UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Topic time : the syntax and semantics of SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbials Currie, Elizabeth J. 1997

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0520.pdf [ 4.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088237.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088237-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088237-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088237-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088237-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088237-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088237-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088237-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088237.ris

Full Text

TOPIC THE  SYNTAX  SQWXWU7MISH  TIME:  AND  SEMANTICS  TEMPORAL  OF  ADVERBIALS  by ELIZABETH J. CURRIE B.A.(Hons), Queen's University at Kingston Ontario, 1986  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 October 1997 © Elizabeth Jean Currie, 1997  In presenting this thesis  in partial fulfilment  degree at the University of  of  the  requirements  for  an advanced  British Columbia, I agree . that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  / _ I ' ^ ^ r i i i sH  C-s  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Q c k o ^ r  /^,  i ^ ^  Abstract The goal of this thesis is to explain  the syntax and  semantics of phrasal temporal adverbials in SqwXwu7mish, a Coast Salish language.  This thesis proposes that SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbials function either as a main predicate or as a temporal argument corresponding to Reichenbach1s (1947) reference point.  When  these adverbials are the main predicate, they get an event time reading; when they are at the right sentence,  they  get  a reference  time  edge of the  reading.  Thus,  SqwXwu7mish adverbials support the claim by de Swart (to appear) that adverbials in focus structure get an event time reading, while adverbials in topic structure get a reference time reading.  Furthermore, this thesis argues that adverbs in SqwXwu7mish are not adjuncts but arguments, based on their restricted distribution.  Therefore, SqwXwu7mish adverbs do not simply  modify the reference time, they denote is as a temporal argument, Topic Time (Klein 1994).  This argument is located  in the specifier of the spatiotemporal predicate Aspect within the framework proposed by Demirdache Etxebarria (to appear, a,b).  ii  and Uribe-  Table  of  Contents  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iii  Acknowledgement  v  Dedication  vi  1.  Introduction 1.1 The Proposal 1.2 Definitions of Tense 1.3 Reichenbach (1947) 1.4 The Notion of Reference Time 1.4.1 Hornstein and Thompson 1.4.2 Stowell, Dowty, and Kamp and Reyle 1.4.3 Klein's Topic Time 1.4.4 Summary 1.5 The Syntax of Tense and Aspect 1.6 The Syntax of Temporal Adverbials 1.7 The Semantics of Temporal Adverbials 1.7.1 Locating Adverbs 1.7.2 Aspectual Adverbs 1.7.3 Quantificational Adverbs 1.8 Outline of the Thesis  1 1 2 7 8 10 13 16 17 18 20 22 22 23 24 24  2.  SqwXwu7mish Morphology and Syntax 2.1 Word Order in the Main Clause 2.2 Tense and Aspect Marking 2.2.1 Realis and Irrealis 2.2.2 The Durative and the Deictic 2.2.3 Past, Present and Future 2.2.4 Local Directional 2.2.5 Summary 2.3 Determiners and Temporal Adverbs 2.3.1 The SqwXwu7mish Determiner System 2.3.2 Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow 2.3.3 Morning, Year 2.3.4 Calendar Names 2.3.5 Quantificational Adverbs 2.4 Complex Sentences 2.4.1 Coordination 2.4.2 Conjunctive Clauses 2.4.3 Nominalized Clauses 2.4.4 Zero Relative Clauses 2.5 Summary  28 28 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 42 42 43 44 46 46  3.  The 3.1 3.2  47 48 50 50 53  Interpretation of Adverbs Adverbs and Topic/Focus Structure Adverb-Quantifier Interaction 3.2.1 Adverbs and Quantified Subjects 3.2.2 Adverbs and Only iii  3.6  3.2.3 Cardinality Quantifiers 3.2.4 Summary Topic Time in Narrative The Perfect in English and SqwXwu7mish Aspectual Adverbs 3.5.1 English Aspectual Adverbs 3.5.2 SqwXwu7mish Aspectual Adverbs Conclusions  54 57 57 61 63 63 65 67  4.  The 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5  Distribution of SqwXwu7mish Adverbs Two Temporal Adverbs SqwXwu7mish Adverbs Prefer the Right Periphery Adverbs and Subordinate Clauses Functional Adverbs Summary  68 68 70 75 77 81  5.  The 5.1 5.2 5.3  Syntax of the Topic Time Argument 82 Topic Time, Temporal Adverbials and Aspect 82 The Syntax of Tense and Aspect 84 Adapting the Framework to SqwXwu7mish 86 5.3.1 Simple Tenses 86 5.3.2 The Category of Temporal Arguments 88 5.3.3 Aspect Recursion in SqwXwu7mish 90 5.3.4 The Predicate Tense in SqwXwu7mish 91 Analyzing the Pronoun-Verb Construction 93 5.4.1 Topic Time "Yesterday" 93 5.4.2 Zero Topic Time 95 5.4.3 Topic Time "Sunday" 96 5.4.4 Habitual Topic Time 98 5.4.5 Conclusions 99 Word Order 100 Subordinate Nominalized Clauses 104 5.6.1 The Syntax of Subordinate Clauses 105 5.6.2 The Syntax of Nominalized Clauses 106 5.6.3 Topic Time Adverbs and CP Nominalized Clauses 107 5.6.4 Topic Time Adverbs and DP Nominalized Clauses 111 5.6.5 Conclusions 114 Temporal Adverbs and Quantification 115 Conclusions 118  3.3 3.4 3.5  5.4  5.5 5.6  5.7 5.8  6.  I m p l i c a t i o n s , Further I s s u e s and 6.1 I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Analysis 6.2 F u r t h e r I s s u e s 6.3 Conclusions  C o n c l u s i o n s 12 0 120 122 125  Abbreviations.  127  Key to SqwXwu7mish Orthography  128  References  129  iv  Acknowledgement First and foremost, I am indebted to the SqwXwu7mish Elders Language Group, YJ, LJ, DW, LB, and especially to EL, for her cookies and juice, her encouragement, and her wonderful sense of humour. Ha71h n-sqwalwen. Thank you also to SqwXwu7mish Nation, for granting permission to conduct this research, and in particular to Peter Jacobs and SeeQwaLia, who took charge of the protocol, as well as to the SqwXwu7mish Nation Education Department. I am eternally in the debt of my supervisor, Hamida Demirdache; if this thesis exists, it's because she never gave up on it or me; to Henry Davis, for his incisive comments and for his course on Salish Syntax, which made a BIG difference; and to Peter Jacobs, for setting up and sitting through every elicitation session, and discussing the results; any remaining inaccuracies in the data are not for lack of trying. The fieldwork for this thesis was funded by SSHRCC grant #410-95-1519. With my committee, I thank RoseMarie Dechaine for her role as my supervisor before she escaped to Africa. The faculty and post-doctoral fellows in the Department of Linguistics at U.B.C. have been just grand, in particular Dr. Dale Kinkade, the great Salishanist and fine baker; Michael Rochemont, my introductory syntax and semantics professor; and Doug Pulleyblank, who made my various difficulties seem almost simple. Special thanks to Dr. Laurel Brinton for allowing me to participate in her course on Tense and Aspect. The Girona International Summer School in Linguistics 1996 helped sub-consciously, as it turns out. Thank you to professors Angelika Kratzer, Richard Kayne, James Higginbotham, Alain Rouveret, and especially, Myriam UribeEtxebarria; thanks also to the organizers and to my fabulously fun fellow participants, especially my "roomie" Isabelle Roy. The participants of the Northwest Linguistics Conference sat through a preliminary outline of this work that got the ball rolling. Fellow Graduate Students at U . B . C , in particular Lisa Matthewson, Leora Bar-el, Eleanor Blain, Monica Sanchez, Susan Blake, Tomio Hirose,Nicole Horseherder, Myles Leitch, Nike Ola, Taylor Roberts, Kimary Shahin, Lisa Chang, Cora Li, Sandra Lai, and Vanessa Valerga, have been great, and as for Carmen da Silva, the "key to the department", thanks for letting me behind the counter. Thanks to my dear friends Anne Robertson and her men, for keeping me anchored in the rest of the world; Denise Oliver and Doug Klassen, for debriefing sessions after Salish overdoses in Victoria; and Linda Andrews, for those three hour brunches. Finally, thanks to my father, the late William M. Currie, for being proud of my academic aspirations; my younger brother, James Currie, for being both an impediment and an inspiration; and especially, my mummy, Audrey Currie, for listening to me complain, cooking dinner for me, and extending my line of credit just one more time. v  This thesis is dedicated to Auntie Eva and to Francisco, for his future.  1.  Introduction All languages use temporal adverbials to express time,  but many lack grammaticalized tense.  Indeed, tenses "are  primarily parasitic on time adverbials (...) properly  understood  without  and cannot be  an understanding  interaction with time adverbials"  of  their  (Dowty 1979:323).  The  status of these adverbials and their interaction with tense is  therefore  central  to the understanding  of  temporal  interpretation in human language.  1. 1 The  Proposal  The goal of this thesis is to explain the syntax and semantics of phrasal temporal adverbials in SqwXwu7mish. Based on their interpretation and distribution, this thesis proposes that SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbials function either  as a main predicate  corresponding  or as a temporal  to Reichenbach's  (1947)  argument  reference  point.  SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbs which are focused, that is, the main  predicate,  get  an  event  time  reading,  whereas  SqwXwu7mish adverbs that appear at the right edge of the sentence get a reference time reading.  Furthermore, temporal  adverbials in SqwXwu7mish provide evidence for the claim by de Swart  (to appear) that reference time is specified by  adverbs in the topic structure of the sentence, while the event time is specified by adverbs in the focus structure. This thesis further claims that adverbs in SqwXwu7mish do not modify the reference time, they denote it as an argument  1  called Topic Time (following Klein 1994). located  in  the  specifier  position  of  This argument is  the  spatiotemporal  predicate Aspect within the framework proposed by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (to appear). This introductory chapter sets out necessary background on tense, temporal  interpretation, and  temporal adverbs.  Section 1.2 examines definitions of tense; underlying these definitions are the three times formalized in Reichenbach's model, which Reichenbach's  is outlined  in Section  1.3.  The status of  "third" point, the reference time, has been  widely debated, and this controversy is examined more closely in Section 1.4. Etxebarria 's  Section 1.5 outlines Demirdache and Uribe-  proposal  that  both  Tense  and  Aspect  are  predicates which take temporal arguments corresponding speech time, event time, and reference time.  to  The syntax of  temporal adverbials is discussed in Section 1.6, then the semantic classification of adverbs is presented in Section 1.7.  The final section of this chapter outlines the thesis  as a whole.  1. 2 Definitions Traditional aspect,  thereby  progressive, Kitty  of  Tense  definitions  of  classifying had been  tense  the  eating,  combine  English  past  expresses  define  tense  "location  as a grammatical  in time  "  2  and  perfect  as a tense rather than as  past tense and perfect and progressive aspect. treatments  tense  (Comrie  Typological  category  1985:1)  or,  which more  specifically, which "characterizes the location of an event with  respect  1985:256).  to a point  in time"  (Chung  and  Timberlake  Such approaches seek to provide a descriptive  framework to account for the range of tense, aspect and mood systems  cross-linguistically.  In  truth  conditional  semantics, tense has been analyzed as a sentential operator which specifies the time at which the truth of the utterance is evaluated1. Generative grammarians seek to define tense in terms of the interaction of its semantics and syntax; tense is either a referential expression  (Enc 1987) or a predicate  1990, Stowell 1993, 1997).  (Zagona  Both conceptions of tense are  important for the claim of this thesis that temporal adverbs, which are referential expressions, are the arguments of a temporal predicate. Enc  (1987:638) argues that  "all temporal  expressions  should be treated on a par with NPs" (1987:639), that is, as referential expressions; for example, temporal adverbs can appear in argument position as in (1): (1)a.Tell me why I don't like Monday. b.Bob was worried about yesterday. Specifically,  she proposes  that  expressions denoting intervals".  tenses  are  "referential  The interval denoted by  tense is a temporal argument selected by the verb, therefore tense is a "referential argument of the verb" appear:13)  along  with  the NP  subject  and  (Stowell, to object.  The  •'-Arguments against the analysis of tense as a sentential operator can be found in Enc (1986, 1987) and Hornstein (1990).  3  proposal that tense refers in the same way as a nominal2 allows Eng to assume that tense carries a referential index. Assuming that tense is in INFL and has the meaning "past" or "present", a past tense is a relation which "must denote an interval that is prior to some other interval" (Eng 1987:641), while present denotes an interval that is the same as some other interval.  This other interval, which in the  matrix clause is the speech time, is "denoted" by COMP.  When  COMP is this "specifier of tense", it also has a temporal index and it governs tense in INFL.  The index on a matrix  COMP is always 0: in the present tense, the tense denotes an interval that is the same as the speech time denoted by COMP, and COMP and INFL are co-indexed; in the past tense, the tense denotes an interval which is before the interval denoted by COMP: (2)a.John died. b.[COMPo [NP [PASTi VP ]]], i*0 COMP and INFL cannot be co-indexed and co-referential in this case.  The relation between COMP and tense is determined by  "Anchoring Conditions", which state that tense is anchored "if it is bound in its governing category, or if its local Comp is anchored"; COMP is anchored "if it is bound within its governing category" or else "if it denotes the speech time" (Eng 1987:643).  These principles are similar to those  of the binding theory, yet are still distinct in order to  2  Partee (197 3) compares tenses to pronouns, arguing that both require antecedents either in the sentence or the discourse.  4  characterize the difference between temporal and nominal reference. For Zagona (1990) and Stowell (1993, to appear a,b), tense is not itself a referential expression but a predicate which relates referential expressions, the two temporal arguments of the clause.  The external argument, called  "reference" time, denotes the speech time in the matrix clause; the internal argument is "the time of the event or state denoted by the verb phrase" (Stowell, to appear b:9). In Stowell's theory, the temporal predicate locates the internal event time argument in relation to the external "reference" time argument by its meaning: past present  means "within", and future  means "after",  means "before".  Syntactically, the Tense predicate is the head of the maximal projection TP; the external "reference" time argument is projected in the specifier of TP, while the internal event time argument is the complement of T, as proposed by Zagona (1990) . Stowell proposes that the category of these two time denoting  arguments  is a functional  category  ZP,  "Zeit  Phrase": the internal argument of tense, denoting the event time, is therefore a ZP which contains the VP; either Z or an operator in the specifier of ZP binds a variable, itself a ZP, in the specifier of VP3.  The external argument of tense  is a non-overt ZP-PRO, which in main clauses denotes the time of utterance and in subordinate clauses is controlled by the 3  The binding of the variable in the specifier of VP by Z is analoguous to the binding of the variable in the specifier of NP by D under the DP hypothesis.  5  event time of the main clause.  This yields the structure in  (3), from Stowell (to appear b ) : (3)  TP PRO-ZP  T' /  \  T  - ZPi /  \  Z1  Opi /  \  Zi  VP ZP  VP  The mechanics of this system will be further explored  in  terms of the extension proposed by Demirdache and UribeEtxebarria, presented in Section 1.5. To summarize, tense has been defined as a grammatical category which locates events in time, a sentential operator, a referential expression, and a predicate.  Each of these  treatments assumes at least the existence of the time of the event and the time of the utterance itself, which in matrix clauses is now;  in addition, some assume the existence of a  third time which mediates between the event time and the utterance time.  This idea of temporal interpretation as a  relation of three points has its origins in grammars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and decriptive work of the nineteenth century  (Klein 1994) and is formalized  Reichenbach's 1947 proposal.  6  in  1.3  Reichenbach  (1947)  From an example of the past perfect, Peter had  gone,  Reichenbach argues that tense is composed of three time points, the "point of speech" S, the "point of the event" E and the "point of reference" R, and that the third point, R, is instantiated in all tenses, even where its effects are not manifest.  He claims that these three points can be ordered  before, after or simultaneous to each other in order to calculate thirteen logically possible tenses; by considering the relation of the speech time to the reference time as "past," "present," and "future" and the relation of the event time to the reference time as "anterior," "posterior,"  these  "fundamental forms". shown in  possibilities  are  "simple," and  reduced  to  nine  For example, the forms of the past are  (4); the comma indicates that the points are  contemporaneous, while the underline indicates they are not: (4)  E E,R R R R  R S S E S S,E S E  The  Reichenbach's Name anterior past  Traditional Name past perfect  Example  simple past  simple past  She did.  posterior past  addition  of  She would do.  -  a  temporal  She had done.  adverb  or  "time  determination" to t h i s system i s "referred, not to the event, but to the reference point of the sentence" 1947:294).  In  the  example  1  I  had  met  him  (Reichenbach yesterday,  Reichenbach  argues  that  yesterday  is  the  reference  point  which i s "the c a r r i e r of the time p o s i t i o n " : (5)a.  E=meet <___[  S  |___]  |  >  R=yesterday b.  E=meet |  <  [  S |___>  ]  R=yesterday If the meeting occurred yesterday, reference  point  coincide,  as  occurred prior to yesterday,  the event point and the in  (5a.);  if  the  meeting  these two points are distinct,  as in (5b.). Kamp and Reyle "the  first  to  (1993:523) describe this work as being  recognize  what  we  have  been  calling  the  'anaphoric dimension' of the tenses of natural language," where  the  second  tense  in  a  pair  of  sentences  or  a  subordinate clause is interpreted "as 'anaphoric' to the time that  the  previous  1993:495).  tense  introduced"  (Kamp  and  Reyle  They credit Reichenbach's model with accounting  for this temporal anaphora through the idea of the reference point. 1.4  The  Notion  of  Reference  Time  The status of this third time is controversial, however. In  this  section,  different  conceptions  of  Reichenbach's  reference time are outlined. Hornstein (1990) draws on Reichenbach's ideas to develop the principles of a theory of tense that account for a wider range of data; to do so, he argues explicitly for the equal  8  status of the three points, speech time, S, event time, E, and  reference  existence  time, R.  of  these  Thompson  three  times  (1994a,b) and  assumes  argues  for  the  their  association with syntactic heads, based on the interpretation of adverbs.  These two analyses are discussed  in Section  1.4.1. In Section 1.4.2, the status of Reichenbach's reference point according to Dowty  (1979), Stowell  Kamp and Reyle (1993) is discussed. consider  this  notion  to be  a  (to appear a ) , and  Dowty and Stowell both  tool  for  narrative  tense  sequencing; Stowell then adopts the term "reference time" for the external argument of the predicate tense, which is the speech time in a matrix clause, and suggests that narrative ordering is effected by "a null Topic time-denoting phrase" (Stowell to appear a:13).  Kamp and Reyle  (1993:594-595)  point out that Reichenbach1s concept of reference time tried "to do too many things at once," encompassing both narrative sequencing  and  the  interpretation  of  the  perfect;  they  therefore distinguish a "reference point" for the narrative progression of time reference and  "a temporal perspective  point"  the  as  "the point  from which  described  event  is  viewed". Finally, Klein proposes that a possible interpretation of Reichenbach 1 s  reference  time", which he defines  time  as the  is the notion "time  span  of  "topic  to which  the  speaker's claim on this occasion is confined" (Klein 1994:4; original italicized).  The boundaries of topic time may be  9  specified by an adverbial.  This is presented in Section  1.4.3. This thesis adopts Klein's conception of Reichenbach's reference time, and in particular his use of the name "topic time".  The justification for naming reference time adverbs  as topics will be presented in Chapter 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2. 1.4.1  Hornstein and Thompson Hornstein's (1990) syntactic revision of Reichenbach's  proposal seeks to define and constrain what is a possible tense in order to account for the interaction of tense and adverbs, which will be briefly discussed here, and to explain Sequence of Tense effects in English. To argue for the inclusion of the reference point, R, Hornstein points out that if tense is a relation between only two points, the speech time, S, and the event time, E, then there are four possible tenses.  While this would be an  advantage for learnability, it would fail to account for a six tense system like English^, with its perfect tenses.  The  past perfect and the future perfect both interpret the event time's relation to the speech time in terms of a third point: (6)a. b. c.  John had left the office. John will have left the office. John had left the office at six o'clock.  The past perfect in (6a.) has the temporal interpretation that John's leaving the office, E, is before both the speech 4  The six tenses of English are considered to be the past, present, future, past perfect, present perfect, and future perfect.  10  time, S, and before another moment, R, which is itself before S but after E, as in (7a.): (7)a.  <  E  R  S  b.  <  S  E  R  > >  The future perfect in (6b.) is represented by (7b.), whereby John's leaving, E, is after the speech time, S, and before another point in time, R, which is itself after both S and E. The sentence in (6c.) is ambiguous between the reading that John left at six, where the adverb identifies E, and that John left before six, where the adverb specifies R; this is schematized in (8): (8)a.  <  E  R  S  >  S  >  I 6 p.m. b.  <  E  R  I 6 p.m. Hornstein argues that R gives the same effect as the semantic analysis which embeds operators, and the combination of S, E, and R correctly predicts what is a possible tense in English, which the operator analysis does not. Hornstein states that the existence of both an event point, E, and a reference point, R, explains why the number of temporal  adverbs  in English is restricted  to two per  clause: (9)a. A week from tomorrow, John will leave in a month. b.*From tomorrow, John, in a week, will leave in a month. c.*In a week, John, from tomorrow, will leave in a month. Sentence (9a.) is grammatical because the adverbial cluster a week  from  tomorrow  is analyzed as a single constituent, which  11  occupies one adverbial position, while in  a month  occupies  the other; the sentences in (9b.) and (9c.) are ungrammatical because there is no place in the syntax for a third adverb. Thus, the presence of R along with E and S correctly predicts the judgments in (9) since only E and R can be modified by adverbs, leaving the third adverb uninterpretable.5 Hornstein claims that adverbs may associate to R or E depending on their position in the sentence: sentence initial adverbs associate to the reference point, R, and sentence final adverbs associate either to the reference point, R, or or to the event point, E. arguments  for  the  analysis  He goes on to present that  R must  mediate  several between  between S and E, in order to constrain the total possible number of tenses available in human language. Thompson  (1994:3) proposes that these two time points  are associated with syntactic heads, subject to the "Tense Structure Mapping Condition" that constrains the mapping to a one-to-one relation.  A simplified version of her structure  is shown in (10): (10)  TP T  AspP  •  / \ Asp  VP V E  5  This argument extends to sentences with adverbial clauses, but these are not presented here.  12  She  takes  Hornstein's  claim  that  speech  time, S,  and  reference time, R, are ordered by tense morphemes, and locates the speech point, S, in the head of TP.  Furthermore,  she argues that the English perfect auxiliary have  "orders  the Event point with respect to the Reference point" and that the reference point, R, is therefore located in Asp, the head of AspP.  Finally, the event time, E, is located in V, the  head of VP.  Adverbs that modify the R point are therefore  adjoined to AspP, and those that modify E are adjoined to the VP. Therefore,  for  both  Hornstein  and  Thompson,  the  existence of the reference point with status equal to the speech time and event time explains the tenses of English and their interaction with temporal adverbials. 1.4.2  Stowell, Dowty, and Kamp and Reyle Stowell  (to  appear,a)  claims  that  Reichenbach' s  reference time "provides a formalization, for the purposes of tense interpretation, of the traditional notion of 'point of view'.  This has considerable intuitive appeal, but mainly in  the case  of the perfect tense constructions."  In other  words, he argues that reference time exists but that it does not have the same status as the event time and speech time arguments of the predicate Tense.  He proposes to account for  the English perfect as a "complex tense predicate" composed of the verb have  and its complement Perfect Phrase, PrtP,  which is headed by the past morphology of the participle.  He  then adopts the term "reference time" as a label for the  13  external argument of the tense predicate, which is "speech time" in matrix clauses and which in subordinate clauses is controlled by the event time of the matrix clause. Stowell also acknowledges  the possible presence of  Reichenbach's reference time in narrative contexts, but offers an alternative analysis.  In a footnote, he suggests  that temporal ordering of events in a narrative can be achieved if the event time of one sentence acts as the antecedent of a "topic time" phrase, which in turn binds the event  time  (or rather, its variable) of  the  following  sentence. Dowty's criticism of Reichenbach1s approach is that the simple past and the present perfect have the same truth conditions under his analysis.  He suggests that reference  time may capture a pragmatic difference between the two, and concludes that the idea of a reference time "has its proper place in a theory of narration, i.e. of the way indefinitely identified times in a sequence of sentences in a narrative are understood to be ordered, perhaps with the aid of common information not included in the sentences themselves" (Dowty 1979:332) . Kamp  and  Reichenbach's ordering  Reyle  (1993)  proposal  sentences  in  point  out  that  in  treats the time responsible narrative  and  the  time  fact for that  characterizes the perfect, located between the utterance time and the "described eventuality", as if they were the same.  14  They provide an example6 of "extended flashbacks" to show the necessity for distinguishing them: (11) Fred arrived at 10. He had got up at 5; he had taken a long shower (at x) , had got dressed (at y) , and had eaten a leisurely breakfast (at z) . He had left the house at 6:30. (p. 594) In this discourse, all the perfect constructions require both a "point of view" time which is set at the beginning, Fred's arrival at ten, and a time that moves with the narrative, to ensure for example that the event of Fred's getting dressed follows the event of his shower and precedes the event of his eating breakfast: (12) <  I 5  Kamp and Reyle  I---I---I x y z  call  the  I 6:30  I 10  time needed  for  l---> now  the  narrative  sequencing the "reference time" and the time necessary i n t e r p r e t i n g the perfect  the "temporal p e r s p e c t i v e  for  point".  They argue further for t h i s l a t t e r notion with an example of the future in the p a s t : (13) Mary got to the s t a t i o n at 9:45. at 10:05.  Her t r a i n would a r r i v e  In t h i s example, the temporal perspective point, R, i s Mary's a r r i v a l at the s t a t i o n , which i s prior to the speech time, S, and to the time of the event, E, which i s a l s o before  the  speech time: (14)  <  R • I 9:45  E I 10:05  S I now  >  "The h o l d i n g , i t a l i c s and p a r e n t h e t i c a l times a r e added h e r e t o t h e i s s u e s of t h e example's temporal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  15  clarify  Thus,  this  analysis  refines  the  central  notion  of  Reichenbach's reference time, R, as the time from which the event is viewed, and accounts for an implicit notion in Reichenbach's reference point, the time in narrative that shifts from event to event. 1.4.3  Klein's Topic Time Reichenbach's reference time is interpreted by Klein  (1994:4) as "topic time", TT, the time for which the claim or assertion of the utterance is made.  Topic time is related by  tense to the time of utterance and by aspect to the time of the situation or event described.  It is specified by a  phrasal or clausal temporal adverbial, as in (15), from Klein (1994:40) : (15)a.What did you notice when you entered the room? b.A man was lying on the floor. c.A woman was bending over him. d.She was taking a purse from his pocket. e.She turned to me. The topic time set by the adverbial clause in the first speaker's question, when you  entered  the  room,  is the same  for each of the second speaker's answers in (15b.), (c.) and (d.).  However, the time for which the claim she turned  to me  is made in (15e.) follows the time the second speaker entered the room; in other words, the topic time of sentences (15a.d.) is TTl, while that in (15e.) is TT2. question had asked when you  were  in  Note that if the  the  room,  all the  responses in (15) would fall within the same topic time. The topic time is therefore fixed in one of two ways: by "anaphoric maintenance," whereby the topic time of a previous  16  utterance remains the topic time of the present utterance but is not explicitly restated; or by "explicit specification, " when the topic time of the present utterance specifies a time span which is not the topic time previously specified. topic time, TT, may contain or be contained described  by  the event or state, but  in the time  its boundaries  undefined unless specified by an adverbial.  The  are  In English, the  adverb which fixes the topic time is sentence initial or post subject, or, more generally, part of the topic structure of the sentence. 1.4.4  Summary The comparative interpretations of Reichenbach's notion  of reference time presented in this section are summarized in the table in (16), which specifies the terminology used by each analysis and the times which each propose- as equal in status7:  (16) Speech Time Reichenbach speech time Hornstein Thompson speech time Dowty Stowell  Kamp Reyle Klein  Reference Time reference time  Event Time  -  event time  reference time (=matrix speech time) temporal and utterance perspective time point time of topic time utterance  event time  event time  Narrative Sequencing reference time reference time topic time  described reference eventuality time t ime of situation  'This thesis does not address the problem of the formalism needed to sequence times in narrative.  17  Hornstein  and  Thompson  argued  that  the  existence  of  Reichenbach's reference time explained the tenses attested in English  and  the interpretation  of temporal adverbials.  Klein's interpretation of this notion as topic time, the time for which the claim is made or "to which the assertion is confined" (Klein 1995:687), included the claim that this time is a topic of the sentence.  These claims will be extended to  temporal interpretation and adverbials in SqwXwu7mish in Chapter 3 of this thesis, which now adopts Klein's term, topic time, TT, for the third time interval.  1. 5 The Syntax of Tense and Aspect The equal status of the speech time, event time, and reference or topic time is important to the syntax of tense and aspect proposed by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (to appear a,b). Building on the proposals by Zagona (1990) and Stowell (1993, to appear a,b) that Tense is a predicate with two time denoting phrases as its arguments, Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria argue that grammatical Aspect is also such a predicate.  They base their proposal on the claim (Klein  1994, 1995) that tense and aspect are semantically parallel because they both order two times8. Under this proposal, the external argument of the predicate Tense is a speech time argument UT-T and the internal argument is a topic time  "Lexical aspect is not considered in Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (to appear a,b); a short sketch of the interaction of lexical aspect and temporal interpretation in SqwXwu7mish is provided in the concluding chapter of this thesis.  18  argument, TOP-T9.  This TOP-T is the external argument of the  predicate Aspect and the internal argument is an event time argument, EV-T.  Each of these arguments is a ZP or Zeit  Phrase, adapting Stowell's (1993, to appear a,b) proposal. The arguments are ordered by the prepositional heads of the temporal predicates: Past Tense and Perfect Aspect, which mean "after"; Future Tense and Prospective Aspect, which mean "before"; and Present Tense and Progressive Aspect, which mean "within".  The representation of this approach is shown  in (17): (17)  TP / \ UT-T  T' / T  \ ASP-P  / \ TOP-T ASP' / ASP  \ VP / EV-T  \ V  V The external temporal argument of the predicate Tense, the speech time, is generated in the specifier of T; the external argument of Aspect, the topic time, is generated in the specifier of Asp; and the event time argument, the temporal argument of the verb, is generated in the specifier of the VP. 9  While Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria label this argument AST-T or assertion time, following Klein (1995), this thesis follows Klein (1994) and adopts the label topic time, TOP-T, as discussed in the previous section. Both labels refer to the same thing, that is, the time for which the claim or assertion is made.  19  In order to accomodate the thematic subject of the verb, which is generated in the specifier of VP and raised to the specifier of TP for Case assignment or feature checking, Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (to appear b:9) assume that T and Asp play "dual roles". Thus, both are lexical heads that "have argument structure that they project into the syntax", and functional heads that "enter (...)  into feature checking  relations with arguments that have been displaced to their checking domain" (to appear b:9-10).  This dual function of  syntactic heads is achieved with two specifier positions, one for each function  (Chomsky 1995 and references therein) .  Although for Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria, the V does not have a functional role, the event time argument and the thematic subject of the verb are both accomodated through this use of multiple specifiers.  1. 6 The Syntax of Temporal Adverbs Temporal expressions in language can be adverbs and adverbial phrases, nouns and noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and subordinate clauses (Binnick 1991). adverbs include always,  and then; too  soon.  yesterday before tomorrow  eventually,  henceforth,  English  now,  soon,  they can appear in phrases such as just now and not Temporal nouns such as Sunday,  tomorrow  and  can also be used in noun phrases such as the  day  yesterday morning,  and last and every  Sunday, day.  today,  along with next Temporal  prepositional  phrases may be formed with temporal nouns, such as  20  year,  before  tomorrow,  until  Sunday  and during  denoting an event, such as after the deadline.  is  or with nouns  party  and before  Finally, temporal clauses include after  over,  before  arrives.  the  library  closes,  and when  These time adverbials can also  "clusters" in English, such as for  dinner  1994,  this  a few  the  the party  Catherine  form complex  minutes  before  evening.  English temporal adverbials are attached to either the sentence or the verb phrase 1995).  (Thompson 1994a,b, Hitzeman  When they are attached to the sentence, they may be  sentence-initial as in (18) or sentence final as in (20). When they are contained within the verb phrase, adverbs may appear before the verb, as in (19a.), after the verb or auxiliary,  as  in  (19b.),  or  after  the  verb  and  its  complements, as in (20): (18)  Last night, the moon was full.  (19)a.Anna sometimes takes tea. b.She was recently criticized for her behaviour. (20)  Alexander had written a poem about it yesterday.  The sentence final adverb in (20) is therefore ambiguous between attachment to the sentence or to the verb phrase. The relatively unrestricted attachment site of the adverb in English has been assumed to be an argument for its status as an adjunct10.  This will be pursued in terms of SqwXwu7mish  adverbs in Chapter 4. 10  Cinque (in progress) argues against the analysis of adverbs as adjuncts. He proposes that adverbial phrases are "the overt manifestation of (the specifiers of) functional projections."  21  1.7  The Semantics  of Temporal  Adverbs  To this point, adverbs have been identified simply as a class; there is a great deal of variety within this class, however.  For the purposes of this thesis, a distinction of  three semantic types of temporal adverbs 1993, Binnick  (Kamp and Reyle  1991 and others) is assumed: i) locating  adverbs, which include deictics, such as yesterday, now, anaphoric adverbs such as a week ago, calendar names such as on  preceding  Sunday,  September  16,  Sunday,  last  tomorrow,  context-dependent Sunday  and on  the  and purely referential adverbs such as on  199711;  ii) aspectual or temporal measure  adverbials, which include in  an hour and for  an hour;  and  iii) quantificational adverbs or temporal quantifiers, such as always,  1.7.1  twice,  never.  and  Locating Adverbs A purely referential adverb such as September  acts^ "as a proper particular possible  date"  name, which  rigidly  (Kamp and Reyle  Deictics like yesterday  designates  1993:614)  worlds; it is not bound by  16,  the  across  1997 one all  speech time.  are defined as expressions which  refer to individual times or intervals of time (Dowty 1979) and which appear to involve "an existential quantifier over times" (Enc 1986:76).  These "discourse-oriented" adverbs are  temporally interpreted "relative to the moment of speech"  H H . Davis (p.c.) points out that this range of temporal parallels the range of nominal referring expressions. Kamp (1993) argue that context sensitivity in temporal reference is varied than in nominal reference. Partee (1973) describes the parallelism as language specific. See Section 6.1.  22  reference and Reyle much more degree of  (Hornstein 1990:30), in contrast to referential adverbs and to anaphoric adverbs, such as a week  ago.  These may be  interpreted in relation either to the speech time or to a reference time such as yesterday.  Calendar names like Sunday  refer to more than one interval of time, the particular interval being determined by the context  (Kamp and Reyle  1993); they cannot refer to the utterance time, and the day referred to will be the closest to the utterance time in the direction indicated by the tense.  Locating adverbs, which  are the most varied and interact most closely with the tenseaspect system  (Klein 1994) , are the main concern of this  research. 1.7.2  Aspectual Adverbs Kamp and Reyle (1993) state that aspectual or measure  adverbs, such as in an hour and for an hour,  appear to behave  in the same way as locating adverbs but in fact function differently semantically.  They argue that these adverbs  refer to the duration of the event but do not locate it in terms of the speech time; they interact with both, the grammatical aspect of the sentence and the aspectual class of the predicate.  The latter is illustrated in (21):  (21)a.Peter wrote a letter in an hour/for an hour. b.Vanessa worked for an hour/*in an hour. c.Francisco arrived in an hour/*for an hour. Telic durative verbs are compatible with both in an hour and for  an hour  with for  as in (21a.); atelic durative verbs can occur  an hour only, as in (21b.); while punctual verbs can  occur with in an hour only, as in (21c).  23  1.7.3  Quantificational Adverbs Quantificational or frequency adverbs locate events and  states in time, but differ from locating adverbs "in that their discourse referents do not act as representatives of particular times, but as bound variables." (Kamp and Reyle 1993:612); in other words, they choose from a set of possible times rather than one particular time. always  For example, in (22),  does not refer to a single time but ranges over the  set of springs  in Eva's lifetime and picks every member in  the set: (22) Eva always gathers cedar in spring. Klein (1994) further categorizes this type of adverb into definites, such as twice as always,  often,  and ten times,  and occasionally.  and PP's with after every  or during  and indefinites, such NP's with every most  or most  are also possible  quantificational adverbs.  1 . 8 Outline of the Thesis The proposal  to be defended  in this thesis, that  reference or topic time has equal status with event time and speech time (Reichenbach 1947, Hornstein 1990, Thompson 1994) and that SqwXwu7mish adverbs are the overt expression of a topic time argument of the predicate Aspect, is supported by their semantics and syntax. In Chapter 2, the grammar of SqwXwu7mish is surveyed, with an emphasis on temporal interpretation.  Word order in  main clauses is established with both nominal and pronominal  24  arguments, and subject and object pronominal paradigms are provided.  The system of aspectual, temporal, and modal  clitics is described; the function of each clitic is defined, and its interaction with other clitics in the system is outlined.  The interaction of the determiner system with  temporal adverbs is examined.  Finally, complex sentences  with the types of subordinate clauses found in the data in this thesis are presented. Chapter  3 examines  the  semantic  existence of reference or topic time.  evidence  for  the  Adverbs are shown to  specify the topic time when they are part of the topic structure of the sentence; in order for them to denote the event time, adverbs must be focused, that is, syntactically the main predicate.  Furthermore, the interaction of adverbs  with quantifiers shows that the topic time adverb must take semantic scope over the quantification.  The existence of  topic time is also supported by evidence from narrative; the topic time adverbial overlaps with part but not all of the interval denoted by a stative verb. of the perfect  Finally, the existence  in SqwXwu7mish is established,  then the  interaction of the perfect and the future with the aspectual adverb in  two weeks is shown to support the claim that there  are three time points. Given  that  adverbs  denote  the  topic  time,  representation in the syntax is examined in Chapter 4.  their Only  one position is available to adverbs in SqwXwu7mish: more than one temporal adverb cannot occur in a clause; the topic  25  time adverb's preferred position is the right edge of the clause; and an adverb on the right of a subordinate clause cannot be construed with the main clause.  These distribution  facts argue against the traditional analysis of adverbs as adjuncts and follow from the claim that these adverbs are the reference or topic time, assuming a unique reference time (Partee 1985). constructions adverbs  This claim is further supported by cleft that  contrast  such as maybe  left  and always,  adjoined which  "functional"  are never  main  predicates, with locating adverbs and thematic arguments, which are frequently main predicates. The explanation proposed in this thesis for the topic time  interpretation  of SqwXwu7mish  adverbs and  for. their  argument-like syntactic behaviour is that they are the topic time  external  argument  of  the  predicate  Aspect.  This  analysis is presented in Chapter 5; in order to carry out the analysis, modifications to the syntax of Tense and Aspect developed by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria are proposed.  (to appear a,b)  The argument status of the adverbs allows an  explanation of how SqwXwu7mish pronoun-verb constructions, apparently uninflected for tense, are interpreted temporally. Word order is derived by leftward movement of the verb and its arguments, in accordance with Kayne (1994); the adverbial temporal argument does not move because it has no features to be checked  (Thompson 1994).  The construal of adverbs in  complex sentences is shown to distinguish between clausal and phrasal nominalized clauses in SqwXwu7mish.  26  Finally, the  interaction of topic time adverbs with quantification argues for a non-structural analysis of scope in Salish (Demirdache and Matthewson 1997). This analysis has implications  for the  information  strucutre of the Salish sentence and for the status of adverbs.  Furthermore, this analysis of SqwXwu7mish adverbs  requires many assumptions about the nature of tense and the structure of the clause in Salish. done on the tense-aspect  More work needs to be  system in SqwXwu7mish, on the  interaction of lexical aspect with temporal interpretation, and on the temporal effects of different determiners on the interpretation of adverbs in particular and nouns in general. These implications and issues are the focus of the concluding chapter.  27  2 .  SqwXwu7mish  Morphology  SqwXwu7mish i s  and  a Salish  Syntax  language  spoken i n t h e  I n l e t and Howe Sound a r e a a r o u n d V a n c o u v e r , Using this  comparative language  Coast S a l i s h , The  sketch  vocabularies,  as  a member  Swadesh  the  of  the  grammar facts,  the determiner  of  Straits,  Columbia. classified  Georgia  SqwXwu7mish  Branch  phrasal  of  and N o o k s a c k .  in  this  section  t h e t e m p o r a l and a s p e c t u a l  system,  and complex s e n t e n c e s .  (1950)  South  along w i t h Halq'emeylem,  p r e s e n t s word o r d e r system,  of  British  Burrard  temporal  clitic  adverbials,  These t o p i c s a r e p r e s e n t e d  in  terms  of t e m p o r a l i n t r e p r e t a t i o n i n t h e l a n g u a g e .  2.1  Word Order Salish  In  in  the  languages  Main  are  predominantly  SqwXwu7mish main c l a u s e s ,  noun  or  sentence  adjective, when t h e  is  Clause  the  normally  subject  predicate  predicate, the  and o b j e c t  first are  be  it  element nominals  initial. a  verb, in  the  and  the  t i m e of t h e u t t e r a n c e i s t h e p a s t o r p r e s e n t 1 2 : ( 1 ) a . s w i 7 qa t a sm6q'wa7 man DET c r a n e C r a n e was a man Kuipers 1967:169  - ^ A b b r e v i a t i o n s used in t o g l o s s t h e d a t a in SqwXwu7mish: l s g . s u b j = f i r s t p e r s o n s i n g u l a r s u b j e c t agreement; l p l . s u b j = f i r s t person p l u r a l s u b j e c t agreement; l p o s s = f i r s t person p o s s e s s i v e ; 3subj=third person s u b j e c t ; 3 p o s s = t h i r d person p o s s e s s i v e agreement; 3 p l = t h i r d person p l u r a l ; caus=causative; DET=determiner; DEM=demonstrative; dir=direction m a r k e r ; DR=durative; FOC=focus marker; FUT=future; I N T = i n t e r r o g a t i v e ; intrans=intransitivizer; I R R = i r r e a l i s ; L O C = l o c a t i v e ; NEG=negation; n o m = n o m i n a l i z e r ; o b l = o b l i q u e ; PT=past; P R = p r e s e n t ; R E C = r e c i p r o c a l ; r e d = r e d u p l i c a t e d morpheme; R L = r e a l i s ; R E L = r e l a t i v e ; TD=temporal d e i c i t i c ; t r a n s = t r a n s i t i v i z e r ; WH=wh-word. 28  (I)b.ha71h ta lam7 good DET house The house is good Kuipers 1967:169 c.(na) k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh (RL) see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear the lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 23 As the subject may precede or follow the object in transitive sentences,  word  order  is  VSO  or  VOS.  Furthermore,  the  speaker may emphasize the third person subject by moving it in front of the verb for the order SVO: (2)  kwelhi slhanay' k'wach-nexw-as ta miXalh DET lady see-trans-3subj DET bear the lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 24  When there is a single overt nominal with a transitive verb, it  is interpreted  Interpretation" (3)  as the object; this  is the  "One  Nominal  (Gerdts 1988}:  na ch'£m7t-as ta sqwmay7 RL bite-3subj DET dog He bit the dog. *The dog bit him. Kuipers 1967:172 For  elements  a  past  for  or  the  present  first  and  interpretation, second  predicate: (4)a.chen swi7qa lsg.subj man I am a man Kuipers 1967:171 b.chen q'way lsg.subj hungry I'm hungry YJ 12-12-96 c.chen ilhen kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj eat DET yesterday I ate yesterday YJ 13-3-9 6  29  person  pronominal precede  the  (4)d.chen tl'iq-s ti siten ta sXalhnat lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket DET Sunday I brought the basket on (any) Sunday EL 17-4-97; EL 19-6-97 01 When  these  elements  follow  the  predicate,  they  are  interpreted as future with eventive verbs and adjectives, and as present with stative verbs and nouns: (5)a.tayeq' chen mad lsg.subj I'm gonna get mad  EL 8-5-96  b.slhanay' chen woman lsg.subj I'm a woman EL 8-5-96 c.lhq'i7-s chen know-caus lsg.subj I know it (already)  EL 8-5-96  d.ts'its'ap' chen work lsg.subj I'm going to work  EL 7-6-96  When the second person pronominal occurs after the predicate, it gets an imperative interpretation: (6)  ch'aw-at-s chexw help-TR-lsg 2sg.subj Help me! Jacobs 1992:17  The  indicative  subject,  object,  and possessive  agreement  paradigms are summarized in the table in (7): (7)  POSSESSIVE  SUBJECT  OBJECT  pi.  sg.  pi.  sq.  Pi.  1st  sg. n-  -chet  chen  chet  -umulh  2nd  7a-  7a--yap  chexw  3rd  -s  -s-wit  -0, -as  chap, chayap -0-wit, -as-wit  -s, -msh -umi _013  -wit  13  Note t h a t thesis.  -umiyap  z e r o agreement has not been marked on t h e d a t a  30  in  this  Along with the pronominal elements, certain "functional" adverbs may precede the predicate: chiyalh and lhiq'  'maybe'  'always'.  way'ti  'soon',  These do not constitute a  semantic class, but may be classified as auxiliaries: (8)a.chiyalh chen ts'its'ap' soon lsg.subj work I' m gonna work soon EL 1-5-97 18 b.way'ti chen ts'its'ap1 maybe lsg.subj work I'm not sure/I think I will work EL 1-5-97 19 c.lhiq' chen wa ts'its'ap' always lsg.subj DR work I'm always working (volunteered form) EL 1-5-97 23 The distribution of these adverbs will be examined in Section 4.4.  2 . 2 Tense and Aspect The  system  of  Marking  clitics  in  SqwXwu7mish which  serve  temporal or aspectual functions usually attach to the l e f t of the main p r e d i c a t e , person. Jacobs  especially  in the  first  and  second  These are summarized in (9), approximately following (1992);  each i s given a gloss and an approximate  meaning 14 :  l ^ T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s u p e r f i c i a l l y understood and needs f u r t h e r  31  of t h e s e research.  clitics  is  only  (9)  na q  RL IRR  realis irrealis  wa kw  DR TD  durative aspect temporal deictic  7i t eq'  PR PT FUT  present tense past tense future tense  2.2.1  Realis and Irrealis The clitic na performs a similar function for the third  person,  but  it  is  optional;  it  can  combine  with  ch-  pronominals for an emphatic sense, like that of English do: (10)a.chen lhchiws lsg.subj tired I am tired Kuipers 1967:157 b.na lhchiws RL tired He is tired Kuipers 1967:157 c.na chen tsut RL lsg.subj say I did say it Kuipers 1967:157 The clitic q "marks a predicate as irreal in the widest sense of the word"  (Kuipers 1967:160); it can have the  "when" or "if", as in (11a.) and  (b.), and is always used  with negation, as in (lie): (ll)a.kwayl q-ts'its'ap'-as tomorrow IRR-work-3subj He will work tomorrow, lit. Tomorrow is when he will work Kuipers 1967:189 b.ha71h n-sqwalwen q-lhemxw-as good lposs-heart IRR-rain-3subj I would be glad if it rained Kuipers 1967:190  32  meaning  (ll)c.haw-q tin&7-an NEG-IRR from.there-lsg.subj I'm not from there Kuipers 1967:190 As q is always in second position in main clauses, in the past conditional sentences in (12), the q follows na in the main clause and precedes it in the "if" clause: (12) 7u-q-na ch'awat-way'-wit, na-q-huy-nexw-as-wit INT-IRR-RL help-REC-3pl RL-IRR-finish-trans-3sg-3pl If they had helped each other, they would have finished it. Kuipers 1967:191 2.2.2  The Durative and the Deictic The durative marker wa15 can indicate an action that is  habitual, ongoing or iterated; it is normally translated by the English progressive: (13) chen wa shuk'w-um lsg.subj DR bathe-intrans I am taking a bath/ I am in the habit of bathing Kuipers 1967:159 It appears between the pronominal and the verb; Kuipers lists a limited number of examples, usually imperatives, where the durative precedes the pronominal.  Otherwise, speakers judge  wa before the pronoun to be ungrammatical.  The realis clitic  na may be followed by the pronominal chen  and the durative  wa: (14)a.na chen wa i l h e n RL l s g . s u b j DR eat I am e a t i n g YJ 13-3-96 b.na RL he EL  wa i l h e n DR e a t i s e a t i n g ( r i g h t now) 6-3-96  1!:>  There i s no f u l l v e r b form of wa in SqwXwu7mish, u n l i k e l a n g u a g e s Northern I n t e r i o r S a l i s h (P. J a c o b s , p . c ) . 33  in  The  "temporal  deictic"  kw i s  and  used  "already"  or  "now",  equivalent  of the p e r f e c t ,  is  often for  translated  the  as  SqwXwu7mish  which w i l l be demonstrated  in  Section 3.4: (15)a.chen kw lhexwlhsha7-awanexw lsg.subj TD thirty-years I was thirty years old/ I had reached the age of thirty Kuipers 1967:159 b.na-kw tl'iq ta Peter RL-TD arrive DET Peter Peter's here now, Peter has arrived EL 13-8-97 This  clitic  follows  either  the  first  or  second  person  pronominal element or, in the third person, the realis clitic na.  It precedes the main verb, the local-directional clitics  nam'  and mil  2.2.3  and, in a single example, the durative wa.  Past, Present and Future The  markers,  three for  distribution  clitics lack  and  of  7i, a  t,  eg' are glossed  better  interpretation.  understanding The  meaning  as  tense  of  their  of  7i  is  "proximity to the situation of speech" (Kuipers 1967:158): it can mean  "at this moment" as in  (16a.); it can refer to  "anticipated events", as in (16b.) and ( c ) , in which case it is often used with "chiyalh, soon" (Kuipers 1967:158); or it may have an immediate past  sense with men  (16d.): (16)a.7i chen ilhen PR lsg.subj eat I'm gonna eat right now  DW 20-3-96  b.chiyalh 7i chen ilhen soon PR lsg.subj eat soon I'm gonna eat DW 20-3-9 6  34  'just', as in  (16) c.chiycilh chen 7i ilhen pretty soon lsg.subj PR eat pretty soon I'm going to eat  EL 6-3-96  d.men-yalh n-s-7i tl'iq just-finally lposs-nom-PR arrive I've just arrived, lit. Just" recently (is) my arriving Kuipers 1967:158 The data in  (16) show that  7i  pronominals; if wa is added, 7i  can precede or follow  ch-  must precede the durative.  In negative sentences, it can be preceded by g. One of the problems with translating 7i  as the present  is that it can also cooccurs with t 16 ; £ usually receives a simple past or habitual past interpretation, attaching to the first person agreement or, in the third person, to the realis clitic na: (17)a.chen-t mi-s lsg.subj-PT come-caus I brought it YJ 13-3-96 b.chen-t ts'its'ap' 1sg.subj-PT work I used to work YJ 3-4-96 c.na7-t ilhen RL-PT eat She/he's finished eating DW 20-3-96 The "past" clitic precedes wa and follows na and  chen:  ( 1 8 ) a . c h e n - t wa i l h e n l s g . s u b j - P T DR eat I was e a t i n g YJ 13-3-96  16  P . Jacobs ( p . c . ) has e l i c i t e d grammatical s e n t e n c e s such a s : 7 i c h e n - t wa esqwuy PR lsg-PT DR s i c k I was s i c k (and I s t i l l am.) from examples found in H i l l - T o u t (1900). 35  (18)b.na chen-t wa ts'its'ap' RL lsg.subj-PT DR work I used to work YJ 3-4-96 c.na7-t wa ilhen RL-PT DR eat He was eating EL 6-3-96 Neither 7i nor t cooccurs with eg', future interpretation. the clitic mil  which gets a distant  It follows the pronominal element,  'come', or the main verb itself:  (19)a.chen-eq' ilhen lsg.subj-FUT eat I'm going to eat YJ 6-6-96 b.ilhen chen-eq' eat lsg.subj-FUT I'm gonna eat EL 7-6-96 c.mi-chen-eq' t'uk'w come-lsg.subj-FUT home I'll come home Kuipers 1967:207 d.mi7-eq" t'uk'w come-FUT home He'11 come home Kuipers 1967:207 e.ilhen-eq' eat-FUT (She, he's) gonna eat DW 20-3-96 This contrasts with the near future/intention meaning of the verb-pronoun examples in (5). 2.2.4  Local Directional The "local-directional" clitics are nam',  for  a near  utterance  future with  is made,  motion  and mi (7),  away which  describes a motion towards the speaker. 36  from  which is used the place  means  "become"  the or  These clitics are in  complementary distribution with the durative clitic via,  but  they do occur with na in the third person: (20)a.nam' chen wi7xw-em go lsg.subj drop-intrans I'm gonna fall YJ 3-4-96 b.chen nam' wi7xw-em lsg.subj go drop-intrans I'm falling YJ 13-3-96 c.na RL He EL  nam' ilhen go eat went to eat 6-3-96  (21)a.chen mi n^ch'-i lsg.subj come change-intrans My expression changed Kuipers 1967:162 b.mi nach'-i come change-intrans His expression changed Kuipers 1967:313 c.mi sh£m come low tide (He) emerge(s) from the water, come(s) to the surface Kuipers 1967:162 It must be noted that the full verb forms of these clitics do cooccur with the durative. 2.2.5  Summary The  ordering  and  cooccurrence  restrictions  outlined  above are summarized in the table in (22); it reads from left to right, with a check indicating that the clitic in that column can follow the clitic in that row, and an asterisk indicating that the clitic in that column must precede the clitic  in  that  conflicting data.  row.  An  asterisk  and  a  check  indicate  The symbol "ch" shows the interaction of  37  the indicative subject pronoun with these clitics.  An empty  section indicates that the evidence exists but has not been worked out. (22) CH  NA  Q  WA  KW  7 I  T  EQ '  NAM  MI  ch  XXX  *  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  na  V  XXX  V  V  V  V  */V  V  V  a  *  V  XXX  wa  */V  *  *  V  *  *  kw  *  V  V  V  7i  V  V  V  V  V  t  *H  *  ea '  *  *  nam  V  *  XXX  *  mi  V  V  *  XXX  V  •  *  *  *  XXX  *  V  XXX  V  *  V  *  XXX  *  V  *  *  XXX  XXX  *  The large number of empty cells in this summary show the need for explicit elicitation of these orders and combinations.  2.3  Determiners  and  Temporal  Adverbs  Determiners in SqwXwu7mish encode spatial and temporal information; they introduce temporal adverbs17 and in part fix the interval referred to by the adverb.  17  C o a s t S a l i s h l a n g u a g e s p r e f e r DP a d v e r b s , languages p r e f e r CP adverbs (H. Davis, p . c ) . 38  while  Interior  Salish  2.3.1  The SqwXwu7mish Determiner System Kuipers  (1967)  analyses  SqwXwu7mish  determiners  as  encoding distinctions between gender, proximity or distance, presence or absence; they may also be strong  (demonstrative)  or weak (non-demonstrative), definite or indefinite: (23)  DEFINITE  INDEFINITE NON-PRESENT  WEAK PROXIMAL masc fern  ta lha  ti tsi  WEAK  STRONG  kwa kwelhd  kwetsi kwelhi  DISTAL  tay alhi  kwi kwes  This classification requires revision, however; Matthewson (1996)  showed  that  determiners  definiteness or specificity.  in  Salish  P. Jacobs  do  not  encode  (p.c.) proposes an  alternative system of classification, which contrasts visible and non-visible with invisible, and determiners  (DET) with  demonstratives (DEM): (24)  POTENTIALLY V I S I B L E  VISIBLE  DET DEM  masc fern masc fern  NON-VISIBLE  Proximal  Distal  ti tsi  ta lha tay alhi  tiwa tsiwa  INVISIBLE  kwa kwelha kwetsi kwelhi  kwi kwes kwiya(wa) kwesawa  The distinctions of visible, non-visible and invisible, and of proximal and distal, refer not only to space but also to time: the invisible determiner has a modal meaning, nonvisible  and  distal  visible  39  determiners  appear  to  be  inherently past, while proximal visible means close to the present.  The details of such an analysis are currently under  investigation.  It is known, however, that changing the  determiner on an NP can change the temporal interpretation of the utterance (Demirdache 1997 for St'at'imcets); as most temporal adverbs in SqwXwu7mish take determiners, its deictic contribution  interacts  with  that  of  the  adverbial  in  establishing the temporal interpretation of the sentence. 2.3.2  Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow Part of the meaning of deictic locating adverbs such as  today,  yesterday  and tomorrow,  is their relation to the time  of utterance; thus, they always take the same determiners in SqwXwu7mish.  The "invisible" determiner kwi occurs with the  day that is just past, while the visible proximal ti appears with the day that contains now, the utterance time. (25)a.kwi chelaqlh DET yesterday b.ti stsi7s DET today  "yesterday" "today"  The day that is coming, tomorrow,  is either the DP kwayl used  on its own as a predicate with a subordinate clause, or is a conjunctive clause introduced by g: (26) q-kwayl-es IRR-day-3sg tomorrow, when it is the next day 2.3.3  Morning, Year Adverbials like natlh  'morning' and siyl&nem  'year' have  no inherent relation to the utterance time so the determiner identifies which interval of time is being referred to.  40  Thus, ti  identifies the morning closest to now,  a morning past, and kwa  ta  identifies  identifies specifically  yesterday  morning: (27) ti natlh  this morning  ta natlh  that morning  kwa natlh  yesterday morning  The  effect  somewhat  of  the  determiner  different:  contains now, kwi  while  ti  with  identifies  'year' the  year  is  that  identifies the year prior to this one, and  ta, along with hem'i  'coming', identifies the year to come:  (28) ti siyelanem  this year  kwi siyelanem  last year  ta hemi siyelanem  next year  The visible  siyeldnem  proximal  ti  clearly  identifies  closest to the utterance time, and kwi  the  interval  appears to locate the  interval in the past. 2.3.4  Calendar Names Calendar  names  also  take  determiners.  Again  the  proximal visible ti identifies the Sunday closest to now, but in this case it is an interval in the future.  The distal and  the non-visible determiners identify a Sunday past, while the invisible determiner kwi  appears only with way'ti  'might,  maybe', in contrast to the past effect in the examples above. (29) ti sxalhnat  this Sunday  ta sXalhnat  that Sunday  kwetsi sXalhnat  any, a certain Sunday  kwi sXalhnat  a possible Sunday  41  The effects of determiners on temporal  interpretation  in  SqwXwu7mish remain a topic for further research. 2.3.5  Quantificational Adverbs Quantificational adverbs or cardinal quantifiers do not,  however,  take  a  determiner  argument position.  since  they  never  appear  in  The examples in (30) are composed of the  number form for objects  (which are separate from those for  animals and persons) and a suffix meaning "times": (30)a.7an7us-alh two -times  "twice"  b.  "ten times"  7upen-alh ten -times  These adverbs appear only as main predicates.  2 . 4 Complex  Sentences  Complex structures,  sentences in SqwXwu7mish may be or  they  subordinate structure.  may  consist  of  a  coordination  predicate  and  a  Subordination in SqwXwu7mish includes  conjunctive clauses and nominalized clauses, which contrast future and non-future, as well as zero relative clauses. 2.4.1  Coordination Two  main  complex 7i-kw-na,  clauses  are  "coordinated"  with  the  clitic  which makes a "simple reference to time"  with the meaning "and, then, now, when" (Kuipers 1967:212); P. Jacobs (p.c.) states that this would be better analyzed as 7i-kw this  'and already' followed by the realis clitic na, analysis  is adopted  here.  42  These  constructions  and are  analyzed  as  coordination  clause agreement chen  structures  following  because  of  the  main  7i-kw-na.  (31)a.0 kwi chel'aqlh 7i-kw-na-chen tl'iq-s ti siten FOC DET yesterday and-TD-RL-lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket Yesterday I brought the basket EL 1-5-97; EL 8-5-97 44 b.nilh kwi chel'aqlh 7i-kwe-na k'wach-nexw-as kwetsi miXalh FOC DET yesterday and-TD-RL see-trans-3subj DET bear She saw the bear yesterday EL 2-4-97 32 In  (31a.),  the adverb  is an argument with  a  zero  focus  marker, whereas it occurs with the overt focus marker nilh (31b.).  in  These sentences function as cleft constructions, and  are labelled by Kroeber (1991) as "and-fronting". Conjunctive Clauses18  2.4.2  These clauses include those introduced by the "irrealis" complementizer g, which are future or non-future, and those introduced by lh,  a sort of wh-complementizer.  In future conjunctive clauses, the subject agreement is attached to the predicate, as in (32a.), while in non-future conjunctive clauses the agreement precedes the predicate and is attached  to the  irrealis marker, as  in  (32b.).  The  functions of these clauses include conditional and temporal adverbial  uses,  as  well  as  complement  of  the  negation  predicate haw 'not',as in (32c.) and (d.): (32)a.chen ts'its'ap' [q-kwayl-es] lsg.subj work [IRR-tomorrow-3sg] I will work tomorrow (lit. when tomorrow it) YJ 13-3-96 1B  T h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 2 h - c l a u s e s s u g g e s t i o n of P. Jacobs ( p . c ) . 43  as  conjunctive  clauses  is  the  (32)b.chen ta7aw'n [q-'axw huya7] lsg.subj think [lRR-2sg leave] I thought you left Jacobs 1992:30 chaw [q-tina7-an] not [iRR-be from-lsg.subj] I'm not from there Jacobs 1992:28  d.haw [q-an k'wach-nexw-0] not [IRR-lsg.subj see-trans-3obj] I d i d n ' t see him Jacobs 1992:29 Clauses  with  lh  and  "subordinate subject clauses,  conjunctive  agreement  (occurring) almost exclusively  with p r e d i c a t e s r e f e r r i n g to a quantity of time(s)" 1967:196) .  As s t a t e d  complementizer,  are  above,  the  lh  (Kuipers  is a sort  s i m i l a r to when, where and about  of whwhich  in  English, but i t never corresponds to the subject or object of the clause lateral  it  introduces.  fricative  In the example in  (33),  the  lh has combined with the g l o t t a l stop of  the agreement to produce the g l o t t a l i z e d l a t e r a l  affricate  tl': (33) nilh kwi sXalhnat tl'-as nam' huya7 FOC DET Sunday WH-3subj go leave He went away on Sunday lit. it was Sunday when he went away EL 1-5-97 43 In addition, lh  clauses with possessive agreement refer  principally to clauses meaning "the reason why", "the place where", although these are not relevant for this thesis. 2.4.3  Nominalized Clauses Nominalized  determiner kwi,  clauses are normally  introduced by the  followed by the nominalizer procliticized to  either the predicate or the first aspectual clitic (Jacobs 44  1992).  The subject of these clauses is marked by possessive  agreement.  Past time is indicated by the "realis" clitic na  for the first person singular and second person singular and plural, and by the attachment of the third person possessive agreement  to the nominalizer, as in (34); future time is  indicated by the absence of the clitic na in the first person singular and second person singular and plural, and by the attachment of the third person possessive agreement to the predicate of the nominalized clause, as in (35): (34)a.ha71h [kwi-n-s-na t^lnexw-an ti] good [DET-lposs-nom-RL find out-lsg.subj DET] I'm glad to have found this out, lit. It is good, my having found this out Kuipers 1967:186 b.chen lhq'i7-s [kwi-s-es-kw huya7-0] lsg.subj know-caus [DET-nom-3poss-TD leave-3sg] I knew that he had already left Jacobs 1992:41 c.kwi chelaqlh [s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter] yesterday [nom-3poss work DET Peter] Yesterday Peter worked. EL 19-6-97 (35)a.en-stl'i7 [kwi-n-s nam' t ' u k ' w ] l p o s s - d e s i r e [DET-lposs-nom go go-home] I want t o go home, l i t . My d e s i r e i s t h a t I go home P. Jacobs 1992:47 1 9 b.kwayl [kwi-s t s ' i t s ' a p ' - s t a P e t e r ] tomorrow [DET-nom work-3poss DET P e t e r ] P e t e r w i l l be working tomorrow EL 19-6-97 These  clauses  predicates,  function  object  as  either  subjects  of  complements of v e r b a l p r e d i c a t e s ,  nominal clausal  temporal a d v e r b i a l s , or purpose c l a u s e s . iy  T h e g l o s s of t h i s example does not follow J a c o b s , who a n a l y s e s t h e d e t e r m i n e r , f i r s t p e r s o n p o s s e s s i o n , and n o m a l i z e r a s an i n f l e c t e d complementizer. 45  2.4.4  Zero Relative Clauses A direct object focused with a zero marker in the main  predicate takes a zero relative clause as its complement: (36) 0 kwetsi siten [na tl'iq-s-t-an] FOC DET basket [RL arrive-caus-trans-lsg.subj] It was the basket I brought EL 8-5-97 05 This structure will be discussed again in Section 4.4.  2.5  Summary Temporal interpretation in SqwXwu7mish is effected by  word order, temporal and aspectual clitics, determiners and temporal adverbials.  This thesis concentrates on the role  that temporal adverbs play in main clauses in determining the topic time of the utterance.  46  3.  The  Interpretation  of Adverbs  The  interpretation of adverbs  in both English and  SqwXwu7mish argues for the existence of a reference or topic time, in addition to the event and speech times, as will be shown in this chapter.  Furthermore, the time denoted by the  reference or topic time is specified by locating adverbs in the topic structure of the sentence, while adverbs in the focus structure denote the event time (de Swart, to appear). Section 3.1 shows that English preverbal adverbs are interpreted as the topic time, but postverbal adverbs are ambiguous between a topic time and an event time reading (Hornstein  1990, Hitzeman  1995, Thompson  1994a,b).  In  contrast, SqwXwu7mish postverbal adverbs have unambiguous topic time readings; for SqwXwu7mish adverbs to get an event time reading, they must be part of the focus structure, that is, the main predicate of the sentence. In  Section  3.2,  the  quantifiers is examined.  interaction  of  adverbs  with  When adverbs in both SqwXwu7mish  and English get the topic time reading, they must take semantic scope over other quantificational elements in the sentence.  Narrative evidence in Section 3.3 shows that the  topic time reading of the adverb overlaps with part of the time specified by the stative predicate. The English perfect and its approximate equivalent in SqwXwu7mish are shown to exemplify Reichenbach's claim that tense is composed of three times in Section 3.4.  Finally, in  Section 3.5 the interpretation of the perfect and the simple  47  future with  the  1995, Thompson  aspectual  1994)  for  adverb  further  two  weeks  (Hitzeman  supports the argument  for  the  equal status of speech time, event time, and topic time.  3. 1  Adverbs  and  Topic/Focus  Structure  In her examination of the relation between position and meaning, de Swart (1)  "describe  the  (to appear) points out that the examples in same  facts" but  differ  in terms  of  the  topic/focus structure: (1)  a. b.  Sentence  At six o'clock, Jane left. Jane left at six o'clock. (la.) is the preferred  answer  to the question  in  (2), although (lb.) is a possible answer: (2)  What happened at six o'clock?  Sentence (lb.) is the only possible answer to (3): (3)  When did Jane leave?  Thus,  when  reading  as  question in topic with answers  the  sentence  in  (la.),  initial  it  is  the  (2); the sentence  in  topic  gets  a  topic  the  final adverb may also be  the  When the sentence  (3), the topic  introduced in the question, Jane  introduced  time  in  special intonation.  the question  adverb  leave.  is the  in  (lb.)  information  The sentence  final  adverb is the focus of this sentence, and specifies the event time of the verb. In SqwXwu7mish, the sentence corresponding to the order in  (l)b. above answers  yesterday?;  deictic  the question  adverbs  cannot  in  (2), What  simply  be preposed  SqwXwu7mish, as will be shown in the next chapter.  48  happened. in  (4)a.na chanem kwi chel'aqlh? RL do DET yesterday What happened yesterday? EL 2-4-97 28 b.na k1wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' kwetsi miXalh RL see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear the lady saw the bear EL 2-4-97 29 c.na k1wach-nexw-as kwetsi miXalh alhi slhanay' kwi chel'aqlh RL see-trans-3subj DET bear DET lady DET yesterday this lady (right here) saw the bear yesterday EL 2-4-97 30 Therefore, the postverbal adverb in SqwXwu7mish  gets  the  topic time reading unambiguously. The answer to the "when" question is a sentence with nilh, or  a focus marker "used to refer to a thing, time, place fact  on which  the addressee  has  already  focused  his  attention, or which he can readily identify as a result of situational or contextual factors" (Kuipers 1967:144).  This  cleft or focus construction is shown in (5)b: (5)a.na 7encha 7i-kw-na k'wach-nexw-as kwetsi miXalh tsi slhanay' RL where and-TD-RL see-trans-3subj DET bear DET lady When did this lady right next to me see the bear ? EL 2-4-97 31 b. nilh kwi chel'aqlh 7i-kw-na k'wach-nexw-as kwetsi miXalh FOC DET yesterday and-TD-RL see-trans-3subj DET bear She saw the bear yesterday lit., It was yesterday that she saw the bear EL 2-4-97 32 The event time reading of this adverb is due to its focused position. The SqwXwu7mish data therefore parallels  the English  data semantically but not structurally: the adverb on the  49  right periphery can only be the topic time, whereas the sentence intial adverb must be focused syntactically as the main predicate to specify the event time.  3.2  Adverb-Quantifier  Interaction  In order to examine the semantics of scope relations, de Swart  (to  appear)  presents  English  data  in  which  existentially quantified time adverbs interact with other quantifiers.  She argues that when the adverb gets the topic  time reading, it must take wide scope over other quantifiers, and when the adverb identifies the event time, it must be within the scope of other quantifiers.  This generalization  holds for SqwXwu7mish, where the absence of ambiguity between topic time and event time readings of temporal adverbs clarifies these semantic scope relations. 3.2.1  Adverbs and Quantified Subjects The  examples  in  (6)  show  universally quantified subject quantifed  the  interaction  of  a  (V) with an existentially  (3)temporal adverb in English.  The sentence in  (6a.) can only mean, "on the same Sunday, all the students went hiking either as a group or individually, and there was either one or many events of hiking"; the adverb gets the topic time reading and must take scope over the quantifier  OV). (6)a.0n a beautiful Sunday in spring, every student went walking in the hills. b. Every student went walking in the hills on a beautiful Sunday in spring.  50  In (6)b, however, the reading of the adverb is ambiguous: the adverb can take scope over the universal quantifier to give the topic time reading  (3V) obtained  for  (6a.);  or the  universal quantifier can take scope over the adverb to get an event time reading (V3).  The event time reading is either  "distributive", where "each student goes hiking individually on a Sunday  but not necessarily  the  same  Sunday, " or  "collective", in which case there is "one group event of going hiking on one certain Sunday." time reading  and  indistinguishable  the topic on  the  The collective event  time, reading  surface, but  are  the  therefore  existential  quantifier of the adverb and the universal quantifier of the subject have different scope relations. . As seen in Section 3.1, syntactically focused adverbs in SqwXwu7mish receive an event time reading; the adverb in (7) has an event reading which may be distributive or collective, and is therefore in the scope of the universal quantifier: (7)  na-malh-eq'sXalhnat 7i nam' 7i-7imash 7i7Xw ta sta7exwlh RL-well-FUT Sunday PR go redup-walk all DET children (volunteered form) It will be Sunday when they (all the children) go for a walk. EL 13-8-97  Sentence final SqwXwu7mish adverbs are not ambiguous.  The  only meaning available in (8) is that "all the children go on the same Sunday, " which is the topic time reading of the adverb  where  it  takes  wide  quantifier:  51  scope  over  the  universal  (8)a.7i7Xw ta sta7exwlh nam' 7i-7imash na7 ta sXalhnat all DET children go red-walk RL DET Sunday All the children/every child went walking on Sunday ie they all go on the same Sunday EL 2-4-97 16 b.7i7Xw ta sta7exwlh nam' 7i-7imash na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat all DET children go red-walk RL obi DET Sunday All the children went for a walk on a Sunday (they all go on the same Sunday) EL 10-4-97  31  A sentence final topic time adverb cannot get a distributive reading.  In the examples in (9), the speaker uses again  different  to differentiate Sundays  "the  same  group  of  children  and children,  go on a  and  but in (9a.)  (single)  different  Sunday" and in (9b.) "a different group of children go on a (single) different Sunday": (9)a.s-es-men qiy'at na nam' 7i-7imash ta 'Sta7exwlh na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat nom-3poss-just again RL go red-walk DET children RL obi DET Sunday And then they went again on a (different) Sunday EL 10-4-97 . 32 b.s-es-men qiy'at na nam' ta nach' sta7exwlh t kwetsi nach'sXalhnat nom-3poss-just again RL go DET different children obi DET different Sunday So different children went for a walk on a different Sunday EL 10-4-97 33  Thus, the i n t e r a c t i o n of universally quantified subjects with e x i s t e n t i a l l y quantified temporal adverbials shows t h a t topic  time  adverb;  reading  the  distributive,  event is  is  obtained  time  with the  reading,  obtained  only  s y n t a c t i c a l l y the main predicate.  52  either when  sentence  the final  collective the  adverb  or is  Adverbs and Only  3.2.2  De Swart (to appear:9) adopts the definition of only  as  a quantifier which has as its domain "the set of contextually relevant alternatives"20: (10)a.On Sunday morning, Julia only [goes to church]. b.Julia only [goes to church] [on Sunday morning]. In (10a.), only  does not take scope or quantify over  Sunday  In this sentence, only  morning.  on  quantifies over the  set of properties of individuals, one of which is "going to church"; this gives the reading that "the only thing Julia does on Sunday is go to church, " which is the topic time reading of the adverb.  In (10b.), the quantifier takes scope  and quantifies over goes  Therefore,  this  to  sentence  church  can  and on  have  Sunday  either  morning.  the  interpretation as (10a.) or the interpretation where  same only  quantifies over the set of properties of times, one of which is the focused adverbial Sunday morning.  The latter gives the  reading that "the only day she goes to church is Sunday, " which is the event time reading of the adverb. The closest equivalent to only  in SqwXwu7mish is men  'just', which Kuipers (1967:163) labels "determinative" or "limitative".  This clitic appears just before the first  stressed element in the sentence or separated from it by the clitic wa.  In the example in (11), the adverb ta  sXalhnat  'on Sunday' gets the topic time reading, as in (10)a. above:  de Swart attributes this definition to Rooth (1992).  53  (ll)a.na wa nam' ta Peter ta k'wemaylh-aw'txw ta sXalhnat RL DR go DET Peter DET pray-house DET Sunday Peter goes to church on Sunday EL 2-4-97 01 b.men huy kwi-s-es wa nam' ta k'wemaylh-aw'txw ta sXalhnat just finish DET-nom-3poss DR go DET pray-house DET Sunday Peter goes to church on Sunday (he doesn't do anything else that day) EL 14-8-97 Therefore, the quantifier men 'only' is taking scope over "go to church" but cannot be taking scope over the topic time adverb. The  event  time  reading  occurs  when  the  syntactically focused as a main predicate with men  adverb  is  huy:  (12)a.men huy ta sXalhnat just finish DET Sunday He just goes on Sunday EL 2-4-97, 03 b.men huy ta sXalhnat tl'-as nam' just finish DET Sunday REL-3subj go It's only Sunday that/when he goes ie.the only day he goes to church is Sunday EL 2-4-97, EL 14-8-97 05 To get this event time reading, the quantifier must take scope over both the adverb and "go to church," as in (10b.). These examples show that in SqwXwu7mish the adverb at the right edge is unambiguously the topic time, and is not in the scope of the quantifier; furthermore, the adverb must be syntactically focused to obtain the event time reading. 3.2.3  Cardinality Quantifiers The generalizations observed with quantified  and only on Sunday  subjects  parallel the interaction of locating adverbs such as with cardinal quantifiers like twice  54  and ten  times.  In  SqwXwu7mish,  when  the  cardinal  adverb  is  the  main  predicate and the temporal adverb is at the right edge of the clause, the temporal adverb gets a topic time reading as expected, as in (13c): (13)a.na ts'its'ap ta Peter na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat RL work DET Peter RL obi DET SundayPeter did work on a Sunday EL 2-4-97 11 b.na 7upen-alh s-es (wa) ts'its'ap1 ta Peter RL ten-times nom-3poss (DR) work DET Peter Peter worked/was working ten times lit. It was ten times that Peter worked/was working EL 10-4-97 18 c.na 7upen-alh s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter (t) kwetsi sXalhnat RL ten-times nom-3poss work DET Peter (obi) DET Sunday Peter worked ten times/for ten hours on a Sunday EL 10-4-97 19 As with quantified subjects and only,  the cardinal quantifer  is not quantifying or taking scope over the right edge topic time adverb. meaning.  This gives the topic time adverb a collective  For the event time reading of the temporal adverb,  it must be the main predicate ten  Sundays,  as in (14):  (14) na 7upen sXalhnat kwi-s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter RL ten Sunday DET-nom-3poss work DET Peter Peter worked on ten Sundays/Ten Sundays Peter worked EL 10-4-97 22 The quantifier in this case must take wide scope over the adverb, which gets only the distributive event time reading. Furthermore, unlike locating temporal adverbs, cardinal quantifiers can only be the focus of the sentence as the main predicate, and can only identify the event time; they cannot occupy the right edge of the sentence as topic time, as shown in the examples in (15):  55  (15)a.*na ts'its'ap' ta Peter na7 t 7an7us-alh t kwetsi sXalhnat RL work DET Peter RL obi two-times obi DET Sunday EL 2-4-97 12 b.*na ts'its'ap' ta Peter na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat 7an7usalh RL work DET Peter RL obi DET Sunday twice EL 2-4-97 13 c.*na ts'its'ap' t kwetsi sXalhnat ta Peter 7upen-alh RL work obi DET Sunday DET Peter ten-times EL 10-4-97 30 d.*na ts'its'ap' na 7upen sXalhnat ta Peter RL work RL ten Sunday DET Peter Conversely, the cardinal quantifier, like other temporal adverbs, cannot cooccur in a clause with another temporal adverb. If another temporal adverb such as kwi  siyeldnem  'last  year' is added, however, it occurs in the subordinate clause and t kwetsi  sXalhnat  'on Sunday' appears in the main clause  with the cardinal quantifier predicate.  As expected, the  locating adverb in this position gets the topic time reading, as indicated by the speaker's emphasis on  "just that one  Sunday": (16)a.na qeX-alh s-es wa ts'its'ap' ta Peter kwi siyel'anem RL many-times nom-3poss DR work DET Peter DET year Peter was working a lot last year context for next record EL 10-4-97 26 b.na 7an7us-alh t kwetsi sXalhnat s-es ts'its'ap' kwa Peter kwi siy'elanem RL two-times obi DET Sunday nom-3poss work DET Peter DET year Peter worked twice on a Sunday last year EL 24-4-97 11  56  The topic time reading of the adverb in (16) shows once more that the existentially quantified topic time adverb takes scope over other quantifiers in the sentence. 3.2.4  Summary The interaction of temporal adverbs with quantified  subjects such as all such as only,  the  children,  quantificational adverbs  and cardinal quantifiers such as ten  times,  shows that the right edge adverb with the topic time reading has wide scope over these other quantifiers.  In order for  other quantifiers to take scope over the  existentially  quantified adverb, the adverb must be focused, that is, the main  predicate,  where  it  has  an  event  time  reading.  Furthermore, the topic time adverb gets a collective reading with universal and cardinal quantification, while the event time adverb gets a distributive reading in these cases.  3 . 3 Topic Time  in Narrative  As noted in the introductory chapter, narrative provides examples of the topic time as it is maintained from sentence to sentence. A stative sentence "describes a condition prevalent at the time indicated by the reference time given  in the  preceding context, but it need not do so when the sentence contains its own adverb of temporal location." (de Swart to appear:2).  This is illustrated in the following example from  de Swart, where the event of the wife's dying occurs after  57  the time of her going to bed and before the topic time specified by the next  morning:  (17) The doctor came home and found his wife waiting for him. They had a drink and went to bed. The next morning, she was dead. In fact, the adverbial overlaps with part but not all of the state of being dead, in keeping with its interpretation as the reference or topic time. A similar narrative in SqwXwu7mish is illustrated in (18) : ( 1 8 ) a . w a n e x w t i 7 kwiya miXalh na7 t kwa 7 a t s ' q DR c o m e . b y . DET bear RL o b i DET o u t s i d e The b e a r was h a n g i n g a r o u n d o u t s i d e EL 2 4 - 4 - 9 7 03 b.chet nam' 7 e X i t s kwi t x w - n a 7 n a t l p l . s u b j go l i e down DET d i r - n i g h t We went t o bed t h a t n i g h t EL 2 4 - 4 - 9 7 04 In  (19a.),  final  t h e main p r e d i c a t e  adverb gets  position  a topic  in the topic  is  stative  time reading  structure;  in  and t h e  consistent  (19b.)  sentence with  its  the verb gets  an  e v e n t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and t h e main p r e d i c a t e a d v e r b g e t s an event time reading c o n s i s t e n t with i t s l o c a t i o n in t h e  focus  of t h e s e n t e n c e 2 1 : ( 1 9 ) a . h a w - q t a miXalh ( 7 i ) t i n a t l h NEG-IRR DET b e a r (PR) DET morning The b e a r was gone t h i s morning EL 1 3 - 8 - 9 7 b.0 t i natlh 7 i - k w - n a haw-q t a miXalh FOC DET morning and-TD-RL NEG-IRR DET b e a r The b e a r d i e d t h i s morning EL 2 4 - 4 - 9 7 09 T h i s morning t h e b e a r d i e d / * w a s dead EL 1 9 - 6 - 9 7 21  The t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e s e examples a r e those provided by t h e s p e a k e r . The p r e d i c a t e haw-q i s u n u s u a l , and f u r t h e r t e s t i n g w i t h o t h e r s t a t i v e predicates is required. 58  (19)c.na natlh 7i-kw-na q'wuy ta miXalh RL morning and-TD-RL die DET bear The bear died in the morning EL 24-4-97 08 The bear died in the early morning EL 19-6-97 In (19c), the adverb in main predicate position gets an event time reading with the eventive verb q'wuy the  syntax  determines  the  'die'.  interpretation  of  both  Thus, the  adverbial and the verb. The sentence in (20), which appears to have the same structure as (19b.) and ( c ) , presents an apparent problem for  the  generalization  that  adverbs  position get an event time reading. adverbial  natlh  'morning', without  in main  predicate  In this sentence, the the determiner  but  preceded by the realis clitic, is the main predicate but it gets a topic time interpretation as in predicate haw-q  (19a.), and the  gets a stative interpretation.  The speaker  explains that the bear "went in the night or the morning, but when you looked he wasn't there." (20) na RL In EL  natlh 7i-kw-na haw-q ta miXalh morning and-TD-RL NEG-IRR DET bear the morning, the bear was dead/ was gone 24-4-97, EL 19-6-97, EL 13-8-97 07  The difference between (20) and (19b.) is the determiner on the adverb, while the difference between (20) and (19c.) is the aspectual class of the verb. there  is a zero  Assuming that, in (19b.),  focus marker and the adverb with its  determiner is an argument, while in (20), the adverb with the realis clitic na is a predicate, the topic time reading of the adverb in (20) appears to be a result of the equation of the  adverb  with  a  stative  59  predicate.  Clearly,  the  interaction of stative predicates and topic  time  adverbs  requires further investigation. The explanation of the examples in (19) and (20) relies on the analysis that the determiner on the adverb identifies an argument and the absence of the determiner on the adverb identifies  a predicate  Furthermore,  the  (Jelinek  adverb  1993, Matthewson  without  the  1996).  determiner  is  ungrammatical at the right edge of the main clause, as shown in (21): (21) *haw-q ta miXalh na natlh NEG-IRR DET bear RL morning EL 13-8-97 This example therefore argues for the argument status of the right edge adverb22. The narrative data in this section supports the argument that the topic/focus structure determines the interpretation of the adverb.  In addition, the aspectual class of the verb  interacts with the interpretation of the adverb in ways that remain unclear.  Furthermore, the presence or absence of a  determiner on the adverb identifies it as an argument or as a predicate.  ^ 2 The sentence in (i) is very common in narrative, but presents a problem for the present analysis. The adverb at the right edge of this nominalized clause gets the event time reading and the verbal predicate gets the eventive interpretation: (i) s-es-men haw-q ta miXalh ti natlh nom-3poss-just NEG-IRR DET bear DET morning The bear died this morning. EL 13-8-97  60  3.4  The  Perfect  in  English  and  SqwXwu7mish  The basis for the proposal of a reference or topic time is the English perfect Thompson 1994).  (Reichenbach 1947, Hornstein 1990,  If the perfect exists in SqwXwu7mish, it  must also argue for the existence of topic time.  Analyses  that deny the existence of the topic or reference time do not dispute  this  interpretation  of  the perfect;  they  simply  dispute the theoretical status of a third time. To distinguish the present perfect from the simple past, the former is analyzed as having an event time, E, prior to a topic time, T, which coincides with the time of utterance, S, as in (22a.); the past perfect describes an event, E, which is before a topic time, T, prior to the speech time S, as in (22b.); while the future perfect  identifies an event, E,  before a topic time, T, which is after the speech time, S, as in (22c.): (22)a.Peter has arrived (just now). <  E  T,S  >  T = now  b.Peter had arrived at 2 p.m.(it is now 6 p.m.) <  E-----T  S  >  T = 2 p.m.  c.Peter will have arrived at 2 p.m. ( it is now 10 a.m.) <  S  E  T  >  T = 2 p.m.  The following data establishes that in SqwXwu7mish, a past perfect meaning can be obtained in sentences with 'realis',  kw  'temporal deictic' and an overtly  na  specified  topic time; in (23) the topic time is given by the clausal temporal adverbial introduced by when:  61  (23) na-kw huya7 kwelha Vanessa 7i-kw-na chen tl'iq RL-TD leave-DET Vanessa and-TD-RL lsg.subj arrive She (Vanessa had) already left when I got there. EL 14-8-97 The existence of the perfect in SqwXwu7mish argues for the existence of topic time. marked by ha-kw,  The present perfect, which is also  is shown in (24a.); it contrasts with the  simple past, which is marked by the morpheme t,  as in (24b.):  (24)a.na-kw tl'iq ta Peter RL-TD arrive DET Peter Peter's here, now EL 13-8-97 b.na7-t tl'iq ta Peter RL-PT arrive DET Peter Peter got here EL 13-8-97 The future perfect could not be elicited in parallel to the sentences in (23) and (24), and therefore does not appear to exist  in  SqwXwu7mish.  The  expression  of  an  equivalent  remains an area for further research. The English present perfect has at least two readings: the "pure perfect" reading, where the action of the verb coincides with now;  and the simple past reading, where the  action of the verb occurred  some time in the past.  temporal deictic kw is incompatible with the adverb today, shown in (25), which suggests that it is a pure perfect: (25)a.*na-kw tl'iq ta Peter ti stsi7ts RL-TD arrive DET Peter DET today EL 13-8-97 b.na tl'iq ta Peter ti stsi7ts RL arrive DET Peter DET today Peter got here today EL 13-8-97  62  The as  The expression of the perfect in English and SqwXwu7mish is summarized in the table in (26): (26) S,T,E E T,S  Present Perfect Past Perfect  E  T  S  Future Perfect S  E  T  English she has v-ed (now) she had v-ed (at X, when..) she will have v-ed (at X)  SqwXwu7mish na-kw v na-kw v + when clause *  Note that the when-clause is obligatory to distinguish the past perfect from the present perfect.  3 . 5 Aspectual  Adverbs  Turning to the interaction of durative adverbs with the perfect and with the future provides further evidence of a topic time.  For both perfect and future, the topic time and  the speech time are the same interval, now;  the  durative  adverb always specifies the duration of the event.  Section  3.5.1 illustrates how the sentence can have either a "topic time  (dependent) " reading for which the event time of the  adverb coincides with the speech and topic time, or an "event time (dependent) " reading for which the event time does not coincide with the speech and topic time.  Section 3.5.2 shows  that the equivalent data in SqwXwu7mish is unambiguous. 3.5.1  English Aspectual Adverbs Thompson (1994) and Hitzeman (1995) present the example  of a durative adverb and present perfect stative verb that has both "topic time" and "event time" readings (from Dowty 1979, Kamp and Reyle 1993):  63  (27) John has been in Boston for two weeks. 1.  John has been in Boston for two weeks, and he is still in Boston, (topic time reading)  2.  John has been in Boston for two weeks, some time in the past., (event time reading)  In contrast, the fronted durative adverb with a present perfect stative verb can have only the "topic time" reading that coincides with the topic and speech time: (28) For two weeks, John has been in Boston. 1.  For two weeks, John has been in Boston and he is still there, (topic time reading)  2.  *For two weeks, John has been in Boston a long time ago. (*event time reading)  In fact, in both -the present perfect and the future, the topic time coincides with the speech time.  Therefore,  Hitzeman (1995) argues, the topic time/event time reading ambiguity of the perfect exists in the future, as in (29): (29) Martha will be in her office for an hour. 1.  She will be in her office for an hour from the time of utterance (topic time reading)  2.  She will be in her office for some unspecified hour in the future (event time reading)  The reading that coincides with the topic time is the only one available when the adverb is sentence initial.  Further  evidence for the two readings in the future results from the addition of the adverb one day next  week:  (30)a.Martha will be in her office for an hour one day next week. b.*For an hour, Martha will be in her office one day next week.  64  Because an hour one day next  week cannot be from the time of  utterance, it forces the event time reading in these cases. 3.5.2  SqwXwu7mish Aspectual Adverbs In SqwXwu7mish, the equivalents of the English data do  not exhibit the same ambiguity.  The durative adverb is  always the main predicate, specifying the duration of the event23. perfect  This section will show that the presence of the or  the  absence  of  future morphology  with  the  adverbial predicate results in the "topic time" reading by relating the time specified by the durative adverb to now; the  presence  of  future  morphology  with  the  adverbial  predicate gives the "event time" reading by locating the time of the adverb away from now. The sentence in (31) shows that the adverb with the perfect morphology kw gets only the "topic time" reading, "two weeks before now": (31)a.na-kw 7an7us sXalhnat s-es wa na7 ta Peter RL-TD two week(Sunday) nom-3poss DR there DET Peter Peter's been there already two weeks Peter was at SqwXwu7mish for two weeks, just until today EL 24-4-97, EL 13-8-97 15 b.na-kw 7an7us sXalhnat kwi-s-es wa na7 ta Peter RL-TD two week DET-nom-3poss DR there DET Peter Peter's been there already two weeks EL 24-4-97 16 In contrast, in both examples in (32), Peter is going but is not yet in Squamish.  The adverb is modified by eg', the  "future" morpheme, to specify two weeks in the future which  23  See Section 1.5 for Kamp and Reyle's (1993) characterization of these adverbs.  65  do not coincide with the contemporaneous speech and topic times, giving the "event time" reading: (32)a.na-eq' 7an7us sXalhnat kwi-s-es-eq' na7 kwa Peter na7 t kwa SqwXwu7mish RL-FUT two week DET-nom-3poss-FUT there DET Peter there obi DET Squamish Peter will be up at Squamish for two weeks EL 24-4-97, EL 13-8-97 13 b.na-eq" 7an7us sXalhnat kwi-s na7-s kwa Peter na7 t kwa SqwXwu7mish RL-FUT two week(Sunday) DET-nom there-3poss DET Peter there obi DET Squamish Peter will be up at Squamish for two weeks (he's not there yet) EL 24-4-97 14 When the aspectual adverb is not modified by eg'  but the  nominalized clause agreement marks the future, as in (33), "two weeks" do coincide with the topic and speech time  now  for the "topic time" reading: (33) 7an7us sXalhnat kwi-s na7-s ta Peter na7 t kwa SqwXwu7mish two week(Sunday) DET-nom there-3poss DET Peter there obi DET Squamish For two weeks, Peter will be there in Squamish EL 24-4-97, EL 13-8-97 18 Thus, aspectual adverbs in both SqwXwu7mish and English can specify an interval that coincides with the speech time and the topic time, which are contemporaneous in both the perfect and the future.  This is summarized in (34):  (34)  kwadverb+[PAST] "topic time dependent" "event time dependent"  adverb+[FUT]  eq' adverb+[FUT]  V  V  *  *  *  V  This argues further for the existence of topic time.  66  3.6  Conclusions This  chapter  presented  evidence  to argue  presence of topic time in all utterances.  for  the  The right edge  adverb in SqwXwu7mish gets a topic time reading and is part of the topic structure of the sentence, whereas the main predicate adverb gets an event time reading and is in the focus structure. The  interaction  of  adverbs  with  quantificational  elements confirms these conclusions; quantifiers can take scope and quantify only over the event time adverb, not over the  topic  time  adverb.  With  universal  and  cardinal  quantification, topic time adverbs get a collective reading while event time adverbs get a collective or a distributive reading.  Narrative evidence provides evidence of a topic  time adverb with a stative predicate and shows that this adverb must occur with a determiner at the right adge of the sentence.  Finally, the perfect has been shown to exist in  SqwXwu7mish, which, along with contrasts between readings of aspectual adverbs with the perfect and the future, argues for the equal status of speech time, event time, and topic time. If the sentence final adverb is unambiguously the topic time and its determiner marks it as an argument, what is its syntactic position?  The following chapter examines the  distribution of the adverb to support the claim that it is not an adjunct but the argument of a temporal predicate.  67  4.  The  Distribution  of  SqwXwu7mish  Adverbs  SqwXwu7mish phrasal adverbs do not move freely in the sentence.  This chapter demonstrates that their syntactic  position is restricted in the following ways: two temporal adverbs may not co-occur in the same clause; the preferred position of the adverb is on the right periphery of the clause; and the adverb on the right edge of a subordinate clause cannot be interpreted as specifying the event time of the main clause.  Furthermore, locating adverbs are shown to  behave differently than "functional" adverbs such as and maybe.  always  These restrictions argue against the analysis of  SqwXwu7mish adverbs as adjuncts.  4 . 1 Two  Temporal  Adverbs  The sentence in (1) is ungrammatical because the number of temporal adverbs in a clause is restricted to one: (l)a.*chen s&tshit ta Peter ti siten ta sXalhnat kwi siy'elanem lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket DET Sunday DET year I gave Peter the basket on a Sunday last year EL 17-4-97 17 b.*kwi siy"elanem chen s&tshit ta Peter ti siten ta sXalhnat DET year lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket DET Sunday Last year I gave Peter the basket on a Sunday EL 17-4-97 18 This restriction extends to cardinal quantifiers, as shown in (2) : (2)  *na ts'its'ap' ta Peter na7 t 7an7us-alh t kwetsi sXalhnat RL work DET Peter there obi two-times obi DET Sunday Peter worked twice on a Sunday EL 2-4-97 12  68  Although the two adverbs denote only one time, overlapping in reference, this is a strong restriction.24 In order for the two adverbs to express a single time, as in the English cluster on  a Sunday  last  year,  Sunday  occurs in the main clause with the predicate there25, and last year  appears in a nominalized clause, as shown in (3), or in  a conjoined clause as in (4) 26 : (3)  na na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat s-en satshit ta Peter kwi siy'elanem RL there obi DET Sunday nom-lposs give DET Peter DET year Twas a Sunday last year that I gave Peter (the basket) EL 17-4-97 19  (4)  na na7 t kwetsi sXalhnat 7i-kw-na chen satshit ta Peter ti siten kwi siy'elanem RL there obi DET Sunday and-TD-RL-lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket DET year I gave Peter the basket on a Sunday last year EL 17-4-97 21  These facts argue for the existence of a single p o s i t i o n for the adverb in the clause.  This makes the analysis of adverbs  as adjuncts  if  improbable;  they were a d j u n c t s ,  temporal  adverbs should be able to appear in s t r i n g s , a l b e i t ordered s t r i n g s , in a single clause.  24  T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s by Hamida Demirdache ( p . c ) . The e x i s t e n c e of t h e o b l i q u e on t h e adverb i s not a problem f o r t h e a n a l y s i s of adverbs as arguments. Enc (1987) o b s e r v e s t h a t , in E n g l i s h , p r e p o s i t i o n a l adverbs such a s on Monday have t h e same d i s t r i b u t i o n a s NP a d v e r b s such a s yesterday. She a n a l y s e s t h e s e p r e p o s i t i o n s a s " s e m a n t i c a l l y vacuous" and s u g g e s t s t h a t temporal PPs a r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y NPs. 2 ^See Section 2.4. T h i s i s a c a s e of c o o r d i n a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , because of t h e main c l a u s e agreement chen i n t h e second clause. 25  69  4.2  SqwXwu7mish  Adverbs  The  positions  three  Prefer of  the the  Right  Periphery  English  adverb  are  exemplified in (5): (5)a.Yesterday, the lady saw the bear. b.?The lady, yesterday, saw the bear. c.*The lady saw yesterday the bear. d.The lady saw the bear yesterday. Sentences sentence  (5a.) (5b.)  and  (5d.)  requires  understood; and sentence  a  are  equal  particular  in  acceptability;  intonation  English  the  be  (5c.) is ungrammatical because the  adverb intervenes between the verb and its complement. in  to  position  of  the  adverb  is  Thus,  marginally  restricted. In contrast, the position of SqwXwu7mish confined to the right periphery27.  adverbs  is  The examples in (6) show  that the adverb cannot be positioned before the subject and verbal predicate in a main clause: (6)a.*kwi chelaqlh chen (-t) ts'its'ap' DET yesterday lsg.subj(PT) work EL 19-12-96 b.*ti sti7ts chen DET today lsg.subj EL 19-12-96  ts'its'ap' work  c.*q-kwayeles chen ts'itsap' IRR-tomorrow lsg.subj work EL 19-12-96, EL 6-2-97 d.*kwayeles chen ts'its'ap' tomorrow lsg.subj work I'll be working tomorrow EL 20-2-97  27  Henry Davis (p.c.) states that to his knowledge, this restriction has not been observed in any other Salish language.  70  The  preferred  position  of  adverbs  in  single  clause  constructions is at the end of the sentence, as shown in (7) and (8). (7)a.chen ilhen kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj eat DET yesterday I ate yesterday YJ 13-3-9 6 b.chen ilhen 7i7Xw sqwayl lsg.subj eat every day I eat every day DW 20-3-96 c.chen ilhen kwayeles lsg.subj eat tomorrow I'll be eating tomorrow  DW 20-3-9 6  d.chen ilhen kwetsi sXalhnat lsg.subj eat DET Sunday It was a Sunday that I ate EL 19-6-97 (8)a.chen tl'iq-s ti siten kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket DET yesterday I brought this basket (from close by) yesterday EL 27-3-97 03 b.chen tl'iq-s ti siten ta sXalhnat lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket DET Sunday I brought the basket on (any) Sunday EL 17-4-97; EL 19-6-97 01 c.chen tl'iq-s ti siten t kwetsi sXalhnat lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket obi DET Sunday I brought the basket (here) on Sunday EL 17-4-97; EL 8-5-97 03 The adverb is dispreferred in the position between the verb and its object, as shown in (9): (9)a.*/Vchen tl'iq-s kwi chel'aqlh ti siten lsg.subj arrive-caus DET yesterday DET basket I brought this basket (from close by) yesterday EL 27-3-97; EL 17-4-97 04 b.*chen tl'iq-s ta sXalhnat ti siten lsg.subj arrive-caus DET Sunday DET basket EL 17-4-97; EL 8-5-97; EL 19-6-97 06 The speaker often rejects such sentences on the basis that "you're bringing yesterday" or "you're bringing the Sunday!".  71  Sentences with a full DP subject before or after the verb show a similar pattern: the adverb is grammatical at the right  periphery,  as  in  (10b.)  and  (lib.);  the  adverb  intervening between the subject and object is ungrammatical, as in (10c.) and (lie); and the adverb appearing between the verb  and  either  a  postverbal  or  preverbal  subject  is  ungrammatical, as in (lOd.) and (lid.): (lO)a.(na) k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh (RL) see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear The lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 23 b.k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh kwi chel'aqlh see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear DET yesterday Yesterday the lady saw the bear EL:" start from the end" EL 27-3-97 28 c.*k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' kwi chel'aqlh ta miXalh see-trans-3subj DET lady DET yesterday DET bear Yesterday the lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 29 d.*k'wach-nexw-as kwi chel'aqlh kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh see-trans-3subj DET yesterday DET lady DET bear The lady saw the bear yesterday EL 27-3-97 32 (11)a.kwelhi slhanay' k'wach-nexw-as ta miXalh DET lady see-trans-3subj DET bear The lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 24 b.kwelhi slhanay' k'wach-nexw-as ta miXalh kwi chel'aqlh DET lady see-trans-3subj DET bear DET yesterday The lady saw the bear yesterday EL 27-3-97 25 c.*kwelhi slhanay' k'wach-nexw-as kwi chel'aqlh ta miXalh DET lady see-trans-3subj DET yesterday DET bear The lady saw the bear yesterday EL 27-3-97 26  72  (11)d.*kwelhi slhanay' kwi chel'aqlh k'wach-nexw-as ta miXalh DET lady DET yesterday see-trans-3subj DET bear The lady saw the bear yesterday EL 27-3-97 27 In  ditransitive  constructions,  again  the  adverb  is  grammatical at the right edge, as in (12): (12)a.chen s&tshit ta Peter ti siten kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket DET yesterday I gave this basket to Peter yesterday EL 8-5-97 EL 27-3-97; EL 8-5-97 07 b.chen satshit ta Peter ti siten ta sXalhnat lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket DET Sunday I gave Peter the basket on Sunday WOR; *kwi sXalhnat EL 17-4-97 09 When the adverb intervenes between the direct and indirect object, as in (13), the sentence is marginal: (13)a.*/Vchen satshit ta Peter kwi chel'aqlh ti siten lsg.subj give DET Peter DET yesterday DET basket I gave this basket to Peter yesterday EL 27-3-97; EL 17-4-97; EL 8-5-97 08 b.chen satshit ta Peter ta sXalhnat ti siten lsg.subj give DET Peter DET Sunday DET basket I gave it to Peter on a Sunday EL 17-.4-97 15,23 When the adverb appears between the verb and its objects, as in (14), the sentence is again marginal or ungrammatical: (14)a.*/Vchen satshit kwi chel'aqlh ta Peter ti siten lsg.subj give DET yesterday DET Peter DET basket I gave this basket to Peter yesterday EL 27-3-97; EL 17-4-97;EL 8-5-97 09 b.*chen satshit ta sXalhnat ta Peter ti siten lsg.subj give DET Sunday DET ,Peter DET basket I gave this basket to Peter on Sunday EL 17-4-97; EL 8-5-97 22 Finally,  as  seen  in Chapter  3,  the  adverb  may' be  syntactically focused as a main predicate, on its own or as an argument with nilh  or the zero focus marker. 73  This is  shown in the coordination structures in (15). In (15a.), the adverb on its own is a predicate (Jelinek 1993, Matthewson 1996) which is coordinated with another clause by the clitics 7i-kw;  in (15b.), the adverb, with the oblique and the  determiner, is an argument with a zero focus marker; and in (15c), the adverb with the oblique and the determiner is an argument with the overt focus marker  nilh:  (15)a.sXalhnat 7i-kw-na chen tl'iq-s ti siten Sunday and-TD-RL lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket I brought the (your) basket on Sunday (volunteered form) EL 17-4-97; EL 1-5-97; EL 8-5-97 04 b.0 t kwetsi sXalhnat 7i-kwe-na chen mi-tl'iq-s ti siten FOC obi DET Sunday and-TD-RL lsg.subj come-arrive-caus DET basket I brought the basket on a Sunday, lit. It was any Sunday that I brought the basket EL 17-4-97;EL 8-5-97 05 c.nilh t kwetsi sXalhnat 7i-kwe-na chen satshit ta Peter kwetsi siten FOC obi DET Sunday and-TD-RL lsg.subj give DET Peter DET basket It was a Sunday I gave Peter the basket EL 8-5-97 26 d.nilh sXalhnat 7i-kwe-na chen mi-tl'iq-s ta siten FOC Sunday and-TD-RL lsg.subj come-arrive-caus DET basket I already brought the basket on a Sunday EL 8-5-97 24 The absence of the determiner on the adverb with the overt copula in (15d.) is predicted to be ungrammatical, but is assumed to be a case where the determiner is dropped. To summarize, the position of the adverb in SqwXwu7mish is preferred at the right edge of the main clause.  Adverbs  before the verb are disallowed, while adverbs between the verb and its complement are dispreferred. 74  Such restrictions  on the attachment of the adverb further argue against their characterization as adjuncts.  4 . 3 Adverbs Thompson  and  Subordinate  Clauses  (1995) and Hitzeman  (1995) argue for English  that adverbs which specify the event time are adjoined to VP, whereas adverbs which specify the topic time are adjoined at sentence  level.  This explains why English adverbs which  appear at the right periphery of the sentence are ambiguous between event time and topic time, while adverbs at the left edge are unambiguously the topic time. A parallel analysis can be extended to adverbs at the right edge of subordinate clauses in comparison with adverbs at  the  right  edge  of  main  clauses,  as  shown  in (16).  Addressing only adjunction to S for simplicity28, in (16a.), the adverb at the right edge of the subordinate clause is ambiguous between construal with the subordinate clause and construal with the main clause; in (16b.), the adverb at the right edge of the main clause is unambiguously construed with the main clause: (16)a.I said that Peter would be going away yesterday. 1.  I said at a time in the past that the event of Peter's leaving was yesterday.  2.  I said yesterday that the event of Peter's leaving would occur.  28  In the simple past, where the topic time and the event time coincide, the distinction of readings resulting from adjunction to V and readings resulting from adjunction to S is impossible with a deictic adverb like yesterday (see Hitzeman 1995).  75  (16)b.I said yesterday that Peter would be going away. 1.  *i said that the event of Peter's leaving was yesterday.  2.  I said yesterday that the event of Peter's leaving would occur.  Again, the asymmetry between these sentences can be explained by the adjunction site of the adverb.  When the adverb  appears at the right edge of the subordinate clause, it may be adjoined either to the higher S, for reading (2.), or to the lower S for reading (1.); when the adverb appears at the right of the main clause, it can only be adjoined to the higher S. The equivalent sentences in SqwXwu7mish argue against the analysis of adverbs as adjuncts, however.  The adverb on  the right of a subordinate clause cannot be construed with the main clause because there is only one position available for the adverb in each clause. (17) *chen tsut kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj say DET-nom go leave DET Peter DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter would be going away29 EL 27-3-97 33 The adverb yesterday  cannot be attached to the lower CP  because it is incompatible with the future construction nam' huya7  'going to leave'; the ungrammaticality of this sentence  shows that the adverb cannot be attached to the upper CP or its interpretation with the main clause would be possible. The volunteered correction of the sentence moves the adverb to the right of the main verb as shown in (18): 29  Note t h a t t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e examples i n t h i s s e c t i o n a r e t h o s e p r o v i d e d by t h e s p e a k e r ; t h e y show sequence of t e n s e e f f e c t s (see Stowell 1993 for a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e s e in E n g l i s h ) .  76  (18) chen tsut kwi chel'aqlh kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter lsg.subj say DET yesterday DET-nom go leave DET Peter I said yesterday that Peter would be going away EL 27-3-97 34 In order for the adverb to be interpreted with the main clause from the right edge of the sentence, the agreement for the third person possessive, -es,  is added to the nominalizer  of the subordinate nominalized clause30: (19)a.chen tsut [kwi-s-es nam' huya7 ta Peter] kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj say [DET-nom-3poss go leave DET Peter] DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter's going away EL 27-3-97 35  b.chen t s u t [kwi-s-es huya7 ta Peter] kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj say DET-nom-3poss leave DET Peter DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter went away I said that Peter went away yesterday EL 27-3-97 36 The sentences in (18) and (19) appear to be l i k e the English examples in (16); the adverb at the r i g h t periphery in (17) should a l s o be i n t e r p r e t a b l e sentence  i s ungrammatical.  position  per  clause  for  in the main c l a u s e , Thus,  the  but  the  t h e r e can be only, one  adverb  c o n t r a s t with the three in English.  in  SqwXwu7mish,  An account  for  in the  contrast in these four examples i s proposed in Section 5.6.  4.4  Functional  Adverbs 31  Unlike the locating adverbs discussed in the previous sections,  certain  "functional"  adverbs in SqwXwu7mish must  occupy the position before the subject c l i t i c and verb as in 30  P . Jacobs ( p . c . ) says t h a t t h e r e i s p o s s e s s i v e marking on nam' i n (17) and (18) which has been dropped in r a p i d speech. 3 •'•This s e c t i o n was t h e s u g g e s t i o n of Rose-Marie Dechaine. 77  (20); (21) shows that they cannot occupy the position at the right periphery preferred by adverbs such as yesterday  and on  Sunday. ( 2 0 ) a . c h i y a l h chen t s ' i t s ' a p ' soon l s g . s u b j work I'm gonna work soon EL 1-5-97 18 b . w a y ' t i chen t s ' i t s ' a p ' maybe l s g . s u b j work I'm not s u r e / I t h i n k I w i l l work EL 1-5-97 19 c . l h i q ' chen wa t s ' i t s ' a p ' always l s g . s u b j DR work I'm always working ( v o l u n t e e r e d form) EL 1-5-97 23 d . 7 i - w a y ' t i l h i q ' chen t s ' i t s ' a p ' PR-maybe always l s g . s u b j work Maybe I w i l l work ( v o l u n t e e r e d form) EL 1-5-97 21 (21)a.*chen t s ' i t s ' a p ' c h i y a l h l s g . s u b j work soon EL 1-5-97 24 b.*chen t s ' i t s ' a p ' way'ti l s g . s u b j work maybe EL 1-5-97 26 c.*chen wa t s ' i t s ' a p ' l h i q ' 3 2 l s g . s u b j DR work always I'm working always EL 1-5-97 27 Therefore,  functional  adverbs a r e o p e r a t o r s ,  modifiers,  or  q u a n t i f i e r s ; Kuipers (1967) c a l l s them " s e n t e n c e - a d j u n c t s . "  -^The a d v e r b lhiq' ' a l w a y s ' has a l e s s r e s t r i c t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n and can appear a f t e r t h e s u b j e c t c l i t i c , as shown in ( i ) : i. chen l h i q wa t s ' i t s ' a p ' l s g . s u b j always DR work I'm always working (I never stop) answers t h e question:"Why d o n ' t I ever see you?" EL 1-5-97 28 78  Conversely,  functional  adverbs  cannot  be  main  p r e d i c a t e s , e i t h e r on t h e i r own as in (22) or with nilh  as in  (23) : (22)a.*chiyalh 7i-kwe-na chen tl'iq-s ti siten soon and-TD-RL lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket EL 1-5-97 53 b.*way'ti 7i-kwe-na chen tl'iq-s ti siten maybe and-TD-RL' lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket EL 1-5-97 51 c.*lhiq' 7i-kwe-na chen tl'iq-s ti siten always and-TD-RL lsg.subj arrive-caus DET basket EL 1-5-97 48 (23)a.*nilh chiyalh tl'-as nam' huya7 FOC soon WH-3subj go leave EL 1-5-97 37 b.*nilh way'ti tl'-as nam' huya7 FOC maybe WH-3subj go leave EL 1-5-97 39 c.*nilh lhiq" tl'-as nam' huya7 FOC always WH-3subj go leave EL 1-5-97 41 This  is in direct  yesterday,  tomorrow  contrast  to locating  and Sunday,  adverbs  such as  which have been shown to be  main predicates when they determine the event time of the utterance; in  (24), the adverbs are main predicates  nominalized clause complements (see Section 2.4): (24)a.(na) sXalhnat kwi-s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter (RL) Sunday DET-nom-3poss work DET Peter Peter worked on Sunday EL 19-6-97 b.kwi chelaqlh s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter yesterday nom-3poss work DET Peter Yesterday Peter worked. EL 19-6-97 c.kwayl kwi-s ts'its'ap'-s ta Peter tomorrow DET-nom work-3poss DET Peter Peter will be working tomorrow EL 19-6-97 79  with  (24)d.kwayl(-eq') 7i nam1 huya7 kwa Peter tomorrow(-FUT) and go leave DET Peter Tomorrow Peter will be going away EL 1-5-97 34 The focus marker nilh  is often used with these adverbs as  predicates, here with conjunctive clause complements: (25)a.nilh kwi sXalhnat tl'-as nam1 huya7 FOC DET Sunday WH-3subj go leave He went away on Sunday lit. it was Sunday when he went away EL 1-5-97 43 b.nilh kwi chel'aqlh tl'-as nam1 huya7 FOC DET yesterday WH-3subj go leave It was yesterday (when) somebody went away EL 1-5-97 30 In this way, locating adverbs behave in the same way as arguments such as the direct object, which can be the main predicate without a determiner, with the zero focus marker and with nilh,  as shown in (26) :  (26)a.siten [ti na tl'iq-s-t-an] basket [DET RL arrive-caus-trans-lsg] It's a basket that I brought volunteered form EL 8-5-97 03 b.0 kwetsi siten [0 na tl'iq-s-t-an] FOC DET basket [rel RL arrive-caus-trans-lsg] It was the basket I brought EL 8-5-97 05 c.nilh ti siten [0 na tl'iq-s-t-an] FOC DET basket [rel RL arrive-caus-trans-lsg] This basket I brought EL 8-5-97 07 The complement of these predicates is a zero relative clause. This  comparison  of temporal  adverbs with  functional  adverbs shows a strong distinction: functional adverbs are preferred at the left edge of main clauses and cannot be main predicates, whereas locating adverbs occur at the left edge  80  of a- sentence only as main predicates.  Their ability to be  main predicates aligns temporal adverbs with other arguments, such as direct objects. (Davis  1996:1-2)  that  In fact, it is a property of Salish "open-class"  categories  can  be  predicates on their own and arguments when preceded by a determiner (Jelinek 1993, Davis 1996).  4 . 5 Summary The restrictions on the position of the adverb support the claim that they are not adjuncts.  If they were adjuncts,  multiple temporal adverbs should be able to occur in the clause, adjoined to different positions.  Therefore, the  distribution of SqwXwu7mish adverbs forces their analysis as arguments;  more  precisely,  the  distribution  and  interpretation of SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbs argues for their analysis as time-denoting arguments, selected by a temporal predicate.  81  5.  The  Syntax .of the  Topic  Time  Argument  SqwXwu7mish adverbials identify the topic time, or, if they  are  focused  syntactically  as main predicates,  identify the event time, as shown in Chapter 3.  they  Chapter 4  presented data that argued for a restriction of one adverb per clause, with a preferred position at the right edge of the sentence.  This supported the claim that the adverb in  SqwXwu7mish is an argument, not an adjunct. will  argue  argument  that  SqwXwu7mish  adverbs  are  This chapter  the  topic  in the specifier of the spatiotemporal  time  predicate  Aspect (Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria, to appear). This analysis Section 5.1. Aspect Section  on conceptual  grounds  in  Section 5.2 reviews the syntax of Tense and  proposed 5.3  is motivated  by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria,  lays out the modifications necessary  application of this framework to SqwXwu7mish.  then  for the  Section 5.4  proposes an analysis of how the temporal interpretation of pronoun-verb constructions is derived; the derivation of word order is examined in 5.5.  In Section 5.6, the construal of  adverbials in complex sentences is addressed. Section  5.7,  the  quantification  interaction  supports  of  topic  time  a non-structural  Finally, in adverbs  theory  of  and  scope  (Demirdache and Matthewson 1997).  5.1.  Topic  Time,  Temporal  Adverbials  and  Aspect  The proposal that it is Aspect which determines  the  relation between the reference or topic time and the event  82  time  is explored  in analyses  such as Giorgi  and  Pianesi  (1991), Thompson (1994), and Klein (1994, 1995). Giorgi and Pianesi (1991) propose two Tense heads: the higher Tl establishes a relation between speech time, S, and reference (or topic) time, R, and the lower T2 establishes a relation between R and event time,E.  These relations are  governed by the "Biunique Mapping Principle", whereby there is  a  "biunique  correspondence"  morphemes and T-relations"  between  overt  "temporal  (Giorgi and Pianesi  1991:191).  Thus, under this analysis "the syntactic primitives of tense are the relations between temporal points  (..)  and not the  points themselves" (Thompson 1994a:fn.l). Thompson argues that such a proposal fails to account for the interpretation of adverbs, as adverbs never modify more than one time point.  As discussed in Section 1.4, she  claims that each of the three time points associates to a head: speech time, S, to Tense, reference (or topic) time, R, to Aspect, and event time, E, to V.  Tense morphemes thereby  determine the S,R relation while the presence or absence of have  determines the relation of R to E.  The ambiguity in  adverbial interpretation between a reference or topic time reading and an event time reading can be accounted for if the topic time reading is a result of adjunction of the adverb to Aspect and the event time reading due to adjunction to V. Klein (1994:99) also argues that tense relates the time of utterance, TU, and the reference or topic time, TT, while aspect is a way "to relate the time of situation  83  (TSit) to  the topic time: TT can precede TSit, TT can follow TSit, TT can contain TSit, or TT can be partly or fully contained in TSit".  Crucially, the topic time, TT, may be specified by  adverbs that denote either a single point in time or an interval33.  Thus, the topic time denoted by the adverb is  related to the event time by aspect. This thesis proposes that if SqwXwu7mish adverbs are arguments which denote topic time, and  if aspect  is a  relation between event time and topic time, then temporal adverbs are a topic time argument of the temporal predicate Aspect.  The  Demirdache  and  syntax  of Tense  Uribe-Etxebarria  and  Aspect  (to appear  proposed  by  a,b), with  adaptations for SqwXwu7mish, provides the framework for such an analysis.  5.2  The Syntax of Tense and Aspect34 This section briefly outlines the syntax of Tense and  Aspect presented in Section 1.5, then examines Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria's analysis of the English Past Progressive. To capture the semantic parallelism that both tense and aspect order two times, Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria argue that syntactically Tense and Aspect are prepositional-type predicates which order two time-denoting arguments with the meaning "before," "after," or "within". 33  Each argument is a  As discussed in Chapter 1, Klein's topic time differs from Kamp and Reyle's (1993) Temporal Perspective Point in that it can denote an interval, and it serves as the temporal frame for the assertion of the sentence. 3 ^ S e e C h a p t e r 1, S e c t i o n 1.5 f o r a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n of Demirdache and U r i b e ' s framework. 84  time denoting phrase: the speech time argument, UT-T, is the external argument of Tense, generated in the specifier of Tense; the reference or topic time argument, TOP-T, is the internal  argument  of Tense and the external  argument  of  Aspect, generated in the specifier of Aspect; and the event time argument EV-T is the internal argument of Aspect and the outer external argument of the VP, generated in the specifier of the VP. Tense  and  Aspect  make  use  of  multiple  specifier  positions (Chomsky 1995) to fulfill their "functional roles". The functional specifier of TP takes over the function of the AgrS specifier, while the specifier of AspP is the equivalent of the specifier of AgrO.  These multiple specifier positions  accomodate both the temporal arguments of Tense and Aspect and the arguments of the verb, which are base-generated in the VP and moved up for Case assignment or feature checking. The authors' analysis of the Past Progressive in the utterance in (1) illustrates how their framework functions: (1) (2)  Henry was building a house. TP / \ UT-T  T' / \ T ASP-P  after  / \  TOP-T  ASP'  / \ ASP VP within y>v EV-T  V  V  85  Progressive Aspect is a predicate meaning  "within", which  orders the topic time within the event time, the time of building; Past Tense is a predicate meaning  "after", which  orders the speech time after the topic time.  Therefore, the  analysis in  (2) "focuses a subinterval within the interval  defined by the event of building. located  in the past"  appear b ) .  This subinterval is itself  (Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria  to  This is illustrated by the time line in (3):  (3)  TOP-T  UT-T  EV-T  5. 3 Adapting Four  the  issues  Framework must  be  to  SqwXwu7mish  addressed  in  order  for  the  SqwXwu7mish data presented in the previous chapters to be analyzed  within  this  framework:  the  analysis  of  simple  tenses; the syntax and semantics of the Zeit Phrase, ZP; the status of recursive aspect; and the content of the Tense predicate in SqwXwu7mish. 5.3.1  Simple Tenses This thesis proposes to account for the simple tenses,  Past and Future 35 , that are not addressed in Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria  (to appear a,b), by proposing  predicate with the meaning "around".  an Aspect  This is motivated with  an example of the Simple Past.  3  -"The present is set aside,, although the present reading of an eventive verb in SqwXwu7mish gets either a durative or a generic reading in translation to English.  86  For a sentence in the Simple Past, the speech time, UTT, is after the topic time, TOP-T, as above; however, the event  time, EV-T, is viewed as a whole, therefore  it is  contained in the topic time, TOP-T, as shown in (4): (4)  EVT-T [__[ TOP-T  < The  Progressive  UT-T |  ]_]  >  relationship  between  EV-T  and  TOP-T  schematized in (3) is the inverse of that of the Simple Tense shown in  (4); therefore, the meaning of Aspect in the simple  tenses is the inverse of the meaning of Progressive Aspect. As  the  topic  time,  TOP-T,  in  the  Progressive  is  ordered  "within" the event time, EV-T, by the meaning of Aspect, the topic time in a Simple tense is ordered time.  This  is illustrated  by  the  "around"  example  in  the  event  (5) and  the  analysis in (6): (5) (6)  Henry built a house. TP  UT-T  T' /  \  T ASP-P after / \ TOP-T  ASP'  / \  ASP  VP  around  /\.  EV-T  V /  \  V In the Simple  Future, the utterance  time, UT-T, is  ordered before the topic time, TOP-T, by the predicate Tense; the predicate Aspec orders the topic time around the event  87  time, EV-T.  The diagram of these relations shown in (7) is  the mirror image of that in (4) : (7) <  UT-T |  EVT-T [__[  ]_]  >  TOP-T The addition of "around" to the other possible meanings of  Aspect,  "within,"  "before,"  and  "after,"  appears  to  violate the "strict parallel" between Tense and Aspect used by  Demirdache  analysis 36 .  and  Uribe-Etxebarria  to  motivate  their  Conversely, it completes the system following  Klein's observation, stated in Section 5.1 above, that the topic time can be before the event time (Prospective Aspect), after the event time (Perfect Aspect) , that all or part of the topic time can be within the event time  (Progressive  Aspect), and that the topic time can "contain" or be around the  event  section.  time  (Completed  Aspect)  as  described  in  this  Furthermore, it is consistent with the analysis of  temporal adverbials such as yesterday  and the  next  day as the  topic time argument, which will be taken up in Section 5.4. 5.3.2  The Category of Temporal Arguments The syntactic category of the temporal argument is the  functional  category  ZP  (Zeit  Phrase),  a  "time-denoting  phrase" which is a "referential category analoguous to DP". For  Stowell  (to appear a  ZP,  in  a:4), the head, the  of  the  VP  a  variable,  itself  contains.  The present proposal analyzes the temporal topic  36  specifier  Z, binds  it  H. Demirdache (p.c.) suggests that the "Reportative Present", which is used for telic events contained in the utterance time, is the Tense parallel to the Aspect in simple tenses.  88  time argument adverb as a ZP which contains an NP; the head Z is the determiner of the adverb which binds a variable in the specifier of the NP. sXalhnat  The structure of the topic time ZP ta  'that Sunday' is shown in (8a.), with the structure  of the DP ta  miXalh  'the bear' next to it in (8b.) for  comparison: (8)a.  ZP  b.  DP  Z' / Zi ta  D'  \ NP / ZP  Dj ta  \  NP  N'  •i  ej  /  N'  \  N  N  sXalhnat  miXalh  Stowell (1993:9) claims that as N is a "predicative category analoguous to V (...) property  that  and that D is a referential category, a  enables  the  category  DP  to  refer"  to  individuals, Z is also a referential category which allows ZP to refer to times.  The structure proposed in (8a.) simply  extends this analogy to NP temporal adverbs, where the Z gives the adverb its temporal reference. This proposal has several advantages for the analysis of SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbials.  First, it encodes the  difference between phrasal adverbials, which are ZP's, and clausal  adverbials,  which  are  CP's,  to  account  for  differences in their distribution and syntactic behaviour37. 37  H . Davis (p.c.) states that in a neighbouring Interior Salish language, St'at'imcets, temporal adverbials are CP's which attach freely in the manner of adjuncts.  89  Second,  it  explains  how  changing  the  determiner  adverb, as seen in Section 2.3, can change  the  on  the  temporal  reference of the adverb to past, present or future: (9)  ti sXalhnat ta sXalhnat kwetsi sXalhnat  this Sunday that Sunday any, a certain Sunday  kwi sXalhnat  a possible Sunday  When the determiner ti, for example, is under D, it refers to individuals which are near and visible, and when ti is under Z, it refers to times which are near.  Third, this proposal  captures the parallel between nominal and temporal reference, while  formalizing  the  way  in  which  they  differ.  In  SqwuXwu7mish, these determiners refer to individuals and to times differently: for example, kwi  indicates things that  cannot be seen, people who are dead, Sundays and days and years that are past.  that may happen,  In addition, the category  ZP explains why adverbs, unlike DP nominals, do not get case. This section has focused on the analysis of topic time adverbs.  The external argument of Tense is assumed to be a  ZP which is PRO, following Stowell  (1993, to appear a,b).  Event time arguments are assumed to be ZP variables, which are interpreted in terms of their relation to the topic time argument as determined by the predicate Aspect. 5.3.3  Aspect Recursion in SqwXwu7mish Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria  (to appear b) show how  their proposal can derive Aspect recursion in English without additional mechanisms.  Conversely, there cannot be Aspect  recursion in SqwXwu7mish if there is only one topic time argument position.  The data presented in Chapter 4 argued 90  for a single topic time position in order to account for the restriction of one temporal adverb in a clause and for the construal of adverbs in subordinate clauses. Indeed, SqwXwu7mish "become, argues  the  that  most  (wa the durative, nam'  come  aspectual  clitics  in  the near future, and  mi7  toward") are in complementary  against  temporal  fact  the  deicitic  recursion  clitic kw,  of Aspect 38 .  distribution Although  the  which was shown to give the  equivalent of the perfect, may cooccur with wa as in (10), the translations show that kw and wa are not both aspectual in this case; if they both were aspectual, the meaning would be the perfect of a progressive: (10) na-kw wa tsits'ap' RL-TD DR work He has started to work, ie., he is working now, he is already working (Kuipers 1967:158) As this requires a more thorough examination, this thesis will adopt the conclusion that there is no recursive Aspect in SqwXwu7mish.  Therefore, a clause can have at most one  Aspect projection, one AspP specifier, and one topic time argument, TOP-T. 5.3.4  The Predicate Tense in SqwXwu7mish Tense  in SqwXwu7mish  is analyzed  in this  thesis  as  lacking morphological content or feature specification, given the pronoun verb constructions in (11):  The main verb forms of nam'  and mi7 may cooccur with wa, however.  91  (11)a.chen ilhen lsg.subj eat I eat YJ 13-3-96 I'm eating (these days) DW 20-3-96 I ate (context:"What were you doing this morning?") EL 6-3-96,17-4-96 b.  chen ilhen kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj eat DET yesterday I ate yesterday YJ 13-3-96, LJ 29-3-96  c.  chen ilhen kwayeles lsg.subj eat tomorrow I'll be eating tomorrow  DW 20-3-96  d.  chen ilhen kwetsi sXalhnat lsg.subj eat DET Sunday It was a Sunday that I ate EL 19-6-97  e.  chen ilhen 7i7Xw sqwayl lsg.subj eat all day I eat every day DW 20-3-9 6  These sentences get their temporal interpretation either from an adverb or from the discourse, although the pronoun and verb on their own are at times uninterpretable.  Furthermore,  the interpretation of the bare pronoun and verb is sensitive to the aspectual class of the predicate: activity verbs get a past or present reading, statives a present reading, and achievement and accomplishment verbs a past reading39. In  order  to  account  for  similar  constructions  in  Haitian, Ddchaine (1993) proposes that Tense is a Functional head, a syntactic position without morphological or semantic content.  Since  the predicate  Tense  must  have  semantic  content to project its arguments, its meaning is assumed to be unspecified and derived via the relation of its arguments: the internal argument of Tense, the topic time, is either a  See Chapter 6 for examples.  92  temporal adverbial or a non-overt pro,  which is bound by the  topic time of the previous utterance; the external argument of Tense is either now in main clauses or controlled by the main event time in subordinate clauses.  Thus, the temporal  interpretation of these sentences is determined relation of  the utterance  time, UT-T, to the  by the inherent  temporal features of the topic time, TOP-T, and by the topic time itself, which is related by Aspect to the event time.  5.4  Analyzing  the  Pronoun-Verb  Construction  This section proposes an analysis of the sentences in (11) to show how the topic time determines the temporal interpretation of the sentence. 5.4.1  Topic Time "Yesterday" The surface form of (lib.), represented in (12), is  derived as follows: the first person subject pronoun is assumed to be generated in the specifier of the TP (Davis to appear); the verb raises through Asp to Tense.  The adverb  does not move because it does not need to move, having no features to be checked (Thompson 1994a). The temporal interpretation of (lib.) is derived without morphological Tense in the following manner.  The main  clauses utterance time means "now"; the topic time denotes a time,  "yesterday", that is before now.  The topic time  determines the time of the event by being in an ordering relation with it via Aspect: the topic time contains the event time, which therefore must also be before now.  93  (11)b.chen ilhen kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj eat DET yesterday I ate yesterday YJ 13-3-9 6 (12)  CP  TP DP TP chen UT-T = ZP T' PROnow / \ T ASP-P  ilhenj  / \  TOP-T = ZP ASP' kwi chelaqlh / \ ^ ASP VP ej-around / \ EVT-T = ZP VP 0 pro V ej This derivation gives the interpretation:  "there is a  time yesterday, and now is after that time, and that time includes the time of my eating."  This is represented on a  time line in (13): (13) <  TOP-T yesterday [  [__] eat EVT-T  ]  | now  >  UTT-T  The same meaning is derived in a different formalism by the "semantic  representation"  constructed  in  Discourse  Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle 1993), shown in (14):  94  (14) n e t x yesterday(t) e C t t < n I (x) e: x eat yesterday  This is interpreted informally as "there is a time  and there is an event contained in that time and that time is before now;  x is 'I' and the event is 'I eat'."  The symbol  "C" gives the meaning "e is temporally included within t"; as above, the event is contained in the time specified by the temporal adverbial. This proposal explains how the adverbial can be the sole determinant  of  the  sentence's  temporal  reference.  Furthermore, this proposal allows the topic time to determine the time of the event by being in an ordering relation with it via Aspect, without recourse to morphological Tense. 5.4.2  Zero Topic Time The temporal interpretation of (11a.), which has a null  pro  topic time, has a similar interpretation as shown in  (15):  95  (11)a.chen flhen lsg.subj eat I eat, I'm eating (these days), I ate (15)  CP C C  TP / \  DP TP / chen \ / / UT-T = ZP T' PROnow T ASP-P ilhenj /\. TOP-T = ZP ASP' prod / \ ASP VP e j -around y \ EVT-T=ZP VP  0 pro  V e  The topic time argument pro topic  J  in this case is bound by the  time of the previous  sentence or question; this  analysis captures the fact that the topic time is often not overtly  specified  sentence.  but  is maintained  from  sentence  to  This utterance is therefore uninterpretable if no  topic time is available from the discourse. 5.4.3  Topic Time "Sunday" When the topic time argument is a calendar name such as  Sunday,  it contains the time of the event of eating, in the  same way as yesterday.  Calendar  names, however,  are  "context-dependent" (Kamp and Reyle 1993); they can pick out more than one time interval, and the relevant interval is  96  then determined by the context. such as this  or an adjective such as last  referent of Sunday.  as  "present,"  "possible" (see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.4). (lid.),  the  may identify the  In SqwXwu7mish, the determiner in Z must  the referent of Sunday  identify  In English, a demonstrative  determiner  kwetsi  "past," or  In the example in  identifies  the  Sunday  as  "past," thereby locating the topic time before the utterance time without recourse to morphological Tense. (ll)d.chen ilhen kwetsi sXalhnat lsg.subj eat DET Sunday It was a Sunday that I ate EL 19-6-97 (16)  CP C /  C  \  TP / \  DP TP chen //\s UT-T = ZP T' PROnow / \ T ASP-P  ilhenj  y / \  TOP-T = ZP ASP' kwetsi sXalhnat y / \ ASP VP ej-around /\^ EVT-T = ZP VP  0 pro  V e  j  The temporal interpretation of this sentence is: "there is a time, a certain Sunday in the past, and now  is after  that Sunday, and the event of eating is included in that time interval."  This is derived by Aspect ordering of a  97  certain  (past)  Sunday,  the topic time TOP-T, around the event time of  the verb, EV-T, and by the past meaning of the topic time locating it before the matrix utterance time, which is now. This analysis shows that Tense may be morphologically null and semantically unspecified precisely because of the temporal information supplied by the topic time argument and the temporal reference of the determiner. 5.4.4  Habitual Topic Time In English, the habitual reading of an eventive verb is  obtained with the generic reading of the present tense. (1991:7) argues that these result  Eng  from the presence of a  generic operator, a "phonologically null operator capable of binding  variables  unselectively, " which  binds  the  time  argument of the verb. In SqwXwu7mish, the habitual reading can be obtained with the pronoun, verb, and a universally quantified adverb, as in (lie).  Again, it is not Tense but the habitual reading  of the quantified adverb itself which locates the utterance time within the topic time.  Thus, the utterance time now is  a moment in a day which is part of the set picked out by days.  Similarly, the topic time surrounds  all  the event of  eating via the Aspect predicate "around" to locate that event on a day which is part of "all days".  98  (ll)e.chen l l h e n 7i7Xw s q w a y l lsg.subj eat a l l day I e a t every day, l i t . a l l days DW 2 0 - 3 - 9 6 (17)  CP C / \ C TP DP TP chen UT-T = ZP T" PRO n o w / \ T ASP-P ilhenj / \ TOP-T = ZP ASP' 7i7Xw s k w a y l /N^ ASP VP ej -around / \ EVT-T = ZP VP 0 pro  V e  J  Thus, the difference between present moment readings and habitual readings can be ascribed to the specification of the overt universal topic time argument, without recourse to an null generic operator as in Enc (1991). 5.4.5  Conclusions In conclusion, this proposal successfully explains the  paradigm in (11) : the pronoun and verb are uninflected for tense but their temporal interpretation is determined by the topic time argument.  This argument is specified by temporal  adverbials, either in the discourse or in the sentence. Assuming the utterance time is always now in main clauses, it is the semantics of the ZP topic time adverb, its determiner,  99  and the presence of quantifiers which determine the relation of the topic time to the utterance time and thereby account for  the  absence  of  morphological  specification in the Tense predicate.  tense  or  semantic  Finally, the content  of the Aspect predicate orders the event time of the verb in relation to the time determined by this topic time argument.  5 . 5 Word  Order  This s e c t i o n proposes an analysis to account for  the  preferred r i g h t peripheral position of the topic time adverb. The d e r i v a t i o n s of SVO-Adverb and VSO-Adverb o r d e r s 4 0 are presented.  Assuming the Universal Order hypothesis  (Kayne  1994:35), the VSO order i s analyzed as "deriving from SVO order by leftward V-movement"; rightward movement and r i g h t adjunction are prohibited. The SVO-Adverb order of the preverbal nominal and nominal d i r e c t object  in  (18)  subject  i s unproblematic.  The  nominal subject i s base generated in the s p e c i f i e r o'f VP and moved to the specifier of the TP, while the object,  generated  in the complement p o s i t i o n of VP, i s raised to the thematic s p e c i f i e r of AspP 41 .  These movements are assumed to be for  Case assignment or feature checking.  The verb r a i s e s v i a  head to head movement through Aspect to Tense, as marked by the index "k", with the effect 40  that the adverb in i t s base  T h e d e r i v a t i o n of t h e VOS o r d e r i s not a d d r e s s e d h e r e because i t d i d not a r i s e in t h e d a t a e l i c i t e d . P. Jacobs ( p . c . ) s t a t e s t h a t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of one s p e a k e r , VOS i s g e n e r a l l y d i s p r e f e r r e d . 4 ^As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i f i e r of TP i s comparable t o t h a t of AgrS, and t h e s p e c i f i e r of AspP t o t h a t of AgrO.  100  generated position, the inner specifier of AspP, surfaces on the right periphery: (18) kwelhi slhanay' k'wach-nexw-as ta miXalh kwi chel'aqlh DET lady see-trans-3subj DET bear DET yesterday The lady saw the bear yesterday EL 27-3-97 25 (19)  CP C  C  TP /  \  DP TP kwelhi slhanay'i / \ ^ UT-T = ZP T'  PRO  / \  T k'wach-nexw-ask  ASP-P / \ DP ASP-P ta mixalhj /N^ TOP-T = ZP ASP" kwi chelaqlh y/\^ ASP VP ek-around / / N ^ EVT-T = ZP VP  0 V ek  ej  The sentence in (20) exemplifies the verb intial order with two overt nominal arguments: (20) k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh kwi chel'aqlh see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear DET yesterday Yesterday the lady saw the bear EL 27-3-97 28 This order may be derived in one of three ways  (see Davis  1997b): by subject adjunction to the right of the VP; by the movement of the verb to T, with the subject staying in its base generated position for the VSO order; or by the movement  101  of the verb to T then to C and the subject to the specifier of TP, as has been analyzed  for Celtic  languages.  This  thesis argues for the traditional analysis of movement to C. The VSO order cannot be derived by subject adjunction to the right, if Kayne's assumed.  (1994) Universal Order hypothesis is  If the verb moves to T and the subject and object  remain in their base-generated positions, the adverb would appear between the verb and its subject, which is its most unacceptable position. Therefore, if one assumes Universal Order and  predicative  Tense  and Aspect  (Kayne 1994)  (Demirdache  and Uribe-  Etxebarria, to appear), the only account for these facts is to move the verb through Asp and T to C to derive the verb initial order 42 .  The C may have content: in a main clause  there is an optional na which cliticizes to the left of the verb; in subordinate clauses, such as nominalized introduced  by  kwi-s,  the  elements are also cliticized  verb  and  the  (Kuipers 1967).  clauses  complementizing This movement  is indicated in (21) by the index "k"; the subject is raised to the specifier of TP, as marked by "i", and the object to the specifier of AspP, as marked by the index " j " : (20) k'wach-nexw-as kwelhi slhanay' ta miXalh kwi chel'aqlh see-trans-3subj DET lady DET bear DET yesterday Yesterday the lady saw the bear EL:" start from the end" EL 27-3-97 28  ^Adding a Voice projection (Davis to appear) to Demirdache and UribeEtxebarria's framework would provide an alternative landing site for the subject, above the topic time adverb, which would allow the verb to raise only to T. This option is outside the scope of the present work.  102  (21)  CP C / \  C k'wach-nexw-ask  TP / V DP TP kwelhi slhanay'i /N^ UT-T = ZP T'  / \  PRO T  ASP-P  / \  ek  DP ASP-P ta miXalhj /\ TOP-T = ZP ASP' kwi chelaqlh / \ ^ ASP VP e^-around / \ ^ ei VP EVT-T = ZP  V  0 ek  ej  The temporal interpretation of both sentences in this section is identical to that of (lib.), as shown in the time line in (22): (22)  TOP-T yesterday [  <  [__] see  ]  EVT-T The utterance time now  | now  >  UTT-T  is after yesterday,  the inherently  past topic time adverb, while the event time of seeing is contained in the topic time. Word order provides another argument for the claim that there  is  a  single  position  available  for  the  adverbial, high in the tree in the topic structure.  103  temporal Moving  the verb and its arguments up accounts for the fact that the surface position of the topic time adverb is the right edge.  5.6  Subordinate  Nominalized  Clauses  This proposal has argued that the adverb at the right edge of a single clause can occupy only one position in the syntax, the specifier of the predicate Aspect.  The adverb at  the right edge of a bi-clausal sentence exhibits asymmetries in grammaticality, as illustrated in (23) and (24) 43 : (23)a.*chen tsut [kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter kw-i chel'aqlh] lsg.subj say [DET-nom go leave DET Peter DET yesterday] *I said yesterday that Peter would be going away EL 27-3-97 33 b.chen tsut kwi chel'aqlh [kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter] lsg.subj say DET yesterday [DET-nom go leave DET Peter] I said yesterday that Peter would be going away EL 27-3-97 34 (24)a.chen tsut [kwi-s-es nam' huya7 ta Peter] kwi chel'aqlh lsg.subj say [DET-nom-3poss go leave DET Peter] DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter's going away EL 27-3-97 35 b.chen tsut [[kwi-s-es huya7 ta Peter] kwi chel'aqlh] lsg.subj say DET-nom-3poss leave DET Peter DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter went away I said that Peter went away yesterday EL 27-3-97 36 The sentence in (23a.) is bad because the adverb at the right edge of the sentence can only specify the topic time of the embedded  clause,  and  the  past  adverb  kwi  chelaqlh  incompatible with the future auxiliary and verb nam'  is huyal.  In order for the adverb to specify the topic time of the  See also Section 4.3 for discussion of this data.  104  matrix verb, it must be moved into the main clause, as in (23b.).  In contrast, the adverb at the right edge of the  sentence in (24a.) can be interpreted with the matrix verb; in addition, the adverb in (24b.) can be construed either with the matrix verb, or with the past tense nominalized clause. This thesis proposes to account for this intriguing contrast by analyzing the nominalized clause in (23) as a CP whose position is fixed, and the nominalized clause in (24) as a DP, which moves.  Section 5.6.1 examines the construal  of temporal interpretation in embedded clauses, following Stowell  (1993,  nominalized  to  appear);  Section  5.6.2  clause and the debate over their  category in Salish.  introduces syntactic  In Section 5.6.3, the word order of the  CP nominalized clauses in (23) is analyzed and its effect on temporal interpretation assessed. the word  order  and  temporal  Finally, in Section 5.6.4, interpretation  of  the DP  nominalized clauses in (24) is addressed. 5.6.1  The Syntax of Subordinate Clauses Stowell (1993, to appear) proposes that the external  argument of the Tense predicate is a temporal ZP-PRO which is determined by Control Theory.  In the matrix clause, where it  denotes the utterance time, this temporal argument is not ccommanded by another ZP and is therefore not controlled; it has the default meaning "now", the moment of speech.  In the  subordinate clause, this ZP-PRO is controlled by the closest c-commanding ZP, the event time argument of the main clause.  105  This orders the event time of the embedded clause with respect to the event time of the matrix clause, allowing an account of the "past shifted" reading in the sentence in (25) : (25)a.Peter said [that Vanessa left.] b.  EV-Tl say <  UT-Tl now  |  |___>  I EV-T1= UT-T2  EV-T2 leave  |  <__,  >  The event of Peter's saying is ordered after the event of Vanessa's leaving: the matrix event time, EV-Tl, is the same as the "speech" time of the embedded clause, UT-T2, which is ordered after the embedded event time, EV-T2, by the embedded past tense. 5.6.2  The Syntax of Nominalized Clauses As described in Section 2.4, nominalized clauses are  introduced by the determiner kwi, leftmost  and the predicate or  aspectual clitic of these clauses carries  nominalizer  s-,  the  along with the possessive agreement that  marks the subject  (Jacobs 1992).  Jacobs describes their  function as sentential complements (either the subject of a nominal predicate or the object of a transitive predicate) or adverbial complements. Davis and Mattewson (1996) propose that the nominalizer, s-, in St'at'imcets is the head, F, of its own functional projection, FP, or Finite Phrase.  106  This head is situated  below the determiner and above the verb of the nominalized clause, as shown in (26): (26)  DP (Spec)  D'  (Spec)  F' F  VP  This structure is adopted here for nominalized clauses in SqwXwu7mish.  Davis and Matthewson argue that the categories  T and D are collapsed in Salish, and furthermore that the deteminer  on  nominalized  complementizer, C.  clauses  is  a  D,  not  This thesis has glossed the kwi  a  which  introduces nominalized clauses in SqwXwu7mish as a determiner for descriptive purposes; however, the next section will show that the only way to explain the difference in the construal of the adverb in the data above is to analyse the kwi  as  functionally determined: C in (23a.) and as D in (24a.). 5.6.3  Topic Time Adverbs and CP Nominalized Clauses Returning  sentence  to  the  facts  in  (23), repeated  here,  in  (a.) the past tense adverb clashes with the future  tense of the nominalized clause, therefore the adverb must be the topic time of the embedded clause. the topic  The adverb cannot be  time of the main verb because the sentence is  ungrammatical.  Furthermore, if the adverb at the right edge  of .the sentence were the topic time of the main clause, the embedded clause would have to move leftward to derive the  107  surface word order. that moving sentence  The ungrammaticality  of  (23a.) shows  the. clause is not possible; if it were, the  would  be  grammatical.  The  embedded  clause  is  therefore assumed to be a CP, and its inability to move is schematized in (27): (27) DS: V Adv Cp[ FUT ] The order in  > SS: * V C P [ FUT ] Adv  (27) cannot be generated because CP does not  need case under the Case Resistance Principle.  In order for  the adverb to be interpreted with the main verb, it must appear in the main clause as in (b.): (23)a.*chen tsut [kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter kwi chel'aqlh] lsg.subj say [DET-nom go leave DET Peter DET yesterday] *l said yesterday that Peter would be going away EL 27-3-97 33 b.chen tsut kwi chel'aqlh [kwi-s nam' huya7 ta Peter] lsg.subj say DET yesterday [DET-nom go leave DET Peter] I said yesterday that Peter would be going away This data argues for a single position in each clause for the topic time temporal adverb: the adverb in (23a.) must be the topic time of the embedded clause, while the adverb in (23b.) is the topic time of the matrix clause, as illustrated by the structure in (28):  108  (28)  TP  S\  DP  chen  TP  /N^  UT-T = ZP T' PROnow / \ T ASP-P tsutj / / \ TOP-T1 = ZP ASP kwi chelaqlh y ^ \ ASP VP ej-around / \ EVT-T1 = ZP t  0  VP  ^  pro  V e  (CP)  <r  <-  J <  •  CP <J  c / \ C  kwi  FP  /N^ F'  F TP s-nam'k-huya7n / N ^ DP TP ta Peterm /N^ EV-T1 = ZPt T' PRO / \ T ASP-P / \ EV-T1 = TOP-T2 = ZPt ASP' 0 / \ ASP  VP  ek/n-towards  /  /s\  EVT-T2 = ZP  VP  0 em  V en  The pronominal subject of the main clause is generated the specifier of TP; the main verb tsut 'say' moves through Asp  109  to T, marked by the index "j". clause, fca Peter,  The subject of the embedded  raises to the specifier of the embedded TP,  marked by the index "m" .  As discussed in the previous  section, the embedded verb must raise high in the clause to precede the subject; here it is analyzed as moving through Asp, where nam' attaches to it, then through T to F, the head projected by the nominalizer which attaches to the auxiliary and verb.  The complex under F could feasibly raise to C to  attach to kwi, in parallel to the V to C raising analysis for VSO main clauses. The temporal interpretation of this complex sentence is effected via the relations of the temporal arguments, as represented on the time line in (29): (29)  T0P-T1 yesterday [ [__] ] | > say now EV-Tl UT-T I EV-Tl = T0P-T2 say say <_[ ]_>[___]_> go away EV-T2  <  The empty external argument of Tense in the subordinate clause  is controlled  predicate, EV-Tl.  by the event  time of  the matrix  The embedded topic time, T0P-T2, is itself  controlled by EV-Tl, therefore both refer to the time of the action say;  in this way, the embedded event time, EV-T2, is  directly ordered with respect to the matrix event time, EVTl.  Thus, Peter's going away may be located in three  possible relations to now,  as indicated by the speaker's  110  translation "would": his going away may be "yesterday, after the event of saying," or else "today, before the utterance time," or else "today, after the utterance time". 5.6.4  Topic Time Adverbs and DP Nominalized Clauses The adverbial at the right edge of the sentence can be  interpreted  with  the  main  verb  only  if  third  person  possessive agreement is attached to the nominalizer44, as in (24) : (24)a.chen t s u t [ k w i - s - e s nam' huya7 t a P e t e r ] kwi chel'aqlh l s g . s u b j say [DET-nom-3poss go leave DET P e t e r ] DET yesterday I s a i d y e s t e r d a y t h a t P e t e r ' s going away EL 27-3-97 35 b . c h e n t s u t [ [ k w i - s - e s huya7 t a P e t e r ] kwi c h e l ' a q l h ] l s g . s u b j say DET-nom-3poss leave DET P e t e r DET y e s t e r d a y I s a i d y e s t e r d a y [ t h a t P e t e r went away] I s a i d [ t h a t P e t e r went away] y e s t e r d a y EL 27-3-97 36 The t o p i c time adverb i n  (24a.)  is s t i l l  incompatible  with  t h e f u t u r e a u x i l i a r y of t h e nominalized c l a u s e , but i n  this  case t h e adverb can be i n t e r p r e t e d with t h e m a t r i x v e r b from t h e r i g h t edge of t h e s e n t e n c e . between  The d e s c r i p t i v e  difference  ( 2 3 a . ) , which i s bad, and ( 2 4 a . ) , which i s good,  t h e p o s s e s s i v e agreement on  is  kwi.  This a n a l y s i s proposes t h a t p o s s e s s i v e agreement on kwi makes t h e nominalized c l a u s e a DP, which can move, w h i l e t h e absence of p o s s e s s i v e agreement on kwi makes i t a CP, which cannot move.  The c a t e g o r y of t h e nominalized c l a u s e i n t h e  44  P . J a c o b s ( p . c . ) says t h a t t h e t h i r d person agreement i n t h e c l a u s e s i n (23) i s an -s on t h e a u x i l i a r y nam' which i s e l i d e d ; t h e p r e s e n c e of p o s s e s s i v e agreement on t h e kwi i t s e l f i s then what d e t e r m i n e s i t s c a t e g o r y as D.  Ill  sentence in (24a.) is therefore analyzed as a DP between the matrix verb and the adverb, as schematized in (30): (30) DS: V Adv  DP  [ FUT ]  > SS: V V DP [ FUT ] Adv  Furthermore, with a past nominalized clause in  (24b.), the  adverb at the right edge can be construed either with the embedded verb or with the main verb.  This ambiguity  is  explained by the analysis of the adverbial as the topic time argument:  its  interpretation  with  the  matrix  verb,  the  preferred reading, is a result of the adverb's status as the matrix  topic  time  argument  and  the  movement  of  the  DP  nominalized clause; its interpretation with the embedded verb is the result of the adverb's position as topic time of the nominalized clause, which also moves string vaccuously.  The  position of the adverb in the four sentences is summarized in (31) : (31) 23a. * V Cp[ FUT Adv] 23b. V Adv Cp[ FUT ] 24a. DS: V Adv DP [ FUT ] --> SS: V DP [ FUT ] Adv 24b. V DP [ PAST Adv] or V DP [ PAST ] Adv The structure of (24a.) is given in (32). In this case, the adverb is the topic time of the main clause, while the DP nominalized verb.  clause is the object, complement  of the main  It moves to the specifier of Aspect in the same way as  any object DP.  Within the DP clause, the subject ta  Peter  moves to the specifier of the embedded TP, as indicated by the index "m"; the verb huyal the auxiliary nam'  moves to Asp, then the verb and  move through T to F, as they did in (28).  112  (24)a.chen tsut kwi-s-es nam' huya7 ta Peter kwi chel'aqlh lsg say DET-nom-3poss go leave DET Peter DET yesterday I said yesterday that Peter's going away. (32)  TP  / \ DP  TP  chen  / \ U T - T = ZP PROnow  m /  / T  \ ASP-P  tsutj •»>  /  /\s  DPk  ASP-P  /\  T  T0P-T1  = ZP  kwi c h e l a q l h  f I  ASP  /X^  ASP  VP  ej-around / \ EVT-T1 = ZPt  s  0  (DPk) /  VP  / pro  \  V  D'  / \ D  kwi  \  ej  /  \  ek  FP  /\^ T 1  r  F  TP  s-es -nam'p-huya7n  / \  DP  TP  ta Peter m  / \  UT-T1 = ZPt PRO T  T'  / \ ASP-P  en UT-Tl  / \  = TOP-T2 = Z P t  0  ASP'  / \ ASP  e p / n - -towards EVT-T2  VP  / \ = ZP  '  em  V en  113  The English translation of the sentence analyzed in (32) has an unambiguous future meaning.  This falls out from the  movement of the clause; the external argument of the embedded Tense predicate and the embedded topic time are controlled by the utterance time of the matrix clause to give the reading that now is "towards" the event of Peter's going away. matrix event time yesterday matrix verb say in the past.  The  orders the event time of the This is represented on the time  line in (33): (33) <___[  TOP-Tl yesterday  [__] say EV-Tl  ]  <_[  5.6.5  | > now UT-Tl I UT-Tl = T0P-T2 now now  ]_>[___]_> go away EV-T2  Conclusions The analysis of SqwXwu7mish adverbs as the topic time  argument predicts that they can occupy a single position in the clause.  This accounts for the existence of constraints  on the interpretation of adverbs in subordinate clauses as seen in (23) and (24).  The distinction of CP nominalized  clauses, which have possessive agreement on the auxiliary and which do not move, and DP nominalized clauses, which have their agreement on the determiner kwi constraints  on the  and which do move,  explains  the  interpretation  of  adverbs.  This distinction also accounts for a difference in  the temporal interpretation of the two types of clause.  114  the  5.7  Temporal  Adverbs  and  Quantification  In Section 3.2, it was claimed that adverbs which denote the topic time must take scope over other quantifiers.  Under  the analyses proposed in this chapter, however, the adverb would always be c-commanded by and structurally in the scope of the other quantifiers.  In order to account for the topic  time reading of the adverb, a non-structural analysis of scope is adopted (Demirdache and Matthewson 1997). The data from Section 3.2 is repeated in (34) and (35): (34)a.na 7upen sXalhnat kwi-s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter RL ten Sunday DET-nom-3poss work DET Peter Peter worked on ten Sundays/Ten Sundays Peter worked EL 10-4-97 22 b.na 7upen-alh s-es ts'its'ap' ta Peter (t) kwetsi sXalhnat RL ten-times nom-3poss work DET Peter (obi) DET Sunday Peter worked ten times on a Sunday EL 10-4-97 19 (35)a.na-malh-eq' sXalhnat 7i nam' 7i-7imash 7i7Xw ta sta7exwlh RL-well-FUT Sunday PR go red-walk all DET children . It will be Sunday when they go for a walk. EL 13-8-97 b.7i7Xw ta sta7exwlh nam' 7i-7imash na7 ta sXalhnat all DET children go red-walk RL DET Sunday All the children/every child went walking on Sunday ie they all go on the same Sunday EL 2-4-97 16 The  (a.)  sentences,  in  which  the  adverb  is  focused  syntactically as a main predicate for the event time reading, get the distributive reading of the quantifier, whereas the (b.) sentences, in which the adverb at the right edge gets a topic time reading, get the collective reading.  In addition,  the event time reading of the adverb in (35a.) may have a  115  collective event reading which is identical to the topic time reading in (35b.). In this way, temporal adverbs in SqwXwu7mish pattern like thematic arguments in St'at'imcets45. Matthewson  Demirdache and  (1997) show that a transitive sentence with a  plural subject in St'at'imcets never gets a distributive reading, as in (36): (36)  [ q u s - e n - i t - a s ] np[s-Rosa muta7 s-Tanya] Dp[i kalh61hs-a mixalh] qus-an-it-as [ s-Rosa muta? s-Tanya ] [?i ka4a4s-a  mixa*l s h o o t - t r - p l - e r g [nom-Rosa and nom-Tanya] bear] Rosa and Tanya shot three bears.  [DET three-DET (RW)  This sentence can get a collective reading, that is, Rosa and Tanya used one gun together to shoot three bears, or a "cumulative" reading, that is, Rosa and Tanya each had a gun and shot three bears between them, but it cannot have the distributive reading whereby each girl shot three bears for a total  of  six.  In  (36), therefore,  referentially independent.  three  bears  is  In order to get a distributive  reading, along with a collective and a cumulative reading, the object must be the main predicate of the sentence. authors use  these  facts to argue  The  for a non-structural  analysis of scope in St'at'imcets. The ZP topic time argument is referentially independent, like its nominal counterpart the DP, and must take wide scope due to the deictic properties of the determiner kwetsi. 45  This  H . Demirdache ( p . c . ) i s e n t i r e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n .  116  explains the scope relations between the cardinal quantifier and the topic time adverb in (34) .  The topic time adverb  should take scope over the quantifier to give the collective reading  in  (34b), but as the analysis in  (37) shows, the  cardinal adverb is the main predicate and the topic time adverb is in the nominalized clause that is structurally its complement.  The adverb on a Sunday  does not therefore take  structural scope over the cardinal; in fact, the cardinal quantifier appears to take scope over the adverb. (34)b.na 7upen-alh s-es ts'its'ap ta Peter kwetsi sXalhnat RL ten-times nom-3poss work DET Peter DET Sunday Peter worked ten times/for ten hours on a Sunday (37)  NP  N  FP  7upen-alh  /\. F' / \  F s-esm-ts'its'ap'n  TP / \  DP ta Peterm  TP /A\s  UT-T = Z P T 1 PROnow y / \ T ASP-P  en  / \ ASP-P / \  TOP-T = ZP ASP' s kwetsi sXalhnat // \ ASP VP ©n-around / \ EVT-T = ZP VP  0 em  V /  en 117  The reading of the sentence can be paraphrased as:"the set of times that Peter worked on Sunday has a cardinality of ten" (H. Demirdache, p . c ) . with no determiner kwi,  The nominalized clause, a bare FP is analyzed as the unaccusative  subject46 of the cardinal predicate 7upenalh. the subject ta  Peter  Within the FP,  is generated in the specifier of the  embedded clause then raised to the specifier of the TP; this DP is coreferential with the possessive agreement generated with the nominalizer in F, marked accordingly by the index "m" .  The verb, indexed "n", raises via head movement to  attach to this "inflected nominalizer" in F. The temporal interpretation of this sentence is as follows:  because the utterance time of the nominalized  clause has no event time to bind it, it gets the default interpretation "now"; now is before the past time specified by the topic time adverb kwetsi  sXalhnat;  this topic time is  ordered "around" the event time of working by the predicate Aspect.  Therefore, this sentence gets the interpretation:  "Peter's working is in the past on a Sunday, and it has a cardinality of ten". 5.8  Conclusions This  chapter  has  argued  for  the  proposal  that  SqwXwu7mish adverbials are the topic time argument of the predicate Aspect within the syntax of Tense and Aspect developed by Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 46  (to appear).  H . Davis (p.c.) says that in general there are no sentential subjects in Salish, and that this is a "defective propositional complement." P. Jacobs (p.c.) counters that sentential subjects certainly do exist in Coast Salish.  118  This proposal provides a straightforward account of the distribution and interpretation of a range of data discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.  In constructions with a pronoun and  verb uninflected for tense, the adverb locates the event in time (section 5.4). The restricted position of the adverbial at the right periphery and its status as topic time argument argues for the derivation of verb initial word order in SqwXwu7mish as movement to C (Section 5.5). The inability of right edge adverbs to be construed as the topic time of the main clause from the right edge of a complement subordinate clause  is explained  available  to  by the single position per  the adverb  (Section  5.6).  clause  Finally,  the  interaction of topic time adverbs with quantified subjects and cardinals supports a non-structural analysis of scope (Section 5.7). The implications of these conclusions for the analysis of the syntax of adverbs are taken up in the concluding chapter.  119  6.  Implications,  6.1  Implications This  Further of  analysis  the  has  Issues  and  Conclusions  Analysis  implications  adverbs cross-linguistically,  analysis  of  for the study of Salish  in  terms of the Common Ground Parameter  for  the  (Matthewson 1996), and  for the parallelism of nominal and temporal reference. The analysis of SqwXwu7mish adverbs as the topic time argument of Tense and Aspect predicates has implications for the analysis of adverbs cross linguistically.  It contravenes  the assumption that adverbs in English are simply adjoined to the event time (Stowell to appear a ) , modifying either the ZP variable in the outer specifier position of VP, as in (la.), or the ZP directly dominating the VP as in (lb.): b.  ZP Adv  ZP /  \  Z' /  Zi  \  VP /  ZP e i  \  V / \ V  Indeed, Cinque  (in progress) argues from Romance data that  adverbs are not adjuncts but the heads of adverb phrases which "fill the unique Spec position of a distinct maximal projection." Demirdache nominals  cannot  and be  Matthewson topics.  (1995)  argue  For Matthewson  that (1996),  overt this  follows from the semantic property of Salish determiners that  120  they  are  non-presuppositional.  Presupposition  requires  access to the common ground of the discourse, that is, the beliefs and assumptions of both the speaker and the hearer. From this, Matthewson  (199 6:124) proposes the Common Ground  Parameter, shown in (2): (2) Determiners may access the common ground: Yes: {English,...} No: {Salish, ...} Therefore, a nominal which has no access to the common ground cannot be a topic.  Matthewson claims that the only examples  of presupposition in Salish are syntactic structures which induce  it,  such  as  cleft  constructions  nominalizations.  However,  this  phrasal  adverbs  in  temporal  thesis  of time adverbials  their presuppositional  has  SqwXwu7mish,  determiners, are canonically topics. interpretation  and  character"  syntactic  argued  that  which  have  Indeed, the "key to the resides (de Swart  in  recognizing  to appear:l).  The key to reconciling the analysis in this thesis with the Common Ground Parameter lies in the relationship of nominal and temporal reference. Partee (1973) claims that temporal adverbs can serve as discourse or sentential antecedents of tense in a manner analoguous to nominals and pronouns.  She points out that in  English, this analogy is not strict since temporal adverbials are always accompanied by tense morphology, whereas  noun  phrases normally do not appear with coreferential pronouns. She notes that language X, which marks subject and object on the verb with pronominal  agreement, 121  "whether  or not  the  subject  (or object) is overtly expressed," and also marks  tense in every sentence, has "more parallel (...) pronoun systems."  tense and  Language Y, which like English does not  use pronoun agreement and overt nominals together, "could also have more parallel tense and pronoun systems if it omitted the tense morpheme in clauses containing an explicit time adverbial" (Partee 1973:604).  These possibilities are  summarized in (3): (3) pronoun + nominal X SqwXwu7mish  tense + adverb *tense + adverb Under  the present  pronoun + *nominal English Y  proposal, SqwXwu7mish  is  the  fourth  possibility, a mirror image of English; it is a language which obligatorily marks pronominal agreement on the verb with or without  an overt  nominal, yet which  does not  grammatically mark tense with a temporal adverbial.47  6.2  Further  Issues  Temporal interpretation in SqwXwu7mish is the focus of topics requiring further investigation. The analyses proposed in this thesis assumed that Tense is a predicate which lacks morphological content and which is semantically unspecified.  The inherent temporal meaning of  the topic time argument or its determiner and the default meaning of the utterance time enable SqwXwu7mmish sentences ^ F u r t h e r m o r e , if SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbs are arguments as proposed, they should have a pro counterpart which would be subject to the Binding Theory (H. Davis, p . c ) .  122  to be temporally interpreted without recourse to Tense. assumption  remains  to  be  evaluated  in  terms  This  of  the  SqwXwu7mish temporal system of clitics outlined in Chapter 2. It is clear that the meanings of the morphemes 7i, are  not  "present",  previously  "past" and  described  Furthermore,  the  "future"  (Kuipers position  t and eg'  respectively,  1967,  Jacobs  classes  as  1992).  within  the  temporal/aspectual clitic system require elucidation.  This  research will help to define what is a1 possible "tense" is in SqwXwu7mish. Inner aspect or "aktionsart" needs closer examination. The temporal interpretation of statives differs from that of eventives: states usually contain the reference time, while events precede, follow or are contained in it (Kamp and Reyle 1993).  Stative  verbs  in  SqwXwu7mish  pronoun-verb  constructions are never interpreted in the past, only in the present, while achievement and accomplishment verbs get only a past reading: (4) a. chen, lhq'i7-s lsg.subj know-caus I know it EL 8-5-96 I know it at this very moment I know DW 20-3-96  YJ 13-3-96  b.chen wi7xw-em lsg.subj drop-intrans I fell YJ 13-3-96; YJ 3-4-96 c.chen mi-s lsg.subj come-caus I brought (it) YJ 13-3-96  123  However, the addition of future time adverbs, as illustrated in  (5), causes  all  the  sentences  to  receive  future  interpretations: (5)a.chen es-lhq'i7-s ti taXw sqwayl lsg.subj stat-know-caus DET noon I'll know at noon (spoken in the morning) EL 8-5-96 b.chen hiy'am kwayl-es lsg.subj arrive tomorrow I will arrive tomorrow YJ 6-6-96 c.chen mi-s kwayl-es lsg.subj come-caus tomorrow I'm going to bring it tomorrow YJ 6-6-96 Thus, the ability of the temporal adverbial to determine the topic time is not sensitive to the aspectual class of the verb, whereas the "zero" topic time provided in the discourse clearly is. The  role  of  the  determiner  system  in  temporal  interpretation in SqwXwu7mish requires further investigation in  terms  of  the  effect  of  the  determiner  interpretation of nouns and of adverbials.  on  the  The determiner  has been shown to provide the time of sentences with bare verbal stems in Bella Coola (Davis and Saunders 1974) and to fix the "predication time" of a noun and/or of the whole sentence  in St'at'imcets  SqwXwu7mish,  (Demirdache  the determiner  1997).  can determine  As seen in the  temporal  interpretation of a locating adverb48, as in (6) :  48  In Section 5.3.2, the analysis of temporal adverbs as ZP's offered a possible explanation for these data, but it remains to be tested.  124  (6)  ti siyelanem kwi siyelaiiem ta hem'i siyelanem  The  determiner  ti is  "this year" "last year" "next year" interpreted  as  "present"  with  the  adverb; with nominals, it is interpreted as "this X right The determiner kwi  here."  is often used to locate the time  specified by an adverb as being in the past, but is also used in conjunction with the modal operator way'ti  'maybe'.  The  determiner ta, translated as "that" with nominals, can have a past interpretation with some adverbs yet is used with the adjective hem'i  'next' for the future in (6).  This use of  the determiner with the adverb is not attested in all Salish languages. Finally, temporal  this  analysis  adverbials.  In  has  examined  Interior  only  languages  phrasal such  as  St'at'imcets, temporal adverbials are clausal and have a freer distribution clauses  (H. Davis p . c ) .  constitute  constructions  a  Adverbial subordinate  large • number  of  interesting  in SqwXwu7mish and their analysis will have  important implications for the proposal developed here.  6.3  Conclusions This thesis has argued for the status of Reichenbach's  third time, reference time, as a third temporal argument of the temporal predicate Aspect.  Furthermore, the claim that  adverbs in Squamish are the overt realization of this "topic time"  argument  has  been  supported  syntactic properties of these adverbs.  125  by  the  semantic  and  Squamish adverbs are  part  of  the  topic  structure  of  the  sentence  unless  syntactically focused as main predicates; they do not act like adjuncts with respect to word order or cooccurrence, nor like "functional" adverbs in terms of cleft constructions. Their analysis as temporal arguments helps to explain how temporal interpretation is achieved in a language without grammaticalized tense.  126  Abbreviations AUX=auxiliary; lsg.subj=first person singular subject agreement; lpl.subj= first person plural subject agreement; lposs=first person possessive agreement; 2sg.subj=second person singular subject agreement; 3subj=third person subject; 3sg=third person singular; 3poss=third person possessive agreement; 3pl.=third person plural; caus=causative; DET=determiner; DEM=demonstrative; dir=direction marker; DR=durative; FOC=focus marker; FUT=future; INT=interrogative; intrans=intransitivizer; IRR=irrealis; LOC=locative; NEG=negat ion; nom=nominali zer; obl^oblique; PT=past; PR=present; REC=reciprocal RL=realis; REL=relative; red=reduplicated morpheme; TD=temporal deicitic; trans=transitivizer; WH=wh-complementizer.  127  Key  to  SqwXwu7mish  Orthography  orthography  phonemic script  orthography  phonemic script  P  P  kw  ,w  P' m  P m  xw  xw  t  t  q  q  t'  t  q'  q  ts  c  qw  qv  >  >  V  k'w  q'w  qv  ch  c c  h  h  ch'  c  w  w  s  s  y  y  V  7  ?  a  a  e  a  ts'  sh  s >  tl'  i  e  k  4 1 k  u  o  k'  *  x  X  XW  X  lh 1  128  V  References Binnick, R. I. and Aspect.  1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide Oxford University Press, Oxford.  to  Tense  Bybee, J., R. Perkins and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Chomsky, N. 1995. Cambridge MA.  The  Minimalist  Chung, S. and A. Timberlake.  1985.  Mood' in T. Shopen, ed. Language  Description Volume Press, Cambridge.  III,  Program.  MIT Press,  'Tense, Aspect, and Typology  and  Cinque, Guglielmo. in progress. Adverbs and the Hierarchy of Functional Projections, ms. Comrie, B. 1985. Cambridge.  Tense.  Syntactic  202-257, Cambridge University Universal  Cambridge University Press,  Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  of  Language.  Currie, E. 1996, 1997. SqwXwu7mish Fieldnotes. Davis, Henry. 1996. 'Remarks on Nominalization (in St 'at' imcets) . ' Paper presented at MIT, Cambridge MA. Davis, H. 1997a. 'Against the Clitic String.' Paper presented at the 5th Salish Morphosyntax Workshop, University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. Davis, H. 1997b. 'Remarks on Word Order and Scrambling in St'cit' imcets. ' Paper presented at the 5th Salish Morphosyntax Workshop, University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. Davis, H. to appear. 'On Agreement in St' cit ' imcets (Lillooet Salish)' in Proceedings of Langue et Grammaire II, Universite de Paris VIII. Davis, H. and L. Matthewson. 1996. 'Subordinate Clauses and Functional Projections in St'at'imcets' in Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 59-73. University of British Columbia, Vancouver B.C.  129  Davis, P. and R. Saunders. 1974. 'Bella Coola Nominal Deixis.' Paper presented to the Ninth International Conference on Salish Languages, University of British Columbia, Vancouver B.C. D^chaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates Across Categories: Towards a Category-Neutral Syntax. PhD. dissertation, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. 'Predication Times in St'£t'imcets (Lillooet•Salish).' Paper presented at the Texas Linguistic Society. Demirdache, Hamida, Dwight Gardiner, Peter Jacobs, and Lisa Matthewson. 1994. 'The Case for D-Quantification in Salish: "All" in St'at'imcets, Squamish, and Secwepemctsin' in Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 145203. Salish Kootenai College, Pablo Montana. Demirdache, Hamida and Lisa Matthewson. 1995. 'QuantifierRaising and Focus-Topic Structure in St'at'imcets Salish.' Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana. Demirdache Hamida and Lisa; Matthewson. 1997. 'On Ways of Expressing Scope: Distributivity in Salish.' Paper presented at the University of British Columbia Colloquium. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. to appear a. 'The Syntax of Temporal Relations: a Uniform Approach to Tense and Aspect' in Proceedings of the Sixteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle WA. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. to appear 'The Primitives of Temporal Relations' in R. Martin, Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, eds. Papers in Honour Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht Holland.  b. D. of D.  Eng, Murvet. 1986. Tense without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington Indiana. Eng, Murvet. Linguistic  1987. Inquiry,  'Anchoring Conditions for Tense' in Volume 18, Number 4, 633-657.  130  Enc, Miirvet. 1991. 'On the Absence of the Present Tense Morpheme in English1. ms. , University of Wisconsin, Madison. Erteschik-Shir, N. 1993. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. ms. , Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva Israel. Gerdts, Donna. 1988. Object and Salish. Garland, New York.  Absolutive  in  Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi. 1991. Syntax of Temporal Representations' in Probus 213. Haegeman, L. Theory.  1991. Introduction to Government Blackwell, Cambridge MA.  Halkomelem 'Toward a 3.2, 187and  Linguistic  Higginbotham, James. 1985. 'On Semantics' in Inquiry, Volume 16, Number 4, 547-593. Higginbotham, James-. Natural Language  to appear. Semantics.  Binding  'Semantic Computation' in  Hill-Tout, C. 1900. 'Notes on the Skqo'mic of British Columbia, a Branch of the Great Salish Stock of North America,' Report 70 BAAS 1900, 472-549. Hitzeman, Janet. 1995. 'A Reichenbachian Account of the Interaction of the Present Perfect with Temporal Adverbials' in Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 25, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PN. Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By: Universal Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.  Tense  and  Jacobs, Peter William. 1992. Subordinate Clauses in Squamish: A Coast Salish Language. MA Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene OR. Jager, Gerhard. to appear. 'Topic, Aktionsart' in Proceedings of CONSOLE  Scrambling, III.  and  Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. 'Definiteness and Second Position Clitics in Straits Salish,' ms., University of Arizona. Johnson, Marion. 1981. 'A Unified Temporal Theory of Tense and Aspect' in P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen, eds., Syntax and Semantics Volume 14: Tense and Aspect, Academic Press, Toronto ONT, 145-175. Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle. Kluwer, Dordrecht.  1993.  131  From Discourse  to  Logic.  Kayne, R i c h a r d . 1994. The Antisymmetry P r e s s , Cambridge MA. K l e i n , Wolfgang. London.  1994.  Time  in  of  Syntax.  Language.  MIT  Routledge,  K l e i n , Wolfgang. 1995. 'A T i m e - R e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of Russian Aspect' i n Language, Volume 7 1 , Number 4, 669695. Kroeber, P a u l . Salish. Chicago.  1991. Comparative Syntax of Subordination in PhD D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o ,  Kuipers, A e r t . Dictionary.  1967. The Squamish Language: Mouton &Co, The Hague. .  Larson,.Richard i n Linguistic  Grammar,  1988. 'On t h e Double Object Inquiry, Volume 19, 335-91.  Texts,  Construction'  L a r s o n , R i c h a r d and G a b r i e l S e g a l . 1995. Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Theory. MIT P r e s s , Cambridge MA. Lasnik, H. and J . U r i a g e r e k a . MIT P r e s s , Cambridge MA.  1988.  A Course  in GB  Syntax.  Matthewson, Lisa. 1996. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver B.C. Partee, Barbara. 1973. 'Some S t r u c t u r a l Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns i n E n g l i s h ' i n The Journal of Philosophy, Volume 70, Number 18, 601-609. Partee, Barbara. 1985. 'Binding I m p l i c i t Q u a n t i f i e d C o n t e x t s ' in Chicago Linguistics P a r t e e , Barbara. 1991a. 'Topic, Focus and i n SALT I, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y .  Variables in Society 25. Quantification'  P a r t e e , Barbara. 1991b. 'Adverbial Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and Event S t r u c t u r e s ' i n Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Volume 17, 439-456. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Free P r e s s , New York.  Elements  Logic.  The  van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction the Theory of Grammar. MIT P r e s s , Cambridge MA.  to  132  of Symbolic  Reinhart, Tanya. Interpretation. Chicago. R o b i n s , R.H. 1990. Longman, New York. Rooth, M. Natural  1983. Anaphora and Semantic The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , A  Short  1992. 'A Theory Language Semantics  History  of  Linguistics.  of Focus I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' 1, 75-116.  in  Shaer, Benjamin. 1996. Making Sense of Tense: Tense, Time Reference and Linking Theory. PhD D i s s e r t a t i o n ( d r a f t ) , McGill U n i v e r s i t y , Montreal. Speas, M a r g a r e t . 1991. ' F u n c t i o n a l Heads and Morphemes' i n The Linguistic Review 8. S t o w e l l , Tim. 1993. 'Syntax of T e n s e ' . C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles.  Inflectional  ms, U n i v e r s i t y of  S t o w e l l , Tim. t o appear a. 'The Phrase S t r u c t u r e of T e n s e ' i n L. Zaring and J . Rooryck, e d s . , Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht. S t o w e l l , Tim. t o appear b . 'What do t h e P r e s e n t and P a s t Tenses Mean?" i n P-M. B e r t i n e t t o and M . S q u a r t i n i , e d s . , Proceedings of the Cortona Tense-Aspect Meeting, Scuola Normale S u p e r i o r e , P i s a . Swadesh, M. 1950. 'Salish Internal Relationships' in International Journal of American Linguistics, Volume 16, 157-167. de Swart, H e n r i e t t e . t o appear. ' P o s i t i o n and Meaning: Time A d v e r b i a l s i n Context' i n P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt, e d s . , Proceedings of the Conference on Focus & Natural Language Processing. Thompson, E l l e n . 1994a. 'The S t r u c t u r e of Tense and t h e Syntax of Temporal Adverbs' i n Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Thompson, E l l e n . 1994b. 'A M i n i m a l i s t Approach t o t h e Syntax of Temporal A d v e r b i a l s ' in University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 221-237. Zagona, Karen. 1989. 'On t h e N o n - I s o m o r p h i s m of Morphological Tense and Temporal I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' i n C. K i r s c h n e r and J . DeCesaris, e d s . , Studies in Romance Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam & P h i l a d e l p h i a , 479-494.  133  Zagona, K a r e n . 1990. 'Times a s Temporal Argument S t r u c t u r e . " ms. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Time in Language conference, MIT, Cambridge MA. Zagona, Karen. 1992. ' T e n s e - b i n d i n g and t h e C o n s t r u a l of P r e s e n t T e n s e ' i n C. Laeufer and T. Morgan, e d s . , Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 74: Theoretical Analyses in Romance Lingusitics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam & P h i l a d e l p h i a , 385-398.  134  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088237/manifest

Comment

Related Items