Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

On the classification of predicates in Nłe?képmx (Thompson River Salish) Howett, Catherine Dawn 1993

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0087.pdf [ 1.37MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087429.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087429-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087429-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087429-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087429-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087429-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087429-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

On The Classification of Predicates in N+e’?képmx (Thompson River Salish) by Catherine Dawn Howett B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Linguistics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1993 © Catherine Dawn Howett, 1993  In  presenting  this thesis  in  partial fulfilment of the requirements for degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  an  advanced  shall make it for extensive head of my copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  -Z3I773  ABSTRACT In this thesis I discuss the semantic basis of the morphological form of predicates in N+e?képmx, a Northern Interior Salish language. Intransitive and transitive use of roots in Nle7képmx is morphologically marked; intransitives use a set of primary affixes and transitives use a set of transitivizers. I document the behavior of these morpho syntactic affixes with a subset of the predicates of Me?képmx to determine what is optional, what is obligatory and what is blocked. I link this to an analysis of argument structure of predicates and subsequently create a classification of predicate types. I present an overview of the intransitive and transitive morphology of Meképmx in Chapter One. In Chapter Two I discuss current literature regarding the syntactic and semantic diagnostics of unaccusative and unergative verbs.  I create a semantic  classification of the set of roots, and discuss the behavior of roots with morpho-syntactic affixes to determine the diagnostic potential of the affixes. In Chapter Three I discuss the potential of an intransitive-transitive classification of roots. The data show that there is an unergative and unaccusative distinction in the language, specific aspectual morpho-syntactic diagnostics distinguish unaccusatives and causative and desiderative distinguish unergatives. The traditional analyses of Salish languages as having a majority of unaccusative roots and no underlying transitives is confirmed.  —  11  —  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  11  Table of Contents List of Tables  111 V  .  Acknowledgements  vi  Dedication  vii  Introduction  .1  Chapter One  Overview of N+e?képmx Morphology The Pronominal System Simple Intransitive Predicates Primary Affixes Transitive Predicates Transitivizing Suffixes Complex Intransitives: Reflexives and Reciprocals Re-transitivized Predicates Discussion  4 6 8 10 16 16 19 20 21  Chapter Two  Intransitive Forms of N4-e’?képmx Roots Introduction Unaccusative and Unergative Intransitives Semantic Features of N+e’?képmx Roots and the Notion of Control Preliminary Semantic Classification of Intransitive Roots Free Forms Bound Forms Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics Middle Autonomous Inchoative Immediate Stative Out-of-Control Desiderative Causative Discussion  23 23 24  —  in  —  27 30 30 32 34 34 38 39 41 42 44 46 50 54  Chapter Three  Chapter Four  Transitive Forms of Roots Introduction A Preliminary Semantic Grouping for a Transitive/Intransitive Distinction Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics Directive Indirective Causative Relational Discussion  62 62  Conclusions and Future Work  81 85  Bibliography Appendix 1 Appendix 2  63 65 65 70 74 74 76  89 92  Free Form Roots Control Roots  -  iv  -  LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Personal Pronominal Markers Table 2: Template for Simple Intransitive Predicates  9  Table 3: Template for Transitive Predicates  16  Table 4: Template for Complex Intransitives  19  Table 5: Template for Re-transitivized Forms  20  Table 6: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Free Roots  31  Table 7: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Bound Roots  33  Table 8: Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics of Unaccusativity/lJnergativity  56  .  Table 9: Semantic Classification of Roots  59  Table 10: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Transitive/Intransitive: Free Roots  64  Table 11: Morpho-syntactic Behavior of Unergative Roots  78  Table 12: Morpho-syntactic Behavior of Unaccusative Roots  79  Table 13: Morpho-syntactic Behavior of Miscellaneous Roots  80  -v  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my language consultant Dorothy Ursaki for her time, expertise and friendship. I wish to thank my thesis advisor M. Dale Kinkade, from whom I have learned a great deal over the years; and my committee member Henry Davis whose input, encouragement and perserverence are much appreciated. During the time it took to complete this work I have had the pleasure of working for and learning from Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins. I have benefited a great deal from her knowledge of Columbian Salish and from her support. I wish also to acknowledge an exceptional group of family, friends and caregivers, without whom this thesis could not have been completed.  Most of all, I thank my  husband Don and my daughter Hana who are my joy and inspiration. Last but not least, thanks to that Bear of Very Little Brain, who articulated the lot of all graduate students; that when “you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out in the open and has other people looking at it.” (A.A. Mime).  -vi-  DEDICATION  For Dorothy Ursaki,  Laurence C. Thompson and M. Terry Thompson,  and the brown-eyed girls Hana and Amy  -  vii  -  INTRODUCTION N4-e?képmx (also known as Thompson River Salish, or Thompson in the linguistic literature) is a Northern Interior Salish Language spoken in an area of British Columbia bounded by the communities of Spuzzum, Lytton, Merritt and Kamloops. Comprehensive documentation and initial theoretical work has been done on Me’?képmx by Laurence C. and M. Terry Thompson working primarily in conjunction with the late Annie York of Spuzzum (Thompson and Thompson 1980, Thompson 1985, Thompson and Thompson 1992).  Other published work includes an analysis of  narratives and other work on discourse by Steven M. Egesdal (Egesdal 1992), a comparative study of subordination in Salish that includes N4-e7képmx data, and other work by Paul D. Kroeber (Kroeber 1991). Continuing work on prosodic phenomena is being done by Mandy Jimmie (Jimmie, to appear). At the local level, the language is being taught in an adult Basic Education class in Lytton by Mamie Henry (Mestanta Technical Institute), and in Merritt by Mandy Jimmie (Secwépcmc Centre). A book of stories and biographical information has been compiled by Darwin Hanna (Hanna to appear). This work is based on data from a number of sources produced by Thompson and Thompson: a grammar ‘The Thompson Language’ (1992), drafts of a Thompson English dictionary (1979 and 1990) and an English-Thompson list (1987), and a text “Push-Back-Sides-of-His-Hair”  (1990).  These  materials  were  supplemented  by  consultation with Dorothy Ursaki (originally of Spences Bridge and now of New Westminister henceforth DU). The database under discussion is therefore characteristic -  -1-  largely of the Spuzzum and Spences Bridge dialects. This work has benefitted from additional discussions with Mandy Jimmie and Nora Jimmie of Merritt (Field Methods, University of British Columbia (1987-88)), and Beatrice Hanna of Langley (originally of Lytton). The focus of this thesis is a discussion of the semantic basis of transitivity alternations in N4-e?képmx. Intransitive and transitive use of roots in N4’e?képmx is morphologically marked; most intransitives use a set of primary affixes, and virtually all transitives use a set of transitive extensions in combination with a transitive morpheme. Roots do not take all possible intransitive and transitive derivational affixation. The purpose of this work is to document which derivational affixes are allowed with a set of predicates to determine what is optional, what is obligatory, and what is blocked. It will then be determined whether this can be linked in a principled way to an analysis of the argument structure of predicates. This will lead to a classification of predicate types. In Chapter One, I present an overview of the intransitive and transitive morphology of N+e?képmx. Chapter Two contains a discussion of current literature regarding syntactic and semantic diagnostics of unaccusative and unergative verbs. I apply the semantic diagnostics to a set of N4-e?képmx roots, and discuss the behavior of roots with a set of morpho-syntactic diagnostics to determine if they can elucidate underlying structure. N+e?képmx signals changes in event structure by adding morphology. I assume that argument structure can be derived from an interaction between the Thematic Hierarchy and an Aspectual/Causal Hierarchy. The thematic structure of a root is invariant, but there can be multiple event-structure possibilities for  -2-  a given thematic structure. The argument structure determines which argument fills deep structure object and deep structure subject. In Chapter Three I discuss the potential of an intransitive/transitive classification of roots in N+e?képmx. Chapter Four contains conclusions and recommendations for future work. My primary set of data is the subset of roots in N+e’?képmx that can appear as free form intransitives in a main sentence. This group of roots cross-cuts the broad semantic categories found in the literature. I document the morpho-syntactic processes available to this subset of roots and compare the behavior of a set of bound roots.  -3-  CHAPTER ONE 1.0 Overview of N{e’?képmx Morphology N+e?képmx’ (henceforth N+) words are created using a lexicon of roots, lexical suffixes and a finite set of derivational affixes and pronominal affixes. Thompson and Thompson (1990, 1992)2 have documented aproximately 2000 of the roots in Nl. Roots are the content morphemes of the language expressing concepts, processes, events, and states. They are comparable to English nouns and verbs. However, it is important to note that in Salish languages there is no clear consensus of a noun-verb distinction corresponding to the distinction found in English (Kuipers 1968, Kinkade 1983, Demers and Jelinek 1984, Hess and van Eijk 1985, Thompson and Thompson  1. N/+e?kép=mx is the native term for the language in use in the Lytton-Spences Bridge area (Darwin Hanna pc). Thompson and Thompson (1992) note that there is no single term that encompasses the entire speech community, “although ni-e?képmx is sometimes extended for that purpose”. The term “designates the people of the central part of the territory” (Thompson and Thompson 1992:1). The prefix n- is a locative, =mx is a lexical suffix meaning ‘people’. The stem is “etymologically obscure” (Thompson & Thompson 1992:1) 2. Because much of the data I am using is from these existing sources, for the sake of uniformity I use the phonemic transcription, parsing strategies and set of morphological markings laid out in Thompson and Thompson (1992). Language materials in use at band schools in Lytton and a forthcoming collection of stories use a phonemically based spelling system created by Randy Bouchard. Thompson and Thompson (1992:197-198) contains a table comparing the two spelling systems. For reference, the core set of the Thompson’s morphological markings is reproduced here. In a complex form in N4-e?kepmx, Marker denotes a(n) infix underlying root surface stem of a root / non-reduplicating suffix reduplicating suffix = lexical suffix (lexical forms incorporated into the stein/base) A double set of markers (-= or --) signifies secondary derivation. Thompson and Thompson (1990, 1992) use [...J in the gloss to mark explanatory material such as context, and (...) to denote optional material, usually an implied object.  [...]  -4-  1992). A more neutral term for the discussion of lexical forms in N+ is predicate. 3 can be used to create predicates. The majority of roots express All roots actions, events or states. With the exception of the small set of seventy-four free form 4 (see Appendix 1) which have a main intransitive form without affixation (but roots allow stative and out of control affixes), roots require primary affixation to create simple intransitives.  All roots combine with the set of derivational transitivizers to create  transitive predicates. 5 Reciprocal and reflexive forms are complex intransitives that are  3. Throughout this work I will use /CVC- to denote a bound root. Free forms and surface derived forms will have no marking on them. The following Thompson and Thompson (1992) set of abbreviations for morpheme glosses is used: MDL middle suffix RLT relational inchoative INC stative ST AUT autonomous LCL locative DRV directive NOM nominalizer CAU causative Where the underlying form of transitivizers and pronominal affixes is masked by phonological processes and third person is a zero morph (Section 1.2) the surface breakdown of forms does not always conform to a morpheme by morpheme gloss. Rather than use zero morphemes in the transcription I employ the combinations 3\3, 3\lsg. lsg\2p1 etc. to designate what pronominal object and subject are. 4. There is a set of forms that I consider more nominal, which brings the number of free forms up to aproximately one hundred of the two thousand items documented in the database. I will deal with a subset of free forms. This set is comprised of the forms that were known to Dorothy Ursaki and accepted as free form intransitives. 5. There are phonological processes that mask the underlying forms of affixes. This is especially relevant in the case of transitive predicates which contain concatenations of the transitivizers (directive -n-t-, indirective -xi-t-, causative -s-t-, and relational -min-t-) and pronominal affixes. In these combinations, the loss of vowels in unstressed syllables leads to the loss of the transitive morpheme /-t! or to the simplification of resultant clusters, and to effects on the I-ni of the directive and relational suffixes. For the purposes of this discussion it is important to note that in general, t --> 0  ts cs  --> -->  n,n’,f _n,s,x”  c c  tt -->  and  continued  -5-  formed on transitive stems. There are roots that have limited productivity. For example, forms such as qwzem ‘moss’ and tirix ‘sinew’ allow only a minimal number of derived (nominal) forms. There is no consistent morphological means of distinguishing between nominals and predicate in NI. 6 These more nominal forms will not be discussed in detail in this work. 1.1 The Pronominal System Salish languages can be described as pronominal argument languages (Jelinek 1984, 1985). Predicates are complex forms with obligatory affixal or clitic marking of verbal arguments. Nominals corresponding to the verbal argument suffixes are optional. Adjoining nominals can be marked as direct, oblique or locative. 8 Although there is much variation, preferred word order is VOS (Kinkade 1990: 341, Matthewson 1993: 23). In NI, intransitive forms mark a single argument, although often a second is implied. A nominal corresponding to subject is marked with the direct marker Ie/ or /1/, an implied object (unmarked on the predicate) is marked with the oblique marker /te/  n  -->  0  n  -->  e ne  -->  m,m’_ s,t x before a homorganic obstruent (Thompson & Thompson 1992:35-43)  See Thompson & Thompson (1992) for a more complete overview of phonological processes. 6. One means of distinguishing nominals from predicates is that all nominals require a middle affix to form an active predicate, whereas not all active and stative roots do. 7. See Mattina (1993) for another point of view. 8. Locatives will not be discussed in this work.  -6-  or /Ic’e/, as in 1-2: 1.  qWc.c  e  tmIxW  fmoveOC 3 DIR earth It is an earthquake  2.  k’á+-t kn t c’Ik’ fsticky-IM lsg OBL pitch I got stuck up with pitch  Transitives mark two arguments, which surface as syntactic subject and object. Both are marked with a direct marker, as can be seen in examples 3 and 4. 3.  q’áy’-e-s e slnük”e?-s shoot-DRV-O-3\3 DIR NOM!friend-3psv he shot his friend  4.  n/kn’-cém-s e qWu? LOC-fpoison-DRV\lob-3 DIR water the water poisoned me  Ditransitive predicates are associated with two objects, one of which is not overtly marked on the predicate. Direct marks what in English glosses would correspond to the indirect object, as in examples 5 through 7:  5.  q”ec’-ne t s/+a?x=áns ffi11-3\1sg OBL NOM-/eat I filled him up with food  6.  u?ex pték”’+-xo-ne t s/pték+-s NOM/story-3psv. AUX ..fstory-IND-3\lsg OBL I am telling it for him, his story (347c)  7.  má-x-t-x” e smü+ec t s-/zélt-s %fsmash-IND-2sg. DIR woman OBL NOM-/dish-3psv. you smashed the woman’s dish  This is a characteristic of all Salish languages (Mattina 1993). The N4- system of pronominal affixation can express a maximum of two arguments on the predicate. Intransitives in simple (main) clauses are marked by the use of indicative enclitics to mark person and number of the single argument (Example 2). -7-  Transitives and ditransitives utilize sets of distinct subject and object suffixes in VOS order (Examples 3 through 7). There is a separate set of suffixes that mark indefinite subjects, in what have been termed ‘passive’ or ‘indefinite’ forms, used in conjunction with the regular set of object affixes. There is also a set of genitive/possessive pronominal markers used with nominals and to express arguments of predicates in nominalized subordinate clauses. The pronominal paradigms relevant to the discussion are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Personal Pronominal Markers Intransitive Clitics (Indicative)  Transitive Suffixes Object  Subject  Indefinite Subject  -sém -sey!  -(é)ne/-n  -séy-me -si-me  Sg. 1.  kn  -Si  Ic”  -s(I)  (e)xw  1.  kt  -éy! -i -(e)t  -em -i-t  -éy-t  2.  kp  -Cym/-im  -(e)p -im-et  -Cym-et,  0  0  -(e)s, -es  -0-(é)m  2. P1.  Gen 3.  (Thompson 1985:407)  1.2 Simple Intransitive Predicates The majority of roots in NI- are bound forms (Examples 1-4, 5, and 7) that never surface in unsuffixed form. Only a minimal set of the 1800-2000 roots documented by  -8-  Thompson and Thompson (1990, 1992) are free form intransitives. The basic template for intransitive bases and primary/secondary affixation 9 in N4 is presented in the following table, along with relevant examples. Material in parentheses is optional. Table 2: Template for Simple Intransitive Predicates (PREFIX)-[fROOT( REDUP.) = (LEXTCALSUFFIX)]stem(1/2 AFFIXATION) ?esstative (ST)  VC out-of-control (OC)  -op/[-?-]’° inchoative (INC) -t  -mémn desiderative (DESID)  immediate (TM) -yx autonomous (AUT) -ome middle (MDL)  Examples of Simple Intransitive Predicates STATIVE 8. ?es-péw-t STsJwell.up-IM swollen OUT OF CONTROL 9. ?e qwaz.zb ANT %fsweatOC 1s I might sweat (342C)hl INCHOATIVE 10. n-p fshiver-INC shiver, feel cold, chilly  9. I discuss only a subset of affixes that create intransitive forms in Ni-. These are the most relevant to the discussion because their use is regular and they are common in the data. There are a number of other aspectual affixes but examples of their use is limited, although they are productive. See Thompson and Thompson (1992) for a complete overview. 10. The alternates for Inchoative distinguish between strong (stressed) roots I-?-! and weak (unstressed) roots I-op/. Because glottalization in Ni- can come from a number of sources, my discussion of inchoative will focus primarily on forms created from weak roots with the suffix /-op/, although see Section 2.53 for some examples with I-?-!. 11. Examples that have numbers in parentheses are elicitation forms from DU. The number refers to their listing in my field notes. Examples from other consultants have initials. ‘Sf stands for suggested form.  -9-  IMMEDIATE 11. pdw-t Jswell.up-IM swell up, swollen AUTONOMOUS 12. pdw-ix %fswell.up-AUT [of snake, toad] puff up, swell up MIDDLE ?á?e-me 13. ..Jlullaby-MDL sing lullaby FREE FORM xVesit kn 14. fwalk  I walked (221)  DESIDERATIVE 15.  x”’esit-mémn icu Iwalk-DESID lsg I want to walk  1.2.1 Primary Affixes This section deals with the most productive and common subset of the aspectual and other affixes that create intransitive forms in NI. These are primary affixes, because they affix directly to the root or to stems (created by roots and lexical suffixes)’ 2 to create intransitives. Many bound roots potentially take all primary affixes and transitivizers. Some may have a second set of transitive derivations based on a single primary affix, as illustrated below: 16. Intransitive form 16.a. k+-p fseparate-INC 3 it came apart  12. I will not discuss the nature of lexical suffixes in this work. See Thompson and Thompson (1992) for an overview of these forms. -  10  -  Transitive forms 16.b.  k+-st-és s/separate-CAU-3\3 someone separates things  16.c.  k+-p-st-és sfseparate-INC-CAU-3\3 someone manages to detach something  There is a small set of roots, as in 17, that allow only one primary affix; all other derivation is based on this base rather than on the root. 17. Intransitive forms 17.a.  ?eI?üy-m’ AFFMaugh-MDL laugh, smile  17.b.  ?eI?uy-m-ü4’ AFF/..Jlaugh-MDL-habitual always laughing  Transitive form 17.c.  ?eI?üy-m-s-c AFF/sflaugh-MDL-CAU-3/3 make someone laugh  Thompson and Thompson (1992) divides intransitive affixes into two groups reflecting aspectual function and ‘voice’ (defined as “specifying varying relationships between states and actions and their subjects (1992:99)). These can be regarded as distinguishing affixes that mark agentivity. They classify primary affixes as plus, minus, or unmarked for the feature of agent control depending upon whether they affect the agency of a root’s arguments (See Chapter Two for further discussion). Aspectual affixes are discussed as referring to static (henceforth stative) or dynamic events. Stative aspects have an emphasis on a resultant state rather than on a change of state.  -  11  -  Immediate I-ti, as shown in 18 through 20, designates states and actions that have just gone into effect, and impending states or action. It can also designate general characteristics of things. 18.  a.  19.  20.  b.  c.  7lq’-t  ?Iq’-m  Jscrape-IM  sfscrape-MDL  scraped off [hair of buckskin]  to scrape hair off deerhide  .[nIk’-  nIk’-t  nIk’-m  Jut  Jut-IM  Jèut-MDL  get cut  cut s.t.  ?ix-  ?Ix-t  fscratch/stripe  fcratch-IM  fscratch -MDL  be scratched! make scratch noise  make a stroke! stripe  Stative I?es-I designates completed actions and states where the event precipitating the change of state is more remote, as shown in 21 through 23. Statives are also used for descriptives, including permanent qualities of objects and for stating possession. 21.  22.  a.  c.  ?es!püys ST-Jkill 3 he’s been killed  Jk+-  ?es!k+ ST-..fseparate detached  %fseparate  23.  b.  ..fpuys.fkilI  fk’ük” Jburst  PÜYStXW  Jkill-TR?-3!2ag you kill him  ?es/k’ük” ST—Jburst already burst  Many free form roots can also be found with alternate intransitive forms created with stative /‘?es-/.  -  12  -  24.  25.  a.  b.  ?uiq”e?  ?es/?uq”e?  sfdrink 3 he is drinking  ST-fdrink 3 he is drunk  a.  b.  c. ?es-I?ecq”  ?ecqvt Jbake-IM (just) baked  ?écq” kn wi? sJbake lsg EMP I baked  ST-..Jbake (already) baked (410a1)  It is possible to get combinations of the stative aspects. 26.  a.  b. ?es/?Iyx”-t ST-sfpit.steam-IM it is already steamed  %fpit.steam  Inchoative I-?-! or /-p/ is one of the dynamic aspects. The two allomorphs are conditioned by root strength; I-?-! is infixed into strong roots (underlying stress) and !-p/ is suffixed to weak (no underlying stress) roots.  This affix marks a developing or  changing event that occurs without the intervention of an agent. Noises, natural phenomena, and some involuntary bodily processes are often marked by inchoative. 27.  a. Jld-Jeparate  28.  a. ..[péwswel1  b.  c.  k+-p ..fseparate-INC 3 it comes apart  ?es!k+ ST-Jeparate apart, off, detached  b.  c.  p[?]ew /swel1-INC begin to swell  péw-ix swe11-AUT [of toad] swell, puff up  Free form intransitives are not found with inchoative alternates. Middle /-Gme/ marks states and activities in which there is an agent subject. Middle forms tend to be continuing or progressive. It is the most common primary affix, and is used to create an intransitive from what would be considered nominal forms (see Appendix 1). With many middle intransitives there appears to be an implied non-specific  -  13  -  object. In other cases there is a reflexive reading. Many characteristic functions and activities of animates and objects are middle intransitives. Some examples of derivations with the middle affix are: 29.  fk+=ékst-m [separate=hand-MDL 3 he lets go (of something)  30.  Jc’k-m Ipush-MDL 3 he pushes/propels himself  31.  sfçnom .fring-MDL 3 [bellJ rings, [clock] strikes  Free form roots (with minor exceptions) do not allow middle affixation. Autonomous /-vx/ references actions controlled by a specific agent (usually + human).  It also marks lexical items related to posture and movement, and to some  inanimate states (dynamic). 32.  a. [qWec  ..fmove  b.  c.  q”c-iyx move-AUT 3 move about,  q”c c e tmIx” Jmove-OC DIR earth earthquake  set out [person]  33.  a. fied/brown  b. cáq’”-ix .fred/brown-AUT 3 [berries] turn red, ripen  Free form roots do not take autonomous affixation. Out of Control /-VC-/ indicates that an event or a state has developed without an obvious cause, spontaneously or with the intervention of an agent that is not ‘in-focus’ in the discourse. It can also have an ‘exceptional volition’ reading, where the act has taken persistence or requires a special skill on the part of the protagonist. This  -  14  -  reduplicative affix is quite productive in Salish languages (Carison and Thompson 1982). In N4 it adds to both agentive and patient-oriented roots. When it is added to strongly agentive roots, it usually results in an intransitive with an ‘exceptional volition’ agent reading. Thompson and Thompson (1992) note the significance of out-of-control creating a non-volitional patient form with some agentive roots (1992:57). I will return to this point in Chapter Two. Some forms that exemplify the split are: 34.  4a?x=án[n]s kn feat[0C] lsg (+ctl) I manage to eat (agent oriented out-of-control form)  35.  téwukn / lsg (+ctl) I get sold (something), someone sells me something (patient oriented)  The out of control affix is quite productive and is used with both bound and free form roots. A single secondary affix, desiderative /-mémn/ is presented in this work. This suffix attaches directly to roots, is not found in combination with the primary affixes, and is never used as a base for lexical suffixation. Therefore I designate this a secondary affix. As can be seen in the examples below, desiderative marking primarily creates intransitive forms with the semantics of ‘want X’. 36.  xVesitmémn kn Iwalk-DESID lsg  I want to walk (235sf)  37.  nes-mémn lcn fgo-DESID lsg  I want to go  38.  naq” 1 memn kn Jsteal-DESID lsg  I want to steal (265 sf)  These forms can be transitivized by adding the transitive I-ti or by adding causative or indirective suffixes. There are no data on relational use (see Section 2.5.7). -  15  -  1.3 Transitive Predicates Transitive predicates are created by the addition of an extension (-n- directive ,-s causative, -mm- relational, or -xi- indirective) in sequence with the transitive affix (-t- TR) to a stem.’ 3 In this work these combinations are referred to as transitivizers and can be considered to be unitary forms (i.e. (-n-t-)  =  directive). Some combinations of extensions  are possible; these are min-xit, min-st, xi-st. The two argument positions are marked by pronominal suffixes following the transitivizer. The transitivizers are listed below in Table 3. 1.3.1 Transitivizing Suffixes Table 3: Template for Transitive Predicates 4 [BASE]-(EXTENSIONS)-TRANSITIVE-OBJECT-SUBJECT’  -n -s -xi -mm -mm-s -xi-s -min-xi  DRy 15 CAU IND RLT RLT CAU IND CAU RLT IND  -t-t-t-t-t-t-t-  The formation of a directive transitive (DRV) with /-n-t-/ denotes a transitive with a subject (Agent) and a direct object (Patient/Theme). These forms usually indicate intentional punctual actions. This transitivizer is barred from attaching to some roots (for example, roots like q?ém ‘[of baby] nurse’). With other roots it forces a change in semantics (for example, zoq” ‘die’, analyzed as a patient-oriented root by Thompson and  13. There is a closed set of roots that may occur with just the transitivizer /-t-/. However, reflexive and reciprocal forms based on directive transitives of these roots often have the full extension !-n-t-I. 14. See Table 1. 15. Abbreviations will be defined below. -  16  -  Thompson (1992), becomes zoqves ‘kill something’. Some examples of roots with directive are: 39.  ?üq’’e?-ne fdrink-DR-3/lsg  I drank it (MJ24b)’ 6  40.  kWises %ffall.drop-DRV-3/3  drop something, let fall intentionally, throw down  41.  c’q”’-t-es ..fwrite-TR-3/3  he writes it [a letter]  Causative transitives (CAU) created with /-s-t-/ are the most common of the transitive predicates.  In general, in the case of roots with a clear actor in the  corresponding intransitive form, the causative transitive reads that there is someone affecting that actor. In forms where there is a non-agent in the corresponding intransitive form, the causative has an accidental causation reading, as can be seen in the forms below. Some forms allow both readings, as can be seen in examples 44a and 44b. 42.  ?üq”e?-s-t-p %[drink-CAU-O-3/2p1  you people give him something to drink (cause him to drink), give/serve drinks to someone  43.  nesstx’” Igo-CAU-3/2sg  you were able to take him along (MJ26a)  44.a.  k’’i(s)-s-c  drop something accidentally  ..ffall.drop-CAU-3/3  44.b.  k”ls-s-cm-s she caused me to fall Jfall.drop-CAU- lobj-3/3  The indirective transitivizer (IND) of the form /-xi-t-/ has also been referred to in comparative Salish literature as a benefactive or applicative (Mattina 1993, Carison 1980, Kinkade 1980, Thompson and Thompson 1980), and can be compared to the  16. MJ  =  Mandy Jimmie. -  17  -  English preposition ‘for’. It marks ditransitive predicates where the object pronoun refers to an indirect/oblique object and there is an unrealized implied object. 45.  ?üq”e?-x-c  Idrink-IND-3/3  drink a beverage belonging to someone, somebody drank some drink of yours (MJ24e)  46.  kWisxne fdrop.fall-IND-3/1  I dropped it to him (intentionally)  47.  c’q”’-xi-t-es fwrite-IND-3/3  he writes (a letter] to/for someone  Forms created with the relational transitivizer (REL) /-min-t-/ have semantics that are very hard to pin down. Thompson and Thompson describe it as refering to ‘objects toward which the subject is moving, or in relation to which the action is accomplished’ (1992:73). It provides transitives for many stems that cannot otherwise be transitivized. The meaning of predicates created with /-min-t/ are often abstract. 48.  cq’-mmn-s Ihit/throw-REL-3/3  he ran into him (NJ531)  49.  ce?x”’-mIn-s fhappy-REL-3/3  be happy to see someone, appreciate! be grateful for something (p36D)  Some combinations of transitivizers are possible. Causative occurs with indirective and relational. Relational and indirective can combine as ‘min-xit’ but not as ‘xit-min’. Combinations with directive are not allowed. 50.  nés-min-s-t-x” fgo-REL-CAU-TR-3/2sg  you were able to bring it there (MJ26b)  51.  n6s-xi-t-s-t-x” fgo-IND-CAU-3/2sg  you brought it there for him (MJ26d)’ 7  52.  ce?x”-mI-x-c fhappy-RLT-IND-TR-3!3  congratulate someone (about something), appreciate! be grateful for something  17. This form is problematic because it contains two instances of the transitivizer t and no reduction of the vowel in -xi-. -  18  -  1.4 Complex Intransitives: Reflexives and Reciprocals Reciprocals and reflexives in N+ have complex internal structure. They are lexical forms, as they are based on transitive affixes, but take the intransitive clitics to mark the (linked) single argument. The template for the structure of complex intransitives is given below in Table 4 with accompanying examples. Table 4: Template for Complex Intransitives [BASE]-(EXTENSION(S))-TRANS.-RECIP./REFL.  CLITIC  _waxw/_sut -mm -xi-  -t  -min-s-t  Examples of Reciprocal forms:’ 8 53.  be jealous  of each other  jjealous-DRV-TR-RECIP 3  54.  OkStWáXW  know each other  ..fknow-CAU-TR-RECIP 3  55.  help each other (NJ21)’ 9  zu-min-t-wáx”  ftake care of-RLT-TR-RECIP 3  56.  xc-xit-wáw’x” kt Jbet-IND-RECIP ipi  we bet for one another, placed bets for one another (14a)  57.  ?es-zu-min-s-t-wáx” .ftake care of-RLT-CAU-TR-RECIP 3  take care of/guide one another  58.  témn kas +uk”’-min-s-t-wáw’x” kp don’t you remember each other? ./hook-RLT-CAU-TR-RECIP 2pl (18d, MJ15)  18. All my examples are of reciprocals for ease of comparison. Reflexive forms are very common. See Thompson & Thompson (1992). 19. NJ  =  Nora Jimmie. -  19  -  1.4.1 Re-transitivized Predicates Reflexive and reciprocal intransitives can serve as the base for the addition of the relational and causative transitivizers. As the examples below show, causative is the most commonly used re-transitivization. There do not appear to be any re-transitivizations based on causative reflexives or reciprocals in the data base, nor could this combination be elicited. Below in Table 5 is the template of the structure of re-transitivized forms with accompanying examples. Table 5: Template for Re-transitivized Forms [BASE]-EXTENSION-TR.-RECIP. (IREF).-EXTENSION-TRANS.-OBJECT-SUBJECT _waxw -s -t -n -t wáx” -s -t -mm -t wáxw -s -t -xi -t wáx -m -t -n -t  Examples of Re-transitivized Reciprocals: 59.  )c-e-t-wáx’’-s-t-x” .,Jbet-DRV-TR-RECIP-CAU-TR-3/2sg  you bet with him  60.a  to fight each other (19a) %[fight-DRV-TR-RECIP 3  60.b  k’q”’-e-t-wáw’x”-s-cm-s Jfight-DRV-TR-RECIP-CAU-TR-1sg/3  he made us fight each other, it was his idea that I fought this person (19b)  61.  nk’-n-t-wáw’x’’-s-cm-s ,fexchange-DRV-TR-RECIP-CAU-TR-1sgJ3  that person caused me to change something with him (MJ22)  62.  ?+k”-min-t-wá’x’’-s-cm-s ,Jhook-RLT-TR-RECIP-CAU-TR- lsg/3  someone caused us to remember each other (MJ16)  Jbet-IND-TR-RECIP-CAU-TR- lpl/3  he made us bet against each other (14d)  k’q”-e-t-wáw’x”-m-t-lyxs %ffight-DRV-TR-RECIP-RLT-TR-3/3pLemph  two people fighting over one person (19c)  63. 64.  -  20  -  65.  ?nk’-n-t-wáw’x”-min-s fexchange-DRV-TR-RECIP-RLT-(TR)?-3/3  someone was able to trade/exchange a particular thing (MJ23)  There was one questionable form elicited that re-transitivized with the indirective, but this form also requires a causative. It was problematic in a number of ways: in terms of stress, in the vowel in the indirective not being reduced, and because there was no coalescence of It-si. I could not duplicate this form in elicitation with my primary consultant. 66.  nak’-n-t-wáw’x”’-xit-s-cm-s  he caused me to change something for him (MJ22a)  Re-transitivization is a productive process, but not a commonly used one. Consultants prefer to give nominalized bi-clausal forms of the type: 67.  ?exe john p+u an-s/náq” fwork PSV-NOM-tea1  my stealing was John’s work (267a)  The pronominal arguments marked on the re-transitivized forms often differ from what is expected. For example, in 60.b and 62, one might expect the object to be plural. With respect to the semantics of retransitivized forms, semantic judgements by consultants are not as clear as for plain reflexives and reciprocals. Note also that in examples 56 versus 63, reference of the indirective changes from benefactive to malefactive. 1.5 Discussion This overview of the morphology of NI- predicates raises a number of points. In the creation of intransitives there is a distinction between bound roots that require primary affixation and roots that surface as free form intransitives. The latter (with minor exceptions) do not take the majority of primary affixes (immediate, autonomous, middle, and inchoative) but specific roots do allow the stative /?es-/ and out of control affixation.  -  21  -  These points will be discussed in Chapter Two. Looking at the productivity of transitivizers it can be seen that causative and relational are different in nature from directive and indirective. Thompson and Thompson (1992) records causative as the most commonly used transitivizer. Intransitive stems (root plus primary affix) are usually transitivized with causative or relational; directive transitivization of these forms is exceptionally rare, indirective transitivizations are only slightly less so. The data from re-transitivized forms in the examples above also show causative to be generally productive. Relational has a different nature from that of causative. It is not used as regularly, although it has a greater range than directive and indirective. These points will be addressed in Chapter Three.  -  22  -  CHAPTER TWO 2.0 Intransitive Forms of N+e’?képmx Roots 2.1 Introduction In theory, the difference in productivity of the intransitive affixes in N4 can be linked to differences in underlying argument structure of lexical items. Indeed, there has been a great deal of cross-linguistic work (Perlmutter 1978, Perimutter and Rosen 1984, Grimshaw 1987, Levin and Rappaport 1989) documenting and discussing what is termed the split-intransitive hypothesis, a syntactic distinction between two classes of intransitive forms. Originally articulated as the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978) the split distinguishes between unaccusative and unergative classes of lexical items. This distinction is stated in terms of argument structure, as an unergative has a single agent argument, and an unaccusative a single patient argument. This translates into a configurational difference (unergatives have a subject generated at deep structure, unaccusatives have a deep structure direct object) that has ramifications for the syntactic behavior of these forms at the clause and sentence level. There are language-specific syntactic processes serving as diagnostics to distinguish between the two classes of intransitives. It has been noted across languages that lexical items that are recognized as unaccusative and unergative tend to separate into regular semantic classes. In this chapter I discuss the literature on semantic and syntactic diagnostics for unaccusativity with particular attention to Gerdts’ (1991) discussion of unaccusativity in Halkomelem Salish. I apply the semantic diagnostics to the set of NI- free forms to distinguish two general classes of roots that are potentially unergative and unaccusative.  -  23  -  I discuss the intransitive and transitive behavior of these roots to determine the diagnostic potential of the transitive affixes and to determine if semantic classes match with morphological marking. 2.2 Unaccusative and Unergative Intransitives Semantic diagnostics of unaccusative versus unergative predicates distinguish either agentivity (for example, actor volitionality) or inherent lexical aspect (for example, the nature of and limits on the event specified by the predicate). Languages can vary with respect to which parameter governs the split. Across languages, unergatives generally refer to lexical items of volitional action, manner of motion with protagonist control (for example ‘run’), manner of speaking and involuntary bodily processes, or atelic activities (events with no clear endpoint). The semantic classes that are associated with unaccusative are non-volitional actions, states (existing or happening), motion verbs with no inherent protagonist control (for example ‘roll’), and psychological predicates. Telic activities (events with defineable endpoints) such as verbs of motion with inherently specified direction (for example, ‘arrive’) and predicates of duration also tend to be unaccusative. (Grimshaw 1987, Levin and Rappaport 1989, Grimshaw 1990, Gerdts 1991:230)). Syntactic diagnostics of unaccusativity are processes that distinguish between unaccusatives and unergatives on the basis of their configuration. Passive is a diagnostic in some languages, as it may apply to unergatives but not to unaccusatives.  Other  syntactic diagnostics, such as auxiliary selection in Romance languages and there-insertion in English, are considered to mark unaccusativity.  -  24  -  There is however, evidence that the syntactic-semantic link is not a simple one. There is the potential for unaccusative mismatches. A syntactic mismatch means that syntactic diagnostics are actually sensitive to a specific semantic feature rather than an argument configuration based on the correspondence between a set of features. Levin and Rappaport (1989) refer to Zaenen’s (1988) discussion of Dutch, revealing that prenominal perfect participles in Dutch modify telic intransitives rather than all unaccusatives as a class. Zaenen also shows that impersonal passivization in Dutch functions to distinguish verbs with protagonist control rather than the class of unergatives. This type of result has led some researchers to consider that unaccusativity is not a unified phenomenon and therefore there is no need for a syntactic distinction between intransitives. Semantic mismatches have been discussed by Rosen (1984), who notes that across and within languages lexical items of the same semantic class can vary with respect to their unaccusative and unergative properties. For example, she finds that the verb translated as ‘die’ in Italian is unaccusative, but in Choctaw it is unergative. Within the class of bodily process roots in Italian, some exhibit unergative behavior and others unaccusative behavior. These conflicting data show that syntactic configuration cannot be universally predicted on the basis of general semantic class, and that syntactic diagnostics must be carefully chosen to ensure that they indicate the entire class of unaccusatives rather than a single semantic feature. Yet, I follow Gerdts (1991) who claims that ‘lexical semantics can serve to suggest the class of a verb, with syntactic diagnostics verifying its assignment  -  25  -  to a particular class’. Gerdts discusses Halkomelem (Coast Salish) (henceforth Hk) data with respect to two syntactic tests, desiderative and causative, that show there is some basis for proposing that the unergative/unaccusative distinction is relevant to the grammar of the language.  Gerdts considers the morphological processes of causativization to be an  indicator of Causative Clause Union, a highly constrained rule in Hk requiring the downstairs clause to be unergative. According to her analysis, desiderative morphology marks multi-predicate clauses, where the suffix marks the addition of a predicate that inherits the argument structure from the main predicate. This rule requires that the ‘cognizer’ referent of the desiderative is the subject of the main predicate. Her results show that unergatives allow both causative and desiderative constructions, while unaccusatives split into three subclasses: a group of process verbs that allow desiderative, with a shift in semantics to a ‘future’ meaning, a group of state verbs that allow causatives, with a shift in semantics to a ‘resultative’ meaning, and a group of mixed process and state verbs that allow neither of the two constructions. In the second part of the paper Gerdts presents evidence from derived statives (addition of stative morphology) and derived processes (addition of inchoative morphology). This evidence confirms her conclusions that causative and desiderative together provide a syntactic test for distinguishing unergatives and unaccusatives and that event structure plays a role in the classification of intransitive predicates in Hk. Gerdts cites Hukari (1976) as noting that ‘the overwhelming majority of Halkomelem roots are unaccusative (1991:237). Thus her data are composed of roots  -  26  -  with primary affixation that appear as surface unergatives and unaccusatives. One of the purposes of this paper is to observe the workings of causative and desiderative affixation in N4 to see if the processes are comparable to Hk. It is noteworthy that in N+ the desiderative marker is a secondary affix that adds directly to the root or to stems formed with lexical affixation. I do not consider desiderative a primary marker, because although it is in complementary distribution with the primary affixes, it does not appear inside lexical suffixes, as they do. These forms are intransitive and can be transitivized with the set of transitive affixes. In Hk, the desiderative affix forming intransitive forms is attached outside the transitive affix /-t-/. 2.3 Semantic Features of N4e?képmx Roots and the Notion of Control Thompson and Thompson (1992) consider roots in N+ to be underlyingly intransitive, with the majority being unaccusative or patient-oriented in nature. Rather than selecting a set of ‘unsystematically selected intransitive verbs that [potentially] involve suffixation’ (Gerdts 1991: 237) I have chosen as my database for this study the subset of roots that can stand as free form intransitives. I chose this set on the assumption that primary affixes might signal a change in argument structure, and therefore confuse the issue of root argument structure. This set of forms can be split into general classes according to the semantic diagnostics cited above. This analysis can be motivated using evidence from the Thompson and Thompson (1992) and Thompson (1985) analysis of the feature of control in N+. Thompson and Thompson discuss ‘patient-oriented’ and ‘agent-oriented’ roots in N using the term control to characterize roots and some derivational affixes.  -  27  -  The  distinction indicates whether the subject of a predicate is in volitional control of the action expressed by the root/stem.’ A brief summary of Thompson and Thompson (1992) and Thompson (1985) follows. The semantics of control correspond to a subject’s degree of control over an action or an event. Out-of-control entails an action that is accidental, spontaneous, accomplished after much effort, or as a result of luck. Control marking means that the subject is agent and acting with purpose or volition. Variations can specify that the subject is acting with ‘self-interest’, or have other idiomatic meanings. All roots, lexical suffixes, and grammatical affixes are either control, non-control or unmarked. Pronominal suffixes and clitics are never marked. This is therefore a lexical feature of roots and grammatical suffixes. The NI predicate with its combination of control-marked roots and affixes is marked control or non-control according to a dominance hierarchy which specifies the relative strength of the constituents. Intransitive and transitive predicates depending on the combined control status of their constituents, are either unmarked, marked for control, or marked out-of-control. The majority of roots in NI- are assumed to be non-control. Thompson and Thompson (1992) give a number of fifty control roots in NI. However, perusal of all sources found thirty one bound and free forms (see Appendix 2). The analysis of control distinguishes the workings of the agentive component (but not the aspectual element) discussed in the literature on the unaccusative/unergative distinction. In NI intransitives there is no pronominal distinction made between lexical items  1. This use of the term control is not the configurational control of Government & Binding Theory. -  28  -  classified by Thompson and Thompson (1992) and Thompson (1985) as patient-oriented and agent-oriented, as shown below: PATIENT 1. qlIlkn... %fangry lsg (patient) I was rather angry  2.  ...Iyq’ kn ffaint lsg (patient) ...I fainted [yesterday\other context] (389a)  3.  wüxWt  3 (non-agent) it is snowing (257a,370a) Jnow  AGENT 4. pték”+ kn u?ex .fnarrate lsg (agent) AUX I am telling a story (347)  5.  x”esit kt s/walk ipl (agent) we walked/travelled  6.  skew kn fyawn lsg (non-patient) I yawn (280a, 333)  To a large extent, I believe the distinction between unergative and unaccusative intransitive predicates can be associated with the distinction made between control and non-control roots, as shown in examples 1 through 6. This gives partial support to the analysis of an unaccusative/unergative distinction; what is needed is evidence that the aspectual part of the equation is also relevant in NI. I propose that the control features of roots and derivational affixes as documented in Thompson and Thompson (1992) and Thompson (1985) should be linked to agentivity, and may be subsumed into a distinction between unaccusative and unergative use of predicates. Although the two systems do not match precisely, for example involuntary bodily process roots are often non-control, and -  29  -  there is a single weather root that is marked control, it will be seen that these particular root classes do not pattern with the agentive and stative forms which make up the bulk of the data set. In the following sections I propose to use the semantic categories from the crosslinguistic literature on unaccusatives and unergatives, making special reference to Thompson and Thompson’s notion of control to classify a representative subset of the roots of N4-. 2.4 Preliminary Semantic Classification of Intransitive Roots The following tables present preliminary semantic groupings of free forms and a selected set of bound forms. The semantic criteria for this classification are 1) agentivity as determined by the Thompson and Thompson (1992) analysis of control, 2) obvious states and the telic/atelic distinction. The distinction will be motivated in the following sections by applying a variety of morpho-syntactic tests (Sections 2.5.1-2.5.8). Table 6 and table 7 group the free and bound forms in two sets under the major headings of Unergatives and Unaccusatives according to the semantic criteria given above, with sub-headings for subsets. These tables will be revised on the basis of the evidence from the morpho-syntactic tests and a final table will he presented in the Discussion. 2.4.1 Free Forms In Table 6 I give an initial listing of potential unaccusative and unergative forms.  -  30  -  Table 6: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Free Roots A. UNERGATIVES Agentive Actions (atelic, + control) 1  2  3  4  x”esit  ?üq”’e?  nés  náq”’  walk  drink  go  steal  7 ml+t visit  13 q’amIn throw  8 q?ém [infant] nurse  9  10  p’nt’ return  k”üce descend to water  5  6 tax  run.animal  paddle  11 k”üme ascend to water  12 qáyt reach,top  14 kn help  Agentive Actions (atelic, no control marking cited) 15  16  fwóyt  páq”  sleep  watch  21 kéze? tell a lie  22 pték”4 tell a story, be a lie  17  18  twép back up  m’on’ give  19 k’éy stop  20 ?ecq” bake  23 get dressed be a storyteller  Involuntary Bodily Processes (telic, -control, actor) 24  25  wék’k’ vomit (-ctl)  ? sxe sneeze (-ctl)  26  27  shéw yawn  méc’x blink  B. UNACCUSATIVES State or Change of State (telic) 1  2  3  zoqw die  k”is fall  iyq’ faint  7  8  xáni  +ai  hurt  cold  4 pz’é+ worthless  9  10  4yük” bumped into  -  31  máq’ satiated  -  5 y’e feel good  11 xiy go ashore  6 qnoxv sick  12 finished  13 4á 3 wound.heals  19 C’ló’  hot weather! food  14  15  ptük” ooze  k’y’áq 2 break  20 pl’üx” punctured  16 Ic’áq’ tumble.down  21  17 c’dk”’ shine  18 bang/noise  22  c’k’ exhausted  lpüx” have a hole through  Weather (atelic, inanimate state) 23  24  25  26  wüx’”t  x’”ák’’  tek4’  k’aüs  snow  frost  rain  hail  (+ctl)  Psychological Predicates (states) 27 paqwu? afraid  28 wyjxm jealous  29 qlIl angry  2.4.2 Bound Forms For comparative purposes, the set of bound form roots listed in Table 7 has been chosen. This set can be broken down into unergatives and unaccusatives, but there is a third set of forms. These are unanalyzed at this point because they appear to have an active reading. They are not however listed as control roots.  2. The dictionary form of this root is k’m’áq. 3. DU allows this root only with an inanimate referent. In Thompson & Thompson (1990) the root can refer to a healer. -  32  -  Table 7: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Bound Roots A.UNERGATIVE Agentive Action (bound control roots) 1 sf?üs-  discard  7 sfpuyt lie down  2 Jk”éngrasp  8 fqlbite  3  4  Ik’éxjoke  give  9  10  cheer  fcü(n)say  5 Jpileinform/tell  11 .f+Imcut brush  6 .fpiIys kill  12 Jéw sell to  13 point  Bodily Processes 14 eject/vomit  15  16  17  18  19  Jikéyurinate  Jsüp’breathe  Ic’ékitch  fx”Ic’defecate  /qáz sweat  B. UNACCUSATIVES State or Change of State (no control marking) 1  2  3  4  5  [pew-  /q”ec-  swell  move  startle  7  8  9  10  11  thirsty  Jieyhungry  .fk’dm stealthy  crazy  lazy  fk’ok’” burst  escape  6 rest  12 separate (unmarked for ctl)  13 curve  14 brown/red  Psychological Predicates 15  16  [c’éx-  Jzdw’  shy/shame  annoy (-dl)  -  33  -  C. UNANALYZED FORMS 1  2  3  %fJfhide  Iciqdig  sweep  7  8  9  extinguish  sit (plural)  4 put on top  5 .fnIk’ cut/slice  6 scratch  Icéw reach  In the remainder of the Chapter I discuss the behavior of these roots with the set of primary affixes, the causative and the desiderative. The results from this analysis will corroborate the semantic classification of bound and free roots. It will also show that the unanalyzed set (Table 7, Set C) which at first would appear to be active-agentive, in fact pattern with the unaccusatives. 2.5 Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics I begin with the primary affixes and their behavior with free roots and bound  roots. The first of these is the middle suffix. 2.5.1 Middle In Capter One, it was shown that middle marks events in which there is an agent subject. It is the most common primary affix, and many middle intransitives appear to imply a non-specific object. In other cases there is a reflexive reading. Middle is marked for control. Given this characterization, I would assume the middle affix to be marking agency. Free forms differ primarily from bound forms in that (with a few exceptions) they do not take the middle affix. Grammaticality judgements by DU show that of the free forms listed in  -  34  -  Table 6 only three take a middle form. 4  All these forms have a semantic change  associated with them, as can he seen in the examples below. 7.  c’ek”-m wi?  she lit her lamp  .[shine-MDL 3 PCL  8.  x”ák”-m .ffrost-MDL 3  make something frosty [object or glass]  9.  nés-am kn fgo-MDL lsg  I brought some with me  Of the bound roots listed in Table 7, bound control ditransitives accepted the middle suffix. 5 10.  pI1a-m ..finforin-MDL  inform (someone about something)  11.  cnn-rn fsay-MDL  speak for someone (to somone for a purpose)! choose a spouse  12.  téw-m kn lsg  I am selling (something to someone)(404b)  13.  cü+-m kn Jpoint-MDL lsg  I pointed, indicated (something to someone)  Two middle forms were grammatical for the control root /4-Im-, as can be seen below. 14.  +im-om kn fcut.brush-MDL lsg  I cut brush (230)  15.  +im-p-m 6 ..[cut.brush-INC-MDL  to cut brush (275)  4. The dictionary listing for two forms allowed middles, méc’x ‘blink’ (to wink at someone), and +á ‘heal’ (shaman specializing in marital relations) but these were not accepted as grammatical by DU. 5. These include forms that are listed in the dictionary as free forms, but which were not accepted by DU without primary affixation. 6. This form is the only example of a predicate with two primary affixes on it, and as such is an exception to the rule of mutual exclusivity for all primary affixes except stative and immediate, which can occur together. -  35  -  These results, and those in 10 and 13 are expected given the agentive-active nature of these roots. Of the bound involuntary bodily process roots the majority take middles with the characteristic agentive reading. 16.  x”üc-om  kn fvomit-MDL lsg  I threw up (247b)  17.  tkéy’-m .furinate-MDL  to urinate  Some bound involuntary bodily process roots, however, were ungrammatical in the middle form. These forms allow only an inchoative form or an out-of-control-form. 18.  *cIcW..m  7 make something bleed (*326b)  %Jbleed-MDL 3 19.  u?ex kn c[.?]Ic”  I am bleeding (326a)  lsg %Jbleed-INC  20.  *qázm fsweat-MDL  sweat  21.  ?e qáz z kn weat-OC  I might sweat (342c)  The unanalyzed items listed in Table 7 easily took the middle form, as exemplified below. This appears, at this stage, to show that these forms are indeed active-agentives. 22.  yfW  hide (something)  hide-MDL  23. 24.  ciq-m .fdig-.MDL ?á’-m  dig (somthing)  sweep (something)  weep MDL  7. This form is listed as grammatical in the dictionary. -  36  -  25.  +ép-m .fextinguish-MDL  extinguish [fire/light]  Of the forms listed as bound state and psychological predicates, few in the database had middle alternates except the following four forms. Note that the middle of only two of these forms has an implied object, c’éx-m ‘shame’ and áw’-m ‘thirsty’ do not have this characteristic reading. 26.  k+-m fseparate-MDL  subtract  27.  caq”’-m .Jbrown/red-MDL  paint (something) red  28.  c’éx-m kn fshame-MDL lsg  I am ashamed/shy (96)  29.  áw’-m .fthirsty-MDL  thirsty  The rest of the bound states had no elicited data or were ungrammatical. 30.  *qzin Jtartle-MDL  31.  *tey.m Jhungiy-MDL  (327b)  The results of this section are inconclusive. The middle affix applies to active agentives (the bound ditransitive control forms), involuntary bodily processes, and the unanalyzed set. There are also examples of middles with the bound states and psychological predicates. I conclude that the small number of middles in this set of bound forms is due to an elicitation gap, because middle is documented as a productive form in the language. Therefore, the middle affix does not provide conclusive evidence for an unergative/unaccusative split in N+.  -  37  -  2.5.2 Autonomous The autonomous suffix references actions that are controlled by a specific agent, although it also attaches to some inanimate states (dynamic). Autonomous is considered to be marked non-control. Data on autonomous forms were not extensive, but free forms from a range of semantic classes were deemed ungrammatical by the consultant, as the following show. 32. fwalk-AUT  33 yawn-AUT  34.  +yük”-ix Jbumped-AUT  35.  pl’ñx”-ix Jpunctured-AUT  *  Bound forms often take an autonomous affix, as can be seen from the range of forms from the active, stative, and unanalyzed sets. 36.  k’é-ix .J]oke-AUT  joke, jest  37.  x+-ix fcheer-AUT  to cheer oneself up  38.  +qWlyx mount a horse fput on top-AUT  39.  hide oneself .fhide-AUT  40.  péw-ix [of snake, toad] puff up, swell up we1l.up-AUT  41.  get away from a situation k+-lyx Ieparate-AUT  -  38  -  42.  k”’olc’-Iyx fcurve-AUT  43  qW4  44.  k’ém-ix sneak along fstealthy-AUT  45.  mél-ix frest-AUT  [road] curves sharply  to turn red of own accord .Jbrown/red-AUT  take a rest  No involuntary bodily process roots or psychological predicates were elicited with the autonomous affix. Autonomous appears to apply across the board, thereforeit is not a useful diagnostic of an unaccusative/unergative distinction. 2.5.3 Inchoative Inchoative marks a developing action that occurs without the intervention of an agent. Inchoative is considered to have non-control marking. Given its nature as an aspectual marker, and its lack of effect on agency, the inchoative has potential to be an aspectual diagnostic of an unaccusative/unergative distinction. Free form intransitives are not found with inchoative alternates, with the exception of the one stative form listed below. 46.  he c’e[?]k” it might shine (409) ..Jhine.[INC] 3  There are no data regarding the use of inchoative with bound control (agentive) roots. Bound involuntary bodily processes that take inchoative are: 47.  u?ex kn c[ ?]Ic’’ lsg Jb1eed-INC  I am bleeding (326a)  48.  n-p Jhiver-INC  shiver, feel cold  -  39  -  It can be seen from the following forms that inchoative can be used as a primary affix with the set of questionable roots: 49.  yVWp %/hide-INC  50.  4qWp  disappear  landed there fput on top-INC  It is common with stative bound forms. 51.  k4’-p it came apart %fseparate-INC  52.  ci[ red Jbrown/red-INC  53.  qz-op fstartle-INC  to be startled  54.  k’k”-p Jburst-INC  burst  The use of inchoative presents the first set of data that the aspectual element distinguishes between roots in N+. The examples in 47 through 54, from the unanalyzed set and the bound statives, show that: (1) The unanalyzed forms are patterning with the states (Examples 49-54), and, (2) Involuntary bodily processes do not pattern with the other agentives. The inchoative creates a change of semantics to non-control in examples 57 and 58. It is also of note that there is no inchoative use possible with the agentive free forms, and that there is a complete gap of data for the agentive bound forms. It appears, therefore, that inchoative applies only to unaccusative roots, which is evidence that the questionable set of forms are unaccusatives. As this affix is aspectual in nature, this is evidence that the aspectual element is important to a distinction between roots in N+.  -  40  -  2.5.4 Immediate Immediate designates states and actions that have just gone into effect, and impending states or action. It is unmarked for the feature of control. As such, it is a second potential aspectual diagnostic. There was a single immediate free form accepted as grammatical from a range elicited of DU.  55.  x’’ak’’-t  it is frosty  .Jfrost-IM  As can be seen, with the bound roots immediate is a common alternate for the unanalyzed set: 56.  nik’-t Icut/slice-IM  get cut  57.  ?á-t  just now swept  q’weep-IM  and stative roots:  58.  péw-t ..Iwell.up-IM  swell up, swollen  59.  zéw’-t fannoy-IM  tired of something  60.  I am hungry (327a) téy-t kn ..Jhungry-IM lsg  The majority of these forms also have alternate intransitives with other primary affixes, as will he seen in the discussion. The use of the immediate affix provides corroborative evidence for an unaccusative/unergative split. All forms have a patient reading; therefore, like inchoative it is diagnostic for unaccusativity.  -  41  -  2.5.5 Stative Stative designates accomplished actions and states with a remote cause. It is considered to be unmarked for control (Thompson and Thompson 1992). Statives elicited with free form roots showed that grammaticality of forms varied within each semantic grouping: 61.  *?es/xWlt  (385b sf)  ST-s/walk  62.  *?es/nés ST-s/go  (405b sf)  63.  ?es/?üq”e? ST-s/drink 3  drunk  64.  ?e(s)/sliéw ST-s/yawn 3  yawning  65.  *?es/dyq ST-faint  (389f sO  66.  *  ?es/xáni ST-/hurt  (384f sf)  67.  ?es/zoq” ST-/die 3  already dead  68.  ?es/q”nox’” ST—/sick 3  be sick  69.  ?es/ptük”’ ST-s/ooze  (390h Sf)  70.  *?esIclOxw (419h Sf)  71.  ?es/k’yáq”’ STj 5 break 3  already broken [rope, string] (262 sI)  72.  ?es/plüx” ST-s/puncture  it is punctured (383c sf)  All psychological predicates and weather roots tested as ungrammatical in the stative  -  42  -  form. Bound control roots regularly take a stative alternate with a corresponding shift to a patient reading: 73.  ?es/k”’én ST-./grasp  it has been taken  74.  ?es/puiys ST/ 5 kill  already killed  75.  ?es/püyt ST-sJlie.down  lying down  76.  ?es/+lm ST-s/cut.brush  [of brush] already trimmed  77.  ?es/cü+ ST-s/point  it is pointed out  The questionable set (78-79) and statives (80-83) show a corresponding shift: 78.  ?es!ciq [dig 5 ST-  79.  ?es/+ép [of fire] extinguished/out /ST5 extinguish  80.  ?es/k+ ST-sJeparate  81.  ?es/caq’’ red ST-sjbrown/red  82.  ?es/zéw ST-s/annoy  already tired  83.  7es/k’uik” STj 5 burst  already burst  already dug  detached  Stative appears with causatives and other derived forms, so there is no evidence for the order of attachment of this form. It may be a late process, as Gerdts (1991) suggests. I have no explanation for why stative does not appear with some free forms, but does appear with others. It is of note that with the bound control forms stative creates a  -  43  -  patient form (recall there was no evidence for inchoative or immediate use with these forms). Stative does not appear to be a diagnostic in the same way as inchoative and immediate, because it applies both to agentive and non-agentive forms. However, its use with the bound control forms may be analyzed as evidence that at some level these forms are unaccusative as well. 2.5.6 Out-of-Control  This reduplicative affix indicates that an event or a state has developed without an obvious cause. It is quite productive and adds to both agent- and patient-oriented roots. Recall that it is marked non-control, because when it is added to agentive roots, it gives an exceptional volition agent reading in some cases and a non-volitional patient reading in other cases. Out-of-control forms were limited in the data. However, agentive forms that took out-of-control had the characteristic exceptional energy required or non-volitional reading, depending on the semantic requirements of the form, as in: 84.  x”’eslt  t  manage to walk  fwa1k-OC  85.  ?es!?iiq’’[ oq”] e7 ST-Jdrink-OC  get a drink somehow  86.  néss fgo-OC  manage! are enabled to go  87.  mlc[c]e?q .,fsit-OC  manage to get up  88.  nóx ox”’ %[run-OC  animal is forced to run  89.  twep op Jback up-OC  move backwards inadvertently, get moved back  -  -  44  -  90.  1’éyi top-OC  be stopped, come to a halt  The state roots pattern in the same way. 91.  zóq’’ oq’’ Idie-OC  92.  x]m-me-t-m have someone get a little jealous of one jealous-OC-RLT-3/indef sub.  .  murdered  cWyjX[  Two forms appeared to alternate between the agentive and non-agentive readings. 93  manage to go to sleep/get put to sleep %fsleep-OC  94.  cük” uk” sJfinish-OC  it got finished (with difficulty)/someone finished it  There were exceptional control and stative free forms that were ungrammatical with an out-of-control affix. These were k”’ñce ‘descend to the water’(412i), kwice ‘ascend to the water (413i), and pz’éI ‘worthless’ (398n). The bound control roots, 8 show the same pattern, as the agentives and states, as can be seen in:  95.  ?fls os  be discarded (out-of-control)  fdiscard-OC  96.  k”'énn .fgrasp-OC  taken by someone (uncontrolled)  97.  püy[ i]s Jkill-OC  get killed or beaten up (out-of-control)  98.  cün n ay-OC  be talked about (out-of-control)  99.  téwu kn [sell-OC lsg  I have been sold something (despite resistance) (out-of-control)  8. This includes forms that Thompson & Thompson (1992) designate as + control, and the + control free forms in their data that DU would not accept as grammatical without the middle primary affix. -  45  -  So did the rest of the bound roots of the unanalyzed set, listed below. Note that one of these forms (example 100) has the exceptional volition reading more characteristic of agentive forms. 100.  +qw.oq  manage to mount  Iput on top  101.  +épop Iextinguish  someone else has put it [a fire] out  102.  k++ fseparate-OC  removed by someone  103.  cdqw.oq  come to be red inappropriately  104.  mé+ ..frest-OC  put to pasture, laid off  105.  cIqq ..fdig-OC  dug up (by someone)  Given the fact that the out-of-control affix applies to free and bound forms alike, it is not a diagnostic of unaccusativity versus unergativity. The distinction that Thompson and Thompson (1992) note between exceptional volitional and patient readings for agentive free form roots appears to be merely a factor of the root semantics pushing a particular reading, as the bound agentives take an out-of-control reading where an exceptional volition reading would be expected. Out-of-control has no effect on the argument structure of a root. 2.5.7 Desiderative  The next set of morpho-syntactic processes I compare are desiderative and causative. These two diagnostics were chosen on the basis of available comparative work in Hk (Gerdts 1991). Gerdts shows that these two tests serve as a diagnostic for an  -  46  -  unaccuisative/unergative distinction in Hk. I apply them to the data to determine if the same results apply in N+. First I will consider the desiderative data. Recall that the desiderative is a secondary affix that attaches directly to roots. It is unmarked for control. Desiderative is a productive process in N4-, but is not one of the more common formations (like causative, directive, or middle). There is a tendency for the consultant to use a clausal formation in the same form of the English gloss. To recapitulate Gerdts (1991), unergatives in Hk allow desiderative with the typical gloss of ‘want X’. Some unaccusative process verbs allow desiderative, with a shift in semantics to a future meaning, and some process verbs disallow desiderative. State verbs never take the construction. Desiderative forms were easily elicited, as were grammaticality judgements. A majority of free form agentives were grammatical, as can be seen in: 106.  x”esit-méinn  kn fwalk-DESID lsg  I want to walk (235sf)  107.  nes-mémn kn [go-DESID lsg  I want to go  108.  naq”-mémn kn .[steal-DESID lsg  I want to steal (265 sf)  109.  nox’’-mémn .,frun-DESID 3  [bird, horse] wants to run  110.  tax-mdmn kn fpaddle-DESID lsg  I want to paddle (242 sI)  111.  *7uq’e?memn kn .fdrink-DESID lsg  I want to drink (271 sf) (DU: would somehow mean liquour)  Involuntary bodily process root ranged in grammaticality according to their semantics, as 112 through 115 show:  -  47  -  112.  wek’k’-mémn kn Ivomit-DESID lsg  I want to throw up (248a)  113.  shew-mémn .fyawn-DESID 3  feel like yawning, begin to yawn  114.  ?*?.sxemémn kn Jneeze-DESID lsg  I want to sneeze (246 sf)  115.  ‘mec’x-mémn kn Jb1ink-DESID lsg  I want to blink (298b sf)  There were two exceptional free form states that took the desiderative. These are listed in 116 and 117: 116.  zoq’’-mémn %fdie-DESID 3  he is near death, wants to die (310 a,b)  117.  u?ex xan’i-mdmn .Jhurt-DESID 3  it is dangerous, he is asking to get hurt (348c Sf)  The rest of the states were ungrammatical in the desiderative, as can be seen in: 118.  *kWismémn ffall-DESID 3  119.  ?iyq’-memn Jfaint-DESID 3  to want to faint  120.  *qwnoxwmemn Jick-DESID 3  to want to be sick (350b Sf)  121.  *maqmemn fsatiated-DESID 3  to want to be satiated (3971 sf)  122.  *+Wmémn  wound wants to heal (351e sf)  to want to  fall(313b sf)  (389 sf)  fheal-DESID 3  123.  *kyaqmémn .Jbreak-DESID 3  string wants to break (262a sf)  124.  *c1ox’mémn Jhot-DESID 3  weather wants to be hot (419e sf)  125.  *SluxWmémn fnoise-DESID 3  noise wants to be made (416e)  -  48  -  126.  *cok’mémn fshine-DESID 3  want to shine (409e)  127.  *plux’mémn fpuncture-DESID 3  want to be punctured (383)  No data were elicited for psychological items. It is noteworthy that the only evidence of the second future reading found in Hk was with the weather roots. Three of the weather forms had an inceptive/future reading to the desiderative form. The others were ungrammatical. 128.  wuxWtmémn  it looks like snow (257b sf)  fsnow-DESID  129.  tek+-mémn [rain-DESID  it looks like rain (253 sf)  130.  cap-memn fdusk-DESID  becoming dusk (372)  Transitive desideratives are created by adding transitive /-t-/ directly to the desiderative affix. Indirective and causative are also possible transitivizers. There were no data regarding relational use. x’”esit-mémn-ne + sqaqya? [walk-DESID-TR-3/1 DIR fdog  I want to walk the dog (239)  ta-mémn-ne  + sëq’áw+ %Ipaddle-DESID-TR-3/l DIR ..Jboat  I want to paddle the boat (243 sf)  133.  x”esit-mérnn-s-t-m %[walk-DESID-CAU-3/lpl  we want him to walk (236sf)  134.  x”esit-mémn-xo-c-n te sqáqca? walk-DESID-IND-3/1sg OBL .fdog  I want to walk your dog for you (237)  131.  132.  Some transitivizations of acceptable desiderative intransitive forms were ungrammatical. 135.  *naqvmemnsne steal-DESID-CAU-3/1  I want him to steal (266a sf)  It is of interest that while desiderative constructions in Hk and NI- are similar in that in -  49  -  both languages desideratives can be both transitive and intransitive, they differ in that in Hk the desiderative morphology is added to a base which includes the transitivizer, whereas in N the desiderative suffix becomes part of the base that transitivizers are added to. The desiderative appears to distinguish actor-events. Except for the examples of zóq’’  ‘die’ and áni ‘hurt’, which are grouped semantically and morpho-syntactically as  patient-oriented forms, desiderative is only grammatical with agentive roots and some of the bodily process forms. Only some bound involuntary bodily process roots are ungrammatical. Once again, involuntary bodily processes are not patterning with agentives as a unitary group. It is of particular note that, apart from the two exceptions of ‘die’ and ‘hurt’ listed above, desiderative never suffixes to states. Weather roots (one of which is documented by Thompson and Thompson to be control) are an anomalous set as they form desideratives with future semantics. Desiderative morphology is then a diagnostic of unergativity in N4. 2.5.8 Causative In NI-, causative is the most productive of the transitivizers. As was seen in the introduction, it is the transitivizer most commonly used to transitivize primary affixed roots and to re-transitivize complex intransitives. The results of elicitation show that it applies nearly across the board. There are some exceptions to this productivity. Causative does not occur with ?écq” ‘bake’, naqw ‘steal’(267 sf), m’n ‘give’, twep ‘move backwards’, zác ‘get dressed’, c1uxv ‘noise’, %fk’z- ‘lazy’, máq’ ‘satiated’ 9 (397i sf) and the  9. The root máq’ does not take any transitivizers. -  50  -  weather roots xwák ‘frost’, tékl ‘rain’, káxvus ‘hail’, and cap ‘dusk’. There is, however, a causative form based on the weather’° root ‘snow’ in the database (see example 136) that shows that if an appropriate context and protagonist can be found a causative is not blocked. 136.  wux”t-s-t-s %Inow-CAU-3/3  [Coyote] makes it snow (this form was rejected by by DU (257c sf))  The set of items to which causative does not apply is not a unitary one, and the forms should be considered idiosyncratic. Causative, therefore, is not selective in what semantic classes (and, by logical extension, syntactic classes) it applies to. Therefore it cannot be used in conjunction with desiderative to distinguish unaccusatives in the same way as in Hk. However, the interpretation of causative transitivization in N+ with agent-oriented and patient-oriented roots can be shown to distinguish semantic classes. With actor-activity roots causative has a straight causal reading, as in: 137.  x”esIt-s-c  help someone to walk, take someone for a walk  /wa1k-CAU-3/3  138.  no-s-c frun-CAU-3/3  139.  he made me paddle (270) tá-m-s-cm-s %fpaddle-RLT-CAU- lsg-3  force an animal to run  Two involuntary bodily processes, in 140 and 141, take causative. 140.  wék’k’-s-cm-s  he caused me to vomit  /vomit-CAU- lsg-3  10. The weather roots do not take directive or indirective forms. They often have relational forms with indirect subject pronominals.  -  51  -  141.  shew-s-t-és s[yawn-CAU- lpl/3  they made us yawn (and they kept talking) (281 sf)  The bound form control roots also appear to have this causal reading: 142.  püyt-s-c %/lie down-CAU-3/3  143.  you cheered me up ST-QLT-fcheer-CAU- lsg-2sg  put someone to bed  However, with the majority of state roots, as Thompson and Thompson (1992) have documented, there is an accidental reading to causative activity. 144.  zóq”-s-c  kill someone accidentally  /die-CAU-3/3  145.  do something that indirectly results in making someone sick fsick-CAU-3/3  146.  án’i-s-cm-s x? !hurt-CAU.2sg-3  147.  +yük”’-sm-s he accidentally bumped me (381b) Jbump.into-CAU- lsg-3  148.  ptük’’-st-ne ..fooze-CAU-3/lsg  I (accidentally) caused it (my sore) to ooze (390d)  149.  k’yoq”-st-éne Jbreak-CAU-3/1sg  I accidentally broke the rope (379b)  150.  zk’áq-s-c ftumble-CAU-3/3  he made it fall down (accidentally)  151.  he hurt me accidentally  I punctured it accidentally (383a) .fpuncture-CAU-3/lsg  152.  (‘le) dyq’-s-cm-s x?o Jfaint-CAU- lsg-3  thats what made me faint (389c2) (no animate cause allowed)  153.  c’lOx’’-s-cm-s Ihot-CAU- lsg-3  it makes me hot  11. The form listed in the dictionary is q+ ‘cheer’. DU is unfamiliar with this form. -  52  -  One state root has two sets of causatives, one with the accidental reading and one with the straight causal, as in: 154.  k’”i-st-one ffall-CAU-3!lsg  I dropped it accidentally (314)  155.  kWisscms .ffall-CAU-lsg-3  she caused me to fall  The directive form of this root is: 156.  k”is-e-s ffall-DR-3/3  drop something intentionally, let fall intentionally  One patient-oriented root does not take the accidental reading. 157.  c’ék”-s-ne wi Jlight-CAU-3/1sg  I shone a light on his face (intentionally) (409)  Psychological predicates do not take the accidental reading. Some have two sets of forms. 158.  V”yIxm-s-cm-s u?ex Jiealous-CAU- lsg-3  he makes me jealous (358)  159.  qlIl-s-ne .fangry-CAU-3/lsg  I made him angry  160.  páq’’u?-s-cm-s fafraid-CAU-1sg/3  he scared me (300) or he is afraid of me (302)  161.  páq”’u-s-ne Iafraid-CAU-3/lsg  I am afraid of him (303)  In the following section, I tabulate these results and discuss them.  -  53  -  2.6 Discussion The data from the primary affixes inchoative, autonomous and middle show only that free forms do not take these affixes and bound forms do.  It is important to  remember that all bound forms do not take all primary affixes. This thesis makes no attempt to distinguish the reasons why bound roots differ in this respect. From their behavior with primary affixes, the fact that they appear to allow all primary affixes, and the fact that the agency of the predicate changes with affixation, the following forms that were the unanalyzed set should be grouped with the state predicates. I review the behavior of these roots with primary affixation below in example 162. In example 163 I show comparative affixation with a set of state roots. b  Jhide  [ciqs/dig  /?aq’weep  ciq-m /dig-MDL dig s.t.  ?á-m  e  d  c  a  162.  ..[+q”fput on top  fnIk’ fcut  MIDDLE  ii.  Yçw1  Jhide-MDL hide s.t.  nIk’-m %fcut-MDL cut s.t.  sweep-MDL sweep s.t.  AUTONOMOUS  iii.  yçW..jyX  -  +qW4yx  -  ..Jhide-AUT hide oneself INCHOATIVE yçWp iv. Ihide-INC disapppear  -  %[put on top-AUT mount a horse  +q’’-p fput on top-INC landed there  -  -  STAT1VE V.  -  ?eslciq  -  -  ST-dig already dug  -  54  -  nIk’-t /cut-IM get cut  IMMEDIATE Vi.  ?áy-t weep-IM just been swept  -  -  OUT-OF-CONTROL Vii.  4qw.oqw fput on top-OC manage to mount  -  -  a  163. i.  Jeparate MIDDLE k4-m ii. Jeparate-MDL subtract AUTONOMOUS k+-Iyx iii. eparate-AUT get away from s.t. INCHOATIVE iv. k+-p Jeparate-INC it came apart  -  c  b  s[pdw %fwell  [caq”  caq’’-m paint (s.t.) red  -  qWjx turn red of own accord  pew-ix we11.up-AUT [of snake, toad] puff up, swell up  ci[?]q’’ red  p[’?]dw fswe11-INC begin to swell  IMMEDIATE V.  péw-t fwe1l.up-IM swollen  -  STATIVE vi. ?es/k+ ST-.fseparate detached  ?es/péw-t ST-.fswell.up-IM swollen  ?es!caq” red  OUT-OF-CONTROL qW.oqW k++ %Ieparate-OC come to be red removed by someone inappropriately  vii.  -  55  -  It can be seen that the inchoative and immediate of all these forms have patient readings. It is also noteworthy that these roots appear to create alternate forms with all primary affixes. The stative affix appears to behave differently from the other primary affixes. Unlike the other primary affixes listed above it can attach to some of the free forms. It is productive with bound forms as well. There seems to be no obvious pattern to which forms it will attach to and which forms it will not attach to. While the out-of-control affix has no diagnostic value, the desiderative and causative appear to be relevant morpho-syntactic diagnostics of underlying root structure. The aspectual affixes are a primary set of diagnostics of unaccusativity, as these affixes (inchoative and immediate) attach only to patient-oriented roots. Therefore, the set of questionable roots, despite their vague reading as actions, are in fact unaccusatives. The odd set is the agent-oriented/unergative roots which do not allow these affixes. Therefore, anything that the aspectual affixes attach to are unaccusatives. Table 8 summarizes the general patterns of distinctions in semantics of the classes with these morpho-syntactic affixes. Table 8: Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics of Unaccusativity/Unergativity Semantic Class  Desiderative  Causative  Immediate  Agentive-Action  grammatical  causal reading  ungrammatical ungrammatical  Bodily Proc.  grammatical  causal reading  variable  variable  State  ungrammatical accid. reading  grammatical  grammatical  Psychological  no data  causal reading  no data  no data  Weather  future reading  causal reading  no data or unknown  no data  -  56  -  Inchoative  The distinction between bound and free forms is not made on the basis of semantic class or syntactic class. Free forms pattern both unaccusatively and unergatively, and they belong to a range of semantic classes. Desiderative forms with two exceptions distinguish agentive forms. Weather roots have a future reading with this affix. The results from the analysis of the desiderative in N+ partially match those of Gerdts, in that the items that can be semantically classed as potential unergatives allow desiderative formation. The potential unaccusatives split into state/change of state roots that do not allow desiderative, and the anomalous set of weather roots which form a future with this suffix. There are two exceptions, in that zóq” ‘die’ and án’i ‘hurt’ pattern with the unergative forms. Causative distinguishes state roots with an accidental reading from agentive, psychological, and involuntary bodily process roots with a causative reading. The results of an analysis of the patterning of causative show that while causative is productive in applying to all classes of roots, the unaccusative state roots are distinguished by having an accidental reading. The primary aspectual affixes (immediate and inchoative) are strong diagnostics of unaccusative, as can be seen from the fact that there is always a patient reading on the root when they are attached. This means that the questionable forms listed in the preliminary classification are in fact unaccusative roots. It is noteworthy that the bound control forms allow a middle form. It is also of interest that the involuntary bodily process roots, and psychological and weather predicates behave in a manner that is not as clearly characterizable as simply  -  57  -  unaccusative or unergative. These results show that the two elements of aspect and agentivity play a role in N; there is an unergative and unaccusative distinction in the language. The semantic classification is therefore a useful tool for distinguishing between unaccusatives and unergatives, and the cross-linguistic generalizations hold. In table 9 I present a revised classification of the bound and free forms discussed in this Chapter. The data from the morpho-syntactic diagnostics show that there are: a set of agentive/unergative forms; and a set of state/unaccusative forms. The results also show that involuntary bodily process roots, weather roots, and psychological predicates must be considered seperate sets. It is of note that involuntary bodily processes are not behaving as a unitary set. This result matches the patterning of these forms cross-lingusitically, as discussed in Rosen (1984).  -  58  -  Table 9: Classification of Free Roots A. UNERGATIVES 4  5  xwesIt  1  ?üq’’e?  nés  naq’”  IIOXW  ta  walk  drink  go  steal  run.animal  paddle  7 mlFt visit  8 q?ém [infant] nurse  9 p’nt’ return  10 kvüce descend  11 k”üme ascend  12 qáyt  13  2  14  3  15  16  17  6  18  q’amIn  kii  óyt  páq’’  twép  m’n’  throw  help  sleep  watch  back up  give  19 k’éy stop  20 ?ecq” bake  21 kéze? tell a lie, be a lie  22 23 záx pték’’+ get dressed tell a story, be a storyteller  24 fUts fdiscard  25  26  27  grasp  joke  give  28 %fp1leinform/tell  29 fpuyskill  30 Ipüyt lie down  31  32  33  35 /téwsell to  36 %fcu+ point  bite  cheer  34 cut brush  say  -  59  -  B. UNACCUSATIVES 1 lá 13 wound.heals 5  3 k’y’áq’ 2 break  2 ptük” ooze  7  6  4 k’áq’ tumble.down 8  c’ék”  ?lüx”  c’lóx”  plÜXw  shine  bang/noise  hot weather/food  punctured  9 c’k’ exhausted  10 lpüx” have a hole through  11 zoqw die  12 k”is fall  13 Iyq’ kn faint  14 pz’é+ worthless  15 y’e good  16 q”nó” sick  17 xáni hurt  18 +aci cold  19 +yük” bumped into  20 máq’ satiated  21  22  23  24  xIy  cük”  [qWec  fqz  go ashore  finished  move  startle  25  27  26  28  Jméi--  .JkWac  burst  escape  rest  crazy  29  30 cáw’thirsty  31 Jeyhungry  Jk’ém  lazy 33  35  34  ../k’lc’-  fcéq”-  .[yc”’-  Icurve  brown/red  hide  sweep  put on top  39 Inik’ cut/slice  41  42 .f4-éqsit (plural)  43 /céw reach  37  f4’épextinguish  38  32 stealthy 36 Iciq dig 40 scratch  12. The dictionary form of this root is k’m’áq. 13. DU allows this root only with an inanimate referent. In Thompson & Thompson (1990) the root can refer to a healer. -  60  -  C. PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICATES  afraid  annoy  4  jealous  3 qlIl angry  2 xákw frost  3 tek+ rain  hail (+ctl)  3 shéw yawn  4 méc’x blink  2  1 páq”u?  fWyj  shy/shame  (-Ct!)  D. WEATHER 1 wuix”t snow  4  E. INVOLUNTARY BODILY PROCESSES 1 wék’k’ vomit (-ctl) 5 eject/vomit 9 defecate  2 sxe sneeze  (-Ct!)  7 fsfip’ breathe  6 sftkéyurinate  8 itch  10 %[qáz sweat  In Chapter Three I take the free forms discussed here and analyze them to determine if there is evidence for underlying transitives in NL  -  61  -  CHAPTER THREE 3.0 Transitive Forms of Roots 3.1 Introduction In this chapter I discuss the potential for underlying transitive and intransitive roots in N+. Opinion on this issue has been split. Gerdts (1989) hypothesizes underlying transitives and intransitives, as does Kuipers (1968). The opposite view that all roots are intransitive is the more traditional one, held by Thompson and Thompson (1992). Apart from causative, the transitivizing suffixes do not apply across the board. Directive, indirective and relational are blocked for different items. The focus of this chapter is to discuss the set of free roots with respect to their behavior with the set of transitivizers. I bring in some comparative data from bound forms. The basis for distinguishing between transitive and intransitive roots is the logical assumption that the transitive use of predicates will be based on their thematic underpinnings. Therefore, directive should apply only to transitive roots, and never to a form that is classified as an unaccusative. Indirectives should apply to ditransitives. First I set up a preliminary semantic grouping of forms that could potentially be transitive versus those that could be intransitive. I base this classification on whether the root appears to imply a patient as well as an agent. To aid in the classification of ambiguous forms, I bring in relevant data from Chapter Two. Some roots will potentially fit into both categories.  In the sections following, I will present the use of the  transitivizers with each set of roots as morpho-syntactic tests of transitivity. In Section 3.4 I present a discussion of the results and suggest what their implications are for the  -  62  -  argument structure of predicates. It is of note that a conclusive test for transitivity would be if a root surfaced only in a transitive form. There do not appear to be any roots of this nature in the database. A second test is if roots only surface as a middle (intransitive) or as a transitive form. There are a number of roots that surface only as middles, but their semantics would indicate that there is no patient possible (?üy-m ‘laugh’, p’áq’-m ‘bloom’, I’y-m ‘wade into water’) and their transitivization potential is limited to causatives. From a perusal of the database it appears that most roots allow at least two primary affix alternates. While it is questionable to use middle as a sole diagnostic of transitivity it may be useful in conjunction with directive and indirective in a discussion of bound forms. 3.2 Preliminary Semantic Grouping for a Transitive/Intransitive Distinction Following the semantic grouping of roots into the two main classes of States and Agentives, the class of what could be termed variable roots, and the minor classes of Psychological, Weather, and Involuntary Bodily Process Predicates, the semantic grouping into potential transitive and intransitive sets is reasonably straightforward. Transitive forms must be agentive and allow a patient. Intransitives can be either agentive or non agentive forms. I present an initial grouping in Table 10 below.  -  63  -  Table 10: Preliminary Semantic Classification of Transitive/Intransitive: Free Roots  A. TRANSITIVE ROOTS 5  paddle  4 mIl’t visit  8 q’amIn throw  9 cük”’ finish  10 kn help  13  14 /téw sell  3  1  2 náq”  ta  drink  steal  6 páq” watch  7 bake  pték”+  narrate  Ditransitive Roots 11 donate  12 sfcü(n)say  fcü+  point  B. INTRANSITIVE ROOTS Agentive Roots 2  3  4  xWesIt  q?em  óyt  p’nt’  walk  nurse  sieep  return  5 kwüce descend  6 k”üme ascend  7 qáyt  8 kdze? lie  9 xIy go.ashore  10 zác get dressed  11 xáni be hurt  12 Iyq’ faint  13 pz’é+ worthless  14 y’e feel good  qWnoxW  be sick  16 maq’ satiated  17 +áxi be cold  18 +áx” wound heals  19 ptük’’ ooze  20 k’áq’ tumble.down  21 rluxw bang/noise  22 c’1O” hot  23 exhausted  24 lpüx’’ have hole  25 plüx” punctured  26 ’ 7 +yük’ bumped  27 k”+ spill  28 k’y’áq break  29 nds go  30 k”’is fall/drop  31  32  33  34  zóq”  k’éy  twép  nó  die  stop  back up  animal run  35  36 wék’k’ vomit  37 ?ésxe sneeze  38 shéw yawn  39 méc’x blink  40 páq”u? afraid  42 qlIl angry  43 wxk’ snow  44 x’’ak’’ frost  45 téki rain  46 k’aüs hail  1  Non-Agentive Roots  shine 41 fWyj)  jealous  -64-  15  3.3 Morpho-Syntactic Diagnostics If the set of transitivizers were going to be diagnostic of underlying transitivity, it would be logical to assume that use of the directive would mark an underlying transitive form. The indirective should apply to transitive forms with underlying goal arguments. Neither of these transitivizers should ever apply to a non-agentive form. Causative, it has been seen in Chapter Two, applies productively to all predicates. Relational use may mark a transitivization option for an underlying intransitive form. 3.3.1 Directive Directive patterns differently from the the relational and causative because it does not, with minor exceptions, appear to transitivize forms with the primary affixes, nor does it ever re-transitivize complex intransitives, or combine with other transitivizers. The indirective appears to pattern with the directive, except that it is found in combination with other transitivizers. The following examples document the grammaticality judgements of DU with respect to the use of directive with the forms in Table 10. A. Transitive Roots: Directive Use 61.  ?uqwe?ns .,[drink-DRV-3/3  drink something  62.  tá-e-s Jpaddle-DRV-3/3  propel something [canoe,boat]  63.  pték”’+-e-s [narrate-DRV-3/3  tell someone a story  64.  ?écq”-e-s  bake something  .Jbake-DRV-3/3  -  65  -  65.  cük”-e-s Jfinished-DRV-3/3  complete something  66.  *naqn.1.  (268)  Jteal-DRV  67.  *mi4,tnt .[visit-DRV  (344c)  Of the roots that I would consider to be transitive, naqv and mIt are exceptions in that they do not allow directive. Other forms in this classification pattern as expected. Comparative data from the bound agentive/control roots show that these forms which semantically would be considered transitive take the directive. 68.  ?üs-c [discard-DRV-3/3  discard something  69.  k’’én-s  take something, grab  ..fgrasp-DRV-3/3  70.  püys-c Jlci1l-DRV-3/3  kill something! someone  All forms that can be considered underlyingly ditransitive take the directive. Ditransitive Roots: Directive Use 71.  m’on’t-és Igive-DRV-3!3  give someone (something)!feed someone  72.  cü4-e-s Ipoint-DRV-3/3  point out someone/thing  73.  téw-e-s Jell-DRV-3/3  sell (something) to someone  74.  cu-n-ne ay-DRV- lsg!3  I told him (something)  B. Intransitive Roots: Directive Use Agentive Roots appear to take directive as in:  -  66  -  75.  kéze?-s ,Rie-DRV-3/3  76.  put something into the water k”üce-(n)-s [descend.water-DRV-3/3  77.  move something from the water k’me-n-s r-DRV-3/3 fascend.wate  78.  záx-e-s fdress-DRV-3/3  lie to someone, deceive someone  clothe! dress someone  Roots that were documented in Chapter Two as unaccusative also take the directive as as can be seen in: 79.  +yükWcms he bumped me Jbumped.into-DRV-1sg-3  80.  k”4-t-és fspi11-DRV-3/3  pour, dump something out  81.  kiqwtene Jbreak-DRV-1sg/3  I broke it on purpose (379a)  82.  c’ló-e-s .,Jbot-DRV-3/3  make something hot  83.  c’ok-t-és fexhausted-DRV-3/3  finish the last of something  84.  lpüx’’-e-s Jhave a hole-DRV-3/3  he made a hole in it  85.  pz’é4--e-s fworthless-DRV-3/3  not care about something (uncommon form)  86.  qWnoxWes  make someone feel bad [directly responsible]  Jick-DRV-3/3  87.  ptk”--t-éne Jooze-DRV-3!lsg  I burst it on purpose (my sore) (390e)  Roots from both the agentive and unaccusative sets were ungrammatical, as in: 88.  *xwesItnt  (233a)  fwalk-DRV  -  67  -  89.  *cWoytnt  (309c)  fsleep-DRV  90.  *pntnt ..freturn-DRV  (406c)  91.  *qáytnt  (388d)  92.  *xIyqnt  (389)  ffaint-DRV  93.  *q’.t. fsatiated-DRV  (397j)  94.  ái-n-t.[cold-DRV-  (355)  95.  ?‘xáni-n-tsJbe hurt-DRV  (384e)  96.  (377) umb1e.down-DRV-  97  *jW  (383)  fpunctured-DRV  The forms that are classified as intransitive, therefore, are problematic in that a large number of them take directives. This problem might be mitigated somewhat if it pertained to the agentive forms, for it can be seen that the directives for these forms reference locations and goals rather than theme arguments. These forms might be considered exceptional. It can be seen that some of the involuntary bodily process roots have the same type of reading. 98.  wék’k’-e-s fvomit-DRV-3/3  vomit on something  99.  ?osxé-ne .Jneeze-DRV-3/3  I sneezed on him (323c)  The problematic forms are the forms that are clearly unaccusative/state roots that  -  68  -  allow the directive (as in examples 79 to 87). These forms have the characteristic directive semantics, and as such, cannot be considered exceptional. The forms that I would consider to have both a transitive and intransitive argument structure on the basis of their change in semantics all take directives as expected. 100.  nés fgo/take  nes-c Jgo-DRV-3/3  convey, take someone somewhere  101.  kwIs .ffall/drop  k”Is-e-s %fdrop-DRV-3/3  drop something  102.  zoqw fdie/ki1l  zóq”-e-s fdie-DRV-3/3  kill something  103.  c’ék”  c’ék”-e-s .Jlight-DRV-3/3  shine light on somthing, light the way  fiight!sMne  The inanimate agentive form below is anomalous, as the transitive form appears to have an intransitive reading with a change in root semantics to ‘crawl’, as opposed to a causal reading or a directive reading such as ‘to run a race’. 104.  [nó”  [many-legged creature] crawl  nó-e-s  The following agentive forms are problematic if they are considered to be underlyingly intransitive because they reference a theme argument, and could not be subsumed under the rubric of exceptionality. 105.  k’éy-e-s Jtop-DRV-3!3  stop someone (from doing something)  106.  twep-e-s Jback.up-DRV-3/3  cause/force something to move backwards  Psychological and Weather roots pattern as would be expected if they were intransitive.  -  69  -  107.  (300a) afraid-DRV[5  108.  *q0111.n..t.. s/angry-DRy-  109.  wÜ’-n-t /snow-DRV  (391b)  110. s/frostDRV  111. s/rain-DRV  112.  *kaxWüsnt  hail-DRV/5  On the basis of the examples (in 79 through 87) which show that roots that clearly pattern as unaccusative states (Chapter Two) take directive, it would appear that the assumption that directive is a diagnostic of underlying transitivity is flawed. 3.3.2 Indirective If the indirective transitivizer were a diagnostic of transitivity, then indirective forms would require underlying agent and goal arguments. The following are examples of the behavior of the hypothesized transitive and intransitive classes with indirective. Note that these examples would have to be underlyingly ditransitive to take the indirective. This is clearly an non-intuitive and inelegant way of approaching this first set of agentive forms. A. Transitive Roots: Indirective Use 113.  ?üq”e?-x-c  drink a beverage belonging to someone  s/drink-IND-3/3  114.  náq’’-x-c ..Jteal-IND-3/3  steal something for someone  -  70  -  115.  mI4’t-x-cm-s .fvisit-IND-lsg/3  116.  ?u?ex ptókv4xnne te s/ptdk4-.s I am telling it for him (his story) (to people)((347c) fnarrate-IND-3/lsg OBL NOM-%fstory  117.  ?ecq”-x-ne .Jbake-IND-3/lsg  I baked it for him in the pit oven (296d)  118.  cük’’-x-ne sffinish-1ND3/lsg  I finished it for him (357d)  she will visit for me (344e)  If indirective was a diagnostic of underlying structure, it should not appear as frequently as it does. The ditransitive roots pattern as expected, as the examples below show. Ditransitive Roots 119.  cüt-x-c .Jay-IND-3/3  accept someone, speak for someone  120.  cü4’-x-c ..[point-IND-3/3  point toward someone  121.  téw-m-x-c Jell-RLT?-IND-3/3  sell (something) belonging to someone  122.  (289b sf) /give-IND  It can be seen from the results below that intransitive roots which should not take indirective allow it with some forms. B. Intransitive Roots: Agentive 123.  kvücexncms wi? tén-s/qqn /descend.water-IND- lsg-3...  he is taking my horse down towards the river (412h)  124.  k’iime-xa-cm-s wi? tén-s/qcq [ascend.water-IND-1s-3...  he is taking my horse away from the rivers edge (413h)  125.  xIy-x-s-cm-s %fland-IND- lsg-3  he might land it for me (417f)  -  71  -  126.  p’n’t-x-c freturn-IND-3/3  return (something) to someone  (233a)  127. %fwalk-IND  128.  *cWoytxjt  (309b)  1eep-IND-  129.  *qáytxit  (388f)  Intransitive Agentives are problematic because they have the regular semantics of an indirective form. B. Intransitive Roots: Non-Agentive Unaccusative intransitives are inconclusive, but appear to pattern in the same way as the agentives. 130.  pz’é+-xit-Iyxs x t? t x’pië /worthless-IND-3/3p1  they thought nothing of his property (398j)  131.  9-yük”-xi-t Jbumped.into-IND  (381d)  (383b)  132. Jpunctured-IND  The forms with two potential argument structures, it can be seen, patterned as expected with the exception of zóq” ‘die’. These forms would not normally be considered ditransitives. 133.  134.  I am taking along their papers (345a) ns-x-ne te s!saq”-s fgo-IND-3/lsg OBL NOM-fpaper-3psv.  JkwIs-x-ne  I dropped it to him (315)  [drop-IND-3!1sg  135.  k’éy-x-cm-s [stop-IND- lsg-3  he stopped it for me (runaway horse) (414h)  -  72  -  136.  he backed it up for me, my car (4131f)  twép-x-cm-s Wi? ten/ká Jback.up-IND-1sg-3  he shines the light for me  137. Ilight-IND-1sg-3  138.  (311a)  *zoqWxit  fdie-IND  Involuntary bodily process roots and psychological roots split into those that allow an indirective and those that do not. The expected result is that these forms would not accept indirective. 139.  wék’k’-xt-om + sJiomit-IND-3/3indef. DIR NOM-Jfeet  her feet were vomited on  140.  ?esx-éne Jneeze-IND-3/lsg  I sneezed on him (323c)’  *shéwxjt  (320b)  141.  jawn-IND  142.  I am jealous of his house (358) te cIt”-s Jjealous-IND-3/1sg OBL Jhouse-3psv  cWyj)qflX..1e  143.  (301a) fafraid-IND  144.  *qolIl..xi4 fangry-.IND  (306b)  The results of this section show that indirective patterns much like directive, in that it is not blocked on non-agentive forms. It also marks many roots that are not intuitively thought of as indirective.  These data suggest, therefore, that because  indirective must bring added argument structure to a root, and since it seems to apply across  the board,  this  presents  transitivizer  no  evidence for an underlying  transitive/intransitive distinction. 1. This form is inconclusive, it may be a directive with a locative reading, or it may be indirective. -  73  -  3.3.3 Causative The causative transitivizer is of a different nature from directive and indirective. Recall that it is very productive, applying to all semantic classes of roots. It is also used exceptionally to transitivize complex intransitives, and is the most common transitivizer used with primary affixed stems. For examples of the use of causative with the free form set, see Chapter Two. This transitivizer is not a useful diagnostic for elucidating a transitive/intransitive split. 3.3.4 Relational The relational transitivizer is not as clear-cut a diagnostic as directive and indirective are, nor is it obviously non-applicable as is the causative. Given its nature as the transitivizer of last resort, I hypothesize that it may he a transitivizer of intransitive roots. It is available to re-transitivize complex intransitives and can be used with primary affixed stems. The data following show, however, that the results are far from being as comprehensive as the directive and indirective. Of the potential transitive forms, the available data show that it is possible to get a relational on the majority of the following forms. 145.  náq”-m-s fsteal-RLT-3/3  steal something from someone  146.  ml4t’-m-s /visit-RLT-3/3  visit someone  147.  (357) %ffinished-RLT  Ditransitive roots all take a relational, as the forms below show. 148.  cüt-m-s  talk about someone  ay-RLT-3!3  -  74  -  149.  téw-m-s sfsell-RLT-3/3  sell something  150.  m’n’-min-m-s fgive-RLT-?-3/3  give (something) away to someone  Intransitive roots of an agentive nature generally allow a relational, being blocked in a number of cases. 151.  xWesitmtis fwalk-RLT- lpl/3  he walked to meet us  152.  p’én’t-m-s ..[return-RLT-3/3  [of weather or season] come back return to someone  153.  n/kwücemes go downriver after something LOC-.fdescend.water-RLT-3/3  154.  go upriver after (to get) something n/k”üme-me-s LOC-..fascend.water-RLT-3/3  155.  *qayt..min..t.  156.  *c”óytmint  (388g)  (321b)  1eep-RLT-  Of the non-agentive intransitive roots, which would all be expected to all take relational, it can be seen that some do not allow it. 157.  *pzé+mint  (398i)  Iworthless-RLT  158.  plüx”’-min-t[punctured-RLT  (383b)  159.  y’e-min-s fgood-RLT-3/3  he likes.... (394h)  160.  (381d) Jbumped.into-RLT  The forms with two alternate argument structures take the relational affix except where the semantics would bar it.  -  75  -  161.  nés-m-cm-s Jgo-RLT-lsg-3  he took me with him (269 sf)  162.  twdp-m-cm-s %Jback.up-RLT-1-3  he backed up on me (41311’)  163.  (310d) fdie-RLT  The majority of involuntary bodily process roots and psychological roots take the relational, as can be seen in the forms below. 164.  wék’k’-m-s  vomit  something up  .fvomit-RLT-3/3  165.  méc’x-rn-s %fblink-RLT-3/3  blink at someone  166.  shéw-mt-m fyawn-RLT-3/indef  someone makes one yawn  167.  ?sxemin-tneeze-RLT  (323e)  168.  fwyIxmmes fjealous-RLT-3/3  be jealous of someone  169.  qlil-m-ne ./angry-RLT-3/lsg  I got mad at him (306)  170.  (304a) .fafraid-RLT  3.4 Discussion  If one starts from a conservative assumption that N4-, like English, has underlying intransitive and transitive roots, and presupposes that directive and mdirective were markers of underlying transitives, we find some minor evidence that there are transitive roots in N4-. From the discussion of the out-of-control data in Chapter 2 comes data that there are agentive roots with an exceptional volition reading in the out-of-control forms. If semantics of the effects of this affix are split up, these might appear to maintain their -  76  -  agent participant. These forms do not take the directive suffix. One could hypothesize that these forms were underlyingly intransitive. The second set of agentive roots takes the characteristic non-volitional (patient) reading when the out-of-control affix is added. These forms allow the directive transitivizer and could be considered transitive. The bound control forms that take the out-of-control reading would then be transtive by this analysis. However, the majority of evidence points to the fact that rather than there being an intransitive/transitive split in NI, the morpho-syntactic diagnostics discussed and exemplified in this Chapter also distinguish agentive and non-agentive forms. In the following tables, I summarize the data from the diagnostics in Sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 above. In these tables, an asterisk marks an ungrammatical form, and a plus sign marks a grammatical form. A dash signifies a gap in the elicited data. A combination of plus and asterisk symbols means that the form was given in the dictionary, but was considered ungrammatical by DU.  -  77  -  Table 11: Morpho-Syntactic Behavior of Unerative Roots Root  Gloss  MID  CAU  DRV  IND  RLT  1  ?uq”e  drink  *  +  +  +  *  2  ptek”’4’  narrate/tell a story  *  +  +  +  3  tax  paddle (a canoe)  *  +  +  +  +  4  keze?  be/tell a lie  *  +  +  -  -  5  k’”uce  descend-water  */+  +  +  +  +  6  k”ume  ascend-water  *  +  +  +  +  7  nes  go  +  +  +  +  +  8  m’n’  give, donate  *  *  +  *  +  9  zax  get dressed  *  *  +  -  -  10  ?ecq’’  bake  11  k’ey  stop  12  cwoyt  13  -  */+  *  +  +  *  *  +  +  +  *  sleep  *  +  *  *  cuk”’  finished/end  *  +  +  +  *  14  mi4-t  visit  *  + —miii—  *  +  +  15  p’en’t  return  +  +  *  +  +  16  qayt  reach-top  *  +  *  *  *  17  walk  *  +  *  x”’esit  +  +  18  micoq’  to sit  *  +  -  -  19  q?em  nurse  *  +  *  -  20  nox  animal-run  *  +  +  21  naq”’  steal  *  *  *  -  78  -  -  +  -  + +  Table 12: Moroho-Svntactic Behavior of Unaccusative Roots CAU  DRV  IND  +  *  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  be/get hurt  *  +  *  -  iyq’  faint  *  +  *  -  6  laxi  becold  *  +  *  *  *  7  pl’ux”  punctured  *  +  *  *  *  8  zk’aq’  things piled up fall  *  +  *  -  9  clUX”’  it is a noise/s.t. bangs  *  10  maq’  satiatied  *  11  +a  be healed/heal up  12  qwnoxw  13  Root  Gloss  1  xiy  goashore  2  clOXV  [weather] be hot  *  3  c’ek”’  shine/give light  4  an’i  5  MID  RLT  -  -  *  -  +  *7+  +  +  be sick/ill  *  +  +  zoq’’  die/be dead  *  +  14  k”is  fall, be born  *  15  4-yuk”  bang (into s.t.)  16  k”+  [liquid] flow run, spill  17  Ic’m’aq /  18 19  -  -  +  *  *  +  +  +  *  *  +  +  *  *  *  +  +  [cord] break, pull apart  +  +  ipux”  [ice/glass] have a hole  +  +  ptuk”  ooze out, spring  *  +  +  *  +  +  jyqW  -  -  -  water source  20  pz’e+  foolish  +  *  2. Dorothy Ursaki does not allow a middle form +á”'-m. However, the dictionary has the form: shaman specializing in marital realations 4áx”‘’-m tok ywin’ -  79  -  Table 13: Morpho-Syntactic Behavior of Miscellaneous Roots MID  CAU  DRV  sneeze  *  +  +  wék’k’  vomit  *  +  +  +  3  shew  yawn  *  +  -  *  4  paqwu  fear/frighten  *  +  5  q1il  angiy/mad  *  +  *  hail  *  *  *  *  *  *  Root  Gloss  1  ?osxe  2  6 7  tek4’  rain  8  wux’’t  snow  9  cap  dusk  IND  *  *  *  -  -  *  *1+  *  *  *  -  -  -  80  -  RLT  +  + +  ÷ +  CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 Conclusions and Future Work The focus of this thesis was a discussion of the semantic basis of transitivity alternations in NIe?képmx. Because intransitive and transitive use of roots in NIe?képmx is morphologically marked, the purpose of this work was to document what derivational affixes are allowed with a set of predicates. This led to a classification of predicate types. In Chapter One, I presented an overview of the morphology of N4-e?képmx. Chapter Two comprised an application of the semantic diagnostics from the literature on unaccusative and unergative (Grimshaw 1987, Levin & Rappaport 1989, Grimshaw 1990, Gerdts 1991) to a set of NIe?képmx roots. A set of morpho-syntactic diagnostics, including primary affixes, and (following Gerdts 1991) desiderative and causative affixes, was analyzed to determine if they could elucidate underlying structure. The results of the data collection documented in Chapter Two show that unergative and unaccusative is a relevant distinction in NI. There is a distinction based on agency that marks unergatives, as seen from the causative evidence and corroborated by the desiderative diagnostic. Unaccusatives are distinguished by the aspectual markers of inchoative and immediate. It is apparent from the data that the psychological, involuntary and weather predicates do not pattern evenly with either the unergative or unaccusative groups. This evidence corroborates Rosen (1984) by showing that for some roots the semantic underpinnings of argument structure vary from language to language. This can be seen most clearly with the involuntary bodily process roots which do not behave as a unitary set, and with the weather roots. This is the only set where the desiderative has a future reading. This  -  81  -  shows that the weather forms cannot be grouped with the state/unaccusative predicates. It is possible that there may be some process roots that allow a future reading, and that these were missed in elicitation. Another possibility is that the full extent of the use of such form is being lost by my consultant. It is of note that during the elicitation of the weather forms DU attempted to create a second translation of these forms by setting them in a sentence such as ‘the earth wants to rain’. In Chapter Three I discussed the potential of an intransitive/transitive classification of roots in N4-e?képmx. It can be seen from this discussion that there is little evidence for transitive roots in NI. The morpho-syntactic tests in combination do show agency as a relevant semantic dimension, corroborating the evidence from Chapter Two. But there are forms that are clearly documented as unaccusative in Chapter Two that take directive and indirective forms. These data show that these transitivizers cannot be diagnostic of an underlying transitive form. I conclude therefore, following Thompson and Thompson (1992), that roots in NI are underlyingly intransitive. Given the proportion of agentive versus non-agentive roots, it is also clear that the traditional view holds that in Salish most forms are patient-oriented. The implications of these data for cross-linguistic work are that transitive roots are not universal. The data from Chapter Two show that the unaccusative and unergative distinction is a viable one in NI. The behavior of the involuntary bodily process, weather and psychological predicates tends to corroborate Rosen (1984), showing that for a limited set of forms in the data, the semantic underpinnings of argument structure can vary from language to language.  -  82  -  In retrospect, there are a number of methodological considerations that would contribute to a clearer analysis of these data. This thesis is based on the extensive work done by Thompson & Thompson with Annie York and other consultants, and on items elicited from DU, a fluent and very linguistically astute consultant. However, the grammaticality judgements come from a single source (DU), as the Thompson database does not distinguish between elicitation gaps and forms that are ungrammatical. An attempt was made to find a second consultant with whom to verify forms, but it was difficult to gain access to a speaker with the degree of fluency required. A second consideration is that the semantic classification in Chapter Three is largely intuitive. A more conclusive, syntactic test of these judgements would be to elicit intransitive forms with oblique object nominals. My primary set of data was the subset of roots in N4-e’?képmx that can appear as free form intransitives in a main sentence. This group of roots cross-cuts the broad semantic categories found in the literature. However, it is important to note that while choosing the set of free forms gave a finite set of common roots with an identifiable subset of agentive forms, the majority set (and potentially more interesting set) of roots is that of the bound forms. Further work on these forms would explain the distinction between bound and free forms. It is of note that the inchoative and immediate forms (the aspectual affixes distinguished in the data) do not attach to the free forms. Thus the next step would be to determine if the distinction is an aspectual one. Looking at the type of roots that surface as free forms, one can see that these roots are very common. Their status as free forms may be linked to this semantic familiarity.  -  83  -  Future work would be to map the semantic structure of bound roots in light of the conclusions reached in this thesis. An interesting issue is the event-structure/aspectual nature of the primary affixes and their patterning with roots. The results of Chapter Two show that the forms discussed as primary affixes are not a unitary set, as stative and out-of-control behave quite differently with respect to free forms from the other affixes.  -  84  -  BIBLIOGRAPHY Campbell, L. and M. Mithun (eds.) 1979. The Languages of Native America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Carison, B.F. 1980. Two-Goal Transitive Stems in Spokane Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 46:21-26. Carison, B.F. and L.C. Thompson. 1982. Out of Control in two (maybe more) Salish Languages. Anthropological Linguistics 24:51-65. Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Demers, R. and E. Jelinek. 1984. Word-Building Rules and Grammatical Categories in Lummi. Papers of the Nineteenth International Conference on Salishan and Neighboring Languages. University of Victoria. Victoria, British Columbia. Dowty, D.R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Egesdal, S.M. 1992. Styalized character’s speech in Thompson Salish narrative. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 9. Gerdts, D. 1979. Out of Control in Ilokano. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 81-93. Gerdts, D. 1984. A Relational Analysis of Halkomelem Causals. Syntax and Semantics; The Syntax of Native American Languages 16, ed. E.D. Cook and Donna Gerdts, pp. 169-203. Orlando: Academic Press. Gerdts, D. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York:Garland. Gerdts, D. 1989. Relational Parameters of Reflexives: The Halkomelem Evidence. Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages. ed. Donna Gerdts and Karin Michelson, pp. 259-80. Albany;State University of New York Press. Gerdts, D. 1991. Unaccusative Mismatches in Halkomelem Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:230-50. Gerdts, D. (to appear). Morphologically Mediated Relational Profiles. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Grimshaw, J. 1987. Unaccusatives: An Overview. NELS 17, pp. 244-258.  -  85  -  Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hanna, D. (to appear). Our Stories: Nie?képmx Oral Narratives. Hess, T. and J. van Eijk. 1985. Noun and Verb in Salishan. Twentieth International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. UBC. Vancouver, British Columbia. Hopper, P.J. and S.A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and Discourse. Language 56:251-299. Hukari, T.E. 1976. Transitivity in Halkomelem. Working Papers for the Eleventh International Conference on Salishan Languages. Seattle, Washington. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Jelinek, E. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:39-76. Jelenik, E. 1985. The projection principle and the argument type parameter. Paper presented at the Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Seattle, Washington. Jimmie, M. (to appear). A Prosodic Analysis of N+e’?képmx Reduplication. UBC. Vancouver, British Columbia. Kinkade, M.D. 1980. Columbian Salish -xi,4,-tuil-. International Journal of American Linguistics 46:33-36. Kinkade, M.D. 1981. The Source of the Upper Chehalis Reflexive. International Journal of American Linguistics 47:336-39. Kinkade, M.D. 1982. Transitive Inflection in (Moses) Columbian Salish. Kansas Working Papers in Lingistics; Studies in Native American Languages, Vol. 7. pp. 49-62. Kinkade, M.D. 1983. Salish Evidence against the Universality of Noun and Verb. Lingua 21:610-626. Kinkade, M.D. 1990. Sorting out Third Persons in Salishan Discourse. International Journal of American Linguistics 56:341-60. Kroeber, P.D. 1991. Comparative Syntax of Subordinates in Salish. Phd. thesis. University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois. -  86  -  Kuipers, A.H. 1968. The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21:610-626. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport. 1989. An Approach to Unaccusative Mismatches. NELS 19 pp. 3 14-329. Matthewson, L. 1993. A configurational pronominal argument language. ms. UBC. Vancouver, British Columbia. Mattina, A. 1982. The Colville-Okanagan Transitive System. International Journal of American Linguistics 48:421-35. Mattina, N. 1993. Some lexical properties of Colville-Okanagan ditransitives. Twenty-eighth International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Perlmutter, D.M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis, BLS 4. Berkeley, California. Perimutter, D.M. and C.G. Rosen. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. Rosen, C. 1984. The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations, in D.M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen eds., Studies in Relational Grammar 2, University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. 38-77. Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory; An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Cambridge:Basil Blackwell. Tenny, C.L. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.d. dissertation. MIT. Thompson, L.C. 1985. Control in Salish Grammar. Relational Typology, Trends in Linguistics (Studies and Monographs 28) ed. F. Plank, pp. 391-428. Mouton. Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson. 1979. Thompson-English Dictionary. ms. Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson. 1980. Thompson Salish //-xi//. International Journal of American Linguistics 46:27-32. Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson. 1987. English-Thompson Finderlist. ms. Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson. 1990. Appendices. ms.  -  87  -  Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson. 1992. The Thompson Language. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics. No. 8. Thompson, L.C. and M.T. Thompson, A. York, M. Joe, S. Egesdal. 1990. Push-Back-Sides-of-His-Hair: A Thompson Salish Myth. ms. Zaenen, A. 1988. Unaccusative Verbs in Dutch and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. unpublished ms. Xerox PARC. Palo Alto, California.  -  88  -  APPENDIX 1 Free Form Roots  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.  Agentive Activity bake in ashes ?écq” drink ?üq’”e? descend-water k”üce ascend-water k’’üme stop ICéy m’ón/m’n’ give (s.t.), make a donation! s.t. given to sit mIcq’ (make a) visit mI+t steal naq”’ nés go to (place), go for (purpose)... animal-run nó narrate, tell a story/narrator, story-teller pték”1 come back, go back, return, revive... p’én’t tá to paddle (a canoe) twep go, move backwards q?em [of infant] nurse, suck at breast reach the top, summit of s.t. qáyt xiy go ashore xvesIt walk, go, take a trip, travel get dressed, put one’s clothes on... zác VwÔyt sleep help kn watch páq” sell téw point cü+ cut brush l’Im say cün be a lie/falsehood, tell a lie/falsehood kéze? that’s all, as soon as, be completed, finished cük’’  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Non-Agentive Forms fall down, be born k”is bang/bump (into something) +yük” puncture, touch (s.t.), finger goes through pl’flx” be/get hurt an’i faint, lose conciousness Iyq’ perforated ky’üx” kw61 [of liquid] flow, run, spill )c’m’áq [of cord] break, pull apart -  89  -  9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.  ptfik’’ zI’aq’  flüxv c’k laxi +á Ic’z máq’ pz’é+ qwnoxw wméx züm zóq”  ooze out, water source, spring (things piled up) come down, fall; (of house) cave in s.t. bangs, makes a racket exhausted, finished be cold be healed, heal lazy be full, satiated free, easily done, worthless, reckless, foolish be sick, ill live, be alive big, large, great [person, animal, plant] die, be dead  States: Inanimate present, here ?éy burn/blacken, burn up, burn black có wash Out [of road,hillj c’l’ó (be) hot, hot [weather, object] c’ló c’ma [of berries] mashed, [of clothes] worn out detached, apart k+ k4üxw severed, cut off lpüx’” [of ice/glass] have a hole through difficult (to do), hard, elevated [language] Ic’iy’ braided )‘méx strongly, very, intensively néx’’ curled q’lux” [obj/substance] develops a hole .ctáq coiled [of snake, rope] zn6k shine, give light c’ek’’ be a noise Ilüx” Involuntary bodily processes  1. 2.  shéw ?ésxe  yawn sneeze  3.  wék’k’  vomit  -  90  -  1. 2. 3. 4. 5  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.  Psychological c’éx k”á paqwu? q1il  shame crazy, insane fear/scare/frighten angry, get angry/mad jealous, envious  Weather/Nature (to) hail 1c’aüs to rain ték4 to snow WÜX”t it is dusk, twilight lap get frosty, there is frost x”ák”’ Nominal Forms ?ék”’n bait/salmon roe kinnickkinnick berry ?éyk grandchild ?imc white worms (in rotten wood) ?Iic cItx” c’y’é képu(w)  kix kwülu?xr Ilk” 4-wéy’st I’émn I’éms I’ix”e+ k’ümk’ mc’ü4’t qmüt qlex”' qwtel qWu  q”zém  séw’t só”'m’ tinx tmix”'  niix”' zm’én’  house basket coat elder sister/cousin  dog salmon prayer beads autumn body hair/fur birch basket different/strange, wrong one whistle/drinking tube pus hat blanket grease water/river moss  slave edible sprouts, blackcaps, sunflower seeds sinew land, earth ladder bird nest/one’s origins  -  91  -  APPENDIX 2 Control Roots  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.  Free Forms x’’esIt cü(n) náq” tá ?üqwe? nó im cü+ nés k6n mI+t mlá(m) p’nt q?ém qáyt q’amin téw k”’üceh kwümeh m’n só’est ték4  walk say steal paddle drink animal run cut brush point go help visit heal return to nurse (breastfeed) reach top throw sell to descend to water ascend from water donate descend (this form may be a re-analyzed reflexive) rain  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  Bound forms f7üsfk”én../k’éx%fnéfpIle%fpuysfpüyt%fqólfqa-  discard grasp joke give inform/tell kill lie down bite cheer  -  92  -  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items