nasalization in Malagasy, as opposed to fusion).
Table #24 summarizes the differences between lexical and productive morphological
causatives (based on Travis 2000, Pylkkanen 2002, Harley 2006a, Svenonius 2005).
(58) Table #24. Summary of properties of low and high attachment causatives
Module
Lexical /root/ low
Productive / verb stem/
attachment causatives high attachment
causatives
Phonology
Idiosyncratic
Regular
Morphology
Irregular,
allomorphy
Regular
233
Semantics
Compositionality
Availability of
inchoative/transitive
counterparts
Type of causation
Animacy
Case-marking:
Causee
Theme
Syntax
Theme is Reflexive
Passive
Event/ clause
structure
Restrictions on the
base
Availability of
causation w/out
Causer
Morphosyntax
Scope of adverbs,
subject control
adjuncts and subject
oriented anaphors
Iteration
Intervening
morphology between
CAUS and root
Non-compositional,
meaning drifts
Incomplete
paradigms: either one
can be missing
Direct
No restrictions
Marked as oblique
Marked as direct
object
Causer as antecedent
Theme is subject of
passive
Single event, monoclausal predicate
High (unaccusative,
intransitive stems
only)
Possible
Unambiguous
None
None
Compositional
Complete paradigms:
usually both attested
Indirect (permissive,
assistive)
Animate Causee
Marked as direct
object
Marked as oblique
Causee as antecedent
Causee is subject of
passive
Two events, bi-clausal
predicate
Low (intransitive,
transitive, unergative);
highly productive
Impossible (in Voicebundling languages)
Possible (in non-Voice
bundling languages)
Potentially ambiguous
Possible stacking
Possible (ex. aspect
morphemes,
applicative, etc.)
This summary provides a general framework for the study of Chemehuevi
causatives. In chapter 7 we examine causative verbs in Chemehuevi, with several
theoretical questions in mind: Where do Chemehuevi causatives fit typologically? Are
they monoclausal or biclausal, low-attachment or high-attachment? We will examine
234
evidence from phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics to show that indeed both
types of causatives are attested in Chemehuevi. We will also address issues related to the
case marking and syntactic status of the arguments of causative verbs. The answers to
these questions help place Chemehuevi causatives within the typology of causative
constructions, and also shed light on several theoretical issues in the study of affixal
causatives.
6.5 Notes for community use: How use the causative construction ‘make something’
in Chemehuevi
In this part of my dissertation, I discuss two types of causative constructions in
Chemehuevi. The first type is used when one is talking about making things, like building
a house, sewing a shirt, or baking bread, and instead of using two separate words like in
the English examples, Chemehuevi has an option of expressing the idea in one word.
Consider several examples below: a root, referring to the object being made, is followed
by the causative ending –tu, with its variants –ntu, -ru, and –tsu/-tcu (the type of ending
must be memorized for each word).
(59) a. huvi-tu
song-make
‘sing’
(60) a. wana-ru
web-make
‘make a web’
b. ta-ruga
heat-making
235
‘it’s hot’
c. patsa-ru
moccasin-make
‘make moccasins’
d. havitüaa-ru
bed-make
‘make beds’
(61) a. naro’o-ntu
shirt-make
‘make a shirt’
b. kwasu-ntu
dress-make
‘make a dress, put on a dress’
(62) a. wihi-tcu
knife-make
‘make a knife’
b. soni-tcu
nest-make
‘make a nest’
c. kani-tsu
house-make
‘make a house’
After the word of making something is formed, it behaves like a regular verb and
can take regular verbal endings, like –ngu in the examples below indicating that an action
described by the verb has taken place.
(63) Kümantsia pagapü-ru-ngu-su.
other
shoe-make-mom-again
‘Other moccasins he put on again’.
(64) Haita-’umü havitü-aa-ru-ngu-ntsi
then-they
bed-make-mom-after
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 7)
hahavi.
lay down
236
‘Then having made their beds, they lay down’.
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 17)
To describe how something is made, put the word describing the manner of action
in front of the causative construction, as in example (65):
(65) Nüüni piya-n
haütci
samita’a-ru.
my mother-my good/well bread-make
‘My mother makes good bread’, ‘My mother makes bread well’.
(JHJ)
The other type of the causative construction has a meaning of ‘to make someone
do something’ and uses ending –tu’i. We will consider it in detail in the next chapter.
237
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHEMEHUEVI CAUSATIVES: STRUCTURE AND TYPOLOGY
In this chapter, I view the two types of causative verbs in Chemehuevi from the
perspective of the Low vs. High Attachment Hypothesis. I claim that –tu causatives are
root causatives and because in their case the causative functional head attaches directly to
the root. It is located within the same phase with the root and can be influenced by its
idiosyncratic properties, resulting in allomorphy and availability of non-compositional
meanings. On the other hand, the –tu’i causatives are high attachment; they are a result of
attachment of the causative head to a derived verbal stem (VoiceP in the case of agentive
verbs). Since in my definition the first phase is marked by the Voice head, the high
causative –tu’i lies outside the boundaries of the first phase and thus cannot have access
to the root and its features. This results in regular syntax and semantics of the –tu’i
causatives, as well as in the absence of allomorphy.
7.1
Low vs. high attachment causatives in Chemehuevi
As the literature on affixal causatives indicates, the differences between lexical and
productive causatives in languages like Japanese, Malagasy and Tagalog can be
explained in terms of low vs. high attachment of the causative morpheme (Travis 2000,
Pylkkanen 2002, Svenonius 2005, Harley 2006a). In this work I avoid the terms ‘lexical’
238
vs. ‘syntactic’ primarily on the theoretical grounds: within the framework of Distributed
Morphology, there is no Lexicon, in the traditional sense of the term, and all words,
especially morphologically complex ones, are built in syntax (Halle and Marantz 1993,
Harley and Noyer 1999). Consequently this system does not account for the properties of
what we traditionally call ‘lexical’ causatives by saying that they are built in the Lexicon,
and thus are fundamentally different from ‘syntactic’ causatives that are built in the
syntax. The differences are explained by positing different structures for the two types of
affixal causatives, particularly by the structural position of the causative affix. When it is
attached directly to the root (i.e., ‘low attachment’), the resulting causative verb often
exhibits allomorphy, idiosyncratic meaning and more restrictions on the combinatorial
possibilities (for example, only unaccusative stems can be lexically causativized in
Japanese). High attachment of the causative morpheme, on the other hand, results in
regular morphology, compositional meaning and usually very productive attachment.
Recall that Arad (2005) formulates this locality constraint on the interpretation of roots in
terms of phase theory, defining phase as root+ category-forming functional head. I have
argued before that in Chemehuevi category forming heads v0, n0 and a0 do not mark the
first phase, but rather Agent-inroducing head Voice does. In section 7.1.2, I will present
more evidence for my definition of phase.
Another crucial difference between low and high attachment causatives is their
event structure: low attachment causatives are perceived as monoclausal predicates
consisting of a single event, whereas high attachment causatives are biclausal and contain
two events, that of cause and that of effect. In the following sections, I present evidence
239
from Chemehuevi phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics to establish that
causatives formed from roots consist of one vP/VoiceP52, whereas causatives formed
from verbal stems consist of two vPs/VoicePs. Before we turn to the analysis of
phonological, semantic and syntactic differences between the two types of causatives in
Chemehuevi, let us establish where Chemehuevi causatives fit typologically.
7.1.1
Chemehuevi is a non-Voice bundling language
Recall from our discussion of Pylkkanen’s (2002) typology of causative constructions
that in some language the causative head vCAUS is separate from the Voice head that
introduces the external argument, the Causer/Agent. I claim that Chemehuevi is a nonVoice bundling language because (i) there are causative verbs without a Causer, (ii) we
can causativize unergative and transitive verbs.
Sentences in ()-() below exemplify causatives without a Causer: there is a causing
event, but no external Causer, and the Voice head is absent from the causative derivation.
Notice that both -tu causatives (example (1)) and -tu’i causatives (example (2)) can
appear without a Causer, as is predictable in a non-Voice bundling language.
(1) Iva asi-huvi-tu-wa.
here salt song-caus-pres
‘Salt song is going on’.
(2) Sünawa-vi
kani-gai-mi-yü
yunakaimü-wa’i-vü,
coyote-NPN.nom house-have-usit-past company-with-3sg/poss
‘Coyote was dwelling with his company
52
Recall that non-agentive verbs formed by vBE and vBECOME do not have a Voice projection.
(JHJ)
240
tüvi-pü-a
tügü-tu’i-kwa’i-kya.
earth-NPN-obl hungry-cause-away-perf
when it was hungry times on earth’.
(JPH&CL, Gila Monster Gets Killed: 1)
(3) Causatives without a Causer
vP
3
vP
vCAUS
3
-tu’i
RootP
vBE
2
-ØDP
Root
tüvipüa
√tügü‘earth’ ‘hungry’
Examples in (4) through (6) demonstrate that agentive verbs (unergative, transitive
and ditransitive) can be causativized with the -tu’i causative, an option that is only
structurally available to non-Voice bundling languages because Spec-VoiceP hosts the
Causer and Spec-vPCAUS can host the Causee (see the diagram in (8) for an illustration).
(4) Ümi-(k) manga-y
na’üntci-tci-a
2sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN-obl
‘You are making the little girl dance’.
wünümi-tu’i-yü.
dance-caus-pres
(JHJ)
(5) Moa-n
nüüni tühi-ya
pakaa-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
father-1sg 1sg.obl deer-obl kill/sg.obj-perf-caus-past
‘My father made me kill the deer’.
(JHJ)
(6) Manga-(k)
nüüni ümi
pungku-tci-a maga-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop 1sg.obl 2sg.obl dog-NPN-obl give-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘He made me give you a dog’.
(JHJ)
241
(8) Causativization of an agentive verb
VoiceP
3
Causer
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
3
VoiceP
vCAUS
2
-tu’i
Causee
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
-ØRootP
vDO
!
-ØRoot
√wünümi‘dance’
With these points in mind let us turn to differences between -tu causatives and
-tu’i causatives, focusing on the availability of morpho-phonological allomorphs first.
7.1.2
Morpho-phonological differences between the two types of causatives
As we have seen in the introduction to chapter 6, when attached to a root, the
Chemehuevi causative markers have several allomorphs. Press (1979) identifies several
processes at work here. The first is a phonological process of palatalization: in
Chemehuevi /t/ becomes palatalized after the front vowel /i/, and consequently the
242
causative morpheme -tu’i- becomes -tcu’i-, and -tu- -- -tcu-53. This process, however,
generally does not affect causatives formed from verbal stems, only those formed from
roots. Consider examples below: the palatalization rule applies when the causative
morpheme is added to the roots wihi- ‘knife’ and soni- ‘nest’ in (9), but does not apply
when it is added to verbal stems nukwi- ‘run’ and yawi’i- ‘carry’ in (10).
(9) a. wihi-tcu’iknife-caus
‘make a knife’
(Press 1979:63)
b. soni-tcu-ga
nest-caus-prt
‘making a soft, fur-lined nest or den (like a rabbit's)’
(10) a. Nüü-k manga-y
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl
‘I made him run’.
(OCD)
nukwi-tu’i-vü.
run-caus-past
(Press 1979:66)
b. na-yawi'i-tui
self-carry-caus
‘send’
(OCD)
The second process is morpho-phonological nasalization: a morpheme-initial
consonant is nasalized if the preceding morpheme contains a nasal feature (Sapir 1930,
Press 1979). The nasalized consonant carries the place feature of the original morphemeinitial consonant, for example /p/ > [mp] and thus remains bilabial, and /t/ > [nt]
remaining alveolar. If the causatives -tu- or -tu’i- are preceded by such a morpheme, they
are pronounced as -ntu- and -ntu’i- respectively. Similarly to palatalization, nasalization
is only attested in root+vCAUS environments:
53
Some speakers pronounce tc as ts (IPA [č] as [ts]).
243
(11) a. naro'o-ntu
shirt-caus
‘make a shirt’
b. takwi-ntui
circle-caus
‘encircle’
c. kwasu-ntu
dress-caus
‘to get dressed’
(OCD)
Finally, Chemehuevi morpheme-initial stops undergo spirantization if the
preceding morpheme contains a spirantization feature (Sapir 1930, Press 1979). In the
case of the causative morpheme, the initial /t/ becomes [r] and thus we have allomorphs
-ru’i- and -ru-. Examples in (12) illustrate this pattern, and they also confirm that the
spirantization rule, like palatalization and nasalization rules, affects causative affixes
attached to roots54:
(12) a. ta-ru’i-gyah
heat-caus-ing
‘It’s hot.’ (as in hot weather)
b. wana-ru
web-caus
‘make a web ’
54
(Laird 1976:322)
(OCD)
There is an example of the ‘root’ causative attaching to a nP, an indication that nPs are not phases in
Chemehuevi.
(i) paga-pü-ru-ngu-su
shoe-NPN-caus-mom-again
‘...(he) put on moccasins again...’
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 7)
244
This systematic difference between root causatives and causatives formed from
verbal stems in the application of phonological and morpho-phonological rules suggests
that the two classes of causative constructions are structurally different.
I claim that -tu causatives are low attachment and constitute one event, one
vP/VoiceP, whereas –tu’i causatives are high attachment and consist of two events, two
vPs/VoicePs. The first piece of evidence for this claim comes from the application of
palatalization, spirantization and nasalization rules in other contexts.
Let us consider another context in which palatalization, spirantization and
nasalization regularly apply in Chemehuevi. A good example of these processes is
alternations of the nominalizer -tü- and related to it palatalized -tcü-, nasalized -ntü- and
spirantized -rü-. Representative examples are given in (13) below:
(13) a. mohara-tü
bitter-nomin
‘bitter’
(Press 1979:61)
b. palatalized
mi’aupi-tcü
small-nomin
‘small’
(JHJ)
c. nasalized
mutchu-ntü
strong-nomin
‘strong’
d. spirantized
aüga-rü
new-nomin
‘new’
(JHJ)
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 6)
245
Recall from our discussion of attributive modification in chapter 4 that the
nominalizer –tü attaches above category forming heads a0 and v0, that do not constitute a
phase. Regular morpho-phonological rules of nasalization, palatalization and
spirantization apply in this context due to the attachment of the head within the same
phase. The same morpho-phonological rules do not apply when a corresponding element
attaches further up the tree from the root. We find a clear illustration of this rule in
comparison between the following pairs: in (14a) the nominalizer n0 attaches to the vP
nukwi- ‘run’ triggering palatalization; however in (14b) the causative affix attaches above
Voice and the causative morpheme does not undergo palatalization. The phase
boundaries are marked with dotted lines.
(14) Table #25. Availability of allomorphy: low vs. high attachment of a functional head
a. nukwi-tcü
b. nukwi-tu’i
run-nomin
run-caus
‘running one’
‘make X run’
(JHJ)
vP
2
nP
VoiceP vCAUS
2
2
-tu’i
vP
n0
Voice’
2 -tcü
2
RootP
v0
vP
Voice
2
!
-ØRootP
vDO
Root
√nukwi!
- ØRoot
√nukwi
When we go back to root causatives, it becomes clear that a similar distinction is
at work: when the causative morpheme is attached directly to a root, all regular morphophonological rules apply, producing a number of allomorphs depending on the stem to
246
which the causative affix applies. In (15) below, I give the representative derivations for
low attachment root+vCAUS verbs huvitu- ‘sing’, wanaru- ‘make a web’, naro’ontu‘make a shirt’, and kanitsu- ‘make a house’.
(15) Table #26. Derivations for Chemehuevi root causatives with allomorphy
(a) huvi-tu(b) wana-ru(c) naro’o-ntu(d) kani-tsusong-caus
web-caus
shirt-caus
house-caus
‘to sing ’
‘make a web ’
‘make a shirt ’
‘make a house ’
VoiceP
VoiceP
VoiceP
VoiceP
2
2
2
2
Causer Voice’
Causer Voice’
Causer Voice’
Causer Voice’
2
2
2
2
vP
Voice
vP
Voice
vP
Voice
vP
Voice
2
2
2
2
Root
vCAUS
Root
vCAUS
Root
vCAUS
Root
vCAUS
√huvi-tu√wana-ru√naro’o- -ntu√kani-tsu[+sprnt]
[+nasal]
In derivation (15a), root incorporates into a functional head little vCAUS forming a
causing event. During Vocabulary insertion, the Vocabulary Item huvi- is inserted as a
Root and VI -tu for little vCAUS. This allomorph of vCAUS is inserted when the v head
attaches directly to the root and there are no morpho-phonological features involved.
(11) -tu- <> vCAUS / [√Root__]
Examples (15 b and c) involve cases when the root has a morpho-phonological
feature, like [+sprnt] or [+nasal], that influences the phonological realization of a
particular morpheme. Within DM, cases like these are accounted for by a set of
readjustment rules “that have the form of phonological rules and apply to morphemes
after Vocabulary insertion” (Halle and Marantz 1993:128). Thus at Vocabulary insertion,
the verbs in (15b) and (c) will all have –tu inserted for vCAUS; however, at PF this affix
247
will undergo a readjustment dependent on the environment where it occurs. The
readjustments discussed above are represented below:
(16) t
r / √ Root [+ SPRNT]___
(17) t
nt / √ Root [+ NASAL] __
In fact, these rules apply not only to the causative affix, but in several other
environments (ex. nominalizer –tü has forms –rü and –ntü, as well as the palatalized tsü). As for the example (15d), the root kani- does not have any features relevant to the
insertion of vCAUS, and that is why the least specified VI for a causative attached directly
to the roots, –tu-, is inserted. The palatalization of -tu- occurs in the PF component of the
grammar55.
Now let us consider a derivation of a high attachment causative verb wünümitu’i‘make someone dance’. Here a causing event, projected by vCAUS is added to an existing
event, headed by its own ‘little’ v, resulting in a biclausal structure. Since the verb dance
is agentive, vCAUS selects for an Agent-projecting Voice head, whose specifier is filled by
the Causee. The phase boundary is marked with a dotted line.
(18) a. wünümi-tu’i
dance-caus
‘make someone dance’
55
(JHJ)
These facts could also be viewed as ‘level ordering effects’ in terms of lexical phonology (Kiparsky
1982, Mohanan & Mohanan 1984), explained here in terms of Phase Theory, since in DM there is no
lexicon in which to construct “lexical” phonology.
248
b.
VoiceP
3
Causer
Voice’
3
vP
Voice
3
VoiceP
vCAUS
2
-tu’i
Causee
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
-ØRootP
vDO
!
-ØRoot
√wünümi-
phase boundary
The root undergoes successive cyclic incorporation into vDO and vCAUS. At the
point of Vocabulary Insertion, the root is realized as the VI wünümi- ‘dance’, but none of
the VIs for vCAUS that are specified for roots can be inserted into the vCAUS here since it is
not adjacent to a root, and more importantly attaches above Voice, i.e., above the first
phase. I suggest that this vCAUS is spelled-out as an Elsewhere causative morpheme, a VI
inserted as a realization of vCAUS in the underspecified cases.
(19) -tu’i- <> vCAUS / elsewhere.
All Vocabulary Items for vCAUS are summarized in (20) below:
(20) Vocabulary Items for vCAUS:
a. -tu- <> vCAUS / [√Root__]
b. -tu’i- <> vCAUS / elsewhere
There is more evidence that palatalization applies under adjacency to the root.
Compare examples in (21)-(22) below: palatalization applies only when vCAUS is
249
immediately adjacent to the root. In example (22), the oblique marker –ya intervenes
between the root and causative head and palatalization does not occur.
(21) kani-tsu-vaa
house-make-fut
‘will make a house’
(22) tsuupi-kani-ya-tu-’u
tipi-house-obl-caus-past
‘he made a tipi’…
(JPH&CL, Coyote Carries His Own House: 1)
(JPH&CL, The Struggle Over The Mano: 3)
Also nasalization of vCAUS can be triggered by a momentaneous aspect morpheme
–ngu- in high attachment causatives. This is predicted because the two functional heads
are adjacent and both occur above phase-delimitingVoice. These are the only attested
examples of nasalization of a high attachment vCAUS.
(23) panangkwa-ngu-ntu’i-vya
come down-mom-caus-fut
‘will cause to descend’
(24) uruwa-ngu-ntu’u
go-mom-caus.past
‘caused to go’
(25) togwai-ngu-ntu’i-mia
half-mom-caus-usative
‘(he) filled (it)’
(JPH&CL, Bat Killed Rattlesnake: 24)
(JPH&CL, Coyote Is Going To Get Antsi Seed: 48)
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 6)
250
(26)
vP
3
AspP
vCAUS
3
-ntu’i
VoiceP
Asp
2
-nguVoice’ [+nasal]
2
vP
Voice
2
RootP
vDO
!
Root
√uruwa
The next set of examples provides further evidence for defining phase in terms of
Voice in Chemehuevi. In examples (27a)-(27c) below, the high attachment causative verb
is nominalized with the familiar nominalizer –tü and, unlike in examples (13) above, in
this high attachment context –tü is not subject to root-conditioned allomorphy as is
predicted from its position outside the first phase.
(27) a. Manga-k
aipa-tci
3sg.anim.vis-cop boy-NPN.nom
‘The boy broke the cup’.
kaa-pi-a
kürukwi-tu’i-ka-tü.
cup-NPN-obl break-caus-perf-nomin
(JHJ)
b. Nüüni mua-n
manga-y
aipa-tci-a
pungu-tci-a
1sg.obl father-1sg.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl boy.NPN-obl dog-NPN-obl
tüka-pi-a
maga-ka-tu’i-ka-tü.
food-NPN-obl give-perf-caus-perf-past
‘My father made the boy give the dog food’.
(JHJ)
251
c. Hu-ung
manga-y
nahumpa
emph-3sg.anim.invis 3sg.anim.vis-obl oneself
tukvo-vi-a
meat-NPN-obl
tügu’uni-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
cook-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘He made her cook the meat by herself’.
(JHJ)
In this section we have seen that in Chemehuevi low attachment causative verbs
differ from high attachment causatives in the application of several morpho-phonological
processes. We have established that palatalization, nasalization and spirantization apply
to the causative head attached directly to the root because they appear within the same
phase. Since the high attachment causatives are formed by a phase-selecting vCAUS (in
terms of Pylkkanen 2002) that attaches above Voice, no allomorphy is observed. Notice
that this low vs. high attachment analysis explains both the presence/absence of
allomorphy in the two types of causatives, as well as the cross-linguistic observation that
high attachment (‘syntactic’ in traditional terminology) causatives are dyadic, i.e.,
involve two events (more on this in section 7.3.3).
7.1.3
Semantic differences between the two types of causatives
The literature on affixal causatives (Harley 2006a, Travis 2000 among others) argues that
low attachment causatives are subject to semantic and lexical idiosyncrasies: (i) they can
have idiomatic meanings, (ii) they may have no inchoative counterpart, (iii) sometimes
they are optional.
252
Chemehuevi root causatives exhibit several of these properties. First of all,
several of them demonstrate the presence of non-compositional meaning. For example,
the combination of kwasu- ‘dress’ and causative –ntu can mean both ‘make a dress’ and
‘to dress, to put on a dress’, even though a very similar causative naro’o-ntu can only
mean ‘make a shirt’, not ‘put a shirt on’:
(28) a. kwasu-ntu
dress-caus
‘put on a dress’, ‘make a dress’
b. naro’o-ntu
shirt-caus
‘make a shirt’
(OCD)
(OCD)
A similar situation is attested in the next group of examples: the incorporation of
the root tugwa- ‘night’ into vCAUS results in a low attachment causative tugwa-ru’wi
which can have two meanings. In examples (29), we have a compositional meaning ‘the
night came’/‘it became night’.
(29) a. tugwa-ru’wi-kwai-ngu
night-caus-perf-mom
‘(it) became night’
b. togwai-tugwa-ru’wi-wai-ngu
half-night-caus-get-mom
‘when it got to be midnight’
(JPH&CL, Coyote Is Going To Get Antsi Seed: 21)
(JPH&CL, Coyote Gets Duck For A Doctor: 7)
c. tasüa-tugwa-ru’wi-wa’i-ngu
dawn-night-caus-get-mom
‘when it was getting to be early morning’
(JPH&CL, Coyote Fetches The Everlasting Water: 4)
d. tugwa-ru’i-ntü-paa
night-caus-nomin-water
‘night water’ (place name), literally ‘night-causing water’
(OCD)
253
However, there is also a more idiomatic meaning available: in examples (30),
tugwa-ru’i means ‘to spend the night’,
(30) a. Haita-umü
tugwa-ru’wi-yü.
then-3pl.anim.invis night-caus-past
‘Then they spend the night’.
b. Hu’uvaa-rami tugwaa-ru’wi-vya
there-1pl.incl night-caus-fut
‘There we will spend the night’.
(JPH&CL, Chipmunk Killed Tutusiwü: 4)
(JPH&CL, Coyote Kills His Mother-in-law: 2)
c. Haita-umü
‘uva’ tugwa-ru’wi-yü.
then-3pl.anim.invis there night-caus-past
‘Then there they spend the night’.
(JPH&CL, Bluebirds Went To War With Wolf: 8)
In the next group of examples, there are several features of non-compositionality.
First of all, the combination of a root -su- (whose meaning is unclear but is related to
something internal/ psychological56) and the causative affix gives a meaning of ‘to think’,
and further ‘to like’ and ‘to hate’:
(31) -su-ntu’i
‘think’
(32) ha’ü-su-ntu’i
good-think
‘like’
(33) ü’vü-su-ntu’i
bad-think
‘hate’
(OCD)
(OCD)
(OCD)
Furthermore, there is no non-causative counterpart of suntu’i ‘think’, and
consequently no non-causative forms of ha’üsuntu’i ‘like’ and ü’vüsuntu’i ‘hate. Clearly
56
Consider related forms su-mai ‘remember’, su-awagai ‘want’, -su-mpa ‘feel’: all of these are psych
verbs, but the meaning of su- is not clearly identifiable.
254
these root causative verbs are lexicalized, i.e., have undergone a meaning drift and are no
longer compositional.
Among semantic idiosyncrasies of low attachment causatives, Travis (2000)
mentions that sometimes they are optional, i.e., a productive causative is available in the
language. Consider the next pair of examples from Chemehuevi: the same root takwi‘circle, coil’57 is attested with either –ntui or –tu’i, which indicates that (34) is an
example of a root causative because of the availability of nasalization, and (35) is an
example of high attachment causative. We can therefore assume that the low attachment
variant is optional.
(34) takwi-ntui
circle-caus
‘to encircle, to circle around something’
(OCD)
(35) takwi-tu’i-ngu
circle-caus-mom
‘to encircle, to circle around something ’
(JPH&CL, The Horned Owl: 6)
When it comes to the high attachment causative verbs, their meaning is always
compositional and both intransitive and transitive forms are always available. Below are
several inchoative/transitive pairs from Chemehuevi:
(36) ‘burn’
a. Haga-ngu-ntsi
na’ai-ka-tü ‘ivantü?
what-mom-NPN burn-perf-nomin here
‘What was burnt here?’
57
(JPH&CL, Coyote Imitates Antlion: 1)
Another example with this root:
(i) takwi-tsupa-ga
circle-slip loose-prt
‘winding around a person's legs, said of person flinging legs or snake flinging coils’
(OCD)
255
b. na’ai-tu’i-kyai-yü
burn-caus-res-pres
‘having made a fire’
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 17)
(37) ‘boil’
a. noyogaboil
‘boil, intrans.’
(OCD)
b. Pa-ya-ukwa
noyogwa-tu’i-karürü-mü.
Water-obl-3.inianim.invis boil-caus-sit-they
‘They were sitting, boiling the water’.
(JPH&CL, Crow Is Made Black, 11)
(38) ‘hang’
a. ‘uni-ngu-ntsi wüyuwa-tu’wi-kyai-nya-vü ‘uva’ana wayuwa-kai-ngu-mi-yü…
do-mom-after hang-caus-perf-nomin-poss on top of
hang-perf-mom-anim/subj-pres
‘Having done so, over his thing that he had hung he would hang …’
(Two Date Worm Girls, 11)
(39) ‘lie vs. lay’
a. Haita-’umü havitüa-ru-ngu-ntsi ha-havi.
then-they bed-make-mom-after mom-lie
‘Then, having made their beds, they lay down’.
(Two Date Worm Girls, 17)
b. napüwü-a-’umü ha-havi-tu’wi-kya-tsi…
old man-obl-they mom-lie–caus-past-after
‘having lain the old man down, they…’
(The Man Who Was Rooted To The Earth, 2)
(40) ‘break’
a. kürukwi
break
‘break’ –tran (stick/bone)
(Press 1979, 160)
b. Manga-k
aipa-tci
3sg.anim.vis-cop boy-NPN.nom
‘The boy broke the cup’.
kaa-pi-a
cup-NPN-obl
kürukwi-tu’i-ka-tü.
break-caus-perf-nomin
(JHJ)
Low and high attachment causatives also differ with respect to expressing direct
vs. indirect causation. Direct causation expresses a direct and immediate relation between
actions of the Causer and the caused event; indirect causation often implies that the
256
Causer was indirectly involved in the caused event, i.e., permitted something to happen
or assisted in it happening. Svenonius (2005) explains the difference between the two
types in terms of event structure, “ …indirect causation is the result of juxtaposing two
events, the causing event and the caused event, while direct causation is the result of
fusing two subevents into a single event” (4).
This distinction is found in the Chemehuevi data: only high attachment causative
verbs have assistive or permissive meanings, translated in glosses as ‘let do X’ or ‘tell to
do X’. Below are several examples from Harrington field notes:
(41) kuna-pika-tu’i-tsi-wa’i-sampa
fire-touch-caus-prt-neg-only
‘only without letting it touch fire’
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 5)
(42) pa-pagai-tuwi-tsi
mom-walk/pl-caus-prt
‘having let them go…’
(JPH&CL, The Struggle Over The Mano: 23)
(43) wayuwa-tu’wi-.
hang-caus‘letting it hang…’
(JPH&CL, Coyote Kills His Mother-in-law: 8)
(44) tügagai-tu’wi-yü
seed gather-caus-past
‘tell to come gather seeds’
(JPH&CL, The Struggle Over The Mano: 14)
So far we have seen that the two types of causative verbs in Chemehuevi differ
systematically in their morpho-phonology and semantics. Root causatives are subjects to
root-conditioned allomorphy and meaning drifts, while high attachment causatives do not
have allomorphs and their meaning is always fully compositional. In the next section I
257
will present syntactic differences between –tu and –tu’i causatives in Chemehuevi that
stem from their clause and event structure.
7.1.4
Differences in the clause/event structure: Evidence from syntax and
morphosyntax
In this section we consider a cluster of morpho-syntactic properties that distinguish
between low and high attachment causatives in Chemehuevi that come from the
differences in their clause and event structure. First we consider case marking,
passivization and reflexivization of high attachment causatives to establish that they are
biclausal in structure (by this I mean that they contain two vPs). These tests can only
apply to causativization of transitive clauses of the type ‘make x do y to z’, where x is
the Causee and z is the Theme. None of these tests can apply to Chemehuevi root
causatives since they are of the type ‘make x’, where x is the incorporated Theme, and
they can only contain one vP. However, there are other tests (like intervening verbal
morphology, adverbial modification, and availability of causative iteration) that can be
applied to root causatives, to which we will return in sections 7.1.3.2. and 7.1.3.4 below.
7.1.4.1 Case marking, passivization and reflexivization of causative verbs
As we discussed in chapter 6, monoclausal and biclausal causatives formed from
transitive verbs can differ with respect to case marking of the Causee and the Theme. In
258
the monoclausal type, the Causee is marked oblique, and the Theme is the true object of
the causative verb, marked with the accusative case, triggering object agreement, and
becoming a subject if the causative is passivized. On the other hand, in the biclausal
causatives, the Causee is the true object of the derived verb, having all the corresponding
properties.
Case marking in Chemehuevi is opaque with regards to the differential status of
Causee and Theme, because all non-subjects in matrix clauses are marked with the
oblique case. Only one NP is marked with the nominative case, and in all causatives it is
the Causer. In this sense, both root causatives and v+CAUS causatives have only one
case domain. Examples below illustrate the pattern with root causatives (45),
causativized intransitive (46) and ditransitive (47) verb stems:
(45) Nüüni piya-n
haütci samita’a-ru-Ø.
1sg.obl mother.NPN.nom-1sg good bread-caus-pres
‘My mother makes good bread’.
(JHJ)
(46) Umi-k
manga-y
na’üntci-tci-a
wünümi-tu’i-yü.
2sg.nom-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN-obl
dance-caus-pres
‘You are making the little girl dance’.
(JHJ)
(47) Nüüni mua-n
manga-y
aipa-tci-a
pungu-tci-a
1sg.obl father-1sg.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl boy.NPN-obl dog-NPN-obl
tüka-pi-a
maga-ka-tu’i-ka-tü.
food-NPN-obl give-perf-caus-perf-past
‘My father made the boy give the dog food’.
(JHJ)
The availability of only one nominative case domain is explained under the
assumption that nominative case is licensed by T, and since vCAUS takes VoiceP or RootP
259
as its complements, only one NP, the Causer, can get nominative case and there is only
one Tense domain. The corresponding derivations are presented in (48).
(48) Table #27. Case and Tense licensing in Chemehuevi root and verb-stem causatives
a. root causative
b. verb-stem causative
TP
TP
3
3
Causer
T’
Causer
T’
[nom] 3
[nom] 3
VoiceP
T
VoiceP
T
3 [pres], [nom]
3 [pres], [nom]
tCAUSER
tCAUSER Voice’
Voice’
2
3
vP
Voice
vP
Voice
2
2
RootP vCAUS
VoiceP vCAUS
!
2
Root
Causee
Voice’
2
vP
Voice
2
RootP vCAUS
!
Root
The examination of passivization of the transitive verb stem causatives is more
revealing. Passives in Chemehuevi are formed with the passive morpheme –tü- and the
subject of the passive verb is marked with the nominative case. As examples below
indicate, when v+CAUS verbs are passivized, the Themes, ‘anything’ and ‘crow’ are
marked with the oblique case and thus cannot be the subjects of the passive verb. The
Causee is not present as an overt NP in these examples, but appears as a subject
agreement marker -‘umü- ‘3anim.pl.invis’ in (49).
260
(49) Nanaga-ru’a-pü-tsi-a
tüka-tu’i-tü-na-’umü-vü
stuff-give-nomin-NPN-obl
eat-caus-pass-nomin-3anim.pl.invis-past
‘Anything that they were given to eat,
katsu-umü
tüka-ka-wa’i-kwa Sünawa-vi-a
yunakai-mü
not-3anim.pl.invis eat-PL-not-PAST Coyote-NPN-obl company-NPN.nom
they did not eat, the Coyote’s company’.
(JPH&CL, Crow’s Being Made Black: 10)
(50) ‘Atapü-tsi-a
tupa-ga-tu’i-tü-pü
crow-NPN-obl black-be-caus-pass-nomin
‘Of Crow’s being made black’.
(JPH&CL Crow’s Being Made Black: 1)
Since with passivized causatives the Theme remains oblique and subject
agreement is with the Causee, we can conclude that Causee is promoted to the subject
position and is the true underlying object of the verb stem causatives, an indication that
the latter are indeed biclausal, i.e., consist of at least two vPs.
Turning to reflexivization of the Theme, recall that in most languages when the
Theme is a reflexive, it can be co-indexed only with the Causer in monoclausal
causatives, and only with the Causee in biclausal causatives (Marantz 1984, Spencer
1991)58. The data from reflexivization in Chemehuevi suggests that -tu’i verbs are
biclausal. In the first example, reflexive/reciprocal prefix na- is co-referential with the
Causee only; the sentence literally means ‘I made them hit each other on the head’.
(51) Nüü
na-ma-ntua-umü
tco-kwipa-tu’i-vü.
1sg.nom refl-with-toward-3pl.anim.invis head-hit-caus-past
‘I bashed them together.’
58
(Press 1979:51)
In Japanese, because of the long-distance nature of the subject-oriented anaphor zibun, it can have both
Causer and Causee as an antecedent, but only in the biclausal causatives, indicating that they indeed have
two subjects and two clauses (Shibatani 1973 among others).
261
In (52) again the Causee ‘net’ is the only antecedent of the reflexive na-:
(52) Tasüa-gwa’i-ngu,
na-ma-ntuwa-ngu-ntu’wi-pü-’ukwa-’ungwa
morning-get-mom self-by hand-towards-mom-caus-prt-3inanim.invis-3anim.invis
wana-ya-’ukwa-ya.
net-obl-3.inanim-obl
‘When it got morning, he made the net come together = brought (the ends of) the net
together’.
(JPH&CL, Coyote Pounded His Own Knee: 33)
The next example also supports biclausality of -tu’i verbs: the reflexive pronoun
nahumpa in an adjunct phrase ‘by oneself’ is co-referential only with the Causee, not
with Causer. The position of the Agent-oriented adverbial between the Causee and the
Theme suggests its low attachment:
(53) Hu-ung
manga-y
nahumpa tukvo-vi-a
emph-3sg.anim.invis 3sg.anim.vis-obl oneself
tügu’uni-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
meat-NPN-obl cook-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘He made her cook the meat by herself’.
*’He himself made her cook the meat.’
(JHJ)
We also find an example in which reflexive na- is co-referential with both Causer
and the Causee. The example in (54) is ambiguous in that the reflexive na- can have both
Ann (Causer) and John (Causee) as antecedents.
(54) Ann Johni
na-ha’ü-suntu’i-ngu-tu’i-vü.
Ann John(obl) refl-good-think-mom-caus-past
‘Ann made John like her/himself’.
(Press 1979: 49)
This sentence behaves exactly like a Japanese biclausal causative – the ambiguity
of the reflexive suggests that there are two ‘subjects’ in the domain accessible to the
anaphor, Causer and Causee. The availability of two binding domains may be explained
by the presence of two causatives, a root causative –ntu’i forming the verb ha’üsuntu’i
262
‘to like = to think well’ and the verb stem causative formed when the root causative is
further causativized. Reflexive na- is bound by John in the inner clause, giving us the
meaning ‘John liked himself’, which is predictable if root causatives are monoclausal.
However, since the Causer Ann can also bind the reflexive na-, we have to assume that
the upper causative vP is also within the same binding domain, i.e., the Chemehuevi
reflexive na- is a long-distance anaphor.
The example in (55) also shows that the reflexive can be bound by the Causer,
however the reflexive is part of an adjunct phrase ‘near/by/next to himself’ and must be
attached above the lower vP, in other words this example is not a counter-example to the
established pattern of the way reflexivization works in causative verbs.
(55) Haita-’ungwa
ava’atü-mü-a naga-wü-a
then-3sg.anim.invis many-anim-obl
mtn.sheep-pl-obl
nahumpa-’umü
pa-pagai-tu’wi-tsi…
oneself-3pl.anim.invis mom-go
along-caus-prt
‘Then he let many mountain sheep pass by/next to himself’.
(JPH&CL, Coyote Pounded His Own Knee: 35)
To conclude this section, we have seen that verb stem causatives in Chemehuevi
demonstrate several features of biclausality: (i) when the verb is passivized, the Causee
becomes the subject of the passive, marked with the nominative case, and (ii) when the
Theme is a reflexive, the Causee can be the antecedent, i.e., the subject of the inner
clause.
Root causatives cannot be evaluated by the tests of passivization and
reflexivization due to their clause structure. Fortunately, there are other tests developed in
the literature, which can be applied to root causatives to establish their inner structure.
263
Among these are intervening verbal morphology, the scope of adverbs and the
availability of causative iteration.
7.1.4.2 Intervening verbal morphology
One of the features that distinguish between low and high attachment causatives is the
availability of intervening morphology between the causative morpheme and the root.
Low attachment causatives, by definition, do not permit any intervening verbal
morphology; however, high attachment causatives allow verbal affixes (such as stative,
reciprocal, applicative heads, as well as aspect morphology) to appear between the root
and the vCAUS (see Pylkkanen 2002 for a full discussion).
This distinction is clearly attested with Chemehuevi causatives. Within the class
of low attachment root+CAUS verbs, we do not find any intervening verbal morphology,
which is predictable because the root incorporates directly into the vCAUS. As for high
attachment v+CAUS constructions, we find several morphemes that can intervene
between the root and the vCAUS: the perfective marker -kai-(58), momentaneous aspect ngu- (59), as well as light verbs -gai- ‘be’ (60) and –wai- ‘become’ (61):
(58) Haita-’ungwa
piwa-ya-vü
then-3sg.anim.invis wife-obl-poss
‘Then he made his wife look too’.
(59) panangkwa-ngu-ntu’i-vya
come down-mom-caus-fut
‘will cause to descend’
(60) Marü-k
tavapü-tci
puni-kai-tu’i-yü-su.
look-perf-caus-Tense-also
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 11)
(JPH&CL, Bat Killed Rattlesnake: 24)
ika
tüvi-pü-a
mutchuu-ngwai-tu’i-ka-t.
3sg.inanim.vis-cop sun-NPN.nom 3.inanim.here ground-NPN-obl hard-be-caus-perf-past
‘The sun hardened the ground’.
(JHJ)
264
(61) Manga-k
puhaga-ntü
manga-y
piso-tsi-a
3sg.anim.vis-cop healer-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl child-NPN-obl
hü’üpiyü-wai-tu’i-tcü.
good-become-caus-nomin
‘The healer made the child feel better’.
(JHJ)
This flexibility of high attachment causatives is predictable from their biclausal
structure: the lower clause can have aspect markers, as well as light verbs that have an
overt realization, as is the case of little vBE and vBECOME. Chemehuevi also has a variety of
directional affixes like –ngun- ‘back’ and –wa’i- ‘away’ that can be incorporated into a
verbal stem – these can also intervene between the two events within the high attachment
causatives:
(62) …payü-ngun-tu’i-kwa
nangaya’aina-’ümi-urü.
return-back-caus-3inanim.invis
anger-2sg-that.invis
‘…(I) caused to return that anger of yours’.
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 31)
(63) Haita-’umü
kani-gamü-umü
then-3pl.anim.invis house-owner.pl-3pl.anim.invis
‘Then they, the house owners, made
paüpita-’umü
nawa-upa-’umü
hui-ngun-tu’i.
blood-3pl.anim.invis tracks-in.loc-3pl.anim.invis flow-back-caus
blood flow into their tracks’.
(JPH&CL, Horned Owl: 24)
(64) pitsaüü-wa’i-tu’i-vya
arrive-away-caus-fut
‘will cause to arrive (away from the speaker)’
(JPH&CL, Bat Killed Rattlesnake: 11)
265
An additional piece of evidence in support of biclausality of v+CAUS verb comes
from the fact that the subject agreement marker –ka can surface when either the Causer
or the Causee has a feature [+several] (Press 1979:80)
(65) Nüü-k mamü
tüka-ka-tu’i-vü.
1sg-cop them(obl) eat-sev-cause-past
‘I made them (all) eat’.
(Press 1979:80)
This example suggests that even an intransitive causative sentence is biclausal
since there is number agreement between the Causee and the causativized verb and
subject agreement is usually accessible only within the same clause. Press also gives an
example of the same subject agreement marker appearing on a passivized verb, when the
‘demoted’ Agent is plural:
(66) Puusi-k nümi yaki-ka-kai-n.
cat-cop us(obl) bring-sev-perf-nomin
‘The cat was brought by us [all]’.
(Press 1979:79)
This example further suggests that the verb agrees in number with whatever is the
logical subject of the clause.
Intervening verbal morphology is only one of the syntactic diagnostics of
biclausality. In the following sections we will consider several syntactic tests, such as
scope of adverbs and control of anaphors and adjuncts, to demonstrate that Chemehuevi
high attachment causative verbs are biclausal.
266
7. 1.4.3 Adverbial modification
Adverbial modification is used as a test of biclausality because adverbs modify events
and if there are two events, usually two scopes are available. Potentially ambiguous
scope of adverbs in causative sentences indicates that there are two events within a
predicate, since each event is a vP that can provide a potential attachment site for an
event-modifying adverbial adjunct. Pylkkanen (2002) further demonstrates that adverbs
of different types can be used to test the internal structure of causative verbs: “…those
which exhibit no ambiguities for verbal modifiers [are] root-selecting; those that exhibit
scope ambiguities with non-Agent-oriented verbal modifiers [are] verb-selecting; and
those that have no restrictions with regards to adverbial modification [are] phaseselecting [causatives]”(95)59.
Turning to the Chemehuevi causatives, we see that root causatives behave
predictably with regards to the scope of adverbs. The word haütci ‘good/well’ in (67) is
ambiguous: it can either modify the incorporated root samita’a- ‘bread’ or the action of
the bread-maker. However, an Agent-oriented adverbial nahumpa ‘by oneself’ can only
modify the Agent in (68):
(67) Nüüni piya-n
haütci
samita’a-ru-Ø.
1sg.obl mother.NPN.nom-1sg good/well bread-caus-pres
‘My mother makes good bread’.
59
Recall Pylkkanen’s discussion of ambiguous scope of adverbs in Bemba verb selectin causatives in
chapter 6.
(i) Naa-butwiish-ya Mwape ulubilo.
I.PST-run-CAUS Mwape fast
‘I made Mwape RUN QUICKLY’, ‘I QUICKLY MADE Mwape run’.
(Givon 1976:343, as cited in Pylkkanen 2002:105)
267
‘My mother makes bread well’.
(JHJ)
(68) Nüüni piya-n
nahumpa samita’a-ru-Ø.
1sg.obl mother.NPN.nom-1sg oneself bread-caus-pres
‘My mother makes bread by herself’.
(JHJ)
When it comes to verb-stem causatives, the scope of manner adverbs is sensitive
to their position in the sentence: adverbs clearly mark the vP boundaries in the examples
(69) and (70) below.
(69) Nüü-k manga-y
aipa-tci-a
pitangas nukwi-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl boy-NPN-obl quickly run-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘I made the boy run quickly’.
(JHJ)
(70) Nüü-k pitangas manga-y
aipa-tci-a
nukwi-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
1sg-cop quickly 3sg.anim.vis-obl boy-NPN-obl run-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘I quickly made the boy run’.
(JHJ)
Moreover, an affixal adverbial aa- ‘quietly’ has ambiguous scope when prefixed
to a causative verb:
(71) Nüü-k manga-y
naüntci-tci-a aa-karü-kai-tu’i-ka-t.
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN-obl quiet-sit-perf-caus-perf-past
‘I made the girl sit quietly’.
‘I quietly made the girl sit’.
(JHJ)
As for the Agent-oriented adverbs, their scope is also sensitive to their position in
a sentence: nahumpa ‘by oneself’ appears either in the higher or in the lower clause,
modifying the Causer in the first case and the Causee in the second:
(72) Hu-ung
nahumpa manga-y
tukvo-vi-a
tügu’uni-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
emph-3sg.anim.invis oneself 3sg.anim.vis-obl meat-NPN-obl cook-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘He himself made her cook the meat.’
(73) Hu-ung
manga-y
nahumpa tukvo-vi-a
(JHJ)
tügu’uni-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
emph-3sg.anim.invis 3sg.anim.vis-obl oneself meat-NPN-obl cook-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘He made her cook the meat by herself’.
(JHJ)
268
The schema in (74) identifies the potential attachment cites for adverbial adjuncts.
They can attach either to the lower vp/VoiceP or to the causative vP/VoiceP, modifying
either the upper or lower predicate. Since adjuncts are not barriers to adjacency (Bobaljik
1994), they do not interfere with the cyclic incorporation of the root. The correct
linearization is achieved when the Causer nüü ‘I’ is raised to spec-TP for case and when
the root incorporates successively into v, Voice, Asp, vCAUS, Voice, all the way up to
Tense in the examples (69) and (70).
(74)
…..
VoiceP
2
AP
VoiceP
(pitangas)
2
‘quickly’ Causer Voice’
nüü 2
vP
Voice
2
AspP
vCAUS
2
-tu’iVoiceP
Asp
2
-kaVoiceP
AP
2
(pitangas)
Causee
Voice’ ‘quickly’
mangay
2
aipatci
vP
Voice
2
√nukwi
269
7.1.4.4 Control of subject-oriented anaphors and adjuncts
In this section we consider several control facts from Chemehuevi, which provide
additional evidence that Chemehuevi high attachment causatives have a biclausal
structure. In the first set of examples, the demonstrative manga- ‘3sg.anim.visible’ acts
as a determiner in DPs mangak punguruatci ‘the puppy’ and mangay naüntcitcia ‘the
girl’ in example (75), and it is also licensed as an pronoun in examples (76) and (77),
where the former is a single transitive clause and the latter is a causative formed from a
transitive clause.
(75) [Manga-k
pungu-rua-tci
manga-y
naüntci-tci-a suwai-ngkü-tcü].
3sg.anim.vis-cop dog-dim-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN-obl
kiss-appl-nomin
‘The puppy kissed the girl’.
(JHJ)
(76) [Manga-k
pungu-rua-tci
manga-y
suwai-ngkü-tcü].
3sg.anim.vis-cop dog-dim-NPN.nom 3sg.anim.vis-obl kiss-appl-nomin
‘The puppy kissed her/him/*itself’.
(JHJ)
(77) [Manga-k
naüntci-tci
3sg.anim.vis-cop girl-NPN.nom
[manga-y
pungu-rua-tci-a
manga-y
suwai-ngkü]-tu’i-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-obl dog-dim-NPN-obl 3sg.anim.vis-obl kiss-appl-caus-nomin
‘The girli made the puppy kiss heri/*itself’.
(JHJ)
Since in both (76) and (77) manga- is licensed as a pronoun, and according to
condition B of binding theory pronouns must be free within the clause (as illustrated in
(76), we can conclude that the causative sentence in (77) is biclausal.
The next set of examples also points toward biclausality of Chemehuevi verbstem causatives: a subject-oriented anaphor possessive marker –anga- ‘3sg.anim.vis’ in
270
an adjunct phrase can be controlled by either higher or lower subject, i.e., by either
Causer or Causee.
(78) [Manga-k
taw’a-tci
3sg.anim.vis-cop man-NPN.nom
[manga-y
aipa-tci-a
mo’o-ya-anga
wünü]-tu’i-ka-tü].
3sg.anim.vis-obl boy-NPN-obl hand-obl-3sg.anim.vis stand-caus-perf-nomin
‘The mani made the boyj stand on hisi/j hands’.
(79) [Manga-k
(JHJ)
taw’a-tci
3sg.anim.vis-cop man-NPN.nom
[manga-y
3sg.anim.vis-obl
aipa-tci-a
mo’o-ya-anga
tüka]-tu’i-ka-tü].
boy-NPN-obl hand-obl-3sg.anim.vis eat-caus-perf-nomin
‘The mani made the boyj eat with hisi/j hands’.
(JHJ)
In the same manner, subject control adjuncts translated into English as ‘while
doing X’, can be controlled by either Causer or Causee, which means that both Causer
and Causee are subjects of their respective clauses.
(80) Tüviya-ro-yü, nüü-k
mangay
naüntci-tci-a
work-prt-while 1sg-com 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN-obl
‘While PROi/j working, Ii made the girlj sing’.
huvi-tu-tu’i-tü.
song-make-caus-nomin
(JHJ)
(81) Tükaka-rü-yü, nüük
monokos piso’o-tci-a
ambaga-tu’i-tü.
eat-nomin-while 1sg-cop several child-NPN-obl talk-caus-nomin
‘While PROi/j eating, Ii let my childrenj talk’.
(JHJ)
In the sections above, we have examined an array of evidence confirming the
biclausal nature of high attachment causative verbs. We have seen that with respect to the
tests of passivization and reflexivization, -tu’i causative verbs built on a transitive stem
behave biclausally. We have also established that only high attachment verbs allow
271
intervening verbal morphology between the root and the causative affix, confirming the
availability of two clauses/events in their structure. Facts from adverbial modification and
binding of anaphors and adjuncts point to the same conclusion. As for the root causatives,
their monoclausal nature is confirmed by the lack of intervening verbal morphology and
the absence of ambiguity in the scope of Agent-oriented adverbs. In the next section I
present yet another way in which -tu causatives differ from -tu’i causative.
7.1.5
Availability of causative iteration
Kuroda (1993), following Martin (1975), argues that in Japanese only a lexical causative
can be productively causativized, but the analytic causative cannot be iterated. In fact he
calls this ability to stack causative morphemes “the double causative test” and uses it to
distinguish between lexical and productive causatives in Japanese. Kuroda suggests that
the unavailability of the causative iteration is “a morphological, not syntactic or semantic
matter” (10). He also points out that if the second causative –sase is suppressed, the
sentence is grammatical and has the intended double causative meaning. His examples
are repeated below: in (82a) a lexical causative is further causativized producing a
grammatical structure, but (82b) is ungrammatical because the causativized verb is a
productive causative; however if one –sase is omitted, the verb is grammatical and can
have the double causative meaning (82c):
272
(82) a. ugok-as-asemove-caus-caus
‘make X move Y’
(Kuroda 1993:9)
b.*oki-sas-ase
stand up-caus-caus
(Kuroda 1993:9)
c. Zyoozi ga Naomi ni Ken o oki-sase-ru.
‘George makes Naomi cause Ken to stand up’.
(Kuroda 1993:10)
The Chemehuevi data follows this pattern: iteration of a causative morpheme of
the kind ‘make X make Y’ is available only when a low attachment causative is further
causativized, in other words only the pattern ‘root+caus+caus’ is attested, but
‘v+caus+caus’ is not. The iteration of causatives is clearly seen in examples (83)-(85):
the first vCAUS is spelled out as the low attachment /-tu-/~/-ntu-/~/-ntu’i-/, but the second
is the invariant high attachment /-tu’i-/:
(83) Ta’aikya-su su-tava ‘uni-kya-su
kwasu-ntu-tu’i-yü-’ümü …
day-also all-day do-PAST-same dress-caus-caus-past-3sg.anim.invis
‘The next day all day he did the same, (he) made dresses for them …’.
(JPH&CL Two Date Worm Girls: 14)
(84) Nüü-k manga-y
na’üntci-tci huvi-tu-tu’i-yü.
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl girl-NPN.obl song-caus-caus-pres
‘I am making the girl sing’.
(85) Ann
Johni
na-ha’ü-suntu’i-ngu-tu’i-vü.
Ann-nom John-obl refl-good-think-mom-caus-past
‘Ann made John like her/himself’.
(JHJ)
(Press 1979:49)
Stacking of the high attachment causative is not attested: in examples (86)-(87)
punikai-tu’i means both ‘show’ and ‘make show’; in other words, when punikai-tu’i
‘show’ is causativized only one vCAUS has an overt realization.
273
(86) Manga-k
aipa-tci-a
nüüni kan-i-a
punikai-tu’i-ka-tü.
3sg.anim.vis-cop boy-NPN-obl 1sg.obl house-NPN-obl see-caus-perf-nomin
‘The boy showed me the house’.
(JHJ)
(87) Ümi-k
manga-y
aipa-tci-a
nüüni kan-i-a
2sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-obl boy-NPN-obl 1sg.obl house-NPN-obl
punikai-tu’i-ka-tü.
see-caus-perf-nomin
‘You made the boy show me the house’.
(JHJ)
The meaning of examples like (87) above suggests that even though there is only
one causative affix overtly pronounced on the causative verb, on the level of Logical
Form the causative functional heads are stacked, hence the double causative meaning. So
it is not that such triple level of vP stacking is ungrammatical; most likely it is a
limitation imposed by the PF component of the grammar.
7.2
Productivity of low and high attachment causatives
As we have established in previous sections, both low and high attachment causative
verbs in Chemehuevi are built in syntax by incorporation of a root or a verbal stem into
the causative functional head vCAUS. Consequently causativization in Chemehuevi is a
fully productive system with a high degree of compositionality, with the exception of a
number of root causatives that have been idiomatized. Consider the group of examples
with the root huvi- ‘song’ in (88)-(91) below: the low attachment causative is formed
when the root incorporates directly into vCAUS, spelled out as –tu- (88); this root+CAUS
verb can be further incorporated into a higher vCAUS –tu’i- as in example (89):
274
(88) Manga-(k)
naüntci-tci
huvi-tu-wa.
3sg.anim.vis-cop girl-NPN.nom song-caus-pres
‘The girl is singing’.
(89) a. Nüü-(k) manga-y
naüntci-tci-a huvi-tu-tu’i-yü.
1sg-cop 3sg.anim.vis-cop girl-NPN-obl song-caus-caus-pres
‘I’m making the girl sing’.
(JHJ)
(JHJ)
A slight change in meaning is achieved when root huvi- is augmented by the
oblique marker –ya and this NP complex is causativized: the resulting verb means
‘making x into a song’ or ‘making a song for x’ as opposed to ‘sing’ or ‘make sing’, a
clear example of a difference between a root causative and an NP causative. The closer
vCAUS is to the root, the more fused is the meaning of the two morphemes.
(90) huvi-ya-ru’i-ngu-ga-‘ikwa
song-obl-caus-mom-prt-3inanim.vis
‘making it a song’
(JPH&CL, The Struggle Over The Mano: 17)
(91) huvi-ya-ru’i-ngkü-miya-’ungwa
song-obl-caus-appl-usit-3sg.anim.invis
‘she would make a song for him’
(JPH&CL, Gila Monster Gets Killed: 7)
Little vCAUS is spelled out as –ru’i- because it is adjacent to the oblique marker –
ya- which has a [+sprnt] feature, causing tu’i > ru’i ; this is also a rare case in which tu’i- alternates with -tu- with nominals. In both examples, the root is derived into a noun,
receives oblique case and is causativized. This verbal complex is then followed by
aspectual morphology in example (90), or by an applicative functional head and finite
morphology (example (91)).
The fact that both low and high attachment causatives are productive and made in
syntax is crucial for our approach to causatives. It shows that in no sense are root
275
causatives ‘lexical’, and proves that different meanings come from different syntactic
structures.
7.3
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have established that Chemehuevi causatives fall into two
main groups, those formed from roots and those formed from verbal stems. Root
causative verbs are low attachment causatives; they are monadic verbs that are subject to
allomorphy and several morpho-phonological rules, as well as meaning drifts. Causative
verbs formed from verbal stems are high attachment causatives, consisting of two events
and fully compositional. They are not subject to allomorphy or morpho-phonological
rules due to their attachment above the phase-defining Voice head. They also exhibit
intervening verbal morphology, ambiguous scope of adverbs, subject-oriented anaphors
and adjuncts. Unlike root causatives, they can express indirect causation. We have also
seen that the only possible iteration of causative affixes is when a low attachment
causative is further causativized (root+vCAUS+vCAUS); when a high attachment causative is
further causativized (v+vCAUS+vCAUS) only one vCAUS is pronounced.
I have demonstrated that all differences between the two groups of causatives can
be derived from the distance of the causative affix from the root. The closer to the root it
attaches, the more fused its semantics and pronunciation are with the root and its features.
Such fully syntactic approach to causatives is the only approach compatible with a Late
276
Insertion model of morphosyntax, like DM. Only such an approach can account for full
productivity of both high and low attachment causatives.
7.4
Notes for community use: How use the causative construction ‘make
someone do something’ in Chemehuevi
In English we need a separate word ‘make’ to express the idea of someone causing
someone else to perform an action, but in Chemehuevi there is a causative ending -tu’i
that can be added to the core to add the meaning of causation. This is a very productive
process and any verb can be used with the causative –tu’i. Unlike the other causative
ending, -tu’i does not vary depending on the word it attaches to, so in all examples below
you find it following the verb.
(92) Manga-k aipatci nüüni kania
that-cop boy
me house
‘The boy showed me the house’.
punikai-tu’i-ka-tü.
see-make-perf-nomin
(JHJ)
(93) Tükakarü-yü, nüü-k
monokos piso’otcia ambaga-tu’i-tcü.
eating-while I-cop
several child
talk-make-nomin
‘While eating, I let my children talk’.
(JHJ)
(94) Nüü-k pitangas manga-y
aipatcia nukwi-kai-tu’i-ka-tü.
I-cop
quickly that
boy
run-perf-make-perf-nomin
‘I quickly made the boy run’.
(JHJ)
(95) Umi-k
manga-y na’üntcitcia
wünümi-tu’i-yü.
you-cop that
girl
dance-make-pres
‘You are making the little girl dance’.
(JHJ)
(96) Nüüni mua-n
mangay aipatcia pungutcia tükapia maga-ka-tu’i-ka-tü.
my father-my that
boy
dog
food
give-perf-caus-perf-nomin
‘My father made the boy give the dog food’.
(JHJ)
277
In the examples above, -tu’i does not change the meaning of the verb it is added
to, but adds the causative meaning to it (eg. dance vs. make someone dance or talk vs. let
someone talk). There are other cases, however, when there is a change in meaning that
might be hard to detect especially because the English translation uses the same word for
both causative and non-causative versions. These are verbs like boil, burn, or melt in
English: we can say The ice melted, or The sun melted the ice, and the form of the verb
melt does not reflect the fact that in the first case there is no external cause mentioned,
while in the second the sun is the cause. In Chemehuevi these subtle changes are reflected
in the addition of the causative -tu’i: if there is a cause to some process, the causative
ending will show up. Consider the pairs of sentences below: the examples in (a) describe
the process of burning, boiling, or lying down and only the core verb shows up; the
examples in (b) also have someone who causes the same process and we find -tu’i in all
of these examples.
(97) ‘burn’
‘ivantü?
a. Haganguntsi na’ai-ka-tü
what
burn-perf-pass here
‘What was burnt here?’
(JPH&CL, Coyote Imitates Antlion: 1)
b. na’ai-tu’i-kyai-yü
burn-make-res-pres
‘having made a fire’
(JPH&CL, Two Date Worm Girls: 17)
(98) ‘boil’
a. noyoga‘boil’ (as in The water is boiling)
b. Paaya-ukwa
water-that
noyogwa-tu’i-karürü-mü.
boil-make-sit-they
(OCD)
278
‘They were sitting, boiling the water’.
(JPH&CL, Crow Is Made Black, 11)
(99) ‘lie vs. lay’
a. Haita-’umü havitüa-ru-ngu-ntsi
hahavi.
then-they
bed-make-mom-after lay down
‘Then, having made their beds, they lay down’.
(Two Date Worm Girls, 17)
b. napüwüa-’umü hahavi-tu’wi-kya-tsi…
old man-they lie down-make-past-after
‘having lain the old man down, they…’
(The Man Who Was Rooted To The Earth, 2)
(100) ‘break’
a. kürukwi
‘break’ (as in The stick broke)
(Press 1979, 160)
b. Manga-k aipatci kaapia kürukwi-tu’i-ka-tü.
that-cop boy
cup
break-make-perf-nomin
‘The boy broke the cup’.
(JHJ)
Overall, causative constructions are very interesting and useful in every day
speech. There are many languages in the world that use similar strategies to form
causative verbs and it is interesting to see how nicely the Chemehuevi data fits with the
data from other completely unrelated languages like Japanese or African languages.
279
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This dissertation is an attempt to bring together contemporary developments in
morphosyntactic theory and the morphosyntax of an understudied endangered language. I
focused on the formation of lexical categories in Chemehuevi through the prism of the
framework of Distributed Morphology, a Late Insertion model which views word and
sentence formation as a single mechanism. I attempted to show that this holistic view of
morphosyntax is the way to describe and explain why in a language like Chemehuevi
morphemes do not just build words, but phrases and sentences are put together piece by
piece, sometimes with words encompassing phrases and whole sentences (like
Chemehuevi phrases denoting inalienable possession or attributive adjectives that have
the structure of relative clauses). Syntax is the central force of the Chemehuevi
morphology – this is the conclusion that emerges after the boundaries between the
traditional ‘lexicon’ and ‘syntax’ are removed.
There are two central themes that run through this dissertation. The first one is
known as the Root Hypothesis (Arad 2005, following Marantz 2000), arguing that roots
are atomic underived lexical elements, underspecified for lexical category. They receive
interpretation depending on their structural environment, such as functional heads ccommanding them. In chapter 2, I showed that the Chemehuevi ‘lexicon’, if we were to
conceive of it in a traditional sense, should consist of roots, not fully formed words, in
280
that even such basic elements of a language like common nouns are derived, i.e., built
when a Non-Possessed-Noun (NPN) marker is added to the root. The originality of DM is
in that there is no lexicon in the traditional sense, so the Chemehuevi roots and the
functional elements that derive them into words, phrases and sentences are not stuck into
some abstract memory box, but are free to interact with each other. The result of this
syntactic interaction of terminal nodes, bundles of features and placeholders in the case of
roots (through Merge and Move) is highly compositional syntax and semantics of the
Chemehuevi words. Recall from chapter 2 examples of nouns like ampaga-tu’i-ka-mü
‘council’, literally ‘the ones that make talk’ or pu’ha-ga-ntü ‘healer’, literally ‘the one
who has spiritual powers’. These words contain roots, verbal and nominal functional
heads, and their belonging to a particular ‘part of speech’ can be determined only postsyntactically, once all the heads are merged and all head-to head movement occurs.
In chapter 4 we saw another clear case of acategorial nature of roots. I showed
that the Chemehuevi adjectives do not comprise a uniform class, and that roots with
adjectival meanings can be realized as verbs or nominalizations depending on the
functional structure into which they are inserted. When c-commanded by a verbal head
v0, a root like pa’a ‘tall’ forms a stative verb pa’ayü ‘being tall’ with all the
corresponding verbal morphology. When it incorporates into an adjective-forming head
a0, it forms an attributive adjective pa’antüm ‘tall’ that is further nominalized as a part of
relative clause modifying a noun (either overt or null). DM allows us to capture this
flexibility of roots to occur in different syntactic context to form various lexical
categories and at the same time preserving all the meanings associated with them.
281
Here we come to the second major theme of this dissertation, a notion that the
word formation from roots is distinct from the word formation from the existing words,
known as the High vs. Low Attachment Hypothesis. Originally proposed by Marantz
(2000), this approach captures the double nature of word morphology without assigning
productive and compositional derivations to syntax proper, and leaving all idiosyncratic
derivations including paradigmatic gaps, idiomatic meanings and morpho-phonological
allomorphy to lexicon. Instead all basic word formation happens in syntax through the
incorporation of roots into functional heads. The differences between productive and nonproductive word formation is explained by the locality constraints on the roots: the first
functional head attached directly to the root (i.e., merged ‘low’) determines how the root
will be interpreted. For Marantz (2000) and Arad (2003, 2005), root plus the first ccommanding functional head is a phase, at the edge of which all semantic and
phonological information is processed and becomes unavailable for the interpretation of
all material attached above. Thus the functional heads that attach above the first ‘little’ v,
for example, will derive words that do not have access to the root itself and all the
idiosyncratic material associated with it (like idiomatic meanings or morphophonological alternations). The words derived from the high attachment of a functional
head are connected only to the existing word/stem they are based on, not to the embedded
root.
This hypothesis has been tested on several morphological processes in many
languages, including Hebrew denominal verbs (Arad 2003, 2005), and causative verbs in
Tagalog and Malagasy (Travis 2000), and Japanese (Harley 2006a) among others. In this
282
dissertation we find support for the High vs. Low Attachment approach from the study
Chemehuevi verbs in chapter 3 and especially in chapter 7 on the formation of causative
verbs. First of all, in Chemehuevi we find many overt functional heads that derive verbs,
which makes it easy to determine their relative position to the root and other functional
heads. Secondly, there is a distinct process of morpho-phonological allomorphy in the
language that is available only to functional elements within the first phase, which,
following Pylkkanen (2002), I define as the Agent-projectingVoice. Using these
diagnostics (among others), I show that all verbal functional heads in Chemehuevi can be
divided into the ones that attach directly to the root and are thus subject to allomorphy
and idiomatic interpretation, and the ones that attach higher.
This approach is successfully applied to the two types of Chemehuevi causative
verbs in chapters 6 and 7. Traditionally, the two types would have been divided into
lexical and syntactic causatives, missing the obvious fact that both are highly productive
in the Chemehuevi language, even though root causatives exhibit morpho-phonological
allomorphy and availability of non-compositional meanings, while causatives formed
from derived verbs result in regular morpho-phonology and semantics. The fact that roots
causatives consist of one vP/VoiceP and verb stem causatives of two vPs/VoicePs also
captures the cross-linguistic observation that ‘lexical’ causatives are monoclausal, while
the ‘syntactic’ ones are biclausal, i.e., consist of two events. Without positing two
separate places for building causative verbs, I show that all these properties follow from
the syntactic structure of each causative type. I apply several syntactic tests to show that
causatives formed from existing verbs contain two vPs: they allow intervening verbal
283
morphology, can express indirect causation and exhibit ambiguous scope of adverbs,
subject-oriented anaphors and adjuncts. Since in these causatives, the causative
morpheme is attached high above the root and above phase-defining Voice, they are not
subject to allomorphy and meaning drifts.
Throughout this dissertation, we find support for the definition of the first phase
in Chemehuevi in terms of Voice. I consistently show that all functional heads that have
morpho-phonological allomorphs (stemming from widely spread processes of
nasalization, spirantization and palatalization in the language) are attached directly to the
roots. These include light verbs –tükaw’i ‘turn’, -tu’a ‘become’ and the causative –tu. All
heads that attach above the first vP/VoiceP, including the passive –tü and the high
attachment causative –tu’i, are not subject to allomorphy. Similar distribution is attested
with the nominalizer –tü: in low attachment contexts it alternates between –tü~-ntü~-rü~tsü; in high attachment contexts it is invariant. If I am right about the Chemehuevi phase,
and Marantz and Arad are right about their definition of phase in English and Hebrew in
terms of the first category-forming head, we have an argument in favor of parametric
variation in the size of the first phase. I suggest that we can formulate such a parameter in
terms of whether or not the Agent-projecting head Voice is separate from ‘little’ v (as in
Chemehuevi), or bundled with it (as in English). Further research will show whether such
a parameter is feasible.
The conclusions reached in this study of the Chemehuevi language have many
implications for the theory of lexicon and word formation. I offer another argument in
favor of a view that syntax drives semantics, against the lexicalist belief that the
284
semantics of verbs drives their syntax. Under the view supported in this dissertation,
there are no verbs (or nouns, or adjectives) ‘before’ syntax, only roots and functional
elements. Their combination by syntax results in structures that are interpreted at the
levels of PF and LF.
Another implication of this study is for the philosophy of language, specifically
the way concepts are reflected in language. It seems to me that we come closer to
understanding of concept – word connection by isolating roots as the conceptual nuclei of
words, since it is within roots all our knowledge about a particular concept is contained.
In a language like Chemehuevi this concept – root connection can be seen clearly since
the majority of roots require some derivational morphology to become words, making it
easier to isolate the concept that is shared by words formed from the same root. This
connection between roots’ semantics and our conceptual system is also promising for
understanding language learnability and in case of an endangered language like
Chemehuevi could be instrumental in facilitating the learning of the heritage language by
the members of the Chemehuevi tribe. If we focus on the meaning of roots to access the
conceptual structure of a language, learning and understanding its morphology will
become more transparent and effective since the number of functional elements
surrounding roots in speech is limited in language. It is my hope that this piece-based
approach to the Chemehuevi morphosyntax will become instrumental in the preservation
of this language.
285
REFERENCES
Abasheikh, M. I. 1979. The Grammar of Chimwi:ni Causatives. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, Urbana.
Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Access Geneology Indian Tribes Records. 2004. Chemehuevi Indian History.
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/shoshoni/chemehuevihist.htm
Adger, D. and G. Ramchand. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34:325-259.
Anderson, S. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford University Press.
Arad, M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew
denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737-778.
Arad, M. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Baker,M. 1995. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University
Press.
Barss, A., K. Hale, E. T. Perkins, and M. Speas. 1989. Aspects of Logical Form in
Navajo. Athapaskan Linguistics: Current Perspectives on a Language Family,
318-334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Basilico, D. 1996. Head Position and Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Language:
Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 72, no. 3: 498-532.
Bat-El, O. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 571–596.
Bat-El, O. 2002. Semitic verb structure with a universal perspective. J. Shimron,
(ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in a root-basedmorphology,
29–59. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
286
Bhatt, R. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival
Modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90, 2002, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, the Netherlands.
Bobaljik, J. 1994. What Does Adjacency Do?. Harley, H. and C. Phillips (eds.),
Proceedings of the Morphology-Syntax Connection, MITWPL 22 1-32,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bobaljik, J. D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of
Maryland Working Papers, vol.10, 35-71.
Bobaljik, J. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic feature. Phi Theory: PhiFeatures across Modules and Interdaces. Harbour, D., D. Adger and S. Bejar (eds.)
Oxford University Press.
Borsley R.D. and J. Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. Nature and Function of
Syntactic Categories. Syntax and Semantics 32:101-131, Academic Press.
Bošković, Z. 2001. On the nature of syntax-phonology interface. Oxford University Press.
Bošković, Z. 2004. Clitic placement in south Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 12(1–2):
37–90.
Bowers, J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:591-656.
Brame, M. K. 1968. A New Analysis of the Relative Clause: Evidence for an
Interpretive Theory. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Bresnan, J. and J. Grimshaw. 1978. The Syntax of Free Relatives in English. Linguistic
Inquiry 9(3), 331–391.
Broadwell, G. 1990. Extending the Binding theory: the Muskogeon case study. Doctoral
dissertation, UCLA.
Carlson, G. N. 1977. Amount Relatives. Language 53(3), 520–542.
Chemehuevi On-line Dictionary. D. Elzinga (ed.)
http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/elzingad/chemehuevi_dictionary/
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational
grammar,. R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), 184-221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Chomsky, N. 1977. On Wh-movement. P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian
287
(eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 71–132. Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, N. 1994. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. K. Hale & S. J.
Keyser (eds.), The View From Building 20:1-52, Cambridge:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995b). Bare Phrase Structure. G. Webelhuth (ed.) Government and
Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Cambridge: Blackwell, 383–439.
Chomsky, N. 1998. Some Observations on Economy in Generative Grammar. Is the
Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 115-128. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1998.
Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael
Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
Chomsky, N. 2006. On phases. R. Freidin, C. Otero, and M-L. Zubizaretta (eds.),
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cole, P., Harbert, W. and G. Hermon. 1982. Headless relative clauses in Quechua.
International Journal of American Linguistics 48, 113-124.
Cole, P. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 5: 277-302.
Di Sciullo, A. M., and E. Williams.1987.On the definition of word. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Doron, E. 1986. The Pronominal 'copula' as agreement clitic. The Syntax of
Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and Semantics 19. Academic Press. New York. 313332.
Embick, D. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Embick, D. 2000. Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect. Linguistic
Inquiry 31.185-230.
Embick, D. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic
Inquiry 35, no. 3: 355-392.
288
Embick, D. and R. Noyer.1999. Locality in post-syntactic operations. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 34, 265–317.
Ethnologue. 2008. www.ethnologue.com
Farish T.E. 1918. History of Arizona. Volume VII. Phoenix, Arizona.
Folli, R. and H. Harley. 2002. Consuming results in Italian and English: flavors of v.
P. Kempchinsky and R.Slobakova (eds.), Aspect, 1-25, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Netherlands.
Folli, R. and H. Harley. 2003. On obligatory obligation: The composition of Italian
causatives, to appear in A.Castro, V. Hacqard, and A. P. Salanova (eds.), MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 3:553-596.
Fu, J. Roeper, T. and Borer H. 2001. The VP within process nominals: Evidence from
adverbs and the VP anaphor do-so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
19:549-82.
Givon, T. 1976. Some constraints on Bantu Causativization. M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax
and Semantics, Vol. 6: Grammar of Causative Constructions. Academic Press,
Inc. New York.
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Gronski, N. 2004. The Chemehuevi Indians of Southern California,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2351/cheme.html
Groos, A. and H. van Riemsdijk.1979. Matching Effects in Free Relatives: A Parameter
of Core Grammar. A. Belleti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of
Markedness in Generative Grammar: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW Conference,
pp. 171–216. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.
Hale, K. 2000. A Uto-Aztecan (O’odham) reflection of a general limit on predicate
argument structure. Uto-Aztecan: Structural, Temporal and geographic
perspectives. Papers in memory of Wick Miller by the friends of Uto-Aztecan, eds.
Casad E. H. and T. L. Willet.
Hale, K. and J. Keyser. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon
Project Working Paper #34, MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
289
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and lexical expression of
syntactic relations. Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from the Building
20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53-109, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. Alsina A.,
J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates, 29-66. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. Harley H.
(ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, Papers from UPenn/MIT
Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 73-118.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.
The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain
Bromberger, 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. Carnie
A.,and H. Harley with T. Bures (eds.) Papers on Phonology and Morphology
(MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,Volume 21), MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics, Cambridge. 275–288.
Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Harley, H. 2006a. On the causative construction. Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, S.
Miyagawa and M. Saito (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, H. 2006b. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. To appear in
Giannakidou, A. & M. Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness,
and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and
object shift in English. Proceedings of NELS 28.
Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 1999. State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology, Glot
International 4.4, 3-9
Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 2000. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. The
Lexicon/Encyclopedia Interface, B. Peeters (ed.), 349-374. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Press.
Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 2003. Distributed Morphology. The Second Glot
International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, 463-496.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
290
Harrington, J. P. Papers of John Peabody Harrington, Box 644 (Chemehuevi texts),
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution.
Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot. 1987. Predication and PRO. Language 63:23-52.
Hulsey, S. and U. Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language
Semantics 14:111-137.
Jacobsen, W. 1992. The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese. Kurosio Publishers,
Tokiyo.
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kayne, R.S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning
calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kitagawa, Y. 1994. Subjects in Japanese and English. Outstanding Dissertations in
Lingusitics series. New York: Garland.
Koizumi, M. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 25-79.
Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, A. 1993. On external arguments. U of Massachusetts Occasional Papers
17:103-130.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure
and the lexicon, J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), 109-138. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Kroeber , A. L. 1967. Handbook of the Indians of California. Berkley, CA. California
Book Co.
291
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1993. Lexical and productive causatives in Japanese: an examination of the
theory of paradigmatic structure. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 15, 1-82.
Laird, C. 1976. A brief note on the Chemehuevi language and glossary. The
Chemehuevis, by Carobeth Laird, 277-334. Banning, CA: Malki Museum.
Laird, C. Unpublished field notes. University of California at Riverdale Special
Collection.
Langacker, R.1977. Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan Berkeley: U of California P.
Series: University of California Publications in Linguistics: 82.
Launey, Michel. 1981. Une Interprétation linguistique des schémas relationnels: Passifsimpersonnels et causatifs en nahuatl classique. Amérindia 6: 17-58.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative
verbs in English. Lingua 92: 35-77.
Lieber, R. 1980. The organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Major R. C. 1969. Chemehuevi interviews. Arizona State Museum Archives, University
of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Manning, C. D., I. A. Sag, and M. Iida. 1999. The Lexical Integrity of Japanese
Causatives. Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar, 39-79.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical relations. Cambridge Mass.: MIT
Press.
Marantz, A. 1995. A Late Note on Late Insertion. Y.-S. Kim, et. al. (eds.), Explorations
in Generative Grammar. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Co., Seoul.396–413.
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the
privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in
Linguistics, A. Dimitriadis and L. Siegel (eds.), vol. 4.2, 201-225. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
292
Marantz, A. 2000. Reconstructing the lexical domain with a single generative engine.
Unpublished ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Marantz, A. 2001. Words. Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, University of Southern California Los Angeles, 24 February, 2001.
http://web.mit.edu/marantz/Public/EALING/WordsWCCFL.pdf.
Martin, S. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
McCloskey, J. 1990. Resumptive Pronouns, A’-Binding, and Levels of
representation in Irish. Syntax and Semantics: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic
Languages. no. 23. R. Hendrick (ed.), 199-248. New York: Academic Press.
McGinnis, M. 2000. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. Proceedings of NELS 31,
M.-J. Kim (ed.). GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
McGinnis, M. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. J. Rooryck,
P.Pica (eds.), Linguistic Variations Yearbook. John Benjamins.
McCloskey, J. 2002. Resumption, Successive Cyclicity and the Locality of Operations.
Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Epstein, Samuel David.;
Seely, T. Daniel. (eds.), 184-226.
Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge, UK; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Miyagawa, S. 1980. Complex Verbs and the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Arizona.
Miyagawa, S. 1984. Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64, 177-207.
Modini, P. 1995. Korean and Japanese Internally-Headed Relative Clauses: A
Comparison between Them and with Headless Relatives. Asian and African
Studies (Slovak Acad. of Sciences) 4, no. 2: 173-181.
Mohanan, K. P., and T. Mohanan. 1984. Lexical Phonology of the Consonant System
in Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry 15, no. 4: 575-602.
Montague, R. 1974. English as a Formal Language. R. H. Thomason (ed.), Formal
Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, pp. 188–226. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
293
Munro, P. 1978a. Chemehuevi 'say' and the Uto-Aztecan Quotative Pattern. D. R. Tuohy,
(ed.). Selected Papers for the 14th Great Basin Anthropological Conference.
Socorro, NM: Ballena, pp. 149-71.
Munro, P. 1978b. Imperatives, Passives, and Perfectives in Chemehuevi. Journal of
California Anthropology: Papers in Linguistics, 1978; 1: 65-76.
Nikolaeva, I. 2006. Relative clauses. K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier. Vol. 10. 501-508.
Oehrle, R and Nishio, H. 1981. Adversity. Coyote Papers 2, University of Arizona
Lingusitic Circle: Tuscon Arizona.
Online Chemehuevi Dictionary, 2006. D. Elzinga (eds.),
http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/elzingad/chemehuevi_dictionary
Partee, B. H. 1975. Deletion and variable binding. Keenan, E. L (ed.); Formal Semantics
of Natural Language: Papers from a Colloquium Sponsored by the King's College
Research Centre, Cambridge, 16-34.
Payne, T. E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge University Press.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press.
Press, M. L. 1975. A Grammar of Chemehuevi. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
Press, M. L. 1979. Chemehuevi: A Grammar and Lexicon, Berkeley: U of California
Press, 203 pp.
Pylkkanen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Raposo, E. and J. Uriagereka. 1990. Long-distance Case assignment. Linguistic Inquiry
21:505-537.
Roberts, T. 1997. Pashto free relatives and triply-filled Comp: Evidence for a headed
analysis. Lingua102: 77-85.
Sapir, E. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences 65.
Sauerland, U.1998. The Meaning of Chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Distributed by
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
294
Sauerland, U. 2000. Two Structures for English Restrictive Relative Clauses. M.
Saito et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, pp 351–366. Nanzan
University, Nagoya.
Sauerland, U. 2002. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. The interfaces: Deriving
and interpreting omitted structures. Schwabe K. and S. Winkler (eds.). Amsterdam,
John Benjamins, 205-226.
Schachter, P. 1973. Focus and Relativization. Language 49(1), 19–46.
Shibatani, M. 1973. A Linguistic Study of Causative Constructions. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California.
Shibatani, M. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. M.
Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: Grammar of Causative
Constructions. Academic Press, Inc. New York, 325-351.
Song, J. J. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective
London: Longman, 1996.
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in
Generative Grammar. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Svenonius, P. 2005. Two domains of causatives. CASTL, University of Tromso.
http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/papers/Svenonius05TwoDomains.pdf
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. All Quantifiers Are Not Equal: The Case of Focus. Acta
Linguistica Hungarica: An International Journal of Linguistics 42, no. 3-4:171187.
Thurén, C. 2006. The syntax of Swedish present participles: the lexical category problem.
In Working Papers on Scandinavian Syntax 77:151-175.
Travis, L. 1994. Event Phrase and a theory of functional categories. Paper presented
at the Canadian Linguistics Association meeting, 1994, University of Calgary.
Travis, L. 2000. Event structure in syntax. C.Tenny and J. Pustejovsky (eds.). Events as
Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and
Syntax, ed. by, 145-185. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
295
Tylor, G. 1972. Chemehuevi. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages.
University of California, Berkley Language Center.
Ussishkin, A. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: modern Hebrew
denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology, 16, 401–442.
Ussishkin, A. 2000. The emergence of fixed prosody. Doctoral Dissertation, UC Santa
Cruz.
Ussishkin, A. 2005. A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic
Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 169–218.
Ute Reference Grammar. 1980. Ute Press, Southern Ute Tribe, Ignacio, Colorado.
Vergnaud, J.-R. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Vergnaud, J.-R., and M. L. Zubizarreta. 1992. The Definite Determiner and the
Inalienable Constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23, no. 4:
595-652.
Volpe, M. 2005. Japanese Morphology and Its Theoretical Consequences: Derivational
Morphology in Distributed Morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, SUNY Stony
Brook.
Wetzer, H. 1996. The typology of adjectival predication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin,
New York.
Zenno, Y. 1985. Paradigmatic Structure and Japanese Idioms. Master’s thesis, Ohio
State University, Columbus.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement