West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Spelling out object agreement in Central Salish Baier, Nico; Mellesmoen, Gloria 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Baier_N_Spelling_SalishWCCFL38_2020_poster.pdf [ 53.78kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389836.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389836-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389836-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389836-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389836-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389836-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389836-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389836-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389836.ris

Full Text

Spelling out object agreement in Central SalishNico Baier (nico.baier@ubc.ca) & Gloria Mellesmoen (gloria.mellesmoen@ubc.ca)WCCFL 38, University of British Columbia, March 6–8, 2020OverviewWe argue that overt 3obj marking is the elsewherecase in three Central Salish languages, and that null 3objmarking is conditioned by a specific transitivizingsuffix.Counter to traditional analysis of uniform Ø 3obj acrossthe Salish languages (Newman 1978, Kroeber 1999).Building on overt 3obj analyses proposed for:3 Upriver Halkomelem (Galloway 1977, Wiltschko 2003)3 Squamish (Jacobs 2011)3 Comox-Sliammon (Mellesmoen 2017)See also Gerdts (1989) on passive object suffixes.Transitivity in SalishTransitive verbs in Salish are marked overtly with a tran-sitivizer suffix (Kroeber 1999).The transitivizer is followed by object agreement mor-phology, which is followed by subject agreement(when present).Transitivizers also encode agent control: the ability ofan agent to influence the outcome of an event (Thomp-son 1979, 1985).(1) Control Transitive in Comox-Sliammonʔuk̓ʷallyəp̓-t-Ø-anbreak-ctR-3obj-1sg.eRgχʷaχʷitegg‘I deliberately broke all the eggs’(2) Limited Control Transitive in Comox-Sliammonpayaalwaysyəp∼̓yəp̓-u-xʷ-anpl∼break-lctR–3obj-1sg.eRgk̓ʷaɬtplates‘I am always (accidentally) breaking the plates.’Structural assumptions (Davis 2019)(3) Structure of transitive predicate[VoiceP Voice[u𝜙] [vP DPagt v[u𝜙] [VP V DPpat ]]]3 Agents are merged in Spec-vP3 Transitive subject agreement hosted by Voice.3 Transitivizers and object agreement realize vWe assume that different transitivizer morphemes spellout different features on v .3 Control transitivizer→ [ctR]3 Limited control transitivizer→ [lctR]3 Causative transitivizer→ [caus]Object agreement paradigmsThe table below presents our analysis of object agreement paradigm for three types of transitivizers: control (ctR), limitedcontrol (lctR), and causative (caus):(4) Transitivizers and Object Suffixes in three Central Salish languagesHalkomelem (Hk) Squamish (Sq) Comox-Sliammon (Cx)tR obj tR obj tR objControl (ctR) 1sg -(ə)θ -óx -t -s -(V) -θ2sg -(ə)θ -ómè -t -umi -(V) -θi1pl -(ə)t -ó(l)xʷ -t -umuɬ -(V)t -umuɬ2pl -(ə)t -ólè -t -umi -(V)t -anapi3 -(ə)t -Ø -t -Ø -(V)t -ØLimited Control (lctR) 1sg -l -óx -n -əmš -ng -umš2sg -l -ómè -n -umi -ng -umi1pl -l -ó(l)xʷ -n -umuɬ -ng -umuɬ2pl -l -ólè -n -umi -ng -anapi3 -l -əxʷ -n -əxʷ -u -xʷCausative (caus) 1sg -(ə)sθ -óx -s-t -s -st -umš2sg -(ə)sθ -ómè -s-t -umi -st -umi1pl -(ə)st -ó(l)xʷ -s-t -umuɬ -st -umuɬ2pl -(ə)st -ólè -s-t -umi -st -anapi3 -(ə)st -əxʷ -s-t -Ø -u -xʷWe observe two types of allomorphy:The form of the transitivizer may be conditioned by thefollowing object suffix (Green cells).The form of an object suffix may be conditioned by thepreceding transitivizer (Gray cells and Blue cells).These types of allomorphy is distributed differently acrossthe three languages in (4).This indicates that these different types of allomorphyare independent of one anotherTransitivizer allomorphy is limited to Central Salish whereasthe object suffix allomorphy is found across the family.1 Halkomelem:Object suffixes uniform outside the 3rd personAllomorphy found in transitivizers2 Squamish:Transitivizers are uniform across the paradigmAllomorphy found exclusively in object suffixes3 Comox-Sliammon:Allomorphy found in transitivizersAllomorphy found in object suffixes3rd person allomorphyOur analysis posits two types of 3rd person objectagreement: one null and one overt (-(ǝ)xʷ ).We argue that the null form is the conditioned allo-morph, and the overt variant is the elsewheremor-pheme.Two arguments for -Ø marking being the conditionedallomorph.1. The morpheme -(ǝ)xʷ appears in a wider set of con-texts than null marking.2. 1sg/2sg object suffixes also have conditioned allo-morphs after the control transitivizer in Squamishand Comox-Sliammon.→ Object suffix allomorphy after ctR is a more gen-eral property of the system.(5) 1sg/2sg/3 suffix allomorphyHk Sq CxctR 1sg -óx -s -θ2sg -ómè -umi -θi3 -Ø -Ø -ØlctR 1sg -óx -əmš -umš2sg -ómè -umi -umi3 -əxʷ -əxʷ -xʷcaus 1sg -óx -s -umš2sg -ómè -umi -umi3 -əxʷ -Ø -xʷSquamish -Ø for 3rd person in the causative is not aber-rant→ As argued by Jacobs (2011), Squamish causativeis composed of caus (-s) + ctR (-t)AnalysisWe make the following assumptions regarding the syntaxand morphology of object agreement:1 Transitivizers and object agreement realize features ofv . Agree copies 𝜙-features of the object onto v .2 The 𝜙-features on v are fissioned into an Agr nodein the morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993).Agr node is realized as the agreement suffix.(6) Squamish ctR with 1pl.obja. Syntax:v[ctR, u𝜙 :1pl]−→ vv[ctR] Agr[1pl]b. Morphology:vv[ctR] Agr[1pl]−→ -t-umuɬGiven this analysis of object agreement, v and Agr are ex-tremely local to one another→ The form of v can be conditioned by Agr.→ The form of Agr can be conditioned by v .We propose that there are only two types of VI rulesfor Agr nodes in these languages, shown in (7).(7) Types of Agr VIsa. Agr[𝜙] ↔ X (unconditioned)b. Agr[𝜙] ↔ Y / [v[ctR] ] (conditioned)For 3rd person object agreement:X = overt allomorph (-əxʷ )Y = null allomorphImplications1 Salish internal → We offer new support for idea that(Central) Salish has overt 3rd person object agreement.2 Theoretical → When an overt form contrasts with anull form, the default need not be the null form.That is, the default need not be the least phonologi-cally marked form (contra Waugh and Lafford 2008 ontense).AcknowledgementsWe thank the speakers of ʔayʔaǰuθəm who have sharedtheir language with us. In addition to this, we are thank-ful for suggestions and feedback from anonymous WCCFLreviewers, the Salish Working Group, Donna Gerdts, andHenry Davis

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389836/manifest

Comment

Related Items