Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Predication and equation in Okanagan Salish : the syntax and semantics of determiner phrases Lyon, John 2013

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_lyon_john.pdf [ 5.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0165734.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0165734-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0165734-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0165734-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0165734-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0165734-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0165734-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0165734-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0165734.ris

Full Text

Predication and Equation in Okanagan Salish:The Syntax and Semantics of Determiner PhrasesbyJohn LyonB.A. German, Auburn University, 2000B.Sc. International Business, Auburn University, 2000M.A. Linguistics, University of Montana, 2005A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDoctor of PhilosophyinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORALSTUDIES(Linguistics)The University Of British Columbia(Vancouver)December 2013? John Lyon, 2013AbstractThis dissertation investigates the syntax and semantics of equative structures (i.e.DP-DP structures and clefts) in the little studied and highly endangered UpperNicola dialect of Okanagan Salish (a.k.a. Nsy?lxc@n), and represents the first de-tailed investigation of equatives in a Salish language. From the theoretical per-spective, Okanagan is noteworthy since there is no evidence for a predicationalcopula (contra Baker (2003), Adger and Ramchand (2003)) while there is evidencefor a null equative copula (Heycock and Kroch, 1999), thereby supporting theorieswhich argue for a structural distinction between predication and equation.Okanagan does not have an overt copula (A. Mattina 2001), yet does havesentences consisting only of two determiner phrases (DPs) (?DP-DP structures?).These exhibit a word order restriction which is absent from predications involvingother syntactic categories, such that in answer to a WH-question, a directly refer-ential demonstrative or proper name must precede a DP headed by the determineriP (an ?iP DP?). The implication is that specificational sentences (Higgins, 1973)are not possible in Okanagan. Given that iP DPs permit intensional readings, andthat iP DPs never denote sets (Longobardi, 1994; Matthewson, 1998), I claim thatthe Okanagan equative head maps the intension of an individual to its extension,and is of type <<s,e>,<e,t>> (Romero, 2005; Comorovski, 2007). Since there areno specificational sentences in Okanagan, and the equivalent of Higgins? identi-ficational sentence class (e.g. That is John in English) pattern with copula-less,direct predications in Okanagan, the data support reducing Higgins? taxonomy toonly two types for Okanagan: predicational and equative (Heller, 2005).I claim that Okanagan clefts are also equative structures, based on evidencethat clefts consist of two DPs and carry an implicature of exhaustivity (Davis et al.,ii2004). This implicature stems from the maximality implicature carried by the de-terminer iP which introduces the second DP (i.e. the residue). My analysis runsparallel to theories of English clefts which align cleft semantics to the semantics ofdeterminers (Percus, 1997; Hedberg, 2000).iiiPrefaceThis dissertation consists of original and independent work by the author, JohnLyon, and is based on fieldwork with fluent speakers of the Upper Nicola dialectof Okanagan Salish. This fieldwork is covered by UBC Ethics Certificate num-ber H08-01182 under the title ?The Representation of Focus in Languages of thePacific Northwest?, a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada.A version of Chapter 5 of this dissertation, Semantics of Okanagan DeterminerPhrases, has been accepted for publication by the International Journal of Amer-ican Linguistics, under the title Okanagan Determiner Phrases and Domain Re-striction. It appeared earlier as a working paper under the title The semantics ofdeterminer phrases in Okanagan in the Precedings for the 46th Annual Interna-tional Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL), University ofBritish Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics volume 30, pages 194?266.Significant portions of chapter 6 of this dissertation, The Syntax of Nomi-nal Modification, appeared as a working paper as Nominal modification in UpperNicola Okanagan: A working paper in the Precedings for the 45th Annual Interna-tional Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL), University ofBritish Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics volume 27, pages 199?233.The map given as Figure 1.2, entitled Geographic Distribution of Salish Lan-guages, is reproduced from The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntaxby Paul D. Kroeber (p. xxxi) by kind permission of the University of NebraskaPress, copyright 1999 by the University of Nebraska Press.ivTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xivAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Purpose of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 The Okanagan Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.4 The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.4.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.4.2 Interlinear Glossing and Orthographic Conventions . . . . 121.5 Salish Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.5.1 Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.5.2 Southern Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.5.3 Northern Interior Salish (and other Salish languages) . . . 161.6 Outline of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17v2 Predication and Equation: Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . 202.1 Predication and Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.1.1 Defining Predication: Semantic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 212.1.2 Copular Clauses and Higgins? (1973) Taxonomy . . . . . 252.2 Specificational Copular Syntax/Semantics:Predicate Raising or an Equative Head? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.2.1 Small Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.2.2 Predicate Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372.2.3 Specificationals as Equatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.2.4 Directly Referential versus Non-Rigid DPs:An Intensional Asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.3 Focus and Information Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.3.1 Focus Alternatives and F-marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.3.2 Prosodic Alignment and Focused Constituents . . . . . . 482.4 Clefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.4.1 ?Extraposition from Subject? Analyses of Clefts . . . . . . 512.4.2 Cleft Semantics: Exhaustivity Entailments and ExistencePresuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.5 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 Background in Okanagan Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.1 Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.2 Inflection: Pronominal, Valency, and Tense-Aspect . . . . . . . . 583.3 Clausal Word Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 The Structure and Distribution of NP and DP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.2 Distinguishing Nouns as a Syntactic Category . . . . . . . . . . . 744.3 NP versus DP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.4 The Distribution of the Determiner and Oblique Marker . . . . . . 824.4.1 Subject Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83vi4.4.2 Core Objects vs. Quasi-Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844.4.3 The Syntactic Status of iP and t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884.4.4 Arguments of Lexical Intransitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904.4.5 Ditransitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924.4.6 Possessor Intransitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944.4.7 The Oblique Marker in Other Environments . . . . . . . . 954.4.8 This ?Predictability? does not hold across Salish . . . . . . 964.4.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974.5 Internal Structure of DP(and other Nominal Projections) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984.5.1 iP Occurs in D Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994.5.2 Three Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994.5.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044.6 Other DPs: Demonstratives and Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . 1064.6.1 Demonstrative DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064.6.2 Proper Name DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1215 Semantics of Okanagan Determiner Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1235.2 The Semantics of the Determiner iP and Oblique Marker t . . . . 1255.2.1 iP and t are not Deictic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1265.2.2 iP and t are Not Definite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1285.2.3 iP and t are not English-like Existential Indefinites . . . . 1375.2.4 iP is Different than a Lillooet Widest-scope Indefinite . . . 1405.2.5 iP Carries an Implicature of Uniqueness and Maximality (tdoes not) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425.2.6 iP does not Create a Generalized Quantifier . . . . . . . . 1475.2.7 Existential Sentences and iP DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1495.2.8 Generic Readings of iP DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1515.2.9 Intensionality and iP DPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1535.2.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1555.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156vii5.3.1 Okanagan iP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1565.3.2 Okanagan t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1615.3.3 Explaining the Implicature Carried by iP . . . . . . . . . 1645.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1666 The Syntax of Nominal Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1686.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1696.1.1 Morphological Patterns of Nominal Modification . . . . . 1696.1.2 Distinguishing Clausal Subordination from Nominal Mod-ification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716.2 Attributive Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1756.2.1 Review: Complex Nominal Predicates and Complex DPs . 1766.2.2 Aspectual Restrictions on Attributive Modification . . . . 1796.2.3 Syntax of Attributive Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1856.2.4 Summary of Attributive Modification . . . . . . . . . . . 1876.3 Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1876.3.1 Introducing Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1886.3.2 Other Characteristics of Okanagan Relatives . . . . . . . 1966.3.3 Relative Clause Formation by Movement . . . . . . . . . 2006.3.4 Problems with Extending the Movement Account . . . . . 2106.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.5 Chapter Addendum: Notes on the ?Matching Effect? . . . . . . . . 2127 Direct Predications and DP-DP Structures: Syntax, Semantics, andInformation Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2157.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2157.1.1 Main Claims of this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2167.1.2 Chapter Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2177.2 Direct Predication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2197.2.1 Direct Predications and Word Order . . . . . . . . . . . . 2207.2.2 Direct Predications and the Ban on Predicate Raising . . . 2267.2.3 (Near) Obligatory Subject-Raising over T . . . . . . . . . 2297.2.4 A Structural Analysis of Direct Predication . . . . . . . . 232viii7.2.5 Summary of Direct Predications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2367.3 DP-DP Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2367.3.1 DP-DP Structures and the Word Order Restriction . . . . 2377.3.2 No ?Predicate? Raising in Okanagan DP-DP Structures . . 2407.3.3 Connectivity (and Other) Effects and Okanagan DP-DPStructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2427.3.4 An Equative Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477.4 Information Structure and DP-DP structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 2497.4.1 The Exhaustivity Implicature in DP-DP structures . . . . 2507.4.2 DP-DP Predications are Non-presuppositional . . . . . . . 2567.4.3 An F-marked Constituent Must Occur Initially in a DP-DPstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2577.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2617.5 Analysis of the Equative Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2627.5.1 A Semantic Asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2627.5.2 Focus Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2667.5.3 Final Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2687.6 Other Predication Types Involving Demonstratives and Proper Names2707.6.1 The Case for Identificational Sentences . . . . . . . . . . 2717.6.2 Predications Involving Two Proper Names . . . . . . . . . 2767.6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2807.7 Problem Inversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2807.8 Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2867.8.1 Summary of Major Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2867.8.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2878 Okanagan Clefts as Equatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2918.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2928.1.1 Terminological Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2928.1.2 The Main Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2938.1.3 Chapter Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2938.2 Introducing Introduced Clefts in Okanagan and Across Salish . . . 2978.2.1 The Classical Analysis: A Tripartite Structure . . . . . . . 297ix8.2.2 Introduced Clefts in Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2988.2.3 DP Types and DP Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2998.3 Information Structure and Clefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3018.3.1 Structural Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3018.3.2 The Exhaustivity Implicature in Clefts and Contrastive Focus3028.3.3 Clefts are Non-presuppositional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3068.3.4 Focus Cannot Fall Finally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3088.3.5 Contrasting Clefts with Nominal Predicate Constructions . 3098.3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3158.4 An Equative Analysis of Clefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3158.4.1 A Structural and Interpretive Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . 3168.4.2 Clefts as Equatives: The Basic Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . 3178.5 Morpho-syntactic Evidence for the Equative Analysis of Clefts andDP-DP Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3208.5.1 Clefts and the (Optional) Initial Demonstrative . . . . . . 3208.5.2 Demonstrative Proclisis in Equatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 3238.5.3 Null Foci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3318.5.4 Intensionality and Cleft Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3348.6 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3368.6.1 Syntactic Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3368.6.2 Semantic Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3398.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3428.8 Chapter Addendum A: Future Clefts and the Case for Clausal NPs 3438.9 Chapter Addendum B: Adjunct Clefts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3469 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3499.1 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3499.2 Implications for Okanagan Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3539.2.1 Empirical Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3539.2.2 Further Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3559.3 Implications for Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3589.3.1 Implications for Southern Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . 3619.3.2 Implications for Northern Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . 376x9.3.3 Implications for Other Salish Languages . . . . . . . . . . 3969.3.4 Summary of Implications for Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 4049.4 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4099.4.1 A Distinction between Predication and Equation . . . . . 4109.4.2 Higgins? Taxonomic Classification for Okanagan . . . . . 4119.4.3 Pragmatic Differences between Okanagan and English Equa-tives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4159.4.4 Information Structural Differences between Okanagan andEnglish Equatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4159.4.5 Exhaustivity in Okanagan Equatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 4169.4.6 Interpretive Variability in Okanagan versus English Equatives4169.4.7 Fixed Information Structure and the Connection to Clefts . 4179.4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420xiList of TablesTable 2.1 Referentiality and Higgins? Taxonomy (adapted from Mikkelsen(2011, 1810)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Table 3.1 Okanagan Consonant Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 3.2 Okanagan Vowel Phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 3.3 Intransitive Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Table 3.4 Transitive Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Table 3.5 Independent Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Table 3.6 Summary of Word Orders in Upper Nicola Okanagan . . . . . 64Table 4.1 Distribution of iP and t across Grammatical Categories . . . . 98Table 4.2 Demonstratives in Okanagan, A. Mattina (1973) . . . . . . . . 106Table 5.1 Semantic Properties of iP and t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Table 5.2 Set Intersection and Maximality with Okanagan iP . . . . . . . 161Table 6.1 NP-introducing Articles versus Clausal Subordinators . . . . . 175Table 6.2 Distribution of Predicate Types in Attributive Modifications . . 185Table 6.3 Relativization Strategies in Four Interior Salish Languages . . . 208Table 6.4 Surface Patterns Displayed by Head/Modifier Introductory Par-ticles in Okanagan Sentences Involving Nominal Modification . 213Table 7.1 Directly versus Non-directly Referential DPs in Equative DP-DP Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263xiiTable 7.2 Reducing Higgins? Taxonomy: Identificational Sentences in Okana-gan Compared to Mikkelsen?s (2005) Classification of English 276Table 7.3 Higgins? Taxonomy and Okanagan Non-Verbal Predications . . 288Table 8.1 Clefting Predicates and Demonstratives across Four Interior Sal-ish Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299Table 9.1 ?Canonical-Order? Predication in Okanagan and English . . . . 350Table 9.2 ?Inverse-Order? Predication in Okanagan and English . . . . . 350Table 9.3 DP-DP Structures as Evidence for Equation across Salish: Ar-ranged by Constituency Type from Strongest to Weakest Evidence360Table 9.4 Evidence for Equative versus Predicational Analyses of South-ern Interior Salish DP-DP Structures and Clefts . . . . . . . . 376Table 9.5 Evidence for Equative versus Predicational Analyses of North-ern Interior Salish DP-DP Structures and Clefts . . . . . . . . 396Table 9.6 Evidence for Equative versus Predicational Analyses of DP-DPStructures and Clefts across Select Salish Languages . . . . . . 405Table 9.7 Higgins? Taxomony and Okanagan Non-Verbal Predications . . 412Table 9.8 Distribution of Semantic Types across DPs in Okanagan Non-Verbal Predications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413xiiiList of FiguresFigure 1.1 Function Application in an Okanagan Direct Predication . . . 4Figure 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Salish Languages . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 1.3 Okanagan Dialect Areas (from Doak (1983, 17)) . . . . . . . 9Figure 2.1 The Copula ?be? and a Null Pred-head . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 2.2 DP Subject Raising and the Asymmetrical (Pred) Account . . 38Figure 2.3 DP Predicate Raising and the Asymmetrical (Pred) Account . 38Figure 2.4 DP Subject Raising and the Symmetrical (bare) Account . . . 39Figure 2.5 DP Predicate Raising and the Symmetrical (bare) Account . . 39Figure 4.1 Okanagan iP DP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure 4.2 The KP hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Figure 4.3 The PP Hypothesis and Prosodic Inversion: ?towards the chief? 101Figure 4.4 The Headless Relative Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Figure 4.5 Core argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Figure 4.6 Locative adjunct with D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Figure 4.7 Locative adjunct w/o D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Figure 4.8 Passive agent or instrumental adjunct . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Figure 4.9 Quasi-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Figure 5.1 Semantic Composition of an Okanagan iP DP, Example I . . . 157Figure 5.2 Domain Restriction in Definite Contexts (e.g. 36a) . . . . . . 158Figure 5.3 Domain Restriction in Non-Unique Contexts (e.g. 10) . . . . 159Figure 5.4 Domain Restriction in Indefinite and Existential Contexts (e.g.15 and 28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160xivFigure 5.5 Generic Interpretations of Okanagan DPs (e.g. 47) . . . . . . 161Figure 5.6 Semantic Incorporation of an Oblique Quasi-Object . . . . . . 163Figure 6.1 Complex Nominal Predicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Figure 6.2 Complex Nominal Predicate: Modifier Stacking . . . . . . . . 186Figure 6.3 Okanagan Locative Relative Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Figure 6.4 Head-initial (a.k.a. ?post-nominal?) Relative Clause . . . . . . 206Figure 6.5 Head-final (a.k.a. ?pre-posed?) Relative Clause . . . . . . . . 207Figure 6.6 Headless Relative Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Figure 7.1 Freely Ordered Bare Small Clause Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . 232Figure 7.2 Null Pred-head Small Clause Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . 233Figure 7.3 No Predicate Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Figure 7.4 Subject Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Figure 7.5 Bare Small Clauses As Simple Saturation Relations . . . . . . 235Figure 7.6 An Oversimplified Equative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Figure 7.7 Semantic Asymmetry, more-referential DP is in initial position 265Figure 7.8 Semantic Asymmetry, less-referential DP is in initial position 266Figure 7.9 Final Equative Analysis of Okanagan DP-DP Structures . . . 269xvAbbreviationsABS absolutive DIR directive transitivizerABST absent DIST distalACC accusative DITR ditransitive applicativeAPPL (possessional) applicative DUB dubitativeATTR attributive EMPH emphaticAUT autonomous EPIS epistemic modalAUX auxiliary ERG ergative caseBEN benefactive applicative EVID evidentialBOUL bouletic modal EXIS assertion-of-existenceCAUS causative transitivizer EXTR extractionCISL cislocative FEM feminineCJCT conjunctive FRED final reduplicationCOMP complementizer FOC focusCONJ conjunction FUT futureCOP copula GEN genitiveCUST customary/habitual HAVE ?to have?DEIC deictic IM immediateDEF definite IMPF imperfectiveDEM demonstrative INCEPT inceptiveDEON deontic modal INCH inchoativeDET determiner INDEP independentDEV developmental INSTR instrumentalDIM diminutive INTR intransitivizer/intransitivexviIRED initial reduplication PAST past tense adverbialIRL irrealis PERF perfectiveLNK link PL pluralLOC locative POSS possessiveMASC masculine PRES presentMID middle marker PROG progressiveMIN -min- pre-transitivizer PROX proximalMUT mutative QUOT quotativeNEG negative RED reduplicationNOM nominalizer REFLEX reflexiveNST non-subject-topic REP reportativeOBJ object marker SG singularOBL oblique marker TR transitivizerOCC occupation U.POSS k?- unrealized possessorPART particle YNQ yes/no questionPASS passivexviiAcknowledgementsThere are many individuals and organizations which I wish to thank.First, I wish to thank my Okanagan language teachers in the Upper NicolaBand, in Quilchena and Douglas Lake. My two primary consultants, Lottie Lindleyand Sarah McLeod, showed overwhelming patience in their willingness to workwith a linguist, and I thank them for being willing to share their language with me.I thank Lottie for her hospitality, and for offering me accomodation on more thanone cold winter night. I also wish to thank Hank Charters, Nancy Saddleman, RitaStewart, Theresa Tom, and Wilford Tom for working with me on several occasions.Without Sharon Lindley inviting me into the community to do language work,none of this would have been possible, and she deserves high praise for her rolein organizing the annual Upper Nicola Language and Culture Camps at GlimpseLake, and for being so very supportive of my work.Next, I wish to thank my committee chair, Dr. Henry Davis, for directingthis dissertation, for sharing his broad and deep knowledge of the Salish languagefamily, for his balanced and well-thought-out Northern Interior Salish perspectivewhich helped to contextualize and temper my own ideas about Okanagan syntax,for being willing to read and critique numerous drafts of this work at its variousstages through the years, for driving me to focus on what I knew instead of worry-ing about what I did not understand, and not least of all for his ongoing financialsupport.I also wish to thank Dr. Lisa Matthewson, committee member, who introducedme to Salish field linguistics during 2006-2007 with a year-long field methodscourse on Lillooet (St??t?imcets). This provided me with useful analytical experi-ence, and a chance to tune my ear to Salish phonology, both of which were crucialxviiiskills for my future work in Okanagan. Lisa?s knowledge of the semantics of Lil-looet, and particularly semantic theories of determiners, were extremely helpful tome in my own work on Okanagan.Thanks also go to Dr. Hotze Rullmann, committee member, who introduced meto formal semantics my first semester at UBC, and with that a new way of lookingat language. His unwaivering interest in First Nations languages, and insistence onclear and concise argumentation, has been extremely helpful to me, particularly inthe latter stages of writing this dissertation.I should also take this opportunity to thank Dr. Anthony Mattina and Dr. NancyMattina, for being champions of the Okanagan language, and for doing an enor-mous amount of linguistic groundwork for Okanagan and the Southern Interior.Without this, and without such tools as the Colville-Okanagan Dictionary, my taskwould have been nearly impossible. As a MA student, Anthony Mattina helped toprovide me with a background in Salish linguistics which enabled me to continuemy studies at UBC.I also wish to thank Laura Thevarge and Herman Dan, St??t?imcets teachers andlanguage consultants, for inspiring me to continue doing fieldwork on Okanagan.Thanks to Yvonne H?bert for her previous work, and for allowing me access to herUpper Nicola corpus, and to SP?mlaPxw (Dr. Michele K. Johnson) for inspiring meto push on through the last few months of the dissertation, and for looking for thelight at the end of the tunnel.Thanks go to the other members of my graduate student cohort, Joel Dunham,Jennifer Glougie, and Mark Scott, with whom I managed to survive the first twoyears of coursework. Thanks especially to Joel who accompanied me out to theUpper Nicola for the first year or so, and helped to edit the two collections ofOkanagan texts which I have published.Dr. Michael Rochemont deserves thanks for reading and commenting on ear-lier drafts of my work on predication, and for being willing to meet on a weeklybasis to discuss predication and related topics.An enormous thanks to my friends, family, and loved ones who have beensupportive of me through the duration of this program. I have spent far too littletime with all of you.Finally, my research would not have been possible without financial supportxixthrough grants from the Jacobs Research Fund in Bellingham WA, the Ameri-can Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, PA, and through Henry Davis?s SSHRCgrant #410-2008-2535.xxChapter 1IntroductionIn this introductory chapter, I first give a brief overview of the central problemswhich this dissertation seeks to address (1.1). I then describe the geographic distri-bution of the Okanagan language and its sister languages of the Southern Interior(1.2). Next, I discuss ethical considerations (1.3). I then discuss my methodologyfor data collection (1.4.1), and describe how I present my data in terms of inter-linear glossing as well as the orthographic conventions I assume (1.4.2). Next Idiscuss relevant previous linguistic work on Okanagan and Interior Salish (1.5).This chapter ends with an outline of the dissertation (1.6).1.1 Purpose of this StudySouthern Interior Salish languages such as Okanagan are well-known for theirmorpho-syntactically rich aspectual systems (N. Mattina 1996b), but little descrip-tive or theoretical work has focused on the nominal domain. In comparing thesyntax and semantics of NPs (noun phrases) and DPs (determiner phrases), thisdissertation makes a substantial empirical contribution to the field, and lays thegroundwork for further theoretical work in this area.The major goal of this dissertation is to characterize and analyze the distribu-tion and function of NPs and DPs in sentence types without a main-clause eventivepredicate. These sentence types are what I shall refer to as non-verbal predications,and are also commonly referred to as copular clauses or copular predications for1English. I now discuss two types of non-verbal predication for Okanagan: directpredications and DP-DP structures.First, consider that in English, main clause non-verbal predications must be ac-companied by some inflected form of the verb be, since adjectives (e.g. productivein 1a) and nominals (e.g. boss in 1b) in English cannot be licensed as syntacticpredicates in main clause environments without a copula.(1) a. John is productive.b. Mary is boss.Although Okanagan has no overt copula (A. Mattina (2001, fns 5,10) andN. Mattina (1996b, 30)), Okanagan non-verbal predications are interpretively sim-ilar to copular clauses in English (Higgins, 1973). The examples in (2) exemplifydirect predications, and show how APs, NPs, and PPs appear to pattern with simpleVPs in being able to select directly for their arguments, which are in these casesDPs headed by the determiner iP. A comparison between (2) and (3) shows that therelative ordering of predicate and argument is not strict for direct predications.(2) a. [Payx?wt AP]tirediPDETtk?milxw.womanThe woman is tired.b. [s-yxw?p-m@x NP]NOM-shuswap-personiPDETp@ptw?naxw.old womanThe old woman is Shuswap.c. [ ?klLOCs@n-lasy@?t-[t]@n PP]LOC-plate-INSTRiPDETlpot.cupThe cup is in the cupboard.d. [c-xwuy V P]CISL-goiPDETsxw-l ?k-?m.OCC-bound-MIDA policeman came.2(3) a. iPDETtk?milxwwoman[Payx?wt AP].tiredThe woman is tired.b. iPDETp@ptw?naxwold woman[s-yxw?p-m@x NP].NOM-shuswap-personThe old woman is Shuswap.c. iPDETlpotcup[ ?klLOCs@n-lasy@?t-[t]@n PP].LOC-plate-INSTRThe cup is in the cupboard.d. iPDETsxw-l ?k-?mOCC-bound-MID[c-xwuy V P].CISL-goA policeman came.These data show that adjectives and nouns have similar distributions to verbs inOkanagan, as in other Salish languages (cf. Kinkade (1983), Jelinek (1998), Davis(1999a), Kroeber (1999) and many others). As such, adjectives and nominals inOkanagan appear to be able to directly predicate themselves of their arguments.The implications of this are quite interesting with regards to theories of copularpredication. First of all, assuming that NPs, for example, may function as predi-cates in Salish (Kroeber, 1999; Davis et al., 2004), there may be no need for anycopula in non-verbal predications involving a main clause NP (contra Baker (2003)who assumes a predicational copula in these cases).Regarding the predicate-argument distinction in Okanagan, the argument statusof the iP DPs above is established by data like (4-5):(4) a. iPDETtk?milxwwomana/the woman*She is a woman.b. tk?milxwwoman.he/she/itShe is a woman.3(5) a. Payx?wttired.he/she/itHe/she/it is tired.b. Payx?wttirediPDETtk?milxw.womanThe woman is tired.The DP iP tk?milxw ?the woman? in (4a) is not a complete sentence since there isno main clause predicate in this form, only a saturated argument expression, andnull predicates are not possible. Okanagan, like other Salish languages, is a pro-drop language. This means that (4b) and (5a), unlike (4a), are interpretable ascomplete sentences given an appropriate context. In (5b), the subject is overtlyrealized as a DP consisting of the determiner iP and its NP complement. The gen-eralization is that Okanagan predicates do not require overt arguments in order tobe interpretable as complete sentences; however, Okanagan argument expressionsdo require an overt predicate. Furthermore, given that NPs like tk?milxw ?woman?can be predicates, the distinction in (4-5) is evidence that a determiner makes aconstituent non-predicative (Longobardi, 1994; Chierchia, 1998).Assuming that lexical categories are inherently predicative, and that iP DPsare individual-denoting argument expressions, a simplified semantic analysis of asentence like (2b) is given as Figure 1.1:Figure 1.1: Function Application in an Okanagan Direct PredicationSt[[Shuswap]]([[the old woman]])NPPred<e,t>?x[Shuswap(x)]syxw?pm@xDPSub je[[the old woman]]iP p@ptw?naxwIn brief, there appears to be a semantic distinction between syntactic categories,4where NPs, APs, VPs, and PPs can be predicative, while DPs cannot.1 This fitswith theories that D rather than N is crucial for referentiality (Longobardi, 1994)and that the determiner is crucial for converting a nominal predicate into an argu-ment (Chierchia, 1998).There is a class of structures in Okanagan that raise some potentially seriouscomplications for this account, however. These are what I refer to as DP-DP struc-tures, examples of which are shown in (6-8). Though there is little mention ofDP-DP structures in the literature, N. Mattina (1996b, 30) notes that exampleslike (6-8) ?consist of two adjacent [DPs] standing in an equivalence relationshipinterpreted as [DP = DP]. Equational sentences have neither a lexical verb nor acopula.?2(6) [ix?PDP]DEM[iPDETp@ptw?naxw DP].old.ladyShe is the old lady.(7) [Spike DP]Spike[iPDETylm?xw@m DP].chiefSpike is the chief.(8) [iPDETsq@ltm?xw DP]man[iPDETs@xw-p?x?-@m DP].OCC-hunt-MIDThe man is/was a hunter.Assuming that all of the DP expressions in (6-8) are expressions of type e, a seman-tic derivation along the lines of Figure 1.1, without any functional intermediary, isnot possible; but there is further evidence against analyzing either of the two DPsin (6-8) as predicates. Unlike sentences involving lexical predicates, as in (2-3),constituent ordering is either not free (in the case of demonstratives and propernames, given in (9-10)) or leads to interpretive differences (in the case of iP DPs,given as 11):1PPs are only sometimes acceptable as predicates in Upper Nicola Okanagan, and are judgedgrammatical or ungrammatical seemingly at random. The reasons for this are unclear.2N. Mattina (1996b) uses ?NP? where I use ?DP?, hence the square brackets.5(9) *[iPDETp@ptw?naxw DP]old.lady[ix?PDP].DEMThe old lady is her.(10) *[iPDETylm?xw@m DP]chief[Spike DP].SpikeThe chief is Spike.(11) [iPDETs@xw-p?x?-@m DP]OCC-hunt-MID[iPDETsq@ltm?xw DP].man#The man is/was a hunter.The hunter is a man.What explains the word order restriction of DP-DP structures? This question isparticularly interesting in light of theoretical work on copular predication, and Hig-gins? (1973, 1979) taxonomy of these structures, which I discuss in some detail inchapter 2. I claim that the word order restriction shows that structures directly anal-ogous to specificational sentences (a.k.a ?inverse predications?) in English (Hig-gins, 1973; Moro, 1997) are ungrammatical in Okanagan.As a reasonable null hypothesis, we could guess that specific discourse con-ditions make the Okanagan examples in (9) ungrammatical, since in English atleast, specificational sentences are only felicitous in a subset of the contexts whichsupport predicational sentences (Higgins, 1973; Mikkelsen, 2005). For example,(12-13) show that the specificational sentence ?The winner is Sam? is only felici-tous if ?the winner? is a topical expression, not if it is in focus (Mikkelsen, 2005).3In Okanagan, however, the relative discourse status of the initial DP is irrelevant insuch question/answer contexts, and the inverse, specificational configuration willalways be ungrammatical.(12) a. Q: Who is the winner?b. A: Sam is the winner. (predicational)c. A: The winner is Sam. (specificational)3By ?topic?, I informally refer to old information, or information that is already established in thediscourse, while by ?focus?, I mean new information being introduced to the discourse (Rochemont,1986).6(13) a. Q: Who is Sam?b. A: Sam is the winner. (predicational)c. A: #The winner is Sam. (specificational)Elucidating the source of this word order restriction and of other differences be-tween direct and DP-DP structures, will be the focus of the dissertation.In addition, I will explore the structure and interpretation of Okanagan clefts,and will show that they exhibit the same word order restriction as DP-DP structures,and that they share other important information structural and morpho-syntacticparallels as well. As such, I claim that both simple DP-DP structures and cleftsderive from one underlying equative configuration.1.2 The Okanagan LanguageThe Southern Interior sub-branch of the Salish language family consists of Colville-Okanagan (Nsy?lxc@n), Moses-Columbian (NxaPamxc?n), Coeur d?Alene (Snchitsu?-umshtsn), and the dialect continuum known as Spokane-Kalispel-Flathead (Seli?).The geographic relation between the Southern Interior languages and other Salishlanguages is represented in Figure 1.2 below.7Figure 1.2: Geographic Distribution of Salish LanguagesMap reproduced from The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax byPaul D. Kroeber (p. xxxi) by permission of the University of Nebraska Press.Copyright 1999 by the University of Nebraska Press.Okanagan is spoken in South-central British Columbia and North-central Wash-ington. It is critically endangered, being spoken by only about 250 speakers inCanada (FPHLCC, 2010), and by fewer in the United States. Four major dialectareas are recognized for the Okanagan language. These are represented in Figure1.3 as the northern dialects of ?Okanagan? proper and ?Lakes?, and the southerndialects of ?Sanpoil? and ?Colville?.8Figure 1.3: Okanagan Dialect Areas (from Doak (1983, 17))There are finer-grained dialect distinctions to be made as well, however. Asub-dialect of Okanagan proper is spoken in the Upper Nicola River valley andaround Nicola Lake, in the extreme northwest periphery of the Okanagan languagearea. I refer to this dialect as the ?Upper Nicola? dialect, though it is sometimesalso referred to as the ?Douglas Lake? dialect. The majority of the data in thisdissertation come from the Upper Nicola dialect. Differences between Okanagandialects are primarily lexical in nature, though I have also found several grammati-cal differences between the Upper Nicola dialect and published data from the mainOkanagan dialect and from Colville.44The grammatical differences which I have found are primarily related to the distribution of the9The Upper Nicola Okanagan Band is centered around the Douglas Lake (Sp?x?-m@n) and Quilchena (N? ?q??m@lx) reserves, close to the town of Merritt, B.C. TheNicola Valley was originally inhabited by the Nicola Athapaskan people (cf. Fig-ure 1.2), who lived in the area until they were absorbed by Salish-speaking peoplesin the 19th century (Boas and Teit, 1930). The Upper Nicola dialect of Okanaganis spoken by perhaps as few as 12 speakers (Sharon Lindley, p.c.), all in their sev-enties and eighties. This dialect is interesting, in part, because of its divergencefrom the more commonly heard Okanagan Valley dialect. These divergences stemfrom several factors, including geographic isolation, a high degree of bilingual-ism (Thompson-Okanagan), but also influence from neighboring Thompson andShuswap groups, who contemporaneously with the Okanagans, used the NicolaValley as a summer hunting ground (Boas and Teit, 1930).1.3 EthicsThe scope of my work falls under Dr. Henry Davis? SSHRC grant #410-2008-2535, and proceeds under the ethical consent guidelines as outlined in the UBCBehavioural Research Ethics Board.The opportunity to conduct linguistic work with Upper Nicola speakers arosefrom a request by Sharon Lindley, to Henry Davis, that linguists should comeinto the community in order to document the language and to assist in producingcurriculum resources. Sharon Lindley is the former principal of Nk?wala schoolin Douglas Lake, the language representative of the Upper Nicola Band at theEn?owkin Centre in Penticton, and by community consensus, an authority figureand champion of the language. As part of the process of documenting the lan-guage, it was understood that I could collect materials which would enable me toproduce a dissertation.Prior to commencing work with speakers of the Upper Nicola dialect in De-cember 2008, Dr. Davis and I attended an Elders? meeting, at the behest of SharonLindley, and at which the majority of the remaining speakers in Douglas Lake andQuilchena were present. At this meeting, the Elders identified the ?most fluent?determiner and oblique marker before nouns, given a specific grammatical context. I discuss thesedifferences when relevant.10of these speakers as being Lottie Lindley, and recommended that she be our pri-mary language resource in the community. After personally contacting Lottie andother speakers who I thought might be interested in occasional or regular languagework, we set up an initial appointment. The speakers were then asked to sign anethical consent form, in accordance with the requirements of the UBC BehaviouralResearch Ethics Board.With permission of the speakers and community, my textual and sound dataare either currently, or will be, archived at the University of Washington SpecialCollections, Melville Jacobs archive, in Seattle WA; and at the American Philo-sophical Society?s archives in Philadelphia, PA. Additionally, I have given copiesof all my data to the community; both directly to the speakers with whom I work,as well as to Sharon Lindley. In building my relationship with the Upper Nicolacommunity, I have endeavored to create and share language resources which mightbe deemed useful in language preservation and education, such as several subtitledand dubbed Okanagan films, as well as two collections of Upper Nicola narrativesby Lottie Lindley (Lindley and Lyon, 2012, 2013).1.4 The DataThe data in this dissertation come primarily from two speakers of the Upper Nicoladialect, Lottie Lindley and Sarah McLeod. I have worked with these two Elders farmore than with any other speakers in the community. I have also conducted severalelicitation sessions with Hank Charters, Nancy Saddleman, Rita Stewart, WilfordTom, and Teresa Tom during the course of my work in the Upper Nicola valley.1.4.1 MethodologyThe bulk of the data I cite consists of elicited material. Canonically, I give thespeaker a sentence in English which may be paired with a context, and the speakertranslates the English sentence into the Okanagan equivalent. In other cases, Iconstruct a context, and give the speaker a question in Okanagan, and they providethe contextually appropriate Okanagan answer.Ideally, I choose data that is volunteered by speakers in response to a given En-glish sentence. In some cases, in order to show a contrast in terms of grammatical-11ity, I cite data which I have constructed that has been judged either grammatical orungrammatical by a speaker. Constructed data is based on a volunteered form, butminimally altered. In most cases, grammatical forms have been volunteered whichare directly parallel to constructed data which I cite. Unless otherwise noted, thedata patterns which I investigate have been found to be consistent across speakers.I also utilize data that does not come from an elicitation session. Other datasources include sentences which are gleaned from volunteered texts, either fromLottie Lindley (Lindley and Lyon, 2012) or Sarah McLeod, from Colville sourcessuch as The Golden Woman (A. Mattina 1985) or Dora DeSautel?s ?aP k?capt?kw?(A. Mattina and DeSautel 2002), or from Yvonne H?bert?s unpublished UpperNicola corpus. I note data which has been extracted from sources other than myown. I make every effort to cite Upper Nicola data where possible, since it is pos-sible that there is significant dialect variation related to one or more crucial pointsof grammar in this dissertation.1.4.2 Interlinear Glossing and Orthographic ConventionsI use a three-level representation when presenting interlinear data: A ?near-phonemic?representation, a morpheme gloss, and a translation. Grammatical data is un-marked, ungrammatical data are introduced by an asterisk (*), marginally accept-able data or data whose grammaticality status is unclear are introduced by a super-script question mark (?), and contextually infelicitous data are introduced by a hashmark (#). An example is given below:(14) ucDUBwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETsq@ltm?xwmaniPDETx?xwt@m?little.girlDid the man see the little girl?I discuss each of these three levels separately in the following sub-sections.Near-Phonemic TranscriptionThe first level consists of an Okanagan transcription using a standard American-ist (a.k.a. Northwest) orthography. This orthography has traditionally been usedin Salish linguistics since the 1960?s. It is the dominant orthography for Okana-12gan, and has been used in such references as the Colville-Okanagan Dictionary(A. Mattina 1987).5 I refer the reader to H?bert (1982b) and H?bert (1982a) for adetailed discussion of Americanist orthographic conventions.Because the phonetics of Okanagan by-and-large correspond transparently tothe underlying phonemic representation, I have decided not to give an additionalphonetic line when presenting data, unlike in A. Mattina and DeSautel (2002), forexample. The symbols I use, and their approximate phonetic values, are given inthe consonant and vowel charts in section 3.1. My transcriptions are ?near phone-mic? rather than simply ?phonemic? because I use schwa [@], which is not a fullvowel (A. Mattina 1973, 10). I use schwa phonetically, as I hear it. Most often, aschwa functions to break up consonant clusters, and in my own opinion makes theOkanagan easier to read.There are exceptions to the generalization that Okanagan morpho-phonologyis transparent, including for example (i) null transitivizers in 1st and 3rd personergative constructions with inherently stressed (a.k.a. ?strong?) roots (see 14), (ii)absorption of the final nasal in 1st and 2nd person possessive in- and an- precedinga nominal beginning with s- and (iii) the reduction of the iP determiner before 1stand 2nd person possessive prefixes. For cases like (i), I indicate a null transitivizerwithin square brackets in the morpheme gloss line (e.g. [DIR] in 14). For caseslike (ii), I indicate the nasal in square brackets. For cases like (iii), I will give aniP determiner in square brackets. My use of parentheses is distinct from my use ofsquare brackets: parentheses indicate optional material.I mark primary stress at the word level by an acute accent. For mono-syllabicwords, or words with only one full vowel and no perceptible schwa, I do not markstress. I divide each Okanagan word into morphemes, using a hyphen (-). Each5At least two other orthographies exist for Okanagan. The first was originally developed byRandy Bouchard in the 1960?s and represents Okanagan phonemically using Latin characters. It isessentially equivalent to the practical orthography used to write St??t?imcets (the Lillooet language)(cf van Eijk (1997)), yet is no longer used for Okanagan as far as I am aware. The second wasdeveloped by Christopher Parkin and SQam?t?caP (Sarah Peterson) at the Paul Creek language school,and is currently used at the Salish School in Spokane, WA. It is gaining currency at centers forNsy?lxc@n language such as the En?owkin Centre in Penticton, B.C., perhaps due to the relativelylarge volume of curriculum materials available in this orthography, or perhaps because it is easier tolearn than the standard Americanist orthography. The major difference between the Americanist andPaul Creek orthographies is that schwa (@) is not used in the latter; instead, the schwa is signalled byplacing an apostrophe on the immediately following consonant.13hyphenated morpheme corresponds to a gloss in the morpheme gloss line.6 I donot generally indicate null 3SG.ABS pronouns in either intransitive or transitivecontexts.For cited data from other Salish languages, I use a standard Americanist or-thography in the transcription line. I change morpheme glosses in some cases toreflect my labelling of the equivalent Okanagan morphemes. If there is no equiv-alent morpheme in Okanagan, or I do not cite an equivalent Okanagan morphemein this dissertation, I retain the author?s original morpheme gloss.Morpheme GlossThe second line of data consists of a morpheme gloss. A given morpheme mayeither consist of grammatical information, in which case it is glossed in small capsusing one of the abbreviations given in the Abbreviations table (pp. xvi-xvii), orof lexical information, in which case it occurs in normal, Roman type. Covertmorphology is indicated either in the morpheme gloss by square brackets, or in theOkanagan transcription within square brackets.Glossing conventions, and my choice of abbreviations, are primarily those usedin (Matthewson, 2005) I Wan Kwikws and Lindley and Lyon (2012), with supple-mental glosses borrowed when needed from works such as A. Mattina and De-Sautel (2002) and other sources. I have endeavoured to use standard abbreviations(e.g. DET for ?determiner?) whenever possible.TranslationTranslations of Okanagan volunteered forms consist of the English sentence whichwas given as a prompt for the Okanagan form. For cases where an Okanaganform was volunteered in response to a contextual prompt, either the speaker?s ownEnglish translation is given, or a translation which reflects the Okanagan form asliterally as possible. For constructed data involving negative judgements, I providethe closest equivalent English translation.6Cf. A. Mattina (2008) for a useful discussion on how to parse some of the more problematicforms.141.5 Salish Literature ReviewThere is a substantial body of literature in Salish linguistics, without which thisdissertation would not have been possible. I summarize the most relevant worksfor this dissertation in this section, dividing my discussion of the literature intothree parts: Okanagan, Southern Interior Salish, and Northern Interior Salish.1.5.1 OkanaganLinguistic work on Okanagan may be said to have originated with James Teit (cf.Boas and Teit (1930)), but not until the late 1960?s did intensive work on the lan-guage begin. Early work includes Watkins (1970), a dissertation on phonology, andAnthony Mattina?s dissertation Colville Grammatical Structure (A. Mattina 1973)which focuses mainly on the phonology and morphology of the language. AmongMattina?s other works are The Golden Woman (A. Mattina 1985), an interlinearanalysis of a Colville narrative, and the invaluable Colville-Okanagan Dictionary(A. Mattina 1987). I found the IJAL paper The Colville-Okanagan Transitive Sys-tem (A. Mattina 1982) to be a useful reference for understanding the Okanaganpronominal system. Nancy Mattina?s Aspect and Category in Okanagan Word For-mation (N. Mattina 1996b) provides an extremely useful analysis of the Okanaganaspectual and tense systems.The Upper Nicola dialect itself has received comparatively little documenta-tion, with the exception of a phonological overview (Pattison, 1978), and a series ofpapers by Yvonne H?bert, including her dissertation Transitivity in (Nicola Lake)Okanagan (1982b), and a report to the Canadian Ethnological Service Clausalstructure in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan (H?bert, 1982a).A highly useful resource for Okanagan linguistics is The Kinkade Collection:the On-Line Archive of Papers for the International Conference on Salish (andNeighbo(u)ring) Languages. This on-line archive is the result of several years ofdigitizing and organizing ICSNL conference papers, some of which were otherwisevery difficult to find. Included in this collection are many important papers by An-thony Mattina on the morpho-phonology and morpho-syntax of Okanagan. ICSNLpapers which I have personally found very useful are Okanagan Aspect: A WorkingPaper (A. Mattina 1993a), a precursor to Nancy Mattina?s dissertation (N. Mattina151996b), and Okanagan sentence types: A preliminary working paper (A. Mattina2001), which makes brief mention of DP-DP structures and the absence of anycopula in the language.1.5.2 Southern Interior SalishLinguistic material and analyses from other Southern Interior Salish languages,particularly Moses-Columbian, have proved useful to me in terms of understandinghow Okanagan fits into the areal picture, and for establishing base-line hypothesesconcerning previously unresearched corners of Okanagan grammar.Most noteworthy is Nancy Mattina?s IJAL paper Determiner Phrases In Moses-Columbia Salish (N. Mattina 2006), in which I found an areal basis for many ofthe ideas which I develop concerning the semantics of the Okanagan iP determinerand how these DPs contrast with oblique-marked nominals. Another document onMoses-Columbian which I found useful was Marie Willett?s dissertation A Gram-matical Sketch of Nxa?amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish) (Willett, 2003). Addition-ally, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins has kindly made available some of her field notes.1.5.3 Northern Interior Salish (and other Salish languages)There has been much high-quality descriptive and theoretical work on the NorthernInterior Salish languages of Lillooet (St??t?imcets), Thompson (N?ePkepmxc?n),and Shuswap (Secwepemctsin). I mention some of the most relevant work here.Henry Davis?s and Lisa Matthewson?s work on Lillooet has proved indispensi-ble to me in establishing the basic syntactic and semantic premises upon which Ibuild my main arguments, specifically in three areas: relative clauses, determinersemantics, and clefts. Other scholars in the field, notably Dwight Gardiner, CarrieGillon, Karsten Koch, Paul Kroeber, and Jan van Eijk have also made importantcontributions in one (or more) of these three areas, which I discuss below.First, Davis (2002, 2004, 2010a), building on previous observations in Kroeber(1999) establishes the basic argument for Lillooet that relative clauses are formedby means of clause-internal movement of a DP. Koch (2006) shows that the samefacts hold for Thompson. These analyses provide a framework, and a point ofcomparison, for my analysis of Okanagan relative clauses, which I claim are also16formed by clause-internal movement.Matthewson (1998, 1999, 2001) provides a comprehensive analysis of the se-mantics of the determiner system in Lillooet, as well as a detailed explanation ofhow Salish determiners differ semantically from those in English. Carrie Gillon(Gillon, 2006, 2009a,b) provides a similarly detailed analysis of the Squamish de-terminer system. My own analysis of the semantics of Okanagan DPs rests heavilyon Matthewson?s and Gillon?s original work.Davis et al. (2004) investigates cleft structures in Lillooet and Northern StraitsSalish, and establishes that they imply without presupposing or entailing exhaus-tivity, and do not carry a presupposition of existence, unlike English clefts. Theseinformation structural properties also hold for Okanagan. Koch (2008a) presents adetailed analysis of focus and information structure in Thompson, and Koch (2009)provides an analysis of Thompson clefts. His argument that focus in ThompsonSalish is not realized by pitch-accent, but by linear alignment, is an important find-ing. I claim that linear alignment constraints also play a role in the informationstructure of Okanagan.Other works which have been helpful to me include Gardiner (1993), whichexamines the syntax of topicalization in Shuswap, and van Eijk (1997), which con-sists of a detailed grammar of Lillooet morpho-phonology.1.6 Outline of the DissertationThis dissertation is structured as follows:Chapter 2 presents theoretical background on issues involving copular predica-tion and clefts, and a discussion of the analytical tools which I use for my analysisof Okanagan predications and equatives.Chapter 3 presents some basic aspects of Okanagan grammar, including phonol-ogy, pronominal inflection, and brief notes on the transitivity and the tense andaspectual systems, followed by a more in-depth discussion of word order.Chapter 4 investigates the general distribution of DPs in non-predicative con-texts in Okanagan, and the internal structure of DPs, particularly those headed bythe determiner iP. The internal structure of DPs is particularly important with re-gards to the distribution of DP-internal ?prepositions?, or locative markers, which17are a general characteristic of the Southern Interior. These data are important forunderstanding the syntax of relativization, as presented in chapter 6.Chapter 5 consists of a detailed investigation of the semantics of the determineriP, and DPs headed by this determiner. I argue that iP is non-presuppositional andcontext-sensitive, similar to Squamish deictic determiners (Gillon, 2006, 2009a),but non-deictic. The semantics of iP DPs is crucial for understanding DP-DP struc-tures, as well as the non-presuppositional and non-exhaustive characteristics ofOkanagan DP-DP structures and clefts.Chapter 6 presents data on attributive modification and relative clause modi-fication. Diagnostics are developed for distinguishing these two types of nominalmodification, and a movement analysis based on locative and oblique-centered rel-ative clauses along the lines of Davis (2004, 2010a) and Koch (2006) is motivated.The data and analysis of relative clauses in this section are important for clarifyingthe stucture of cleft residues, which I claim to be categorially DPs in Okanagan.Chapter 7 introduces Okanagan DP-DP structures, and discusses how thesediffer from direct predications. Based on a word order restriction which I take tobe evidence that neither constituent in a DP-DP structure is predicative, I claimthat DP-DP structures involve a null equative copula (Heycock and Kroch, 1999;Romero, 2005). I then discuss information structural properties of DP-DP struc-tures. These include an exhaustivity implicature (Davis et al., 2004), an absence ofany presupposition, and a requirement that a referential, focused DP occur initially.This means that Okanagan does not have specificational sentences (a.k.a. ?inversecopular clauses?) (Higgins, 1973). Explaining the absence of specificational sen-tences presents a challenge: the observation is that in DP-DP structures involvingeither a proper name or a demonstrative and an iP DP, the iP DP must follow theproper name or demonstrative. This poses a problem for a simple equational anal-ysis since both DPs denote individuals, and neither the equative functional headnor focus can distinguish among different types of DPs. Intuitively, the distinc-tion between demonstratives and proper names on the one hand, and iP DPs on theother, is that the former are directly referential, whereas the latter are not. I sug-gest that the Okanagan equational head is of type <<s,e>,<e,t>> (Romero, 2005;Comorovski, 2007), and links an intensional individual (an iP DP) to its extension.The equative head assigns a feature ?F? to its second argument, and this feature is18interpretable as ?focus?. Focus-sensitive alignment constraints (Koch, 2008a) thenensure that the focused DP occurs left-most.Chapter 8 introduces Okanagan clefts, and discusses how they are similar to,and different than clefts in other Salish languages. I show that Okanagan cleftsconsist of two DPs, and have an information structure identical to that found inDP-DP structures, as discussed in chapter 7: they imply exhaustivity (Davis et al.,2004), do not carry any presupposition of existence, and require that the focusedDP precede the residue DP. I then discuss morphosyntactic evidence that cleftsare structurally equivalent to DP-DP structures, which implies that clefts, too, areequatives.Chapter 9 discusses typological and theoretical implications of my analysis,addresses some further questions, and concludes.19Chapter 2Predication and Equation:Theoretical BackgroundThis chapter presents theoretical background and tools relevant to my analysis ofOkanagan predications and equatives, and consists of four main sections: (i) pred-ication versus equation, and Higgins? (1973,1979) taxonomy; (ii) syntactic andsemantic theories of specificational copular sentences; (iii) focus and informationstructure; and (iv) clefts.1 A more detailed outline of this chapter follows.First (section 2.1), I present semantic background on predication and equation,and discuss the question of whether the English copula be is best analyzed as beingambiguous between a predicational and an equative copula, or is unambiguouslypredicational (Partee, 1986). I next discuss Higgins? (1973,1979) taxonomy ofcopular sentences, and summarize more recent efforts in the literature to simplifythis taxonomy (Mikkelsen, 2011).Second (section 2.2), I contrast two analyses of specificational copular clauses.One school of thought claims that all non-verbal predication is mediated via thesame functional head (Adger and Ramchand, 2003; den Dikken, 2006) and thatspecificational clauses are derived from predicational clauses by syntactic inver-sion (?predicate raising?). The other school claims that predicational and equative1Particularly useful to me in drafting this section were summary articles (or articles with goodsummaries) on copular predication (Mikkelsen, 2011), clefts (Reeve, 2007), and focus and informa-tion structure (Krifka, 2008).20copular clauses are structurally distinct, and that specificational sentences are atype of equative (Heycock and Kroch, 1999; Heycock, 2012). I discuss in somedetail the problem of how best to treat specificational sentences, as pragmaticallyasymmetrical, within an equational semantics. Of immediate relevance to Okana-gan are Romero (2005) and Comorovski (2007), who claim that the equative copulais sensitive to intensionality. I present a similar analysis of the Okanagan equativecopula in chapter 7.Third (section 2.3), I discuss the alternatives-based approach to focus repre-sentation (Rooth, 1985, 1992). Focus theory is an important component of myanalysis of Okanagan equatives, since I claim that the subject of an equative is al-ways a focused element. To close this section, I summarize the findings of Koch(2008a) and Koch and Zimmermann (2009) with regards to focus alignment inneighbouring Thompson River Salish, and the non-universality of the stress-focuscorrespondence.Fourth (section 2.4), I discuss theories of English clefts which analyze the cleft-ing pronoun as a discontinous definite description with the residue clause, andwhich link the semantic and pragmatic effects of English clefts to the semantics ofthe definite determiner (Percus, 1997; Hedberg, 2000). In chapter 8, I show howOkanagan clefts support these theories.2.1 Predication and Equation2.1.1 Defining Predication: Semantic IssuesThis section introduces some of the basic semantic concepts underlying theories ofpredication, including a brief discussion of some complications which arise frominterpretive ambiguities in English predication, and the importance of correctlyidentifying the ?locus? of predication. These foundational issues are important forunderstanding how Okanagan predication is both similar to and different from thatfound in English.21Predication Versus EquationThe English copula be mediates relations of predication and equation (a.k.a. iden-tity) between two words or phrases. Whether the relation happens to be one ofpredication or equation is partially dependent on the semantic type of the words orphrases in the relation.2 Consider the following two sentences:(1) a. Predication: Tully is a bank robber.b. Equation: Cicero is Tully.Properly speaking, a predication relation is one that holds between an indi-vidual and a property. In other words, an individual x is understood as having aproperty P, or x is a member of the set denoted by P. Thus in English, in order for(1a) to be true, Tully must belong to the set denoted by a bank robber.An equative relation is one that holds between two individuals. In English,if we say Cicero is Tully, the most straightforward interpretation is that we areasserting that the individual denoted by Cicero is identical to the individual denotedby Tully (1b). Note however that (1b) also has a predicational reading in the contextwhere, for example, Cicero is playing the part of Tully in a play. This serves toillustrate that the distinction between predication and equation cannot necessarilybe understood strictly in terms of inherent differences between noun classes, butinvolves referentiality more generally.The Locus of Predication and Equation: The Copula or a Pred-head?Under some theories, the copula be itself instantiates the predication and identityrelations (Partee, 1986); however, not all theories of English predication automat-ically assign the copula a predicative semantics. Moro (2000) and den Dikken(2006), for example, attribute the semantics of copular predication to an abstractand usually covert functional projection called the Pred-head (Bowers, 1993; Baker,2003)3, which links the subject to the predicate in a small clause configuration. For2Higher order predications and equational relations are also logically and linguistically possible(Partee, 1986; Heycock and Kroch, 1999).3den Dikken (2006) refers to the Pred-head as a Relator. The copula can, but does not have tobe, a Pred-head, but is in the sentence The earth might be round according to den Dikken (2006, 15),since T is filled by a modal.22these theories, the copula is often relegated to the role of tense-carrier, and so min-imally conveys the information that, for example, Tully is a bank robber, or thatCicero is Tully, at the present time. Under a Pred-head analysis, sentence (1a) maybe represented as follows:Figure 2.1: The Copula ?be? and a Null Pred-headTPDPi (Sub j)TullyT?TisPredPti Pred?PredDP(Pred)a bank robberFor the structure underlying Figure 2.1, the copula selects for a PredP smallclause, headed by a null functional projection, the Pred-head. The Pred-head linksthe predicate complement DP a bank robber to the referential subject Tully, andthe subject raises over the copula. I discuss the motivation for this structure in latersections, but suffice it here to note that it is the Pred-head which functions as thepredicational intermediary in Figure 2.1, not the copula ?be?.Copular Complements and Interpretive AmbiguitiesComplements of copulas in English come from a range of syntactic categories, asshown in (2) below. They are only rarely NPs, as with boss in (2a). A locationmay be predicated of an individual John by means of a PP predicate (2b), and anattributive property by means of an AP predicate (2c). A property may also bepredicated of John by means of a definite DP (2d).44This is not necessarily always the case for (2d) since multiple readings are available. Higgins(1973) holds that the definite description is either predicated of the subject John, or else identifieswho John is. These two interpretations correspond to Higgins? predicational and identificationalclasses, respectively. There is a third, equative interpretation of (2d) as well. See section 2.1.2 for adiscussion of Higgins? taxonomy.23(2) a. John is [bossNP].b. John is [from HuntsvillePP].c. John is [tallAP].d. John is [the President of the United StatesDP].I assume that the semantic relation between an individual John and the pred-icates in (2a-c) may be captured assuming a formalism like (3) for the Englishcopula, where x = John and P = boss, from Huntsville, tall (Williams, 1983):(3) ?P?x.P(x)Insofar as the President of the United States in (2d) denotes an occupation, italso denotes a property of John, and the predication relation in (2d) may likewisebe represented by (3). But if we instead assume one fairly standard analysis ofthe definite determiner the (4) (Heim, 2011), the DP in (2d) will denote a maximalindividual, and we are faced with the problem of having two individual-denotingexpressions, but no predicate.5(4) [[the]]= ?P : ?x?y[P(y)? x = y].?x.P(x)There are two basic solutions to this problem, discussed at length by Partee (1986).One analysis, which may be referred to as ambiguous be, proposes that be is am-biguous between a denotation like (5a, cf 3) and one which equates two individuals,as in (5b):65The formula in (4) takes a nominal predicate P as its argument, and presupposes that there is anindividual x which has the property P, and that for all other individuals y, if y has the property P, itmust be identical to x. This is a presupposition of uniqueness. It then asserts (by means of the iotaoperator ?) that x is the only individual with the property P.6Under the ?ambiguous be? approach, two individuals may also be equated by means of the ?up?operator ? of Chierchia (1984), as in (i), which maps an individual onto the singleton set of allindividuals that are identical to it:(i) ?y?x[?y(x)]A copula like (i) will yield a proposition essentially equivalent to the result of (3), the only differencebeing the semantic type of the first argument. Partee (1986) refers to the ?up? operation as Pred, andnotes that (i) is in some ways conceptually preferable to (5b), since ambiguous be can then at least beunderstood as always linking a predicate expression, whether inherent or derived, with its argument.Locating a type shift in the English copula itself (i) does not remove the need for a predicationalcopula (5a) in cases where the complement expression is a property-denoting NP, PP or AP (cf. 2).24(5) a. ?P?x.P(x)b. ?y?x.[x = y]The other analysis, which Partee (1986) instead argues for, may be referredto as unambiguous be, and assumes a single copula (5a) by allowing definite DPsand other individual-denoting expressions to type shift into predicates before thecopula selects them as complements. This means that English DPs must be able tofreely type-raise into properties.There is much debate in the literature on whether a type-shifting approach orone involving a separate equative copula is preferable. Choosing one approach overthe other for any given language depends in part on whether there is independentevidence that expressions in that language may type-shift. After discussing Hig-gins? taxonomy in more detail in the next section, I will touch on some of the finergrained points of this debate. For now, it is sufficient to note that copular clauseslike (2d) John is the president of the United States exhibit both predicational andequative interpretations, depending on whether or not the definite DP is construedas referential in context, and that these different interpretations receive explanationunder both the ?ambiguous be? and ?unambiguous be? approaches.An important set of questions arises as to whether the semantics of predicationcan vary cross-linguistically. More specifically, do all languages display evidencefor an ambiguity either in the locus of predication (i.e. copula or Pred-head) or inthe semantics of DPs, as English does, or are we sometimes able to dispense withambiguities altogether?2.1.2 Copular Clauses and Higgins? (1973) TaxonomyThe previous section introduced some of the basic semantic concepts and issueswhich are important to any theory of predication. I now move on to a discussion ofHiggins? (1973) taxonomy of English copular clauses. This taxonomy has been animportant standard in the literature for motivating taxonomies of non-verbal pred-ications in other languages (e.g. Danish (Mikkelsen, 2005) and Hebrew (Heller,2005)), and will also be useful for comparing Okanagan with other languages.To begin with, as discussed in the previous section, English normally requiresa tensed form of the copula be in main clause predications. The post-copular pred-25icate complement may consist of any one of a range of syntactic categories, asshown in (6).(6) a. AP Predicate: John is busy.b. NP Predicate: Lucy is boss.c. PP Predicate: Nancy is from Douglas Lake.d. DP Predicate (indefinite): Sarah is a teacher.e. DP Predicate (definite): Obama is the president.In main clause contexts, a predicate complement cannot generally precede a refer-ential subject (7a-d), unless the predicate complement is a definite DP (7e).7(7) a. AP Predicate: *Busy is John.b. NP Predicate: *Boss is Lucy.c. PP Predicate: *From Douglas Lake is Nancy.d. DP Predicate (indefinite): *A teacher is Sarah.e. DP Predicate (definite): The president is Obama.There thus appears to be something special about copular clauses containing twoDPs.The syntactic and semantic relationship between sentences like (6e) and (7e)has been the focus of much debate in the literature. Narrowing our focus for amoment onto copular clauses involving two DPs, Higgins (1973) establishes a four-way taxonomy for English copular clauses. Examples of each class are given asfollows:(8) a. Predicational: Tully is a/the bank robber.b. Specificational: The bank robber is Tully.c. Equative: The morning star is the evening star.d. Identificational: That place is Vancouver.The taxonomy is based on whether a DP is interpreted referentially or not,given a discourse context and a specific syntactic position within the predication.7This is an oversimplification, since PP inversions like (7c) are sometimes possible as highlysylistic variants, and indefinite DPs can precede referential subjects if the DP contains a modifier(Mikkelsen, 2005), e.g. A good president if ever there was one is Obama.26Table 2.1 shows how each of the DPs in (8) pattern with regards to referentiality.8I now discuss each of Higgins? categories in more detail.Table 2.1: Referentiality and Higgins? Taxonomy (adapted from Mikkelsen(2011, 1810))Copular sentence type 1st DP 2nd DPpredicational referential non-referentialspecificational non-referential referentialequative referential referentialidentificational referential ?identificational?Predicational SentencesUnder Higgins? (1973) theory, the initial DP in a predicational clause is referential,and the post-copular complement denotes a property which is predicated of thesubject. Predicational sentences like (8a) consist of a subject (e.g. Tully) and apredicate (e.g. a bank robber), linked by a tensed copula. Examples (6a-6d) arealso predicational, since AP, NP, and PP predicates all denote properties. (6e) toohas a predicational reading since the president, as an occupation, is interpretable asa property of an individual under the assumption that the DP can raise to a propertytype in this environment (Partee, 1986).In terms of their distribution in discourse, predicational sentences are unre-stricted. This stems from the information structural properties of predicationalsentences: Initial referential DPs and non-referential predicative DPs in final po-sition can both represent either new or old information, though intonation patternswill differ. Thus, (10) can answer either (9a) or (9b).(9) a. Who is Tully?b. Who is a/the bank robber?8It is unclear what ?identificational? means in Higgins? use of term in describing the referentialproperties of the 2nd DP in an identificational sentence (cf. Table 2.1, bottom right). Intuitivelyat least, both expressions in an identificational sentence are referential, and as such, these might begrouped with the equatives. The difference between the two classes is one of pragmatic function:identificationals are used for identifying names of things, generally speaking.27(10) Tully is a/the bank robber.Subjects of predicational sentences may also contain a modifying clause (11a) orbe referential WH-clauses, as in the predicational pseudocleft (11b):(11) a. The card/present/thing I bought for Sue is expensive.b. What I bought for Sue is expensive.The predicative status of the complement in a predicational clause is confirmedby English small clauses, which normally occur in embedded contexts as com-plements of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs like ?consider? (12a). Smallclauses are truth conditionally equivalent to full CPs (12b), but optionally lack anycopula (12a). The generalization here is that referential expressions, like John in(12c), are not permitted as complements within a small clause unless an overt cop-ula is present.(12) a. I consider [John (to be) a dangerous driver SC].b. I consider [that John is a dangerous driver CP].c. I consider [a dangerous driver *(to be) John SC].Predicational sentences thus exhibit the canonical English subject-predicate order-ing (Moro, 1997) as required in bare small clauses. Inverse predicate-subject or-dering is marked in English, as indicated by (12c). This leads naturally into adiscussion of specificational sentences.Specificational SentencesIntuitively speaking, specificational sentences specify who or what something orsomeone is, rather than saying something about someone or something, as is thecase with predicational sentences (Mikkelsen, 2011, 1809). In English, specifica-tionals restrict the domain of a predicative, discourse-old initial DP by identifyinga specific individual from within that domain via the second DP (Higgins, 1973;Mikkelsen, 2011), or according to Akmajian (1979), the second, referential DPprovides a value for a variable introduced in the first, non-referential DP.Consider that specificational sentences (13c,14c) are only felicitous in a subsetof contexts for which their predicational variants are felicitous (13b,14b).28(13) a. Q: Who is the winner?b. A: Sam is the winner.c. A: The winner is Sam.(14) a. Q: Who is Sam?b. A: Sam is the winner.c. A: #The winner is Sam.The DP the winner represents old information (i.e. the ?topic?) in (13b,c), but newinformation (i.e. the ?focus?) in (14b,c). The pragmatic markedness of specifica-tional sentences may be traced to the requirement that the initial DP represent orcontain old information (Birner, 1996; Mikkelsen, 2005).9 There is thus an infor-mation structural condition on the use of specificational sentences which does notapply to predicational sentences.10Specificational sentences most commonly have a definite DP in initial posi-tion (Higgins, 1973; Birner, 1996; Moro, 1997). Simple indefinite DPs in initialposition are usually ungrammatical (15a), but are much improved when that DPcontains a modifier, as with (15b) (Mikkelsen, 2005).11(15) a. *A president is Obama.b. A president I hope to meet someday is Obama.A sub-type of specificational sentence is known in the literature as a specifi-cational pseudocleft. Two examples are shown as (16). Like in specificationalcopular sentences, the post-copular constituent is ?more referential? than the pre-copular pseudocleft clause. Specificational pseudoclefts have been important in theliterature on copular clauses since they show connectivity effects, which I brieflydiscuss in section 2.2.3.9Or under a theory like Akmajian (1979), the open variable expression denoted by the first DP ina specificational sentence must already be, in some sense, under discussion in order for the sentenceas a whole to be pragmatically felicitous.10The exact formulation of this information structural condition is unclear, since as noted inMikkelsen (2005, 160), an initial DP being discourse-old does not guarantee that a specificationalclause is possible.11Similar data lead some researchers to propose that there are pragmatic requirements on specifi-cational sentences, involving notions such as ?contextual anchoring? (Comorovski, 2007) or ?risingdiscriminability? (Heller, 2005).29(16) a. What John is is a doctor.b. What John is is honest.There are two main schools of thought concerning specificational copular sen-tences which I briefly contrast here, and discuss in more detail in later sections. Thefirst explains specificational sentences in terms of a semantic asymmetry, wherebythe initial DP (or WH-clause) is a non-referential type <e,t> predicate while thefinal DP is a referential expression, of type e. This makes possible an analysisof specificational sentences as syntactic inversions of predicational sentences, de-rived by raising the predicate over the subject (Moro, 1997; Adger and Ramchand,2003; den Dikken, 2006).12,13 The second school of thought analyzes specifica-tional sentences as a type of equative, where both expressions are semanticallyreferential (Heycock and Kroch, 1999). The argument here is that the locus ofthe asymmetry is information structural rather than semantic: the initial DP (orWH-clause) consists of relatively ?old? information (i.e. ?ground? in Heycock &Kroch?s terminology), and the final DP is in focus. For these theories, then, thereis no derivational relation between a predicational sentence and its correspondingspecificational variant.The answer as to whether the asymmetry in specificational sentences is seman-tic or pragmatic in nature is not simple, especially in light of data like (17) whichmay be analyzed as specificational or predicational, depending on which DP is thefocus, and which DP contains old information.(17) The winner is the loser.Data like (17) underscore the fact that placing any given copular sentence intoone versus another of Higgins? classes often depends on the context in which thesentence is spoken, and so even if the asymmetry between the first and second DPsin specificational sentences is semantic in nature, there must be an informationstructural asymmetry which corresponds to the semantic asymmetry, and whichserves to limit the range of contexts in which specificationals are felicitous.Finally, although there seems to be general concensus that specificational sen-12This means that what Higgins terms the ?specificational predicate?, e.g. Tully in The bank robberis Tully, is rather an underlying subject.13den Dikken (2006) reduces both specificationals and equatives to a specificational class.30tences have a fixed information structure, unlike predicational sentences, this doesnot always mean that the old information must precede the new information: notethat specificational pseudoclefts like (18a) can be inverted, while retaining theirspecificational interpretation (18b) (den Dikken et al., 2000). This shows that aspecificational interpretation is not inherently dependent on the ?ground? preced-ing the ?focus?.(18) a. Otto Preminger was who I met.b. Who I met was Otto Preminger.This suggests that the notion of specification is best understood in terms of afixed information-structural asymmetry between two constituents, and not in termsof any linear requirement that a less-referential or discourse-old expression (i.e.?ground? or ?topic?) precede a more-referential or discourse-new expression.14Equative SentencesEquative (a.k.a. identity) sentences are most famously represented in the philo-sophical tradition by examples like Cicero is Tully or The morning star is theevening star. They assert that an identity relation holds between two referentialexpressions.15 Unlike specificational sentences, truly equative sentences cannot beanalyzed as syntactically inverted predications, because neither expression is func-tioning as a predicate. For example, in certain contexts when we say The morningstar is the evening star, we are really stating that there are two unique definitedescriptions which both point to the same referent.Insofar as DPs may type-raise to properties (Partee, 1987), the prediction is thata sentence like The morning star is the evening star will also have specificationaland predicational interpretations, depending on the context (cf. also discussionaround 17). Although both definite DPs make singular reference in this case andan equative interpretation is most forthcoming, consider that in answer to the ques-tion Which star is the morning star? the response may be analyzed as a specifica-14Percus (1997) discusses the ?specificational character? of clefts, and derives clefts from specifi-cational sentences.15Or more correctly, two expressions of the same type, since higher type equatives like Honest ishonest do exist (Heycock and Kroch, 1999).31tional sentence. This shows that singular reference does not obviate the possibilityof type-raising, and singleton sets, by extension, are not information-structurallyequivalent to singular referents, assuming a correspondence between type-shiftingand information structure.16 Allowing DPs to freely type-raise to properties simpli-fies the semantics of the copula, but it also means that the surface form of a copularsentence, by itself, does not necessarily determine which of Higgins? classes it fallsinto.Adger and Ramchand (2003) and Geist (2007) argue that Scottish Gaelic andRussian, respectively, do not have true equative sentences, and that sentences whichappear to be equative are actually predicational. Note that even English exampleslike Cicero is Tully have predicational interpretations, as in a context where Tullyis a character in a play, or where Tully refers to the property of being-named-Tullyrather than referring to the actual referent.Identificational SentencesHiggins distinguishes a fourth class of copular sentence, identificational sentences,which are typically used to identify names of people or things. These are usuallycharacterized by having a deictic demonstrative or demonstrative phrase in subjectposition. English examples include That place is Vancouver (8d), This basket is acedar-bark basket, or That is John. The first DP is referential, and the second DPis ?identificational?, according to Higgins (1973) (cf. Table 2.1 above).In English, many identificational sentences are surface-similar to specifica-tional sentences (e.g. 8b), except that the initial DP is introduced by a demon-strative determiner. The primary discourse function of identificational sentencesis to relate the names of people, places or things to their referents, rather than torestrict a contextually salient domain, as is the case with specificational sentences.There is an interpretive overlap between identificational sentences, and bothspecificational and predicational sentences. First, Higgins (1973) notes that spec-ificational sentences, as a rule, also have identificational readings. Consider thatin a context where we are identifying who the contextually salient president is,the president in the sentence The president is Obama is not first and foremost a16For example, the first DP in a specificational sentence may type shift to a property (Partee, 1987),and this correlates with its status as a discourse old, non-referential expression.32discourse-old property that is being predicated of Obama, but is instead a salientindividual who Obama is being equated with. This means that a demonstrativeor demonstrative phrase subject is not mandatory for an identificational reading.Specificational and identificational sentences may therefore be distinguished bythe fact that while subjects of specificational sentences are generally discourse-old(and non-referential according to Higgins), subjects of identificational sentencesare not necessarily discourse-old, but must be contextually salient, i.e. somethingthat a speaker can point to. As a second interpretive overlap, identificational sen-tences like This basket is a cedar-bark basket have predicational readings: In asorting context where we are ascribing the property of being a cedar-bark basketto a particular basket as opposed to say, the property of being a cedar-root basket,then we have a predicational reading. Other identificational sentences, like Thatplace is Vancouver, appear only to have an identificational reading.Much of the recent literature on identificational sentences has attempted to re-duce them to one or another of Higgins? classes. For example, Mikkelsen (2005)assimilates identificational sentences with simple demonstrative subjects to thespecificational class, while those with demonstrative phrase subjects are ?demon-strative equatives?. Heller (2005) claims that identificational sentences are a typeof predicational sentence, while Birner et al. (2007) analyze identificationals asequatives.SummaryThis section has reviewed some basic points concerning Higgins? taxonomy ofcopular clauses, a classification which is largely based on discourse-dependent, in-terpretative possibilities of DPs in subject versus complement position of a copularclause.It is by no means clear that Higgins? taxonomy of English copular clausescannot be further simplified. For instance, it has been claimed that specification-als may be reduced to inverted predicationals (Moro, 1997), or alternatively, toequatives (Heycock and Kroch, 1999); or that identificationals may be reduced tospecificationals and equatives (Mikkelsen, 2005), or alternatively to predicationals(Heller, 2005). Revising Higgins? taxonomy depends not only on one?s semantic33analysis of DPs, but also on how one characterizes information structure, and onthe relationship between information structure and the semantics/syntax interface,and by whether one argues that the asymmetry in specificational copular clauses,for example, is semantic or pragmatic in nature. These are all important factors toconsider when investigating these types of sentences in different languages.I now move on to a more detailed discussion of the syntax (and compositionalsemantics) of copular predication, focusing on (i) the relationship between smallclauses, predicational sentences and specificational sentences within frameworkswhich argue for syntactic inversion (Moro, 1997; den Dikken, 2006); and contrast-ing this with (ii) frameworks which argue against syntactic inversion and for anequative analysis of specificationals (Heycock and Kroch, 1999).2.2 Specificational Copular Syntax/Semantics:Predicate Raising or an Equative Head?The preceding discussion has focused on some basic issues concerning the seman-tics of predication and equation and the various types of copular clauses throughwhich predication and equation are realized, as well as some informal discussionon information structural constraints on the distribution of copular clauses. I alsoincluded a brief overview of the debate between those who argue that the asym-metry in specificational clauses is semantic in nature, and those that argue for apragmatic asymmetry. This section investigates this debate in more detail.First (2.2.1), I begin by discussing similarities between non-verbal small clausepredications and main clause predications in English, which have given rise to the-ories whereby main clause predications are derived from small clauses by raisingeither the subject or the predicate of the small clause over the copula (Moro, 1997).These small clauses are usually taken to be projections of a Pred-head (Bowers,1993; den Dikken, 2006) or other functional projection, and are syntactically asym-metrical (Kayne, 1994).Second (2.2.2), I link these theories of small clauses with theories of copularsyntax which assume that there is semantic asymmetry between the two DPs ina specificational copular clause, and that there is a derivational relation betweenpredicational and specificational sentence types such that specificational sentences34are derived by raising the predicative DP over the subject and copula (a.k.a. ?pred-icate raising? or ?syntactic inversion? (Moro, 1997)). These theories are attractivesince they offer an intuitive explanation for the semantic similarities between thesetwo types of sentences, and are economical since, for variants of these theorieswhich reduce equatives to predicationals (den Dikken, 2006), all predication canbe reduced to a single type of small clause, and a single Pred-head.Third (2.2.3), I discuss the theories which assume a pragmatic asymmetry be-tween the two DPs in a specificational sentence, but which do not assume predicateraising. Heycock and Kroch (1999) argue that specificationals are semanticallyequative, but pragmatically asymmetrical: the first DP must be a ?ground?, or givenin the discourse, roughly speaking, while the second DP must be a ?focus?.Fourth (2.2.4), I discuss more recent work by Romero (2005) and Comorovski(2007) who have argued that specificationals are equative in the sense that theyequate two individuals, but are nevertheless semantically asymmetrical in the sensethat the specificational subject must be intensional.This discussion is relevant to Okanagan for the following reasons: I will showthat Okanagan does not have predicate raising (7.2.2, 7.3.2), which renders theinversion analysis inapplicable (Moro, 1997; den Dikken, 2006), and favors anequative analysis (Heycock and Kroch, 1999). Okanagan does not show connec-tivity effects for independent reasons (7.3.3), but does have DP-DP sentences witha fixed information structure and a fixed word order. I argue that the fixed infor-mation structure relies on a distinction between intensional and non-intensionalDPs (Romero, 2005; Comorovski, 2007), along with linear alignment constraintson focus (7.5).2.2.1 Small ClausesThis section briefly discusses small clauses in English, as a necessary backgroundfor syntactic theories of predication and equation.English small clauses often occur in embedded contexts as complements ofExceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs like ?consider? (19a). Many claim that thesmall clause subject John and the predicate a dangerous driver form a constituent35(Jespersen, 1940; Stowell, 1981; Moro, 1997).17(19) a. I consider [John a dangerous driverSC].b. I consider [that John is a dangerous driverCP].Rothstein (1995, 32) notes that (19a), with an embedded small clause complement,is truth-conditionally equivalent to (19b), with an embedded CP. This illustrates thesemantic connection between small clauses and copular sentences.Embedded small clauses in English do not allow an inverse word order, as canbe seen by comparing (20) and (21). Moro (1995, 112) takes this as evidence thatthere is a basic direction to predication in English: the subject precedes the predi-cate. Recall from the preceding discussion that this same, basic subject-predicatedirectionality is also evident in predicational copular clauses.(20) a. DP Predicate: I consider [John a dangerous driverSC].b. AP Predicate: I consider [John boringSC].c. DP Predicate: I consider [John the cause of the riotSC].d. DP Predicate: I consider [these the best pictures of MarySC].(21) a. DP Predicate: *I consider [a dangerous driver John SC].b. AP Predicate: *I consider [boring John SC].c. DP Predicate: *I consider [the cause of the riot John SC].d. DP Predicate: *I consider [the best pictures of Mary theseSC].Note that a non-copular particle as may optionally occur between the small clausesubject and predicate in (20), with no change in meaning.18 Moro (1995) and DenDikken (2006) claim that as is an optional spell-out of a Pred-head, whose functionis to ?link? the subject and predicate.A non-finite copula may also occur between the subject and predicate (22).1917There are alternative analyses of examples like (19a). It has been argued, for example, that Johnand a dangerous driver do not form a constituent, but are rather separate arguments of the main clauseverb consider (e.g. Williams (1983)), or that John is the argument of a complex predicate consistingof consider and a dangerous driver (Chomsky, 1975). I do not further discuss these theories of smallclauses, since they are dependent on small clauses being embedded structures. Okanagan smallclauses do not need to be embedded (cf. section 7.2).18Though some English speakers find (20b) ungrammatical with ?as?.19In this case, we no longer have a ?small clause? but instead a ?projection of Infl? (Rothstein,36For cases involving the copula, unlike those with as or no linking element, predi-cate inversion is licensed if a definite DP is in predicate position (23c-d). This issimilar to the pattern seen with non-embedded finite specificational copular clauses(cf. 7).(22) a. DP Predicate: I consider [John to be a dangerous driver IP].b. AP Predicate: I consider [John to be boring IP].c. DP Predicate: I consider [John to be the cause of the riot IP].d. DP Predicate: I consider [these to be the best pictures of MaryIP].(23) a. DP Predicate: *I consider [a dangerous driver to be John].b. AP Predicate: *I consider [boring to be John].c. DP Predicate: I consider [the cause of the riot to be John].d. DP Predicate: I consider [the best pictures of Mary to be these].2.2.2 Predicate RaisingStowell (1981), Pereltsvaig (2001) and others assume that the copula provides thenecessary structure (i.e. T(ense) head) for the subject to raise out of its base-generated initial position within the small clause (24a). Moro (1997) extends theanalysis to include DP-predicate raising as well (24b).(24) a. I consider [[Johni] to be [ti [the cause of the riot DP] SC] IP].(canonical ordering)b. I consider [[the cause of the rioti] to be [[John DP] ti SC] IP].(inverse ordering)Under this analysis, DPs are unique in their ability to raise to specifier of T (23),and (21c,d) are ungrammatical because there is no copula, and thus no landing sitefor a raised DP predicate.1995). Chomsky (1981) also states that small clauses differ from other clause types in that thepredicate is not linked to INFL. Thus, while a small clause consists of DP XP, for example, a copularclause XP will be linked to INFL, i.e. DP INFL XP. Functional heads which are claimed to playa major role in copular predication in other languages do not do so in Okanagan, and there is noevidence that the subject is linked to the predicate via an AGR(eement) node, at least for the non-verbal predications investigated in this dissertation.37Both symmetrical (Stowell, 1981; Pereltsvaig, 2001) and asymmetrical (Moro,1995; den Dikken, 2006) analyses of the base-generated structural relation betweenthe small clause subject and predicate exist. Under the asymmetrical account, thesmall clause is projected by a functional Pred-head (Figures 2.2-2.3). Under thesymmetrical account, there is no functional head intervening between subject andpredicate (Figures 2.4-2.5).20 Under either account, a tensed copula selects for asmall clause complement. This general picture derives both predicational and spec-ificational copular clauses from an underlying subject-initial small clause throughsyntactic raising of either the subject (yielding a predicational configuration) or thepredicate (yielding a specificational configuration).Figure 2.2: DP Subject Raising andthe Asymmetrical (Pred) Ac-countTPDPi (Sub j)JohnT?TisPredPti Pred?PredDP(Pred)the cause of the riotFigure 2.3: DP Predicate Raisingand the Asymmetrical (Pred)AccountTPDPi (Pred)the cause of the riotT?TisPredPDP(Sub j)JohnPred?Predti20See den Dikken (2006, ch.3) for arguments against a bare, symmetric analysis of small clauses.38Figure 2.4: DP Subject Raising andthe Symmetrical (bare) Ac-countTPDPi (Sub j)JohnT?TisSCti DP(Pred)the cause of the riotFigure 2.5: DP Predicate Raisingand the Symmetrical (bare)AccountTPDPi (Pred)the cause of the riotT?TisSCDP(Sub j)JohntiEnglish small clauses without a copula may not normally occur in non-embeddedcontexts (25), presumably due to a tense-anchoring requirement.21(25) a. *John a dangerous driver.b. John is a dangerous driver.Okanagan does not allow predicate-raising (see chapter 7) in either direct predi-cations or DP-DP structures, as evidenced by the fact that no functional head mayintervene between an initial predicate and a final subject in a direct predication, anda non-subject DP can normally never precede a subject DP in a DP-DP structure.2.2.3 Specificationals as EquativesIn this section, I summarize portions of Heycock and Kroch (1999), who arguefor the existence of an equative head, and for a fundamental distinction betweenequative and predicative small clauses. They claim that the English copula is not21Although English does not normally allow non-embedded small clauses (ia,b), they can some-times occur in ?informal contexts? (Moro, 1995, 113) (ic).(i) a. *[John a dangerous driver SC].b. *[Lucy the boss SC].c. [John the cause of the riot SC]? I can?t believe it!d. *[The cause of the riot JohnSC]? I can?t believe it!Inversions of non-embedded small clauses are always ungrammatical (id), presumably because thepredicate must raise out of its base-generated position, but there is no landing site.39ambiguous (Partee, 1987), but is always semantically vacuous, and may select foreither type of small clause. They also claim that specificational sentences are notinverse predicational sentences, but are equatives with an additional pragmatic re-quirement that the initial DP represent old information. Their claims are directlyrelevant to my analysis of Okanagan: I claim that Okanagan equatives are projec-tions of a null head, and that equative and predicative small clauses are distinct.Their argument is based on the existence of several kinds of data which pose prob-lems for the inversion account, primarily involving specificational pseudoclefts. Ipresent some key aspects of their analysis below.First of all, there is a set of phenomena known in the literature on specifi-cational pseudocleft clauses as connectivity effects (Higgins, 1973; Heycock andKroch, 1999; Mikkelsen, 2005), so-called because a constituent in a higher struc-tural position behaves as if it were in a lower position with regards to standardstructural diagnostics such as binding.22 I briefly illustrate connectivity effectswith an example involving Condition A of binding theory, An anaphor must bebound within its governing category (cf. Chomsky (1981), data from Mikkelsen(2011)).Example (26a) shows a specificational pseudocleft, in which the antecedent R-expression Harvey does not c-command, yet appears to bind, the anaphor himself.Example (26b) is a non-copular sentences in which the antecedent R-expressionHarvey does c-command the anaphor himself and binds it, as expected underBinding Condition A. Example (26c) shows a topicalized phrase, in which theR-expression Harvey does not c-command and cannot bind the anaphor himself.(26) Principle Aa. What Harveyi did next was wash himselfi thoroughly.b. Harveyi washed himselfi thoroughly.22There are four types of connectivity effects. These are: (i) binding connectivity (ii) bound vari-able connectivity, (iii) negative polarity item (NPI) connectivity, and (iv) opacity connectivity. Thereare three broad approaches to explaining connectivity effects: The ellipsis approach (den Dikkenet al., 2000; Schlenker, 2003) is compatible with predicate raising analyses, while the logical form(Heycock and Kroch, 1999) and semantic approaches (Jacobson, 1994; Sharvit, 1999; Heller, 2002)do not require syntactic movement. Since Okanagan does not straightforwardly show connectivityeffects, a detailed explanation of these approaches goes beyond the scope of this thesis, though I referthe reader to Mikkelsen (2011) for a concise summary of the argumentation behind these approaches.40c. *Before Harveyi left, Miriam washed himselfi thoroughly.The issue here is that if the antecedent in specificational pseudocleft does not c-command an expression which it binds (26a), we expect these examples to patternlike non-pseudocleft data involving non-c-commanding antecedents (26c); how-ever the initial element behaves as if it did stand in a c-command relation (26b).Specificational sentences with non-pseudocleft subjects (27a) pattern with parallelsentences involving pseudocleft subjects (27b) in terms of connectivity effects, asshown for example with the following binding condition C data from Heycock andKroch (1999).(27) a. *Hisi claim was that Johni was innocent.b. *What hei claimed was that Johni was innocent.Heycock and Kroch (1999) take the existence of connectivity effects to be prob-lematic for an analysis of specificational pseudoclefts as inverted predications: ifsyntactic inversion were involved in cases like (26a), then the prediction is thatthey would not behave exactly like their simple sentence paraphrases (26b), butsimilarly to other cases in which movement has clearly occurred (26c).23Next, Heycock & Kroch view data such as (28) to be prima facie evidence fora separate class of equatives. In (28a) for example, there is no sense in which oneinstance of honest is ?more-predicative? than the other, and neither expression isreferential. In (28b) it seems clear that two referential attitudes are being equatedwith one another. Heycock and Kroch (1999) use these data in support of equationas a more general semantic phenomenon by which two expressions of the same23Despite having structures which might be argued to be equivalent to English inverse pseudo-clefts, connectivity cannot be tested in Okanagan because of several language-specific properties.These are as follows (cf. section 7.3.3):a. Specificational sentences are not permitted.b. There is no overt copula.c. 3rd person pronouns are normally null, and reflexivization is an operation on the predicate,not on an argument.d. Okanagan like other Salish languages (Davis, 2006, 2009) regularly violates condition C.e. Okanagan (and the rest of Salish) lacks WH-relative clauses, and so Okanagan has nothingcomparable to WH-pseudoclefts in English.41type are linked together.(28) a. Honest is honest.b. Your attitude towards Jones is my attitude towards Davies.A further argument that they cite in favor of a separate class of equatives comesfrom data pairs like (29a,b). For (29a), the final constituent honest is specifyingthe variable in the initial pseudocleft clause what John is. Assuming honest istype <e,t>, this means that the pseudocleft clause must be type <<e,t>,t> underan inversion analysis, where the predicate constituent is of a higher type than thesubject. But it is not necessarily the case that a pseudocleft clause must be ofthis type, since in (29b), what John is must be of type <e,t>. If however (29a) isanalyzed as an equative sentence where both constituents are of type <e,t>, and(29b) as a predicational sentence with a subject of type e, then the pseudo-cleftclause can always be of type <e,t>.(29) a. What John is is honest.b. I am what John is.Next, consider that (30-32) are grammatical as equations between two expres-sions of type <e,t>, according to Heycock and Kroch (1999). Examples (33a, 34a)are grammatical as predications, while (33b, 34b) are not since ?it is not possible totreat any constituent appearing in [subject] position as predicated of a postcopularargument.? (Heycock and Kroch, 1999, 380). Basically, an inversion analysis mustexplain why inversion is possible for (30b-32b), but not (33b, 34b).(30) a. Proud of his daughters is what he isb. What he is is proud of his daughters.(31) a. Honest is the one thing that I have always wanted a man to be.b. The one thing that I have always wanted a man to be is honest.(32) a. Honest is what I want a man to be.b. What I want a man to be is honest.42(33) a. John is the one thing that I have always wanted a man to be. (that is, he?shonest)b. *The one thing that I have always wanted a man to be is John.(34) a. John is what I want a man to be.b. *What I want a man to be is John.According to Heycock and Kroch (1999), the fact that (33b, 34b) are ungram-matical fits in with a more general picture that predicates cannot normally precedetheir subjects (35a-c). (35d) is grammatical precisely because the initial definiteDP is not a predicate, but is referential.(35) a. *A doctor is John.b. *Boss is Mary.c. *Proud of his daughters is John.d. The best candidate for the job is John.Given these empirical facts, Heycock and Kroch (1999, 382) argue for two separatetypes of small clauses, both involving the same semantically vacuous copula. Thereis no null predicational head for predicational small clauses, while there is a nullequative head for the equative cases. I advance a similar analysis for Okanagan inchapter 7.To conclude this section, Heycock and Kroch (1999) explain that there is apragmatic condition on specificational sentences (i.e. they have a fixed informationstructure (Prince, 1978)), such that the initial DP or pseudocleft clause must forma ?[back]ground? and the final DP must form a ?focus? (Vallduv?, 1992), essentiallya version of the structured meaning approach to focus (von Stechow, 1990; Krifka,1991). Okanagan DP-DP structures also show a fixed information structure, similarto inverse specificational pseudoclefts in English (e.g. 18a), where the focusedconstituent always precedes the non-focused constituent.2.2.4 Directly Referential versus Non-Rigid DPs:An Intensional AsymmetryThere have been alternative, semantic approaches towards explaining the informa-tion structural asymmetry in specificational sentences which trace the asymmetry43to intensionality rather than predicativity, most notably Romero (2005) and Co-morovski (2007). The general idea rests on the following distinction.Demonstratives (Kaplan, 1977) and proper names (Kripke, 1982) are directlyreferential; they denote entities, and their intensions are rigid individual concepts(i.e. they are constant functions, and denote the same individual in every world).As such, and assuming that type-shifting applies only as a last resort (Partee, 1987),demonstratives and proper names are best treated as expressions of type e. In con-trast, definite DPs denote non-rigid individual concepts (i.e. they may denote dif-ferent individuals in different worlds). In order to capture this non-rigidity, definiteDPs may be understood as optionally type-shifting to type <s,e>. Romero (2005)and Comorovski (2007) argue for an intensional type <s,e> analysis of the firstDP in a specificational copular clause (linearly speaking), and for a type e analysisof the second DP, with Romero?s claim resting on an analysis of the first DP as aconcealed question. Strictly speaking, specificationals are semantically asymmet-rical equatives under this analysis, with the equative head mapping an individual?sintension to its extension. Romero (2005) gives the following semantics for thespecificational (equative) copula:24(36) [[be]] = ?xe?y<s,e>?ws.y(w) = xThe copula in (36) takes an extensional individual x (the second DP in a specifi-cational sentence) and an intensional individual y (the first DP) as arguments, andyields a proposition that is true in a world w if and only if y applied to w is identicalto x. This approach has the benefit of not positing multiple levels of LF, which isnecessary under Heycock and Kroch?s analysis of connectivity effects, but on theother hand, does not appear to reflect the fixed information structure of specifica-tionals.25I claim that a semantics similar to (36) comprises a part of the Okanagan equa-tive copula, with the exception that the arguments are reversed: the intensional DPforms the first argument of the copula (i.e. the second DP, linearly speaking), and24The underlining on the y argument indicates intensionality.25Neither does it account for connectivity effects, but since Okanagan does not show connectivityeffects, I do not concern myself further with this issue.44the extensional DP the second argument (i.e. the first DP) (cf. section 7.5).26,272.2.5 SummaryThis section has focused on theories of specificational copular sentences. Thereis a debate in the field over whether there is a derivational, syntactic relation-ship between semantically-asymmetrical predicational and specificational clauses(Moro, 1997; den Dikken, 2006), or whether specificationals are pragmatically-asymmetrical equative structures (Heycock and Kroch, 1999; Romero, 2005). Muchof the debate centers around specificational pseudocleft data, though there are alsoquestions as to how best to account for the fixed information structure of specifica-tional copular sentences.I now give a general discussion of my assumptions concerning focus and infor-mation structure, followed by a brief discussion of theories of clefts, which I argueto be equative in Okanagan.2.3 Focus and Information StructureThis section lays out aspects of theories of focus and information structure whichare crucial for my analysis of Okanagan equatives. The discussion is not intendedto be a comprehensive introduction to information theory or its application toOkanagan: this is an area for future work.In section 2.3.1, I briefly explain the alternatives approach to focus (Rooth,1985, 1992), and the syntactic realization of focus as F-marking (Jackendoff, 1972;Selkirk, 1995). In section 2.3.2, I discuss how a focused constituent aligns with theedge of a prosodic phrase in Thompson River Salish (Koch, 2008a), a NorthernInterior Salish language spoken immediately adjacent to the Okanagan languagearea. The relevance of this discussion becomes clear in chapter 7, where I claim26Similar to ?inverse? specificational pseudoclefts in English (den Dikken et al., 2000). See dis-cussion in section 2.1.2.27The base semantic type of Okanagan DPs which are headed by the determiner iP is of type<s,e>, yet they are of type e when the world variable is existentially bound (cf. section 5.3). Thebase semantic type of Okanagan proper names is a type <e,t>, and these lower to type e in argumentpositions and in equative contexts (either as a result of a null referential determiner or N-to-D raising(Longobardi, 1994)) (cf. section 4.6.2). Simple demonstratives are uniformly of type e, yet allowintensional readings when they are adjoined to an iP DP.45that focus is integral to the meaning of the equative copula in Okanagan, and thatan F-marked DP in an equative aligns to the left edge.2.3.1 Focus Alternatives and F-markingI now briefly introduce the alternatives-based approach (Rooth, 1985, 1992) whichI adopt for this dissertation. This approach assumes that expressions have twodifferent denotations: an ordinary semantic interpretation and a focus semanticinterpretation. In answer to a question such as (37), the constituent John in (38a) issyntactically marked as a focus by a feature ?F? (Jackendoff, 1972; Selkirk, 1995).(38b) shows the ordinary semantic meaning of the sentence, and (38c) shows thefocus semantic meaning under an alternatives representation. By focusing Johnin (38a), one invokes all of the contextually relevant alternatives to John (i.e. the?contrast set?), as represented in (38c). The focused constituent John in (38a) isphonologically realized with a prominent pitch accent in English.(37) Which one of these people passed the exam?(38) a. [John]F passed the exam.b. Meaning: PASSED THE EXAM(JOHN)c. Alternatives: {PASSED THE EXAM(x)|x ? De}= {PASSED THE EXAM(JOHN),PASSED THE EXAM(PETE),PASSED THE EXAM(SAM), ...}The set of alternatives forms a partially ordered scale of propositions, wherestronger propositions (i.e. those more likely to be true) are ranked higher. Alterna-tive propositions that are not asserted are generally ruled out by scalar implicature(Rooth, 1992). In the case of (38a), when the speaker asserts that John passed theexam (38b) with a pitch accent on John, all of the non-asserted alternatives to Johnpassed the exam (e.g. Pete passed the exam, Sam passed the exam, etc.) are thennormally ruled out by scalar implicature.2828The implicature can be cancelled. In answer to Which of these people passed the exam?, one cananswer [John]F passed the exam, and [Pete]F passed the exam too.46In English, the uniqueness/exhaustivity implicature associated with focus canbe strengthened in several ways, such as by the addition of a focus-sensitive exclu-sive particle like only (39a), or by means of a cleft (39b). In (39a), the addition ofonly entails that the non-asserted alternative propositions in (38c) are false. In cleftstructures like (39b), the exhaustivity may arguably be derived from the semanticsof a covert definite determiner (cf. Percus (1997), section 2.4 below).(39) a. Only John passed the exam (# and Pete did too).b. It is John who passed the exam (# and Pete did too).As I show in chapter 7, Okanagan equatives have a fixed information struc-ture, similar in some ways to English clefts. I claim that the null equative head inOkanagan lexically assigns the syntactic feature ?F? to its second (leftmost) argu-ment, which is interpretable as ?focus? at the interfaces (Jackendoff, 1972; Selkirk,1995). This is illustrated in (40a).(40) a. [ix?PDP]FDEM==[iPDETp@ptw?naxw DP].old.ladySHE is the old lady.b. *[iPDETp@ptw?naxw DP]old.lady==[ix?PDP]F .DEMThe old lady is HER.At present, there is no general algorithm for assigning F in contexts without anequative head, either by movement to a prosodic edge or by assignment of pitchaccent. However, when F is assigned by the equative head to its second argument,a prosodic-alignment constraint (which I discuss in the next section) assures focusoccurs leftmost. Together with selectional restrictions on the equative head, thesederive the absence of specificational sentences in Okanagan (40b). The initial F-marked constituent in an Okanagan equative may, but does not necessarily, receivean exhaustive interpretation (cf. section 7.4.1) due to a maximality implicatureassociated with the determiner iP in the second DP of an equative DP-DP struc-ture (cf. section 5.3.3). This essentially follows the analysis of Percus (1997) forEnglish clefts.47Note that while much of the literature on information structure makes a distinc-tion between two types of focus, contrastive and (new-)information focus (cf. forexample Szabolcsi (1981), Rochemont (1986), Kiss (1998), Selkirk (2007)), I setthis distinction aside, since it plays no part in the analysis of equatives given here.29Such a distinction will likely be relevant for a more comprehensive account of in-formation structure in Okanagan, but this work remains to be done. Here, I utilizeonly those aspects of the theory which are necessary to account for the informationstructure of equative sentences in Okanagan.2.3.2 Prosodic Alignment and Focused ConstituentsIn this section, I outline a prosodic-alignment theory of focus realization (Koch,2008a; F?ry, 2013) which generalizes the prosodic realization of focus to languageswhich lack a stress-focus correspondence (e.g. Thompson Salish). Previous workon English and other largely European languages had assumed the universality ofa stress-focus correspondence, given here in the form assumed by Reinhart (1995):(41) Stress-Focus Correspondence Principle:The focus of a clause is a(ny) constituent containing the main stress of theintonational phrase, as determined by the stress rule (Reinhart, 1995, 62).However, more recent cross-linguistic work, including work on Thompson RiverSalish (Koch, 2008a), has undermined the universality of the stress-focus corre-spondence principle. I briefly demonstrate how stress and focus correspond inEnglish, and summarize Koch?s claim that in Thompson, focus aligns to the edgeof a prosodic phrase (cf. F?ry (2013)).In English and other stress languages, focus aligns with stress, as a prosodichead. In a case involving default CP focus (e.g. 42, where the entire sentenceis a new-information), the subject is parsed into one prosodic phrase, and the VPinto a separate prosodic phrase (Chomsky, 1971; Jackendoff, 1972; Selkirk, 1995;Selkirk and Kratzer, 2007). Each prosodic phrase has a pitch accent (marked by?X?), and in English, the right-most prosodic head in a prosodic phrase bears a pitchaccent (hence the verb ?saw? does not bear a pitch accent). The intonational phrase29Koch (2008) similarly ignores the distinction between new information and contrastive focus inhis analysis of information structure in Thompson Salish.48carries the nuclear pitch accent, which by default in English, is right-headed. Thegeneralization is that by default, the rightmost lexical stress is prominent.(42) ( X )(X )( X )intonation-phrase (nuclear pitch-accent)prosodic-phrase (pitch accent)[J?hn s?w Mon?que FOC] Koch (2008a, 120, ex.4)In English clefts, however, the leftmost lexical stress is most prominent. Givenmaterial (indicated by G) is not parsed in a prosodic phrase (Selkirk and Kratzer,2007) during an initial step 1, but is parsed recursively into a prosodic phrase dur-ing step 2, under the assumption that all material must be parsed before prosodicphrases are parsed into an intonation phrase. Since the leftmost lexical stress is theonly pitch accent in the intonation phrase, it is also the most prominent. The ob-servation here is that through a process of destressing given material, nuclear pitchaccent can associate with a prosodic head which is not rightmost, and that in sen-tences which involve narrow focus (e.g. clefts), nuclear-pitch accent will associatewith the narrowly focused constituent.(43) ( X )( ( X ) )( X )intonation-phraseprosodic-phrase, step 2prosodic-phrase, step 1It was [Mon?que FOC] [that J?hn s?w G]. Koch (2008a, 120, ex.5)Koch (2008a) claims that for languages like Thompson River Salish, focusaligns with prosodic edges, rather than prosodic heads. Since cleft foci are not in-tonationally prominent in Thompson, listeners must rely on other means to recoverfocus, and as a general rule, the focused element occurs left-most in Thompson(more specifically, focus associates with the leftmost lexical item, excluding anyfunctional heads). This is shown to be the case for both nominal predicate con-structions (NPCs) and clefts. In Thompson, nuclear stress falls on the right-mostpitch accent, but focus is aligned to the left (44). Koch captures this generalizationwith (45).49(44) (X)(X)T?Pe.NEG(( X[qw?PFOC]water)??uPjust(eDETX )X )s-P?qweP-kt.NOM-drink-1PL.POSSintonation-phraseprosodic-phraseNo, we?ll just drink [water FOC]. (Thompson, Koch (2008a, 251, ex.15))(45) FOCUS LEFT: Align the left edge of the focus-marked p(rosodic)-phrasewith the left edge of an intonational phrase.In contrast to Thompson, which exhibits left-edge alignment in both NPCs (44) andother predicative contexts, as well as in clefts, Okanagan only shows such effectsfor clefts and other simple equatives (section 7.5.2). This implies that in Thomp-son, the feature F is assigned freely, whereas in Okanagan it is restricted to equativecontexts. The reasons for this difference are unclear, and await more detailed in-vestigation of information structure, and its prosodic reflexes, in Okanagan.302.4 CleftsThis section discusses several relevant syntactic and semantic aspects of theoriesof English clefts which directly inform my analysis of Okanagan clefts as equativestructures (chapter 8).31 An example of an English cleft, from Reeve (2007), isgiven in (46):(46) It was the snake that the mongoose caught.This sentence may be informally characterized as consisting of three parts (except-ing the copula): an initial clefting pronoun it; a DP in focus; and a residue CP(a.k.a. remnant), as represented in (47):30There has been little intonational work done on Okanagan, excepting Barthmaier (2004) whoconducts an acoustic study of several Okanagan narratives (A. Mattina and DeSautel 2002). Hismain finding is that intonation phrases do exist in Okanagan, and that they correspond to syntacticphrasing.31The relationship between ?clefts?-proper (e.g. 46) and ?pseudoclefts?, examples of which werediscussed in section 2.2.3, is still a matter of some contention. The two types of structures are notnecessarily derivationally related, although Percus (1997) does effectively derive a cleft from a th-pseudocleft (e.g. ?The one that the mongoose caught was the snake?).50(47) [It cle f t?pronoun] was [the snake DP? f ocus] [that the mongoose caught residue].First, I give a brief outline of the ?extraposition-from-subject? theory of cleftswhich I adopt in this dissertation, focusing on the versions proposed by Percus(1997) and Hedberg (2000), who treat the introductory clefting pronoun (i.e. it inEnglish) as forming an underlying constituent with the residue clause.32 Second, Idiscuss the semantics and pragmatics of English clefts, focusing on two properties:the presupposition of existence carried by the residue clause, and the presupposi-tion that the DP in focus position be interpreted exhaustively.2.4.1 ?Extraposition from Subject? Analyses of CleftsThere are two main versions of the extraposition from subject analysis of Englishclefts (Akmajian, 1970; Schachter, 1973; Emonds, 1976; Gundel, 1977; Wirth,1978; Percus, 1997), both of which are traceable to Jespersen (1927). For the firstversion (48), the cleft clause originates in the subject position of a WH-pseudocleft,then the CP is extraposed and it is inserted. For the second version (49), the cleftclause originates as part of a definite description in the subject position of a spec-ificational copular clause (a.k.a. ?th-pseudocleft?) (Percus, 1997). The CP is thenextraposed and the definite description remnant the one is spelled-out as it.(48) a. [What the mongoose caught CP] was [the snake DP f ocus]. (Base structure)b. was [the snake DP f ocus] [that the mongoose caught CP]. (Extraposition)c. It was [the snake DP f ocus] [that the mongoose caught CP]. (?It? insertion)(49) Percus (1997)a. [The  [that you saw CPi]][is the deer]. (Base structure)b. [The  ti][is the deer][that you saw i]. (Extraposition)32There are many other analyses of English clefts available, for example the so-called ?expletive?analysis, which has its roots in Jespersen (1937). Here, the initial it is neither a semantically inter-preted pronoun nor the head of a definite description. The focused DP is base generated in its surfaceposition, and the cleft clause is a complement of the focused DP (Chomsky, 1977; Halvorsen, 1978;Delahunty, 1982; Rochemont, 1986; Heggie, 1993; Kiss, 1998, 1999). Because I do not adopt any ofthese theories for Okanagan, I do not discuss them further. See Reeve (2007) for a concise summaryof several of the more major theoretical camps.51c. It is the deer that you saw. (Spellout of the as it)A treatment similar to Percus (1997) (50) is advanced by Hedberg (2000), dif-fering primarily in the sense that the definite determiner selects directly for a CP,rather than a null NP (49), and the CP is ?lowered? to adjoin to the focus DP.(50) Hedberg (2000)a. [The [that you saw i]][is the [deer NP]]. (Base structure)b. [The ti][is the [deer [that you saw i]NP]. (CP Lowering)c. It is the deer that you saw. (Spellout of the as it)Crucially, for both Percus (1997) and Hedberg (2000) cleft residues are discon-tinuous definite descriptions. Under these analyses, the semantics of clefts followsdirectly from the semantics of the definite determiner.2.4.2 Cleft Semantics: Exhaustivity Entailments and ExistencePresuppositionsEnglish clefts presuppose exhaustivity of the DP in focus position (Percus, 1997),and the cleft residue carries a presupposition of existence (Percus, 1997; Kiss,1998; Hedberg, 2000). Take again our cleft example (46), shown below as (51a),with paraphrases of the exhaustivity presupposition (51b) and existence presuppo-sition (51c).(51) a. It was the snake that the mongoose caught.b. Exhaustivity Presupposition: The mongoose caught only one thing.c. Existence Presupposition: The mongoose caught something.The fact that exhaustivity is presupposed comes from general agreement amongEnglish speakers that sentences like (52a,b) are unacceptable. If it were not apresupposition of the cleft in (51a) that the mongoose caught only one thing, thenit should be possible to assert that the mongoose also caught other individuals,but this is not the case. Exhaustivity appears to be a presupposition, rather than52entailment, since (51b) survives under negation, as illustrated by (52c).33(52) a. #It was the snake that the mongoose caught, and it was the rabbit that themongoose caught too.b. ?It was the snake that the mongoose caught, and the mongoose caught arabbit too.c. It wasn?t the snake that the mongoose caught.The presupposition of existence carried by the residue clause is clearly observableby the fact that in an out-of-the-blue context (53a), clefts are unacceptable in En-glish (53b), as well as by the fact that under negation (54), the presupposition thatthe mongoose caught something survives.(53) a. Context: The speaker walks into the room and tells the addressee what hesaw at the zoo today.b. #It was the snake that the mongoose caught.(54) It wasn?t the snake that the mongoose caught.Percus (1997, 339-340) formalizes the exhaustivity and existence presupposi-tions similarly to (55):(55) a. Exhaustivity PresuppositionIt is [?]FOC that has the property ?entails ?x[?(x)? x = ?] (only ? has the property ?)33Other data seem to indicate that exhaustivity is an entailment rather than a presupposition inEnglish clefts (Lisa Matthewson, p.c.). In (i) below (especially (ib)), any presupposition that themongoose caught only one thing does not survive negation:(i) a. It wasn?t the snake that the mongoose caught, it was the rabbits.b. It wasn?t the snake that the mongoose caught, it was a rabbit and a mouse.The presupposition account could nevertheless be salvaged for (51) by instead assuming that thepresupposition is that the mongoose caught only one maximal singular or plural individual: for (ia),the rabbits denotes the plural sum of all the contexually salient rabbits, and for (ib) a rabbit anda mouse denotes the sum of some pair consisting of a rabbit and a mouse. In any case, it is notcrucial for my analysis of Okanagan whether exhaustivity in English clefts is a presupposition or anentailment, so I retain Percus? original presupposition analysis.53b. Existence PresuppositionIn a cleft of the form It is [?]FOC that has the property ?,there is a presupposition that ?x?(x)(there exists some individual that has the property ?).By treating the residue clause as a discontinuous definite description (49-50),Percus and Hedberg are able to align the semantics of the definite determiner withthe semantics of clefts. In other words, the English determiner the is commonlyassumed to presuppose the existence of a referent, and presuppose the uniquenessand/or maximality of that referent (Heim, 2011). The maximality presuppositionof a definite DP in an specificational/equative environment, such as in Percus? basestructure (56, cf. 49a) will lead to an exhaustivity presupposition for the focusedDP.34(56) [The  [that you saw CPi]][is the deer]. (Base Structure)2.4.3 SummaryFor English, the evidence in favor of any particular analysis of clefts is subtle. Forthe purposes of this thesis, I will argue that clefts in Okanagan (and DP-DP struc-tures), broadly support theories that (i) analyze the cleft residue as a discontinuousconstituent with the cleft pronoun, and (ii) align the semantics of clefts with thesemantics of determiners (Percus, 1997; Hedberg, 2000).Point (i) is supported by evidence that the Okanagan clefting demonstrative ix?Pforms an underlying constituent with the residue clause (8.5.2), and point (ii) bythe fact that Okanagan clefts lack any presupposition of existence or exhaustivity,though they do carry an exhaustivity implicature (8.6.2) which I claim is linked tothe maximality implicature of the determiner iP (5.3).The possibility of extending a Percus/Hedberg type analysis of clefts to Salishlanguages is not without precedent: Shank (2003) discusses the option in somedetail with regards to clefts in Northern Straits Salish, and Koch (2008a, 2009)34Whether the initial DP in (56) is a semantic predicate, or semantically referential (Heycock andKroch, 1999) (cf. section 2.2.3) does not affect the basic point that the focused DP will receive anexhaustive interpetation since as a predicate, a definite DP will denote a singleton set.54for Thompson River Salish. Both end up rejecting this analysis, due to the factthat residues appear to be bare CPs in these languages, rather than DPs, and assuch it is not straightforwardly possible to link the semantics of clefts with de-terminers.35 For Okanagan, residues may be analyzed as DPs (cf. section 8.4),and so a Percus-style analysis is applicable. More specifically, since Okanaganresidues may contain overt NP heads, Okanagan supports Percus (1997) over Hed-berg (2000) (compare 49a and 50a), who in principle allows for this possibility.2.5 Chapter SummaryThis chapter has focused on four major theoretical areas: the semantic distinc-tion between predication and equation and Higgins? (1973) taxonomy of copularclauses (2.1); the syntactic and semantic relationship between predicational andspecificational sentences and evidence for a separate class of equatives (2.2); focusand information structure (2.3); and syntactic and semantic theories of clefts (2.4).Each of these areas provide useful tools for understanding the Okanagan data, tobe discussed in the following chapters.35Though see discussion in chapter 9 where I suggest that for Salish languages with CP cleftresidues, the copula is the spell-out of a determiner which selects only for a CP (Hedberg, 2000).Under this analysis, all Salish clefts may potentially be analyzable as equative.55Chapter 3Background in OkanaganGrammarThis chapter presents some basic aspects of Okanagan grammar, including phonol-ogy, pronominal inflection, and brief notes on transitivity and the tense and as-pectual systems. Since this chapter is primarily meant as a terminological andparadigmatic reference tool for the reader, I limit the amount of data I give duringmy brief discussion on pronominal inflection, transitivity and aspect. I do howeverdedicate relatively more space in this chapter to discussing word order, since thisis particularly important for an understanding of subsequent chapters, and appearsto exhibit some dialectal differences.3.1 PhonologyThe following tables represent the consonant (Table 3.1) and vowel (Table 3.2)inventories of Okanagan. The phonemic symbols are written in a standard Ameri-canist orthography.56Table 3.1: Okanagan Consonant Phonemeslabialalveolaralveo-palatallateralpalatalvelarlabio-velaruvularlabio-uvularpharyngeallabio-pharyngealglottalstop/affricate p t c? k kw q qwejective ?p ?t ?c ?? ?k ?kw ?q ?qwfricative s ? x xw x? x?wresonant m n r l y G w Q Qw hglottalized ?m ?n ?r ?l ?y ?w ?Q ?Qw PTable 3.2: Okanagan Vowel Phonemesfront central backhigh i umid (@)low aConcerning vowels, schwa is not a full vowel (i.e. it cannot carry stress exceptfor in a few scattered loan words), and so I include it in parentheses. Also, surface[e] and [o] are possible in the context of a post-velar consonant, as documentedin A. Mattina (1973, 10-11). These are underlyingly /i/ and /u/, respectively. It isalso worth mentioning that the Okanagan orthography deviates from the standardAmericanist writing system in the following way: since there is no glottalized / ??c/phoneme in Okanagan, and neither is there an alveo-palatal unglottalized /c/, theOkanagan orthography uses ?c? for /c?/.For an in-depth discussion of general phonology and (morpho-)phonologicalprocesses in Okanagan, I direct the reader to Watkins (1970) (Northern Okana-gan) and A. Mattina (1973) (for Colville). Additionally, there are studies focus-57ing on pharyngeal movement (A. Mattina 1979), and sandhi effects and morpho-phonemics (H?bert (1978) and A. Mattina (2000)). For discussion of Upper Nicolaphonology, see Pattison (1978). In this dissertation, I add footnotes concerningspecific morpho-phonological processes when relevant to the discussion, but oth-erwise have little to say about the phonology.3.2 Inflection: Pronominal, Valency, and Tense-AspectHere I present some important aspects of Okanagan inflectional morphology, in-cluding pronominal paradigms, morphemes related to (in)transitivity, and a fewbrief notes on tense and aspect. The purpose here is to provide the reader withsome basic background in these areas, which will aid in comprehending the overallstructure of the examples I cite in this dissertation. Since all three of these areashave received attention in the literature, I will for the most part direct the interestedreader to other sources for more information.First, I will give a brief overview of the pronominal system (cf. A. Mattina(1982) and N. Mattina (1996b, 36) for more detailed descriptions). I give theparadigms in the following tables, followed by some discussion and data, withrelevant morphemes highlighted in bold type.Table 3.3: Intransitive ParadigmsParadigm 1 Paradigm 2ABSOLUTIVE POSSESSIVE1SG kn i(n)-2SG kw a(n)-3SG  -s1PL kwu -tt2PL p -mp3PL -lx -slx58Table 3.4: Transitive ParadigmsParadigm 1 Paradigm 2ABSOLUTIVE POSSESSOR ACCUSATIVE ERGATIVEOBJECT SUBJECT OBJECT SUBJECT1SG kwu i(n)- kwu -(i)n2SG kw a(n)- -s,-m -(i)xw3SG  -s - -(i)s1PL kwu -tt kwu ... -m -(i)m,-t2PL p -mp -?(ul)m -(i)p3PL  -slx  ... -lx -(i)slxTable 3.5: Independent PronounsINDEPENDENT1SG inc?2SG anw?3SG cni?c1PL mn?m?t@t2PL mn?m?t@mp3PL mn?m?ts@lxOkanagan may be characterized, roughly, as a ?split-ergative? language in termsof its pronominal system: there is a partial paradigmatic overlap between abso-lutive subjects in the intransitive paradigms (Paradigm 1, Table 3.3) and absolu-tive objects in nominalized possessor structures, which are syntactically transitive(Paradigm 1, Table 3.4). Thus the second person singular proclitic kw functions as asubject marker in intransitive contexts (1a), and as an object marker in syntacticallytransitive structures with possessor subjects (1b).59(1) a. kw2SG.ABSQaP-nc?t.laugh-REFLEXYou laughed.b. kw2SG.ABSi[n]-s- ?k?q?xw-@m.1SG.POSS-NOM-protect-MIDI am protecting you.Primarily accusative object suffixes are used in the ergative paradigm (2a)(Paradigm 2, Table 3.4), with 1st person objects being a notable exception (2b).(2) a. NormanNormanc@ ?mEPISp?l-st-@m-s.beat-CAUS-2SG.ACC-3SG.ERGNorman will punish you.b. kwu1SG.ABSc?n-[n]t-xwtell-DIR-2SG.ERG?aPCOMPnisleaveIvan.IvanYou told me when Ivan left.The distribution of pronominal morphology rests on a distinction between ?for-mal? (i.e. morphological) transitivity, semantic transitivity, and syntactic transitiv-ity. Constructions which use the possessor subject pronominal paradigm (e.g. 1b,cf. Paradigm 1, Table 3.4) are formally intransitive but semantically and syntac-tically transitive, while those with ergative morphology (e.g. 2, cf. Paradigm 2,Table 3.4) are formally, semantically, and syntactically transitive. Constructionswhich involve predicates that are lexical, underived intransitives (e.g. adjectivalpredicates as in 3a) are formally, semantically, and syntactically intransitive. Pred-icates which are formally intransitivized by reflexive morphology (e.g. 1a) or bythe middle suffix -@m (e.g. 3b) (and do not involve possessor subjects), or in-transitivizer -(aP)x (e.g. 3c) are both formally and syntactically intransitive, butsemantically transitive.11For formal intransitives like (3b,c), the predicates may select for oblique-marked quasi-objects,hence they are semantically transitive. I discuss these at length below for example 6 and in chapter4.60(3) a. kn1SG.ABSPilxwt.hungryI am hungry.b. kn1SG.ABSPaws-p?x?-@m.go-hunt-MIDI went hunting.c. kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kwu?l-x.NOM-CUST-work-INTRI am working.Formal transitives take ergative subjects, and contain one of several transitiviz-ers, including -nt- ?directive? (4a), -st- ?causative? (4b), -?t- ?possessional applica-tive? (4c), and -x(i)t- ?benefactive applicative? (4d) (A. Mattina (1982) and N. Mat-tina (1996b)).2 The transitivizer morphemes in (4) are highlighted in bold type.(4) a. iPDET?kwu?l-nc?t-[t]nmake-REFLEX-INSTRc-n-qw ?n-mi[n]-nt-s.CUST-n-pity-MIN-DIR-3SG.ERGGod bless you. (said after one sneezes)Literally: The creator take pity on you.b. ?-xwuy-st-sreturn-go-CAUS-3SG.ERGiPDETtu ?m-s.mother-3SG.POSSShe took her mother homec. kwu1SG.ABSc-xwi ?c-?t-xwCUST-give-APPL-2SG.ERGiPDETlpot.cupPass me the cup.d. ?kwu?l-xt-nmake-BEN-1SG.ERGtOBLy?mx?waP.cedar.root.basketI made someone a cedar root basket.Syntactically transitive predicates (more specifically, those with possessor sub-2Okanagan also has transitivizers -t??t-, -n?nt-, -n??t- and -n?st- (A. Mattina (1982) and N. Mat-tina (1996b)).61jects) do not contain transitivizers (5), yet may select for subject and object ar-guments.3(5) i[n]-s- ?c? ?qw-@m1SG.POSS-NOM-point-MIDiPDETpus.catI am pointing at the cat.Formally intransitive predicates take absolutive subjects and are marked by -@m?middle? or active intransitivizer -x/-aPx morphology, and do not select for ob-jects, but may occur with an oblique-marked ?quasi-object? (N. Mattina (1993b)and Davis and Matthewson (2003)).(6) a. kn1SG.ABSkaPk?c-@mfind-MIDtOBLsp@pl?naP.rabbitI found a rabbit.b. kn1SG.ABSks-n-P?ys-aPxFUT-n-buy-INTRtOBLi-k?-k@w?p.1SG.POSS-U.POSS-horseI am going to buy a horse.Passive predicates, characterized as having a transitivizer plus the ?passive? suffix-@m, may also occur with an oblique-marked agent (7) though in these cases, an iPdeterminer often co-occurs with the oblique-marked nominal.(7) k?l-@nt-@mchase-DIR-PASSiPDETtOBLskmx?st.bearHe was chased by the bear.Independent pronouns are primarily used for emphatic purposes (Table 3.5), andnormally co-occur with and co-refer with a pronoun from one of the other sets.43N. Mattina (1996b, 39) notes that nominalized irrealis predicates (i.e. those prefixed by ks-)take possessor subjects in the singular, but ergative subjects in the plural. This reflects a historicalprocess whereby nominalized intransitive predicates are gradually being reanalyzed as transitives(Henry Davis, p.c.).4I have data showing that in contexts where an independent pronoun and a demonstrative arebeing equated, e.g. ix?P inc? ?That?s me?, co-referring absolutive morphology is not necessary.62(8) a. inc?1SG.INDEPkn1SG.ABSm@ ?q-?nk.full-stomachMe, I?m full.b. mn?m?t@mp2PL.INDEPtOBLsqilxw,native.peopletaPl?Pveryp2PL.ABSx?ast.goodYou people, you are good people.The Okanagan aspectual system is based on a set of morphemes which areprimarily prefixes and which attach to verbal stems. These include most notablyprospective/future ks- (9a), and customary/habitual c- (9a,b).5(9) a. wa ?yyesc-my-st-inCUST-know-CAUS-1SG.ERGiPDETsq@ltm?xwmaniPDETks-Paws-?@??t-m?xaPx.FUT-go-line.fish-INTRYes, I know the man who is going to go fishing.b. pintkalwaysc- ?kw??l-@mCUST-make-MIDtOBLy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketShe?s always basket-making.The transitivity and aspect systems interact in numerous ways to yield sen-tences with specific aspectual and temporal interpretations. I refer the reader toA. Mattina (1993a) and N. Mattina (1996b, section 2.1.1), who provide detaileddescriptions and analyses of the Okanagan aspect and transitivity systems, as doesH?bert (1982b), albeit within a different theoretical framework.For the purposes of this dissertation, it is important to note that there is a syn-tactic and semantic distinction in the nominal domain between full arguments andquasi-arguments (cf. chapter 4), and that this distinction correlates not only withdifferences in nominal morphosyntax, but also with differences in transitivity andaspect. Because I correlate full argumenthood with nominal morphosyntax, ratherthan directly with transitivity and aspect, I do not further address the transitivity5Additionally, ks- and c- may combine to form a perfect aspect, and c- may combine with thenominalizer s- to form sc-, yielding an imperfective aspect with formal intransitives, and a perfectiveaspect with nominalized possessor forms (A. Mattina 1993a).63and aspectual system except to establish its correlation with syntactic argument-hood in chapter 4.63.3 Clausal Word OrderThis section presents data on clausal word order for Okanagan, with some notes ondialectal differences between Upper Nicola and other dialects. The following tablegives a summary of permissible and non-permissible word orders in Okanagan. Idiscuss each of these word orders in turn.Table 3.6: Summary of Word Orders in Upper Nicola Okanaganword order X/* notesSV X unmarkedSVO X unmarkedSOV * ungrammaticalVS X unmarkedVO X unmarkedVSO X unmarkedVOS X unmarked (in non-ambiguous contexts)OV X marked, object topic/focus structureOSV (X) marked, object topic/focus structureOVS (X) marked, object topic/focus structureOkanagan, like other Salish languages, has been argued to be a fundamentallypredicate-initial language, although it has also been noted that word order is flexi-ble (N. Mattina 1996b).For simple intransitives with DP subject arguments, a VS ordering (10) or6I argue in that full argumenthood correlates with nominal morphosyntax, rather than transitivityand aspect, because some quantifiers are restricted to co-occuring with the determiner iP (e.g. yaQy?Q?all?). Since quantifiers are not part of the transitivity or aspectual systems, I claim that quantifierslike yaQy?Q ?all? can only select for a full DP argument. Thus, argumenthood is independent of thetransitivity and aspectual systems.64an SV-ordering (11) is equally acceptable (N. Mattina (1994), Baptiste (2001)).7Within running discourse, pre-verbal subjects are normally ?topical?, by which Imean an element that is discourse-old, informally speaking. In elicitation contextshowever, the two word orders are interchangeable.(10) a. xwaP-xw?stmany-walkiPDETtk?milxw.womanThe woman started walking.b. ??axwtdeadiPDETq?qxw@lxfishThe fish are dead.(11) a. iPDETtk?milxwwomanxwaP-xw?st.many-walkThe woman started walking.b. iPDETq?qxw@lxfish??axwt.deadThe fish are dead.For transitive sentences with an object DP as the single overt argument, bothVO (12) and OV (13) are acceptable orders. OV order may be used to signal atopical object,8,9 however an initial object is not necessarily topical: sentenceslike (13a) are judged felicitous in out-of-the-blue circumstances as well, hence theindefinite DP in the English translation.10(12) a. w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDETs?maP.white.personI saw a white person.7Not all Salish languages permit pre-verbal subjects, for example Northern Straits (Montler,1993) and Upper Lillooet (Davis, 1999b) do not.8See Gardiner (1993) for discussion of pre-verbal topical objects in Shuswap.9The iP determiner in (12b) and (13b) is underlyingly present but regularly reduces before 1stperson possessive prefix in- and 2nd person possessive prefix an- (A. Mattina 2000, 157)10Darnell (1995, 99) found in his textual study of Colville-Okanagan (A. Mattina 1985) that non-contrastive topics could not be pre-posed. Non-contrastive non-topics may, however, be pre-posed, afinding which seems to support out-of-the-blue uses of data like (13a).65b. n-P?ys-@nn-buy-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[iP][DET]an- ?q@ ?y-m?n.2SG.POSS-write-INSTRI bought your book.(13) a. iPDETs?maPwhite.personw?k-@n.see-[DIR]-1SG.ERGI saw a white person.b. [iP][DET]an- ?q@ ?y-m?n2SG.POSS-write-INSTRn-P?ys-@n.n-buy-[DIR]-1SG.ERGI bought your book.For transitive sentences with two overt nominal DP arguments, SVO is thepreferred and most common word order in elicitation contexts (14).11 In texts andconversations, however, transitive sentences involving two overt DPs are extremelyrare (A. Mattina 2001), since anaphoric DPs are normally null.(14) a. iPDETs?maPwhite.personwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETx?xwt@m.little.girlThe white person saw the little girl.b. iPDETylm?xw@mchiefx?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETautomobile.automobileThe chief wants the car.c. iPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girlwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGix?P.DEMThe little girl saw that.d. JohnJohnwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGMary.MaryJohn saw Mary.11H?bert (1982b, 47) analyzes SVO sentences as topicalization of a subject. N. Mattina (1994, 95)states that ?nominals in preverbal positions appear to have a focus semantics?, but it is unclear fromthese accounts what exactly is meant by a subject being ?topical? or in ?focus?.66e. haYNQiPDETs@nk? ?caPsq?x?aPhorsewik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETx?xwt@m?little.girlDid the horse see the girl?Verb-initial transitive sentences are also commonplace. In the Upper Nicoladialect, the first DP following the verb is nearly always interpreted as the subject,yielding a surface VSO ordering (15a-c) (Baptiste, 2001; H?bert, 1982a,b).12,13(15) a. wik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girliPDETsam?P.white.personThe little girl saw the white person.b. x?mink-slike-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETsk@mx?stbeariPDETs?yaP.saskatoon.berryBears like saskatoon berries.c. wik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girlix?P.DEMThe little girl saw it.*It saw the little girl.d. n? ?qw-@m-ssteal-MID-[DIR]-3SG.ERGBenBeniPDETs@nk? ?caPsq?x?aP.horseBen stole the horse.VOS interpretations are possible in cases where the subject is animate and theobject inanimate (A. Mattina 2004), as in (16a,b), though these are not consistently12VSO is not consistently judged grammatical if the two post-predicative DPs are proper names(i). N. Mattina (1994, 96) finds these cases to be ungrammatical.(i) ?wik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGJohnJohnMaryMaryJohn saw MaryLL: John wiks Mary would be better. Doesn?t sound right.13The interpretive restriction in (15c) patterns opposite to what is found in Northern Interior andCentral Salish, where the One Nominal Interpretation constraint would force the determiner-headedDP to be interpreted as an object, and a single demonstrative as a subject (cf. Gerdts and Hukari(2004).67judged grammatical in the Upper Nicola dialect (16c), and are usually corrected toan SVO order.14(16) a. x?mink-slike-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETs?yaPsaskatoon.berryiPDETsk@mx?st.bearBears like saskatoon berries.#Saskatoon berries like bears.b. cmayEPIS?tQap-nt-?sshoot-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDETs ??aPc?n@mdeerJohn.JohnMaybe John shot the deer.#Maybe the deer shot John.c. *x?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETautomobileautomobileiPDETylm?xw@m.chiefThe chief wants the car.#The car wants the chief.For the Colville dialect, N. Mattina (1994) states that VSO and VOS are both ac-ceptable, so long as there is no ambiguity,15 though it seems clear for the UpperNicola dialect that VSO is strongly preferred.Word order in subordinate clauses follows the same pattern as that found inmain clauses, allowing for either subject-initial (17a) or verb-initial (17b-c) order-ing. The difference in translations between (17b) and (17c) exemplifies the prefer-ence for a VSO interpretation over VOS in contexts for which the animacy of thetwo arguments is equivalent.14This suggests that VOS interpretations of the examples in (15) should also be possible given asuitable context (for 15a at least).15See Davis (2005) for similar findings in Lillooet, though VOS is unmarked in the Upper dialect,while VSO is unmarked in the Lower dialect.68(17) a. kn1SG.ABSn-stilsn-thinkiPDET?qwQay-lqsblack-robecaP-nt-?shit-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDETylm?xw@m.chiefI think that the priest hit the chief.b. kn1SG.ABSn-stilsn-thinkcaP-nt-?shit-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDET?qwQay-lqsblack-robeiPDETylm?xw@m.chiefI think that the priest hit the chief.c. kn1SG.ABSn-stilsn-thinkcaP-nt-?shit-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDETylm?xw@mchiefiPDET?qwQay-lqs.black-robeI think that the chief hit the priest.For V-initial sentences involving phonologically heavy DP arguments, a strongpreference for an object-reading of the heavy DP surfaces (cf. Davis (2005) forequivalent data in Lillooet):16(18) a. ??aP ??aP-nt-?slook.for-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDETs?lxwaPbigiPDETpiqwhiteiPDETk@kw?pdogGertie.GertieVOS: Gertie was looking for the big white dog.*VSO: The big white dog was looking for Gertie.b. ??aP ??aP-nt-?slook.for-DIR-3SG.ERGGertieGertieiPDETs?lxwaPbigiPDETpiqwhiteiPDETk@kw?p.dog?VOS: The big white dog was looking for GertieVSO: Gertie was looking for the big white dog.For the Colville and Upper Nicola dialects, both VSO and VOS are possible;however VSO is strongly preferred in the Upper Nicola (and Lakes) dialect, whileVOS is preferred in Colville. This most likely represents a dialectal difference(Baptiste, 2001, 21), with more southerly dialects allowing freer post-predicativeordering of subject and object than the more northerly dialects.SOV is not a possible order (19). Baptiste (2001, 19) describes this as a restric-tion against more than one DP occurring pre-predicatively.16Though ideally, animacy should be controlled for in (18) by either making both referents humanor both non-human.69(19) a. *iPDETylm?xw@mchiefiPDET?qQway-lqsblack-robecaP-nt-?s.hit-DIR-3SG.ERG*The chief hit the priest.b. *JohnJohnMaryMarywik-s.see-[DIR]-3SG.ERG*John saw Mary.Mary saw John.c. *kn1SG.ABSn-stilsn-thinkJohnJohnMaryMarywik-s.see-[DIR]-3SG.ERGI think that John saw Mary.Nevertheless, in contexts involving an object with a special discourse status (e.g.focused or topicalized), a surface OSV ordering is possible, as shown in the subor-dinate clause of (20, cf. 17 above), and also illustrated in (21), where the frontedobject is modified by a relative clause.17(20) kn1SG.ABSn-stilsn-thinkiPDET?qwQay-lqsblack-robeiPDETylm?xw@mchiefcaP-nt-?s.hit-DIR-3SG.ERGI think that it was the priest that the chief hit.(21) iPDETsk@mx?stbeariPDET?tQap-nt-?sshoot-DIR-3SG.ERGJohnJohnkaPk?c-iP-s.find-MID-3SG.POSSThe bear hei shot, Johni found.OVS interpretations are not possible in unmarked contexts.18 Thus, the initialclause in (22) is normally only interpretable as John saw Mary, and not Mary17For (21), the middle suffix -m becomes -iP before a 3rd person possessive morpheme (A. Mattina1993a, 251).18N. Mattina (1994, 96) indicates that OVS is made possible by pairing an inanimate object withan animate subject (i), similarly to the VOS data given as (16), at least for 2 out of 4 of her speakers.(i) iPDETsqla ?wmoneywikw-shide-[DIR]-3SG.ERGin-t? ?m.1SG.POSS-motherMy mother hid the money. (N. Mattina 1994)It is unclear whether (i) was elicited with focus on iP sqla ?w ?the money?, however. Baptiste (2001)found data like (i) to be ungrammatical with the speakers she worked with, and I have found OVSsentences to be grammatical only in contexts involving object focus (24).70saw John.19 Comparing (23a) with (23b), we see that the latter is pragmaticallyinfelicitous since the pre-predicative DP is interpreted as a subject.(22) JohnJohnwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGMary,MarylutNEGAlice.AliceJohn saw Mary, not Alice.(23) a. iPDETs- ?kw- ?kw?y-m-@ltNOM-IRED-small-m-childPi?-seat-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETs-?tx-a?qNOM-sweet-fruittOBLspiPs ?c??t.yesterdayThe child ate the fruit yesterday.b. #iPDETs-?tx-a?qNOM-sweet-fruitPi?-seat-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETs- ?kw- ?kw?y-m-@ltNOM-IRED-small-m-childtOBLspiPs ?c??t.yesterday#The fruit ate the child yesterday(!!)Nevertheless, OVS is possible in contexts involving corrective focus, indicated bybold type (24b).20 Clefting of the object is also a possibility in these contexts(24c).2119Similar facts obtain for Lower Lillooet, as documented in (Davis, 2007).20These examples illustrate stripping of SV in the second conjunct, which suggests that an objectcan move out of VP.21Clefting of a DP constituent is indicated by the pre-predicative determiner iP, and is discussedin some detail in chapters 7 and 8. It is an interesting fact that unmarked object fronting, as in (24b),can be used to signal corrective focus. Unmarked fronting can also signal a contrastive topic in somecases in Okanagan (cf. Gardiner (1993) for unmarked fronting and contrastive topics in Shuswap).For reasons of space, I do not discuss unmarked fronting in detail in this dissertation; however it isimportant to note that corrective focus is not limited only to clefting or equative environments, whichare discussed in chapters 7 and 8.71(24) a. Q:Q:ucDUBJohnJohnwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGAlice?AliceQ: Did John see Alice?b. A:A:MaryMarywik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGJohn,JohnlutNEGAlice.AliceA: John saw Mary, not Alice.c. A:A:MaryMaryiPDETwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGJohn,JohnlutNEGAlice.AliceA: John saw Mary, not Alice.Literally: It was Mary that John saw, not Alice.The answer in (24b) is also felicitous as a response to the question Did Alice seeJohn?, with corrective focus on Mary as the subject in this case. This is as expected,given that SVO word order is unmarked.In sum, it seems plausible that O-initial structures involving focus or topical-ization are derived by a leftward movement of a DP out of a base V-initial structurein Okanagan. While pre-predicative focus in Northern Interior Salish and Cen-tral Salish is overtly marked by A?-extraction morphology, such morphology hasbeen lost in Southern Interior Salish (Kroeber, 1999). It is therefore not possibleto tell from surface morphology whether O-initial structures are derived by A orA? movement. Regarding S-initial structures, it is less clear that these are derived,since initial subjects do not necessarily receive a focused interpretation, and the*SOV/OSV asymmetry suggests a different derivation for preverbal subjects ver-sus preverbal objects. Clearly, more work needs to be done on word order andconfigurationality in Okanagan.The next chapter consists of a closer inspection of the syntactic distributionof argument expressions in the language, specifically the distribution of the deter-miner iP and oblique marker t in their role of introducing core and oblique argu-ments.72Chapter 4The Structure and Distribution ofNP and DPThe overall goal of this chapter is to give the reader a broad overview of Okanagansyntax, with specific focus on the distribution and form of NPs and DPs within thesentence, and the internal structure of DPs.4.1 IntroductionIn this chapter, I first delimit the concept of ?noun? for Okanagan, and the syntacticcategories for which noun-hood is integral, specifically NP and DP. Both of thesecategories can be defined and distinguished in terms of their distributions. Section4.2 presents evidence that nouns form a non-derived, inherently predicative lexicalclass in Okanagan. DPs are a derived class, and may be formed by prefacing a(sometimes covert) NP with the determiner iP.1 DPs, unlike NPs, do not normallyfunction as syntactic predicates (section 4.3).2Section 4.4 focuses on the distribution of the determiner iP and the obliquemarker t, as the two primary markers of arguments in the language. Although thetwo particles themselves can co-occur, the data show that the grammatical envi-ronment will reliably predict whether a specific argument type will be introduced1Proper nouns are lexical NPs which may also be converted into DPs. See section 4.6.2.2Except in predications consisting of two DPs. This is the major focus of chapter 7.73by iP, t or both.3 iP usually marks a direct grammatical relation (i.e. subject orobject), whereas t marks an indirect, or oblique, grammatical relation (e.g. passiveagent, instrument, temporal adjunct, oblique argument) (N. Mattina 1996b, 45-50).In section 4.5, I present my syntactic analysis of Okanagan iP DPs, and thendiscuss the distribution of demonstrative DPs and proper name DPs in 4.6. I sum-marize and conclude this chapter in section 4.7.4.2 Distinguishing Nouns as a Syntactic CategoryOkanagan nouns generally denote ?persons, places, or things?. Some examples areillustrated in (1):(1) a. ?ti ?kwt ?lake?b. q?qxw@lx ?fish?c. x?xwt@m ?little girl?d. st@mt?maP ?grandmother?e. sp?x?m@n ?scraper, tool (Douglas Lake)?f. s ?t@x???q ?blueberries, sweet berries?g. s@nl ?km?n ?jail?Morphologically, all nouns consist minimally of a root, and may be simplex (e.g.1a), or may have an analyzable nominalizer prefix s- (e.g. 1d-f), contain a lo-cational circumfix s@n...min (e.g. 1g) or one of several instrumental suffixes like-m@n (e.g. 1e). In addition, nouns may be formed by synchronic or diachronicprocesses of reduplication (1b,c,d), and may also contain lexical suffixes like -a?q?round object? (e.g. 1f). All these morphological operations are derivational, andaffect neither the ability of the resulting word to function as a predicate, nor asthe complement to a determiner, given a larger syntactic context. For this reason,I largely ignore morphological differences between nouns.4 I refer the reader to3Broadly speaking, the determiner iP is used in both referential and non-referential contexts,as might be expected for a language which utilizes just one determiner. There is nevertheless atendency for Okanagan speakers to use formally intransitive verbs, and thus introduce nominals withthe oblique marker t, in non-referential contexts. I defer discussion of the semantics of iP and t untilchapter 5.4N. Mattina (1996b, 25) also notes that the internal structure of bases (e.g. the nouns in 1) are notrelevant to syntax.74N. Mattina (1996b) for a discussion of noun-related morphological derivations.5It has often been remarked that lexical items corresponding to nouns (2a), ad-jectives (2b), and verbs (2c) in English may all function as main clause predi-cates in Salish languages (Kinkade, 1983; Jelinek, 1998; Davis, 1999b), includingOkanagan (N. Mattina 1996b). Such data has been used to motivate claims thatSalish languages in fact lack lexical categorial distinctions, and so we must lookelsewhere for evidence.(2) a. [p@ptw?naxw NP]old.womaniPDETs@xw- ?maP ?m?yaP-m.OCC-teach-MIDThe teacher is an old woman.b. [p@x?p?x?t AP]smartiPDETs@xw- ?maP ?m?yaP-m.OCC-teach-MIDThe teacher is smart.c. [n-ya ?kw-m?(n)-nt-xw V P]n-cross.over-MIN-DIR-2SG.ERGiPDETt@mxw?laPxw.landYou crossed over the land.Syntactic evidence for distinguishing N, A, and V as lexical classes comes fromdata involving complex nominal predicates (CNPs) (Demirdache and Matthewson,1995; Davis et al., 1997; Koch, 2004). CNPs consist of a NP projection of a nomi-nal head which is attributively modified by either another NP, or an AP (cf. section6.2 for structural analysis). In (3a) below, the noun tk?milxw ?woman? is beingmodified by the adjective x?ast ?good?, and the entire modified complex is the mainclause predicate, taking the DP iP ylm?xw@mt@t ?our chief? as an argument. Cru-cially, the modifying constituent must precede the head noun (3b,4b), and be linkedto the head noun by the oblique marker t (3c,4c).65There are other morphological tests for noun-hood discussed in H?bert (1982a, 49): e.g. theresulting category of an element prefixed by s@xw- ?habitual agent?, or suffixed by -tn or -mn/-m?n?instrumental?, is a noun.6See chapter 6 for tests which help to distinguish attributive from relative clause modification,and discussion of an additional requirement that a modifying adjectival constituent be either anindividual-level predicate, or if not, be prefixed by stative/customary ac-.75(3) a. [x?astgoodtATTRtk?milxw CNP]womaniPDETylm?xw@m-t@t.chief-1PL.POSSOur chief is a good woman.b. *[tk?milxwwomantATTRx?ast CNP]goodiPDETylm?xw@m-t@t.chief-1PL.POSSOur chief is a good woman.c. *[x?astgoodtk?milxw CNP]womaniPDETylm?xw@m-t@t.chief-1PL.POSSOur chief is a good woman.(4) a. kn1SG.ABS[s?lxwaPbigtATTRsq@ltm?xw CNP].manI am a big man.b. *kn1SG.ABS[sq@ltm?xwmantATTRs?lxwaPCNP].bigI am a big man.c. *kn1SG.ABS[s?lxwaPbigsq@ltm?xw CNP].manI am a big man.An NP can also modify another NP. The linear order between attributive NP com-binations appears to be free in certain cases (5), while there are restrictions in othercases (6-7):(5) a. [s@n- ?maP ?m?yaP-t@nLOC-teach-INSTRtATTR?q@ ?y-m?n CNP].write-INSTRThat?s a school book.b. [ ?q@ ?y-m?nwrite-INSTRtATTRs@n- ?maP ?m?yaP-t@n CNP].LOC-teach-INSTRThat?s a school book.76(6) a. ix?PDEM[ ??@x?- ??x??pRED-growntATTR?qwQay-lqs CNP].black-robeThat?s an old-man priest.b. *ix?PDEM[ ?qwQay-lqsblack-robetATTR??@x?- ??x??p CNP].RED-grown?That?s a priest old-man.(7) a. ix?PDEM[sqilxwnative.persontATTRt@tw?t CNP].boyThat?s a native boy.b. *ix?PDEM[t@tw?tboytATTRsqilxw CNP].native.person?That?s a boy native.The ungrammaticality of (6b) and (7b) could be argued to stem from the fact that??@x? ??x??p ?old man? and sqilxw ?native person? are in fact adjectives, and can there-fore not occur in final position of a CNP, however unlike the adjectival modifiers in(3-4), lexical items such as sqilxw may occur in final position of a CNP when themodifier is clearly adjectival (8).(8) ix?PDEM[x?astgoodtATTRsqilxw CNP].native.personThose people are good Native people.The generalization therefore seems to be that some nouns (e.g. sqilxw ?native per-son?) may function as NP heads (8) or as NP modifiers (7a), while other nouns (e.g.t@tw?t ?boy?) may only function as NP heads (7). Adjectives (e.g. x?ast ?good?), bycontrast, can only ever function as modifiers within a CNP (3a,8), never as heads(3b).To summarize the data and generalizations so far: first, an attributive modifiermust precede the constituent it is modifying; second, an NP can function as eithera modifier, or a modifiee; third, an AP may not function as a modifiee (cf. 3b-4b).We thus have syntactic evidence for a categorial distinction between AP and NP,and by assumption, also A and N.77Verbs and adjectives may be distinguished by means of complex DPs, whichare argument expressions consisting of a CNP complement to an iP determiner.Examples are shown below in (9).7 While an AP may function as an attributivemodifier (9a-b), a VP cannot (9c-d):8(9) a. w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDET[ ??laldeadtATTRk@kw?p CNP].dogI saw a dead dog.b. w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDET[qwQaybluetATTRs ?wa?r? ?kx@n CNP].frogI saw a blue frog.c. *w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDET[?txwt?lxflying.aroundtATTRsk@kQ?kaPCNP].birdsI saw the flying birds.d. *w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERGaPDET[c-?@?tp-m@-nc?tCUST-jump-MIN-REFLEXtATTRx?xwt@m CNP].little.girlI saw the jumping girl.The generalization may be that adjectives like in (9a,b) do not project aspectualclausal structure, but that unergative verbs do (9c,d), and that aspectual structurecannot occur in syntactic positions reserved for attributive modifiers (Koch, 2006;Davis, 2011), but instead must assume the form of a relative clause.9In sum, the syntactic category NP in Okanagan can be defined distributionallyas that class of items which can be both attributively and clausally modified. Anin-depth discussion of attributive and relative clause modification may be found7Modifiers within a complex DP structure are subject to slightly less stringent conditions thanthose in predicative CNPs: stage-level, but non-eventive, modifiers are permitted (Lyon, 2010a;Davis, 2011). See also chapter 6.8The iP determiner becomes aP in certain contexts, including before c- ?customary/habitual? asin (9d, cf. 74c), ?- ?back, again? and k?- ?have? (A. Mattina 2000, 151).9Transitive predicates are also ungrammatical as attributive modifiers. See chapter 6.78in chapter 6, the purpose here being only to convince the reader that there is asyntactically distinguishable noun category in the language.4.3 NP versus DPThere is an important distinction to be made in this dissertation between NPs andDPs: NPs are predicates; noun complements of the determiner iP (i.e. iP DPs) arenot predicates, since the argument position of the noun is saturated by the deter-miner. This predicts that NPs and DPs should display different syntactic behaviour,and this is indeed the case.Given an appropriate context, a bare noun is interpretable as a predicate takinga null 3rd person pronoun as an argument (10a); a complete sentence in otherwords. The argument may be overtly realized as a demonstrative (10b), a propername (10c), or an iP DP (10d). A bare NP cannot function as an argument (10d).(10) a. s@xw-p?x?-@mOCC-hunt-MID.pro(He/she) is a hunter.b. s@xw-p?x?-@mOCC-hunt-MIDix?P.DEMHe/she is a hunter.c. s@xw-p?x?-@mOCC-hunt-MIDSpike.SpikeSpike is a hunter.d. s@xw-p?x?-@mOCC-hunt-MID*(iP)*(DET)??@x?- ??x??p.RED-grownThe old man is a hunter.An isolated iP DP (11), by contrast, is only interpretable as a fragment. Speakersnever translate isolated iP DPs as complete sentences, unlike isolated NPs (10a).(11) iPDETs@xw-p?x?-@mOCC-hunt-MID(*).(*pro)a/the hunter79Thus, the categorial distinction between NP and DP corresponds to a predicate/ar-gument distinction, and the determiner iP functions to convert a predicate into anargument expression (Longobardi, 1994; Chierchia, 1998). In other words, bareNPs are always predicates, but NP complements to an iP determiner constituteargument expressions.10It is important to note that D selects only for NP in Okanagan, and not forany other category. This is not immediately apparent, since nominal predicateslike p@ptw?naxw ?old woman? (12a), adjectival predicates such as px?p?x?t ?smart?(12b), and verbal predicates like nya ?kwm?ntxw ?you crossed over it? (12c) may allbe preceded by a determiner.(12) a. iPDET[p@ptw?naxw NP]old.womanthe old womanb. iPDET[p@x?p?x?t AP]smartthe (one who is) smartc. iPDET[n-ya ?kw-m?n-[n]t-xw V P]n-cross.over-MIN-DIR-2SG.ERGthe (thing that) you crossed overFor cases involving AP (12b) and VP (12c), there is evidence for a null NPhead (Davis, 2011), and that these cases involve ?headless? relative clauses (Kroe-ber, 1997). In other words, the AP and VP are modifying a null NP head, asschematized in (13) for (12c). The particular analysis given as (13) is justified insome detail during my discussion of relative clauses in section 6.3.3.(13) [iP [ j [[iP [ NP j] DPi] [nya ?kwm?ntxw ti V P] CP] NP] DP]In (13), an initial determiner iP selects for a null NP (subscript j) which is modifiedby a relative clause CP containing a DP which has moved from a post-verbal posi-10H?bert (1982a, 35) states that ?it is only nominal arguments, and not predicates, which aremarked with a ?determiner??. While true that the data in (12) are all arguments, their status as argu-ments is the result of the determiner iP, and not the lexical category of the determiner?s complement.80tion within the clause to the left-edge of the relative clause CP (cf. (Davis, 2004,2010a) for Lillooet, and Kroeber (1997, 1999) and Koch (2006) for Thompson).The second, clause-introducing determiner deletes due to a filter on sequences ofidentical determiners, as discussed in chapter 6 (cf. Davis (2010a) for Lillooet).The head NP may also be overt (14, ?the land you crossed over?), in which case aniP determiner surfaces before the head as well as the clause.(14) [iP [t@mxw?laPxw j [[iP [ NP j] DPi] [nya ?kwm?ntxw ti V P] CP] NP] DP]Clear evidence for the existence of relative clauses in Okanagan comes fromdata involving long range extraction. In (15), there is a gap following the finalintransitive predicate xwuy ?go?. The determiner iP which precedes the transitivepredicate wiks ?she saw her? forms a DP constituent with a null NP, and this DPhas raised from the gap site, in a manner analogous to the structure represented in(14).11(15) kn-x?t-@nhelp-BEN-1SG.ERGiPDETtk?milxwwoman?kl- ?klaxwRED-eveningiPDETwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGSarahSarah?aPCOMPxwuy.goI helped the woman who Sarah saw leave last night.Only NPs may head relative clauses (16a). (16b) shows that an adjective can-not function as a relative clause head, and is only marginally acceptable under aninterpretation where the adjective is modifying a null NP head (Demirdache andMatthewson, 1995; Davis et al., 1997; Davis, 2011).12,13 A verb also cannot func-tion as the head of a relative clause (16c).11I have been unable to elicit headless examples of long range extraction, although these are pos-sible in Lillooet (Davis, 2010a, 12, ex.22).12These facts are different than those documented for Straits Salish in Montler (1993), where it isshown that adjectives may occur in these positions.13The determiner iP lowers to aP before the customary prefix c-, as illustrated in (16a,b) (A. Mat-tina 2000).81(16) a. c-my-st-inCUST-know-CAUS-1SG.ERGix?PDEMiPDET[tk?milxw NP]womanaPDETc- ?cu ?m-qs-[s]t-s.CUST-suck-nose-CAUS-3SG.ERGI know the lady that he kissed.b. #c-my-st-inCUST-know-CAUS-1SG.ERGix?PDEMiPDET[x@x??saPt AP]beautifulaPDETc- ?cu ?m-qs-[s]t-s.CUST-suck-nose-CAUS-3SG.ERG#I know the beautiful he kissed.SM: You didn?t say what, a pretty something was kissed?c. *c-my-st-inCUST-know-CAUS-1SG.ERGiPDET[s-c-Pitx V P]NOM-CUST-sleepiPDET?cu ?m-qs-[s]t-s.suck-nose-CAUS-3SG.ERG*I know the sleeping he kissed.Given that headless relatives exist in Okanagan, and that non-NP categoriesmay not head a relative clause (16), the most economical theory is one where Donly selects for NPs, and that apparent cases of direct selection (cf. 12b,c) actuallyinvolve modification of a null NP.To conclude, this section has argued for the following points:a. There is a syntactic distinction between NPs and DPs: NPs are predicativeexpressions, while DPs are not.b. Determiners do not select for categories other than NP.4.4 The Distribution of the Determiner and ObliqueMarkerIn this section, I focus on the syntactic distribution of the determiner, obliquemarker, and other morphemes which associate with nouns in Okanagan. Syntactic82arguments which are not proper names or demonstratives are obligatorily markedby either the determiner iP, the oblique marker t, or both. Locative adjuncts areintroduced by one of several locative particles which are in complementary distri-bution with t.4.4.1 Subject ArgumentsThe determiner iP must introduce a non-proper noun or non-demonstrative subjectargument. Oblique marked nominals are categorically banned in subject positionsfor both transitive (17a,b) as well as morphologically intransitive (18a,b) and lexi-cally intransitive (18c) predicates.14(17) a. iP/*tDET/*OBLsq@ltm?xwmanwik-ssee-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETtk?milxw.womanThe man saw the woman.b. iP/*tDET/*OBLk@kw?pdogtal?Preallyx?mink-slike-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETs- ?cim.NOM-boneThe dog really likes the bone.(18) a. iP/*tDET/*OBLsxw-l ?k-amOCC-bound-MIDcmayEPISc-kic-x.CISL-arrive-INTRA policeman might come.b. iP/*tDET/*OBLsqilxwnative.peopleac-t?rq-?m.CUST-kick-MIDThe native people are dancing.c. iP/*tDET/*OBLtk?milxwwomanPayx?wt.tiredThe woman is tired.14Although N. Mattina (1996b, 41) has noticed that ergative subjects allow optional oblique-marking in the Okanagan Valley dialect, and Kroeber (1999) makes the same observation for otherlanguages of the Southern Interior, speakers of the Upper Nicola dialect do not use oblique mark-ing on ergative subjects, instead relying on word order to disambiguate a DP?s grammatical status.Ergative subjects in H?bert?s Upper Nicola corpus are not marked as oblique.834.4.2 Core Objects vs. Quasi-ObjectsThe distribution of iP versus t in their roles of introducing objects is syntacti-cally predictable (N. Mattina 1996b, 45),15 as illustrated by (19) and (20) below.The determiner iP introduces objects of formally transitive predicates, as in (19a).Oblique arguments (a.k.a quasi-objects) of morphologically intransitive predicates(20a) will always be introduced by the oblique marker.16(19) a. ?kw??l-@nmake-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDETy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketI made the basket.b. * ?kw??l-@nmake-[DIR]-1SG.ERGy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketI made the basket.c. * ?kw??l-@nmake-[DIR]-1SG.ERGtOBLy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketI made the basket.d. * ?kw??l-@nmake-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDETtOBLy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketI made the basket.(20) a. kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kw??l-@mNOM-CUST-make-MIDtOBLlat?p.tableI?m making a table.b. *kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kw??l-@mNOM-CUST-make-MIDlat?p.tableI?m making a table.15N. Mattina (1996b, 46) notes for the Okanagan Valley dialect that ?case marking is not a com-pletely reliable means of identifying the grammatical relation of an NP?. It does however seem to be amore reliable means in the Upper Nicola dialect since (i) oblique quasi-objects cannot be introducedby iP, and (ii) ergative subjects cannot be marked oblique by t, unless they are passives (cf. 31b, forexample).16N. Mattina (1996b, 46) gives data showing that iP and t may co-occur in introducing a quasi-object. This may represent a dialect variation, since the Upper Nicola speakers I have worked withdo not allow this.84c. *kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kw??l-@mNOM-CUST-make-MIDiPDETlat?p.tableI?m making a table.d. *kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kw??l-@mNOM-CUST-make-MIDiPDETtOBLlat?p.tableI?m making a table.Bare nominals (excluding proper names) are ungrammatical in non-predicativepositions (19b,20b).17 The oblique marker t may not introduce the object of aformally transitive predicate (19c), and the determiner iP may not introduce theoblique argument of a morphologically intransitive predicate (20c). Finally, iP andt together cannot mark an absolutive argument (19d) or oblique argument (20d).Oblique arguments of intransitive predicates are quasi-objects18, meaning thatthey are semantically entailed by the predicate, but not registered by agreementmorphology (N. Mattina 1996b, 45). In section 5.3.2, I analyze quasi-objects as se-mantically incorporated nouns (Van Geenhoven, 1998). When there is no obliqueargument, then absolutive-subject intransitive predicates inflected with middle suf-fix -m (21) or intransitivizers -(m?x)aPx/-x (22) may indicate an activity in progress;however in actuality, many of these predicates are infelicitous without objects (e.g.23):(21) a. kn1SG.ABS?p ?yq-am.cook-MIDI?m baking.b. kn1SG.ABSx?m?nk-@m.want-MIDI want some.17A. Mattina (1973, 112) discusses an indefinite/definite contrast between bare nominal comple-ments (e.g. w?k@n sqilxw ?I saw some people?) and DP complements (e.g. w?k@n iP sqilxw ?I sawthe/those people?). Indeed, this is possible in other languages of the Southern Interior (cf. chapter9), but my own research with the Upper Nicola dialect suggests that bare nominal complements arealways ungrammatical in this dialect, perhaps under influence from Thompson.18This term comes from Davis and Matthewson (2003). N. Mattina (1996b, 42) refers to these asgeneric objects.85(22) a. kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?kwu?l-x.NOM-CUST-make-INTRI?m working.b. kn1SG.ABSs-c- ?p ?yq-mix.NOM-CUST-cook-INTRI?m cooking.(23) a. #kn1SG.ABSw?k-@m.see-MIDI?m seeing. (Consultant: You have to say what you see.)b. kn1SG.ABSw?k-@msee-MIDtOBLsp@pl?naP.rabbitI saw a rabbit.Morphologically intransitive constructions (21-23) do not permit anaphoric refer-ence to a previously introduced discourse referent (cf. chapter 5), but for transitiveconstructions, even in cases where a DP is not overt, a null pronoun is present (24)which takes a discourse-salient overt DP, or else a contextually salient referent, asan antecedent (cf. Davis and Matthewson (2003) for Lillooet, Gerdts and Hukari(2003) for Halkomelem).(24) a. n-??pt-@m-@nn-forget-MIN[?]-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[DP].I forgot it.b. n? ?k-@nt-xwcut-DIR-2SG.ERG[DP].You cut it.Now consider the following pair (25a,b) which on the surface seem quite sim-ilar, both involving an unergative predicate ks ??xw?paPx ?x will win?, but whichactually denote two different propositions. If the nominal s@nk? ?caPsq?x?aP ?horse?is introduced by the determiner iP, it is interpretable only as the subject (25a). If itis introduced by the oblique marker t, it is interpretable only as an oblique, quasi-86object (25b).(25) a. ks- ??xw?p-aPxFUT-win-INCEPTiPDETs@nk? ?caPsq?x?aP.horseThe/(That) horse is going to win.*He?s going to win the horse.b. ks- ??xw?p-aPxFUT-win-INCEPTtOBLs@nk? ?caPsq?x?aP.horseHe?s going to win a horse.*The/(that) horse is going to win.It is also worth noting that morphologically similar predicates may show differentselectional properties. Consider ks ?kw??l@?laPx ?will be born? (26) and ks ?kw??laPx?will make? (27). The former is unaccusative, and the latter is unergative, as ev-idenced by the distribution of iP and t.19 Thus, ?will be born? may only take anexperiencer subject DP as an argument (26), since it is not semantically transitive,whereas ?will make? may take an iP DP as a subject argument (27c), but not as anobject (27b).(26) a. ks- ?kw??l-@?l-aPxFUT-make-FRED-INCEPTiPDETs- ?kw- ?kw?y-m-@lt.NOM-IRED-small-m-childThe baby?s gonna be born.b. *ks- ?kw??l-@?l-aPxFUT-make-FRED-INCEPTtOBLs- ?kw- ?kw?y-m-@lt.NOM-IRED-small-m-childThe baby?s gonna be born.c. *iPDETtk?milxwwomanks- ?kw??l-@?l-aPxFUT-make-FRED-INCEPTiPDETs- ?kw- ?kw?y-m-@lt.NOM-IRED-small-m-child*The woman will borned the child.19See Davis (1997) for arguments that Salish roots are uniformly associated with a single internalargument, hence unaccusative. Though his arguments presumably apply to Okanagan as well, I usethe terms ?unaccusative? and ?unergative? descriptively to distinguish intransitive predicates whichtake experiencer DP arguments from those which take agentive DP arguments, without making anydeeper syntactic claims concerning unaccusativity in Okanagan.87(27) a. ks- ?kw??l-aPxFUT-make-INCEPTtOBLpwmin.drumHe?s gonna make a drum.b. *ks- ?kw??l-aPxFUT-make-INCEPTiPDETpwmin.drumHe?s gonna make a drum.c. iPDETsq@ltm?xwmanks- ?kw??l-aPxFUT-make-INCEPTtOBLpwmin.drumThe man will make a drum.4.4.3 The Syntactic Status of iP and tThe absence of bare nominal arguments in Okanagan suggests that iP is necessaryfor converting a predicate nominal into an argument (28-30). This is claimed to bea core property of the D position (Longobardi, 1994). In other words, bare NPs cannever be arguments in Okanagan, even in generic contexts (30).20(28) a. *[p@ptw?naxw NP]old.woman[s@xw- ?maP ?m?yaP-m NP].OCC-teach-MIDThe teacher is an old woman.b. [p@ptw?naxw NP]old.woman[iPDETs@xw- ?maP ?m?yaP-m DP].OCC-teach-MIDThe teacher is an old woman.(29) a. *[w?k-@n V P]see-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[sqilxw NP].native.peopleI saw native people.b. [w?k-@n V P]see-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[iPDETsqilxw DP].native.peopleI saw native people.20See section 5.2.8 for a semantic analysis of generic interpretations of Okanagan iP DPs.88(30) a. *[sk@mx?st NP]bear[x?mink-s V P]like-[DIR]-3SG.ERG[iPDETs?yaPDP].saskatoon.berryBears like saskatoon berries.b. [iPDETsk@mx?st DP]bear[x?mink-s V P]like-[DIR]-3SG.ERG[iPDETs?yaPDP].saskatoon.berryBears like saskatoon berries.The oblique marker t and the preposition-like locative particles l, tl, ?kl may co-occur with the determiner iP in certain contexts, as shown for example in (31)and (32) below. The oblique marker t co-occurs with the determiner iP in specificgrammatical environments: i.e. when marking the agent of a passive (31a,b)21 oran instrument (31c). The locative particles in (32) are in complementary distri-bution with the oblique marker t, suggesting that they occur in the same syntacticposition.22,23(31) a. iPDETylm?xw@mchiefiPDETk@w?p-shorse-3SG.POSSxw?y-?t-@mgo-APPL-PASS[iPDETtOBLsqwsiP-s].son-3SG.POSSThe chief?s horse was taken by his son.b. k?l-nt-@mchase-DIR-PASS[iPDETtOBLsk@mx?st].bearHe was chased by the bear.c. ?tQap-nt-?sshoot-DIR-3SG.ERG[iPDETtOBLs-wlwlm-ink].NOM-iron-weaponHe shot it with a gun.21I use the term ?passive? as a purely descriptive term. See N. Mattina (1996b, 40-41) for argu-ments that these constructions may not be syntactically intransitive.22In Northern Interior Salish languages, equivalents of the Okanagan locative particles l, tl, ?kl andthe oblique marker t always precede the determiners. This makes them straightforwardly analyzableas prepositions (P) which select for DP complements. In Southern Interior Salish, however, theseparticles always follow determiners (Kroeber, 1999).23A. Mattina (1973) refers to these locative markers as follows: l ?locational? meaning ?point oftime or place at which...? (p. 116); tl ?ablative? indicating ?motion from? (p. 119); and ?kl ?allative?meaning ?motion to/into? (p.120).89(32) a. miy@s-?tiqw@lqwmore-tall[iPDETtlLOC?c@c?p-s].little.sister-3SG.POSSShe is taller than her little sister.b. Pak[?]-s-x?w?s@mHAVE-NOM-soap.berries[iPDET?klLOC?ti ?kwt].lakeThere are some soap-berries next to the lake.c. x?wayqnpileiPDETsmi ?kwtsnow[iPDETlLOCn- ?km-qn-i?xw].n- ?km-head-houseThe snow piled on the roof.Data like (31) are strong evidence that the oblique marker t is not a determiner. Inchapter 5, I discuss a semantic restriction on specific readings of oblique argumentsof formally intransitive predicates, and conclude that t is semantically vacuous, andthat quasi-objects are semantically incorporated.244.4.4 Arguments of Lexical IntransitivesAdjectival and nominal predicates, although lexically intransitive, are not markedas such by overt morphology.25 Like other predicates, these predicates also selectfor iP DP subject arguments (33a), and may not take a bare nominal as a subject(33b). iP and t may not co-occur in this context (33c).(33) a. ?t?qw@lqwtalliPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girlThe little girl is tall.b. *?t?qw@lqwtallx?xwt@mlittle.girlThe little girl is tall.24I claim that intransitivizers (e.g. -@m) encode semantic incorporation in Okanagan (Van Geen-hoven, 1998). See section 5.3.2.25N. Mattina (1996b) refers to these as simple intransitives.90c. *?t?qw@lqwtalliPDETtOBLx?xwt@mlittle.girlThe little girl is tall.At first glance, (34a) below seems to show that adjectives may also take subjectarguments introduced by the oblique marker t, but this is not the case. (34a) isan attributively-modified CNP (see section 4.2), with a null pronominal argument(Davis et al., 1997). The fact that a demonstrative can occur as an argument ofthe CNP (34b) is evidence for a null pronoun in (34a) (as well as the fact thatthese are often used in contexts in which a referent can be pointed out). (34c) isungrammatical because the iP DP and demonstrative are construed as two separatearguments, yet the predicate is intransitive.26(34) a. [?t?qw@lqwtalltATTRx?xwt@m CNP]girl[ DP]That?s a tall girl.b. [?t?qw@lqwtalltATTRx?xwt@m CNP]girlix?P.DEMThat?s a tall girl.c. *?t?qw@lqwtalliPDETx?xwt@mgirlix?P.DEMThat?s a tall girl.Similar data is shown below in (35). The CNP in (35a) can select a nominaliP DP as an argument. (35b) is ungrammatical because the adjectival predicatex?ast ?good? is saturated by the first DP iP sq@ltm?xw ?the man?, and the second DPiP ylm?xw@m ?the chief? cannot function as an adjunct.27 If we made the parallel26The demonstrative in (34c) cannot form a constitutent with the iP DP to its left, and so (34c)is also ungrammatical under an interpretation equivalent to ?That girl is tall?. See section 4.6.1 fordiscussion of demonstrative-associated DP arguments.27(35b) should theoretically be interpretable as a relative clause, i.e. ?The man who is a chief isgood?, and data in chapter 6, involving main clause transitive predicates, support this as a possibility.In other words, there is evidence that NPs project covert clausal structure in certain cases. (35b) maybe ungrammatical because there is a dispreference for interpreting modifying NPs as clausal in thecontext of a main-clause intransitive.91assumption that the oblique-marked nominal t sq@ltm?xw in (35a) was an argumentof x?ast ?good?, we would incorrectly predict that this sentence too should be un-grammatical.(35) a. [x?astgoodtATTRsq@ltm?xw CNP]maniPDETylm?xw@m.chiefThe chief is a good man.b. *x?astgoodiPDETsq@ltm?xwmaniPDETylm?xw@m.chiefThe chief is a good man.Simple nominal predicates (36) also fall under the classification of ?lexical intran-sitive?, and their selectional restrictions are the same as the adjectives in (33).(36) a. ?qwQay-lqsblack-robeiPDET??@x?- ??x??p.RED-grownThe old man is a priest.b. * ?qwQaylqsblack-robe??@-x? ??x??p.RED-grownThe old man is a priest.c. * ?qwQay-lqsblack-robeiPDETtOBL??@x?- ??x??p.RED-grownThe old man is a priest.4.4.5 DitransitivesThemes of benefactive (a.k.a. ?dative? or ?transitive?) applicative sentences, whichare characterized by the -xt- morpheme (Gerdts and Kiyosawa, 2010), are intro-duced by the oblique marker (37a,b) (N. Mattina (1996b), A. Mattina (2001),Barthmaier (2002)). The determiner is not grammatical in this position.28 Agent28Although cf. N. Mattina (1993b) for data showing that iP may sometimes co-occur with t whenintroducing an applicative theme. This would make them similar to locative adjuncts, which oftenbut not always have co-occurring overt determiners. Upper Nicola speakers do not allow iP in this92and goal arguments are both introduced by iP (37c).(37) a. ?kwu?l-xt-nmake-BEN-1SG.ERGiPDETylm?xw@mchief*iP/t*DET/OBLy?mx?waPcedar.bark.basketI made the chief a basket.b. c-P?kw-xt-m-nCISL-bring-BEN-2SG.ABS-1SG.ERG*iP/t*DET/OBLPaP?saP.eggI brought you an egg.c. iPDETtk?milxwwomanxwi ?c-xt-sgive-BEN-3SG.ERGiPDETsq@ltm?xwmantOBLy?mx?waP.cedar.bark.basketThe woman gave the man a basket.For possessional (a.k.a. ditransitive) applicatives, characterized by the -?t- mor-pheme, the theme must be introduced by an iP determiner, and not an obliquemarker (N. Mattina 1996b, 47).(38) a. n- ?c? ?w-?t-@n-l@xn-wash-APPL-1SG.ERG-3PL.ABSiP/*tDET/*OBLlasy@?t-s@lx.dish-3PL.POSSI washed their dishes.b. kwu1SG.ABSc-xwi ?c-?t-xwCUST-give-APPL-2SG.ERGiP/*tDET/*OBLlpot.cupPass me the cup.Barthmaier (2002, 4-5) states that ?consistently in texts we find -xt- predicatesselected when a speaker chooses to focus on the recipient... predicates with -?t-allow speakers to include the patient [i.e. theme] in the core, in addition to therecipient, to signify its worthiness of attention.?syntactic context.934.4.6 Possessor IntransitivesMain clause predicates can sometimes be inflected with possessor subject mor-phology, rather than absolutive or ergative morphology (cf. section 3.2).29 Theyare formally intransitive, lacking any transitivizer, but are semantically and syn-tactically transitive, and introduce their patient arguments with an iP determiner.30Examples of main clause possessor intransitives are given below in (39).(39) a. i-ks-Paws-p@qw?l@x-@m1SG.POSS-FUT-go-visit-MIDiPDETsq@ltm?xwmaniPDETmutlive?klLOC?ti ?kwt.lakeI?m going to visit the man that lives by the lake.b. i-ks-x?l?t-@m1SG.POSS-FUT-invite-MIDiPDETs-?l@x?-?l?x?tNOM-IRED-friendu?CONJnixwalsoi(n)-?q?qcaP.1SG.POSS-older brotherI am going to invite my friends, and my older brother will too.c. in-x?m?nk1SG.POSS-wantiPDETn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRI want the knife.In certain contexts, oblique arguments and iP DP patients are semantically in-distinguishable, though note that subject agreement morphology on the main pred-icate must vary appropriately (40a,b).(40) a. kn1SG.ABSx?m?nk-@mwant-MIDtOBLsp@pl?naPrabbitiPDET?k@- ?k?pIRED-softiPDETs?piP-s.skin-3SG.POSSI want a rabbit?s soft fur.29N. Mattina (1996b, 56, section 2.2.1.1) distinguishes between possessor morphology, whichattaches only to nouns, and genitive morphology which attaches only to verbs. The two paradigmsare identical in form, as shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, and so I label them all as POSS.30N. Mattina (1996b, 39) shows that for a subset of possessor intransitive predicates, namely thoseinflected for future/irrealis by the prefix ks-, a transitivizer -nt- is present for cases with plural subjectsbut absent with singular subjects.94b. in-x?m?nk1SG.POSS-wantiPDETsp@pl?naPrabbitiPDET?k@- ?k?pIRED-softiPDETs?piP-s.skin-3SG.POSSI want a rabbit?s soft fur.4.4.7 The Oblique Marker in Other EnvironmentsNon-locative adverbs are often introduced by the oblique marker t. These are un-grammatical both with co-occuring determiners, as well as a determiner in lieu ofthe oblique marker (41):(41) a. (*iP)(*DET)tOBLspiPs ?c??tyesterdaykiPCOMPni ?k-scut-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETs ?p? ?c@n.ropeIt was yesterday that he cut the rope.b. kn1SG.ABSPaws-p?x?-@mgo-hunt-MID(*iP)(*DET)tOBLspiPs ?c??t.yesterdayI went hunting yesterday.c. cmayEPISx?astgoodi-ks-c-P?tx1SG.POSS-FUT-CUST-sleepQapn?Pnow(*iP)(*DET)tOBL?klaxw.eveningMaybe I will sleep well tonight.d. (*iP)(*DET)tOBLs-Pistk,NOM-wintertaPl?Pverykn1SG.ABS?kw??l-@m.work-MIDLast winter, I worked a lot.Unlike oblique arguments of intransitive predicates, the ungrammaticality of the iPdeterminer here cannot be attributed to selectional restrictions on the main pred-icate, since the adjuncts illustrated in (41) are more on par syntactically with thelocative adjuncts which do allow iP determiners to co-occur with a locative marker(cf. 32).954.4.8 This ?Predictability? does not hold across SalishThe syntactic predictability of oblique marking in Okanagan contrasts sharply withthe facts in related languages like Lillooet (Northern Interior Salish), where deter-miner choice does not automatically co-vary with the transitivity of the main pred-icate. (42) shows that in Lillooet, unlike Okanagan (43), different determiners maybe used in the same syntactic context.31(42) a. x???t-mi ?n-aswant-MIN.TR-3SG.ERGtiDETxw? ?k-t@n-a.cut-INSTR-EXISHe wants the/a knife. (Lillooet, Henry Davis, p.c.)b. x???t-mi ?n-aswant-MIN.TR-3SG.ERGkuDETxw? ?k-t@n.cut-INSTRHe wants a knife. (Lillooet, Henry Davis, p.c.)(43) a. *ix?PDEMx?m?nk-@mwant-MIDiPDETn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRHe wants the knife.b. ix?PDEMx?m?nk-@mwant-MIDtOBLn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRHe wants a knife.c. (ix?P)DEMx?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRHe likes the knife.d. *(ix?P)DEMx?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGtOBLn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRHe likes that knife.31Both assertion-of-existence ti...a and non-assertion-of-existence ku may be used in the samesyntactic context, but only if the context is intensional (Matthewson, 1998). Squamish (a.k.a.Skwxw?7mesh) patterns with Lillooet in allowing both deictic and non-deictic determiners in thesame syntactic context (Gillon, 2006).96e. x?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGix?PDEMtOBLn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRHe likes that knife.The apparent availability of both iP and t for Okanagan (43c,d) is not an exceptionto this rule, since these two examples involve different syntactic structures. For(43c), the demonstrative denotes the 3rd person subject and the iP DP is the objectargument of the transitive predicate. For (43d), the obligatory demonstrative mustdenote the knife, and forms a discontinuous DP constituent with the final oblique-marked nominal t n? ?km@n. The demonstrative and oblique-marked nominal trans-parently form a constituent in (43e).32 Evidence for this analysis comes from thefact that without the initial demonstrative in (43d), the sentence is ungrammatical,while the demonstrative in (43c) is optional, given an anaphoric subject. (43c-43e)therefore have DP object arguments.4.4.9 SummaryThe main factors determining whether a nominal is introduced by the determineriP, the oblique marker t, or both, are the selectional properties of the main predi-cate.33 The somewhat simplified picture is that iP introduces subjects of both tran-sitives and intransitives, and transitive objects, while t introduces passive agents,intransitive quasi-objects, and other temporal adjuncts (N. Mattina 1996b). Theco-occurrence of iP and t is only possible in a restricted set of grammatical con-texts (cf. 32). The basic distribution of the determiner iP and the oblique markert across the major grammatical and thematic relations is shown below in Table 1,with cross-referencing to relevant examples.34It is important to keep in mind that the oblique marker t appears to have (at32The exact difference between a demonstrative-associated oblique NP and a demonstrative-associated iP DP is elusive, but becomes important in the chapter 8. I assume that the demonstrativein (43d) is undergoing proclisis, similar to the enclisis process documented for Lillooet demonstra-tives (Davis, 2010c).33N. Mattina (2002, 20) makes the same point for Moses-Columbian, stating that ?determinerchoice is dictated by the clause head?.34The determiner iP is represented in parentheses in table 4.1 since it is not present for propername passive agents, or locative adjuncts. It seems to be optional in some cases for instrumentaladjuncts for reasons I cannot yet determine.97Table 4.1: Distribution of iP and t across Grammatical Categories1 Subjects iP - ex. 17-182 Core objects iP - ex. 19-203 Quasi-objects - t ex. 19-204 Benefactive Applicative Theme - t ex. 375 Possessional Applicative Theme iP - ex. 386 Possessor Patients iP - ex. 397 Passive Agents (iP) t ex. 31a,b8 Instrumental adjuncts (iP) t ex. 31c9 Temporal adjuncts - t ex. 4110 Locative adjuncts (iP) { ?kl, l, tl} ex. 32least) two functions: (i) it case-marks a nominal as an oblique argument (e.g. 20a);(ii) it links a nominal head to an attributive modifier (e.g. 3a).I now discuss the internal syntactic structure of Okanagan DPs.4.5 Internal Structure of DP(and other Nominal Projections)In this section I weigh evidence for three possible structural analyses of OkanaganDPs, and associated super-structure. The major challenge here is to account forthe determiner-oblique/locative ordering characteristic of Southern Interior Salish.The three hypotheses are as follows:a. The KP hypothesis holds that oblique and locative markers are case-marking(K) heads which are base generated internal to DP, i.e. in their surface po-sition.b. The PP hypothesis holds that oblique and locative markers are prepo-sitional heads, and undergo a surface-level prosodic inversion (Halpern,1995) with D.c. The headless relative hypothesis holds that the determiner forms a con-98stituent with a null NP, and that this constituent is an underlying argumentof a PP or KP predicate.Deciding which of these possibilities accurately refects the syntactic structureof Okanagan DPs is a complicated issue. I discuss some of the problems below,before settling on an analysis which posits (a) for certain Okanagan nominal pro-jections, and (b) for others.4.5.1 iP Occurs in D PositionAll three hypotheses depend on an important point: I claim that iP belongs to thefunctional category D. This claim is supported by the following points.First of all, iP is probably historically cognate with the referential determinerGe in Shuswap (Northern Interior Salish) (Henry Davis, p.c. 2012), which has beenanalyzed as a determiner that occurs in D position (Gardiner, 1996).Secondly, the semantic behavior of iP resembles more closely the so-called?strong? determiners of better-studied languages like English and Italian (cf. forexample Zamparelli (1995)) than any other element in Okanagan, and also includesas a subset of its interpretive possibilities the wide-scope readings characteristic ofassertion-of-existence DPs in Lillooet (Matthewson, 1998, 2001) (see chapter 5),both of which support the conclusion that if Okanagan has a D determiner at all, itmust be iP.Thirdly, as data in this chapter have shown, iP is necessary for converting apredicate nominal into an argument (Longobardi, 1994).4.5.2 Three HypothesesUnder the simplest analysis, iP is a D-head which selects for an NP complement(Figure 4.1). But recall that oblique and locative markers occur between the deter-miner and its NP complement, which may be evidence for a DP-internal functionalprojection for Okanagan (and other languages of the Southern Interior), a ?Casephrase? of sorts (Kroeber, 1986).35 I refer to this hypothesis as the case phrase KP35Bittner and Hale (1996) posit a case phrase (KP) as the nominal equivalent of CP in the verbaldomain. They assume that K selects a DP for an argument, similar to a preposition, rather than theother way around, which must be the case for Okanagan under this analysis.99hypothesis (Figure 4.2).Figure 4.1: Okanagan iP DPDPDiPNPNylm?xw@m?the chief?Figure 4.2: The KP hypothesisDPDiPKPKtNPNylm?xw@m?by the chief?The oblique marked DP structure in Figure 4.2 represents a passive agent orinstrumental adjunct under the KP analysis. If we remove the D shell in Figure4.2, what remains is a KP, which is the category of an oblique marked quasi-objectof a formally intransitive predicate. Analyzing quasi-objects as structurally lesscomplex than DP is consistent with their non-referential semantics (Gillon, 2009b).A theory-internal problem concerning case-assignment arises from this analysis,however: Normally, a case-marker will assign case to the head of its complementphrase, but in Figure 4.2, case-assignment must occur in an ?upwards? fashion.For cases where a locative marker occurs to the right of a determiner (cf. Figure4.2), an alternative analysis may be motivated: a late-stage, prosodic inversion ofthe two particles (Halpern, 1995).36 This second hypothesis assumes a PP structure(PP hypothesis), as in Figure 4.3, and has the benefit of resolving the problem ofcase-assignment which the KP hypothesis faces.36It is important to note that the proto-Salish ordering was almost certainly preposition-initial(Kroeber, 1999), which implies that the Southern Interior innovated the modern surface order. Su-perficially similar observations may be made for the ordering of absolutive pronominal pro-cliticswith respect to specific complementizers. E.g. the 1st singular absolutive pro-clitic kn occurs be-fore the temporal complementizer ?(aP), but after other complementizers like kwaP ?because? or mi?future.? Whether or not this case can also be explained by a late-stage inversion is unclear.100Figure 4.3: The PP Hypothesis and Prosodic Inversion: ?towards the chief?[ ?kl [iP ylm?xw@m DP] PP] =? [iP ?kl-[ylm?xw@m DP]PP]LOC DET chief DET LOC chiefThe prosodic inversion represented in Figure 4.3 assumes that the oblique andlocative particles in Okanagan are syntactically Ps, but that Okanagan Ps are pro-clitics which require a prosodic word as a host, and that nouns, but not iP deter-miners, are prosodic words. A preposition like ?kl will therefore move to the rightof iP in order to attach to an NP host.37Support for the PP hypothesis comes from the fact that these locative struc-tures may function syntactically as predicates (44) (Kroeber, 1999, 61), and thatsemantically they denote properties of individuals.38 In (44a) for example, iP ?kls@n ?kQ?wm@n ?at the church? may be analyzed as denoting the set of individualsthat stand in a particular spatial relation to the church, and in (44b), iP l n ?kmqni?xwmay be analyzed as denoting the set of individuals ?on the roof?, which serves torestrict the main clause predicate x?wayqn ?to pile?.(44) a. JohnJohn(iP)(DET)?klLOCs@n- ?kQ?w-m@n.LOC-pray-INSTRJohn is at the church.b. x?wayqnpileiPDETsmi ?kwtsnowiPDETlLOCn- ?km-qn-i?xw.n- ?km-head-houseThe snow piled on the roof.37This would then technically be a case of ?host-splitting?, where iP is separating the prepositionfrom its host, and assumes that /iP NP/ does not form a prosodic word.38Kroeber (1999, 62) notes that PPs can be predicates in only some Salish languages, and thattheir distribution is different than that of nominal and verbal predicates. In Okanagan, too, PPs arenot always acceptable as main clause predicates: examples like (44a) below are not consistentlyjudged grammatical, regardless of the presence or absence of a determiner. It remains unclear whythis should be the case, or why there should be speaker variation with regards to the acceptabilityof locative phrase predicates. Under Baker?s (2003) analysis, Ps are fundamentally functional ratherthan lexical categories, but ?intrude? into the lexical category domain in some languages. The Salishpattern would certainly be consistent with his view. In any case, locative phrases are marginallyacceptable as predicates in Okanagan.101Note that the determiner in locative phrases is not always present (cf. 44a). Assuch, it is worthwhile considering whether or not the apparent optionality of thedeterminer is syntactically significant: i.e. the possibility that with the determiner,a locative phrase is a DP, while without, it is a PP where P selects directly for an NP.This brings us to the third hypothesis, which saves the interpretation of the locativephrase under a KP analysis, and potentially, the KP analysis itself. The analysisinvolves treating locative phrases with overt determiners as headless relative clauseDPs (cf. section 4.3 above, and chapter 6). This possibility is represented below asFigure (4.4).Figure 4.4: The Headless Relative HypothesisDPDiPNPNPNCPSpecDPiDiPNPpro jC?CPredPDPtiPred?PredKPK?klNPNs@n ?kQ?wm@n.?the (one who is) at the church?In Figure 4.4, the initial iP determiner is introducing a null NP, which is itselfmodified by a non-verbal predicational relative clause. A double-determiner filter(Davis, 2010a) ensures that only one of the determiners is actually pronounced.The headless relative analysis potentially explains (44a) under an equative inter-102pretation (i.e. John is the one who is at the church),39 but does not explain (44b),since the locative phrase in this case cannot stand in an equative relation with anyother constituent. Thus, the headless relative hypothesis cannot account for all oc-currences of locative phrases with overt determiners, and it is simpler to assume thePP hypothesis for locative phrases, regardless of whether the determiner is present.One potential drawback of the PP hypothesis is as follows: if we assume thatthe case-marker t always occurs in P position, and that P always selects for aDP complement, then there must be a null determiner introducing quasi-objects.However, there is little evidence for a null determiner, and in fact, there is cross-linguistic evidence from Lillooet Salish against positing a null determiner in thecontext of a quasi-object. The semantic interpretations of Okanagan quasi-objectsindicate that if there were a null determiner present, it would be semantically vac-uous, similar to the Lillooet non-assertion-of-existence determiner kwu (Matthew-son, 1998) (cf. section 5.3.2). But Lillooet kwu DPs can occur in core argumentpositions under the scope of a transitive intensional verb (45a), while Okanaganquasi-objects cannot (45b).40(45) a. x?? ??-mi ?n-aswant-MIN.TR-3SG.ERG[kwuDETxw? ?kt@nDP].knifeHe wants a knife. (Lillooet, Henry Davis, p.c.)b. *x?mink-swant-[DIR]-3SG.ERGtOBLn? ?km@n.knifeHe wants a knife. (Okanagan)If there is a requirement in Salish that only DPs may occur in core argument posi-tions, then the discrepancy between (45a) and (45b) is at once explained by assum-ing that there is no null determiner in (45b).39If this is the case, the prediction is that with the determiner, (44) should carry an implicature ofexhaustivity, such that John is the only one who is at the church. See chapter 7.40Okanagan iP DPs subsume all the interpretations of determinerless quasi-objects, given an ap-propriate context, whereas the interpretations allowed by Lillooet non-assertion of existence deter-miner kwu and the assertion of existence determiner ti...a are mutually exclusive.1034.5.3 AnalysisI will assume the PP hypothesis for passive agents and locative obliques, withprosodic inversion of the preposition and determiner. This approach best explainsthe predicative semantics of locative-marked DPs, the selectional restrictions onpassivized predicates, and fits nicely with the description of a semantically mean-ingful locative particle t meaning ?source? (A. Mattina 1973): t is a preposition inthese cases. For core iP DP arguments, I do not assume that there is a null-casemarking preposition selecting for the DP. For locative obliques without overt deter-miners, I do not assume that there is a null determiner, but rather that P can selectdirectly for NP.For quasi-objects of intransitive predicates, I assume the KP analysis. Thismeans that quasi-objects are structurally less complex than full DPs. The obliquemarker is a K-head for these cases.41 This analysis is consistent with a noun-incorporation analysis of quasi-objects, which I present in chapter 5.The structures I assume are as follows:Figure 4.5: Core ar-gumentDPDiPNPNylm?xw@m?the chief?Figure 4.6: Locativeadjunct with DPPPiDPDiPNPN?kli-ylm?xw@m?towards the chief?Figure 4.7: Locativeadjunct w/o DPPP?klNPNylm?xw@m?towards the chief?41In Moses-Columbian, though not in Okanagan, absolutive DPs are optionally introduced by aparticle wa (Willett, 2003). As in Okanagan however, locative markers occur to the right of determin-ers. If locative markers in Moses-Columbian undergo prosodic inversion with determiners (the PPhypothesis), but the particle wa does not (the KP hypothesis), Moses-Columbian may be argued tohave two separate case-marking positions, which lends indirect support to the argument I am makingfor Okanagan, namely, separating P from K.104Figure 4.8: Passive agent or instru-mental adjunctPPPiDPDiPNPNti-ylm?xw@m?by the chief?Figure 4.9: Quasi-objectKPKtNPNq?qxw@lx?some fish?In sum, the implication is that while locative markers are always prepositions,the oblique marker t is only a preposition when it marks a passive agent or in-strument (i.e. contexts in which an iP determiner co-occurs). When it introducesa quasi-object, it is a K-head (i.e. contexts in which an iP determiner may notco-occur).Proper names support this view of DP structure, since they occur in all envi-ronments in which an iP DP may occur and, like iP DPs, are marked oblique whenthey are passive agents (46a), yet proper names occur in none of the environmentsin which an oblique quasi-object may occur (46b). This makes sense if propernames can be prepositional objects, like other DPs, but cannot be non-referentialquasi-objects.42(46) a. TinaTinaw?k-@nt-@msee-DIR-PASStOBLIvan.IvanTina was seen by Ivan.b. *kn1SG.ABSw?k-@msee-MIDtOBLJohn.John*I saw a John.42Okanagan prepositions can select for either NP (44a, without the determiner) or DP (46a).Proper names can be predicates in certain contexts (section 4.6.2), which raises the question as towhy (46b) is ungrammatical. I suggest that while semantic incorporation requires that the incor-porated constituent be of type <e,t> (cf. section 5.3.2), proper names are normally understood asbeing directly referential, or if they are predicates, as denoting singleton sets, which conflicts with arequirement that the incorporated noun be non-specific.105I now move on to a more detailed discussion of two other types of OkanaganDPs which are important to this dissertation: demonstratives and proper names.4.6 Other DPs: Demonstratives and Proper NamesThe distribution of iP DPs outlined in previous sections is similar to two other typesof DPs in Okanagan, demonstratives and proper names. The following subsectionsdiscuss each of these in turn.4.6.1 Demonstrative DPsThe Okanagan demonstrative system encodes spatial deictic distinctions as well asmovement of a referent relative to the speaker (Table 4.2). Demonstratives can bedivided into ?simple? individual-denoting demonstratives, and predicative demon-strative adverbials.43 I will limit my discussion largely to the simple demonstra-tives, since these will be analyzed as DPs.Table 4.2: Demonstratives in Okanagan, A. Mattina (1973)SimpleDemonstrativesDemonstrative AdverbsLocation Source DirectionFromDirectionToProximal ax?P al?P at?P atl?P a ?kl?PDistal ix?P il?P it?P itl?P i ?kl?PThe demonstrative adverbs are transparently related to the prepositions l ?at?, t?source?, tl ?from?, and ?kl ?to/towards? (A. Mattina 1973).44The Okanagan simple demonstratives ax?P ?this? and ix?P ?that? are not lim-ited to referring to inanimate, or non-human objects. They can easily refer to asentient, contextually relevant human subject.45 Simple demonstratives function43It is worthwhile to note that while i ?kl?P is classified here as an adverbial demonstrative, it issometimes used as a simple demonstrative by speakers of the Upper Nicola dialect.44There is no particle x corresponding to the simple demonstratives.45Unlike the case for Thompson xeP ?that? (Koch, 2008a, 273).106as arguments for a wide range of predicates, including adjectival (47a,b), locative(47c), verbal intransitive (47d), transitive (47e,f), and nominal (47g) predicates.Argument demonstratives may either follow (47) or precede (48) their predicates.46The distribution of these demonstratives is the same as that of iP DPs, as alreadydiscussed.(47) a. p@x?p?x?tsmartix?P.DEMThat one is smart.b. ?t@xtsweetix?P.DEMIt is sweet.c. ?klLOCs@n- ?kQ?w-m@nLOC-pray-INSTRix?P.DEMHe is at church.d. c-q?c@lxCUST-runix?P.DEMHe is running.e. P??-@neat-[DIR]-1SG.ERGix?P.DEMI ate that.f. paP-nt-?sfold-DIR-3SG.ERGix?P.DEMHe/she folded it.g. ?q@ ?y-m?nwrite-INSTRax?PDEMThis is a book.46In Kalispel, the demonstrative i?e (cognate with Okanagan ix?P) cannot follow a lexical pred-icate, as in Okanagan (47) below. Sally Thomason (p.c.) indicates that i?e seems to function as adiscourse particle, and so this might explain its restriction to pre-predicative positions.107(48) a. ix?PDEMp@x?p?x?t.smartThat one is smart.b. ix?PDEM?t@xt.sweetIt is sweet.c. ix?PDEM?klLOCs@n- ?kQ?w-m@n.LOC-pray-INSTRHe is at church.d. ix?PDEMc-q?c@lx.CUST-runHe runs.e. ix?PDEMP??@n.eat(INTR)He?s eating.f. ix?PDEMpaP-nt-?s.fold-DIR-3SG.ERGHe/she folded it.g. ax?PDEM?q@ ?y-m?n.write-INSTRThis is a book.Examples (49-52) below serve to emphasize the similar distribution of simpledemonstratives and nominal iP DPs, in both object (49-51) and subject (52) po-sitions.(49) a. iPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girl?c? ?m-qs-@ssuck.nose-[DIR]-3SG.ERGix?P.DEMThe girl kissed him.b. iPDETx?xwt@mlittle.girl?c? ?m-qs-@ssuck-nose-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETt@tw?t.boyThe girl kissed the boy.108(50) a. paP-nt-?sfold-DIR-3SG.ERGix?P.DEMHe folded it.b. paP-nt-?sfold-DIR-3SG.ERGiPDET?q@ ?y-m?n.write-INSTRHe folded the paper.(51) a. s? ?q-@nsplit-[DIR]-1SG.ERGix?P.DEMI split this.b. s? ?q-@nsplit-[DIR]-1SG.ERGiPDETsli ?p.firewoodI split the firewood.(52) a. ix?PDEMs?ws(t)-@sdrink-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETsiw?kw.waterHe is drinking water.b. iPDETsq@ltm?xwmans?ws(t)-@sdrink-[DIR]-3SG.ERGiPDETsiw?kw.waterThe man is drinking the water.Simple demonstratives, like iP DPs, function as direct arguments of adverbialdemonstratives like i ?kliP ?over there? (53,54):(53) a. i ?kl?PDEMix?P.DEMIt (e.g. the cup) is over there.b. ix?PDEMi ?kl?P.DEMIt (e.g. the cup) is over there.(54) a. i ?kl?PDEMiPDETsqwsiP-s.son-3SG.POSSHis son is over there.109b. iPDETsqwsiP-sson-3SG.POSSi ?kl?P.DEMHis son is over there.Since demonstratives pattern with iP DPs, I assume that they are a type of DP,but it is important to note that demonstratives may also associate with an iP DP,as in other Interior Salish languages (Matthewson and Davis (1995), Matthewson(1998), Kroeber (1999), N. Mattina (2006)), and form DP constituents with theirassociated iP DPs (55).47,48(55) a. kaPk?c-@nfind-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[ax?PDEMiPDETsqla ?w DP].moneyI found this money.b. w?k-@nsee-[DIR]-1SG.ERG[ix?PDEMiPDETylm?xw@m DP].chiefI saw that chief.The demonstratives in (55) are analogous to English uses of demonstratives asdeictic determiners, except that in Okanagan, the demonstrative cannot be analyzedas a determiner because it co-occurs with the determiner iP, and demonstrativescannot replace determiners (56a-57a).49(56) a. *kw?n-(n)ttake-DIRax?PDEM?p?kwlaP.ballTake this ball.47Demonstrative adverbs may also associate with an iP DP.48N. Mattina (2006, 105) claims that Moses-Columbian DP-adjacent demonstratives are best ana-lyzed as intransitive predicate demonstratives. She states that because they do not occur within a DP(i.e. inside of a determiner), they are not attached to a DP, but does not discuss the possibility thatthey might occur in a specifier position, or possibly adjoined to DP (see discussion below).49Although in fast speech, the iP determiner is sometimes difficult to hear after a demonstrativebecause of the segmental identity between the second syllable of a demonstrative and the determineritself, but the fact that they can co-occur is any case sufficient evidence for a non-D analysis of sim-ple demonstratives in Okanagan. Determiners are much more regularly dropped in other languagesof the Southern Interior, and in Moses-Columbian, for example, N. Mattina (2006) rules out mor-phophonological reasons for missing determiners, and so it is less clear what the syntactic status ofdemonstratives is for Moses-Columbian in cases where a determiner is not apparent.110b. kw?n-(n)ttake-DIRax?PDEMiPDET?p?kwlaP.ballTake this ball.(57) a. *ax?PDEM?ti ?kwtlakex?astgoodtATTRs@n-caQ-cQ?-lx-t@n.LOC-bathe-RED-body-INSTRThis lake is a good place to swim.b. ax?PDEMiPDET?ti ?kwtlakex?astgoodtATTRs@n-caQ-cQ?-lx-t@n.LOC-bathe-RED-body-INSTRThis lake is a good place to swim.The distributional evidence thus suggests that demonstratives cannot be analyzedas occurring in D position, unlike iP.It is also important to note that a demonstrative cannot associate with a quasi-object of a morphologically intransitive predicate (58).50(58) a. *kn1SG.ABSx?m?nk-@mwant-MID(*ix?P)DEMtOBLn? ?k-m@n.cut-INSTRI want that knife.b. *kn1SG.ABSw?k-@msee-MID(*ix?P)DEMtOBLsq@ltm?xw.manI saw that man.The reason for this restriction is that middle intransitiv